ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    Alternate Roots A Tale of Two Policies: Competing Roots in ICANN and in ENUM
    posted by michael on Monday September 03 2001, @05:29PM

    mueller writes "On August 22, a US State Department-led working group released a statement describing the position the US government will take in the September 4 - 14 discussions on ENUM implementation at the International Telecommunication Union. The ENUM working group, like ICANN, has been engaged in a debate over the desirability and feasibility of competing roots. But the US position resolved that conflict in a manner very different from ICANN."



    The debate over an ENUM "golden tree" matches exactly the debate over competing roots in the DNS. Most of the US telephone industry, including Neustar, administrator of the North American Numbering Plan, would like to establish the e164.arpa domain as the "single, authoritative root" of the new ENUM service. A significant minority of the industry, however, would prefer to retain the freedom to utilize different domains for their ENUM databases. Just like their counterparts in the DNS wars the mavericks, led by Verisign and Netnumber, fear that the official, government-sanctioned enum implementation will be too slow or too restrictive, or that it its choice of a monopoly registry will exclude them from a significant part of the market.

    It is instructive to compare the results of this debate in the two arenas.

    In the ENUM arena, the US government worked hard to find real consensus among the different parties. Although it was clear that the advocates of competing roots were outnumbered, their concerns were not shoved aside. They were not outvoted and told to shut up, nor were they pilloried by the government officials as being pirates or disruptive profiteers threatening the stability of the Internet. The officials listened to the dissenters and modified their position to try to accommodate everyone's concerns. The final position was a true product of "consensus" - i.e., it was acceptable to all parties.

    The US position now reads, "[P]ursuing a coordinated, global DNS domain for ENUM may provide opportunity for both industry and consumers and, therefore, may have merit. At the same time, the implementation of such a system must neither preclude deployments of ENUM and other similar protocols in any other top level DNS domain, nor restrict the development of other innovative services that may serve as competing ENUM alternatives."

    The statement goes on to say that "In addition, we note that the promotion of interworking between different approaches and systems should be an ongoing pursuit." In other words, once different roots are established, the industry is being encouraged to find methods of making them interoperable.

    Now contrast this result with the outcome of the same debate in the ICANN arena.

    Within ICANN, the emergence of New.net and some initial steps toward creating a DNSO working group exploring the policy issues of multiple roots sent ICANN's management and many members of DNSO business constituencies into a hysterical frenzy. In late May, ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn initiated a public relations barrage attacking alternate roots. He unilaterally issued a policy statement that completely bypassed the DNSO and pre-empted nascent Names Council discussions. Lynn declared that it was already settled ICANN policy that alternate roots were evil and should never be recognized by or made interoperable with the authoritative root. At the Stockholm meeting, New.net was publicly pilloried at the Business-Commercial and ISP constituency meetings and at the Board's public forum. A long queue of Internet old-timers lined up at the microphone to vie with each other in crafting eloquent put-downs of the motives and effects of competition at the root level. Worse, during the summer there were behind-the-scenes efforts to get the Federal Trade Commission to make "unauthorized top-level domains" illegal.

    What's most depressing about the ICANN response is that ICANN as an institution was unable even to follow its own procedures to come up with a policy. Unlike the ENUM debate, which was moderated by adults, in ICANN there was no attempt to engage in structured discourse about the problem or to find common ground.

    The policy precedent set by the US position on ENUM is an important one. Instead of burying their head in the sand and delcaring that the broadly accepted e164.arpa domain was "the one true, authoritative root," it gave the industry the flexibility to pursue different paths. The e164.arpa domain will become authoritative if....it becomes authoritative. And the policy recognizes that if competing roots develop, promoting consumer benefit and competition will require efforts to establish interoperability among them. Interesting that such a high-level industry forum doesn't seem to agree with RFC 2826 that competing roots cannot be made compatible.

    This "tale of two policies" makes it clear that ICANN is run by unaccountable amateurs.

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    A Tale of Two Policies: Competing Roots in ICANN and in ENUM | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 5 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: A Tale of Two Policies: Competing Roots in ICA
    by joppenheimer on Tuesday September 04 2001, @06:20AM (#2191)
    User #5 Info | http://JudithOppenheimer.com
    You say "The final position was a true product of "consensus" - i.e., it was acceptable to all parties."

    Not really. AT&T and Verizon both stated, quite vehemently, that they will do whatever it takes to counter what they see as harmful in the US position (or in the case of Verizon, what's missing from the US position - number and service integrity, specifically denied inclusion in the US position because of the FCC-regulating-VoIP ramifications. The US Delegation displayed a severe case of throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater syndrome.)

    I don't disagree with your conclusion, as processes go. But were VeriSign (and SAIC, both on NetNumber's board of directors) not the dissenters I don't know that the "minority opinion" would have received as much attention. This was clear on the last SGA teleconference, the delegation audibly showing deference to the VeriSign representative during the meeting.

    That said, the hypocrisy of VeriSign pining for an open market and unrestrained competition makes me queasy.

    Its worth remembering that we're talking telephone numbers in, domain names out. Let's not forget which "unaccountable amateurs" regulate domain names.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com