ICANNWatch | Twomey Says ICANN will go Private in 2006

Twomey Says ICANN will go Private in 2006
posted by Mueller on Tuesday November 16 2004, @06:43AM

An Australian news source claims that ICANN CEO Paul Twomey has "warned off the UN, saying [ICANN] will operate as a private organisation when its agreement with the US Department of Commerce expires in 2006."

After 2006, according to Twomey, ICANN will not be under the authority of any international organization. ""The internet is 200,000 private networks linked by private agreement," Dr Twomey said in the article. "At the heart of the way the internet works is that it grows quickly through the private-sector model. It's not formulated by international treaty."

ICANNWatch Login

[ 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Twomey Says ICANN will go Private in 2006 | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 4 comments | Search Discussion

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Vulnerable
by KarlAuerbach on Tuesday November 16 2004, @09:09AM (#14440)
User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/

Without DoC backing ICANN becomes merely a private California corporation with contracts that control access to an entire industrial segment that, in turn, controls an increasingly critical infrastructure.

I personally doubt that an ICANN sans DoC will be able to continue to prevent the "restraint of trade" tide from coming in.

As it stands today ICANN's restraint of trade policies are imposing a noticable direct tax and a much larger (several hundred million $$ per year indirect tax) on internet activity. I would suspect that there are lots of places in our world where such corporate behaviour is improper.

And there is more. I just spent some time inside some of the thicker-walled three-letter agencies in and near Washington DC. I got the very distinct impression that with the current "security first" mentality that ICANN, and the Dept of Commerce, will be in for a big surprise if they try to cut ICANN's ties to the US government.

In the 1950's one the damning question asked of agencies and bureaucrats was "Who lost China?" I doubt that many of today's bureaucrats want to risk ending their careers by being at the wrong end of the question "Who lost the Internet?"

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

Private?
by fnord (reversethis-{moc.oohay} {ta} {k2yorg}) on Wednesday November 17 2004, @10:13AM (#14444)
User #2810 Info

One wonders what Paul Twomey means by private. Is .mil private? Is .gov? Is .au? -g

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

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