| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Senator Burns Takes Aim at ICANN (Again)
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 5 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Senator Burns this, Senator Burns that ... haven't we been hearing that for the last 2 years? Senator Burns was going to do something about the board squatters, Senator Burns was going to grill Vint and Louis until there asses were charbroiled ... Senator Burns was going to hang Esther Dyson for lying to Congress ... that's right, LYING to Congress.
Time to recycle the "Senator Burns is going to blah blah blah ..." chant into the trash bin. Senator Burns isn't going to do didly-squat about anything ...
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
I don't see how if ICANN fails in its mission then DoC and Congress are to blame but if Congress looks to become more active in oversight than ICANN will fail in its mission.
To just give up control of certain key aspects to appease parties outside of national jurisdiction in the "hope" that some new reform of a quasi-governmental entity will succeed seems pretty reckless to me.
I, for one, am tired of appeasement and would much rather see the pendulum swing towards accountability and not "hope". Then go from there. With this said, I agree that Burns is just blowing smoke...just going through the motions.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
The senator could start with finding out what happened to the two reports about the root servers, which ICANN contracted to deliver before end 2002. Where are they? A contractor that does not keep its contract, isn't such an entity easier to tackle?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to its "reform", ICANN has lost its ability to be a place of discussion among the members of the Internet
Community. These discussions will last in another places.
Thanks to its "reform", ICANN has lost its ability to appear any longer as an "international" open (and "transparent")
entity.
Questions raised by Senator Burns are legitimate but maybe not for the reasons he thinks. My approach would be to
ask: if ICANN is a US entity strictly obeying the US government (and if everybody knowns that) is it really necessary
to keep this deceptive structure alive?
One other point: the *real* debate is not on ICANN's future. It is on IANA's future and who controls the root and for
what purposes (political and blackmail activities or strictly administrative and technical).
In that way, I understand well the point of view of Sen. Burns about American national security. But the point is that
internet and DNS are global public resources, and that what is a "national security problem" for the US is also a
"national security problem" for any responsible government.
That is why I believe that ICANN's reform as it is, is a strong strategical and political mistake even from the US point
of view. ICANN has closed its doors to history. Then history will be written in another places by another people. I
guess that some ITU people are dreaming about it.
These are my personal opinions.
Loic Damilaville
ISOC FR
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
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
|
