| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
.ly Mess: The Wages of Obsessive Secrecy
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 9 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
As far as I could tell during the time I was on ICANN's board ICANN had no objective process, no objective procedures, and no objective criteria to deal with ccTLD redelegations. Rather, it appeared to be highly subjective and seemingly based on personal contacts made by ICANN's travel-loving "staff".
ICANN - or is it IANA? - which is a private California Corporation, is standing in loco parentis over ccTLD matters that seem to most observers to have some relationship to national sovereigns.
Except of course for the United States, which simply walked around ICANN - or is it IANA? - with regard to the redelegation of .us.
These redelegation decisions amount to e-recognition of sovereign countries. That's not something that ICANN is equipped to do.
Nor is the US Department of Commerce, from whom ICANN has the purchase order to perform "the IANA function" an appropriate body to engage in e-recognition of countries. That job in the US more appropriately belongs to the US Department of State - and ICANN has no contract with that body.
ICANN's gobbledygook language about how ccTLDs are to be run for the interest of local communitys is nothing but a NewSpeak phrase that says that ICANN - or is it IANA? - gets to say who on the internet gets to be a country.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
| Starting Score: |
2 |
points |
| Karma-Bonus Modifier |
|
+1 |
|
| Total Score: |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
Please be specific. I have not observed any problems based on anycast. That does not mean that there are not possible or actual problems.
But you have to be specific about the problems otherwise it is hard to give credence to your claim.
As for ICANN and the root servers - ICANN has done literally nothing about them.
That's why I feel that a root server oversight body needs to be established and empowered to enter into clearly binding service contracts (none of this weasel wording about "memorandums of understanding" junk) with those who wish to run a root server. If, after a reasonable time, a root server operator refuses to sign, then they shold be removed from the hints and from the NS records that define the root zone, to be replaced by a pointer to someone who will agree to operate according to established service levels.
|
|
|
|
[ 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
|
