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)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    ICANN bosses slam VoIP regulation | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 19 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.
    But ICANN *does* regulate VOIP (indirectly)
    by KarlAuerbach on Saturday April 16 2005, @11:29AM (#14913)
    User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
    It is more than a bit disingenuous to say that VOIP should not be regulated.

    ICANN, for example, indirectly regulates VOIP today by virtue of its role over IP addresses - if a VOIP provider can not get IP address that VOIP provider then the only place that provider can sell its products onto networks run by others who do have access to IP addresses.

    I use VOIP daily both at home and at my office. Emergency access (911) is important to me - If things go very, very wrong I don't want to have to find my POTS phone among my VOIP phones.

    In addition, the nature of VOIP is such that the media packets need to be moved from source to destination with speed and low variation of delay (low jitter). Today we have edge providers beginning to impose predatory impairments on foreign VOIP traffic. And IP carriers jealously protect their turf making it hard for end-users or their representatives from obtaining belivable end-to-end service assurances.

    So there is much room in VOIP for regulation.

    It is historically shortsighted to take the point of view that regulation is necessarily a bad thing. Our historical experiences through the latter part of the 19th century and much of the 20th century tell us again and again that regulation can be highly beneficial if applied with care, focus, and restraint.

    Yes, the world should be terribly scared of VOIP regulation were that regulation to be in the wacko forms that we see with ICANN's regulation of the domain name system.

    But careful, informed, restrained, and cautious measures could be beneficial. Even John D. Rockefeller, monopolist extraordinare, justified his combination in restraint of trade on the grounds that he was bring consistency, via his own private kind of regulation, to what was at that time a very chaotic industry.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Remember the ISOC ? - Don't Tax the .NET - Let US
    by Anonymous on Saturday April 16 2005, @02:00PM (#14914)
    Remember the ISOC ? - Don't Tax the .NET - Let US

    Have people forgotten the ISOC's cautions to
    the U.S. Congress not to tax the Internet.
    Instead, they stepped in to tax it via domain
    names.

    What Vinton Cerf really means is, "Don't regulate
    VOIP, let him do it and collect a fee."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    This is Classic Labor Union Posturing
    by Anonymous on Saturday April 16 2005, @02:09PM (#14915)
    This is Classic Labor Union Posturing

    You would think that the U.S. Government would
    take note that Vinton Cerf and Bernie Ebbers
    run (or ran) Worldcom/MCI and were responsible
    for a several billion dollar accounting error.

    When will Vinton Cerf be providing answers to
    where all that money went ?

    The Bush administration better hurry up because
    when Hillary '08 makes her way back into the
    Whitehouse, she will likely have Vinton Cerf
    there regaling the dinner guests with his stories
    about cyberspace, as she used to do.

    How so many people can be suckered by so few is
    amazing.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Australia Has No Bandwidth and Never Will
    by Anonymous on Saturday April 16 2005, @09:24PM (#14916)
    "Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) chairman Dr Vinton Cerf told an Internet governance roundtable in Sydney"

    Australia Has No Bandwidth and Never Will. If
    current VOIP was turned up (scaled) it would be
    a major joke. Do the math. It does not scale,
    especially with IPv6 and the bloated headers in
    that joke from Cerf's Innovation Extermination
    Task Force.

    Vinton Cerf might want to revisit the laws of
    physics. He may be too lost in his senile world
    and his hype about doing IP between Earth and Mars. Mars also has no bandwidth and never will.

    People are now moving back to the large
    bandwidth islands. You have the classic have-s
    and have-nots.

    There is also a social bandwidth at play. It
    would be interesting to see Cerf and Twomey move
    the ICANN headquarters to Australia and see them
    become even more irrelevant than they already are.
    They have no idea how fast they will disappear
    with .ORG removed from the NGI consumer root.

    Cerf could not survive outside of the Northern
    Virginia (Washington D.C) insider's clique. With
    his ISOC there, funded by the .ORG cash-flow he
    provided, he can continue to dupe people until
    they walk away.

    People are now moving back to the large
    bandwidth islands, away from Vinton Cerf's
    closed little society. On those islands they
    find customers. Cerf can not tolerate market-based
    solutions. Everything with Cerf has to be gamed
    by government insiders, cloaked as private sector
    actors. He is an actor. He plays the role well.
    It is amazing how little he understands about
    the basic laws of physics.

    Cerf does seem to understand islands. The ISOC
    island over in Switzerland is of course a nice
    home-away-from-home. It is a nice place to stash
    the cash. Follow the money, it tells the story.

    It Seeks Overall Control
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Cerf Has it Backwards - No Surprise
    by Anonymous on Sunday April 17 2005, @12:51AM (#14918)
    One would hope that telcos and governments would NOT subject next generation digital telephone service users to the same regulatory travesty they have seen with the ICANN Society.

    Digital telephone services do not imply IP, or at least the IP that Cerf dominates. Digital telephone services will be delivered by the same people that have delivered reliable telephone services at reasonable prices, with SECURITY and REAL PRIVACY for many years.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    NRO response to WGIG Paper on IP Numbers
    by Anonymous on Sunday April 17 2005, @02:29PM (#14922)
    NRO response to WGIG Paper on IP Numbers
    http://www.nro.net/documents/nro23.html
      "it is objectively clear for instance that we are not in immediate danger of running out of IPv4 address space."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    From: Steve Crocker
    by Anonymous on Sunday April 17 2005, @11:21PM (#14926)
    From: Steve Crocker
    "I'm not sure where these history questions come from. The initial sequence for the Arpanet is documented pretty thoroughly. The first four nodes were UCLA(1), SRI(2), UCSB(3) and Utah(4). They were installed approximately one month apart starting Sept 1, 1969. (The exact installation dates may have varied slightly.)

    Doug Engelbart ran the lab at SRI. Vint, Jon and I were all at UCLA working in Len Kleinrock's lab. Larry Roberts was the director of the Information Processing Techniques Office at ARPA. He was the sponsor of the network, which means he paid for it and oversaw the contracts. BBN built the IMPs, which was their name for what we would now call routers.

    Over the next few years we all moved around. I went to ARPA. Vint went to Stanford University. Jon went to work at MITRE in the Washington DC area and then moved back to California to work for Engelbart at SRI. I finished at ARPA -- by then renamed to DARPA -- and went to USC-ISI. Jon left SRI and came down to USC-ISI in a different group and stayed there until he passed away. Vint left Stanford and came to DARPA. Etc."

    What people can not seem to comprehend is that
    having Orville and Wilbur Wright at NASA, trying
    to launch the next space shuttle makes no sense.
    Their skills are out of date. They just get in
    the way. Their policies do not get the job done.

    Along another path, people also do not consider
    that the average netizen views "the .NET" as
    a conceptual net that floats well above the IP
    and TCP|UDP layers. They view it as a service.
    Vinton Cerf, Jon Postel and Steve Crocker NEVER
    had any visions of how those services worked.
    For Vinton Cerf to now claim that he was doing
    VOIP in 1975 is a major lie. When Postel was
    removed, people claimed he was the father of the
    web. Jon Postel hated HTML. He was stuck in an
    ASCII world. ICANN is still attempting to clean
    up after him and his kook-ball policies.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    More on .NET
    by Anonymous on Monday April 18 2005, @08:38AM (#14930)
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A623 02-2005Apr18.html

    "It's shocking because ICANN and VeriSign basically hate each other and have hated each other since [ICANN's] inception," said Milton Mueller, an information studies professor at Syracuse University and author of a book about Internet governance. "VeriSign basically had to be bludgeoned into accepting ICANN as the administrator of the domain name system, and ICANN has always been run by people fundamentally hostile to VeriSign."

    ICANN and VeriSign sure have Milton Mueller fooled.
    They do not hate each other. It is a show to
    distract the uninformed. The more people and
    companies are distracted, the less they will
    consider competing in the TLD business. If they
    do try to enter the business, they turn to
    VeriSign to run the Registry and ICANN to
    approve it. Why would ICANN approve a new TLD
    run by VeriSign if they hated them ? ICANN is
    the non-profit division of VeriSign. ICANN does
    what it is told to do. ICANN rubber stamps the
    consensus decisions, which are made elsewhere.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    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