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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    So, Why not the ITU? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 15 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: So, Why not the ITU?
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Wednesday August 14 2002, @02:25AM (#8472)
    User #2810 Info
    RFassett writes:
    Yet, it achieves funding by way of country contributions...
    It is interesting to compare and contrast this with the previous ICANNWatch article regarding the GAC bailout. As Dan Steinberg says, they are voting with their checkbooks. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: So, Why not the ITU?
    by Anonymous on Wednesday August 14 2002, @03:03AM (#8473)
    Anyone who supports individual participation in ICANN in any meaningful sense needs to keep in mind that the mechanism for participation in ITU is membership in major industry bodies (generally with very high membership dues and strict qualifications) or governments.

    Adopting the ITU or its models as having a major role in ICANN policy would be a dramatic and probably irreversible step in the opposite direction from individual participation or the level of involvement currently seen by the constituencies of the SOs. As broken as the current participation model is, involving the ITU or adopting its practices would almost inevitably move such participation from "limited" to "zero".

    It's the absolute wrong answer for anyone who supports the At-Large in any form.

    Among techies, the ITU is seen as so bureaucratic and hidebound that the Internet was literally invented in spite of it. Any technical standard or policy that isn't explicitly acceptable to its members-- the telecom establishment in its member countries-- does not ever get out of the maze of committees and document-drafting task forces. Its means of "protecting the public interest" does not include asking the public in any form what that might be, simply trusting its members to represent them.

    There's much that's broken about ICANN's policy mechanisms. The fact that they were drafted in part deliberately to avoid having ICANN become the ITU over again is not one of them.

    Other than that, it's a fine idea.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: So, Why not the ITU?
    by Anonymous on Wednesday August 14 2002, @03:42AM (#8474)
    >Anyone who supports individual participation in ICANN in any meaningful sense needs to keep in mind
    > that the mechanism for participation in ITU is membership in major industry bodies
    >(generally with very high membership dues and strict qualifications) or governments.

    I'm not aware of any particularly strict qualifications. Membership fees for ITU range from US $ 7'000 per year to US $ 21'000 per year, depending on the option.

    A number of public-interest and user groups are members of ITU. Membership fees are typically waived for such organizations.


    >Among techies, the ITU is seen as so bureaucratic and hidebound that the Internet was literally invented
    > in spite of it.

    This is primarly true of the "old guard". Younger people tend to be aware of the very significant streamlining of ITU procedures that has taken place. For example, formal approval of a technical specification can now be given after a 12-week online approval process. This is one of the fastest formal approval processes of any standardization organization.

    > Any technical standard or policy that isn't explicitly acceptable to its members--
    >the telecom establishment in its member countries--
    >does not ever get out of the maze of committees and document-drafting task forces.

    It is correct that the ITU operates by consensus, so standards are only approved if there is a consensus in favor of them.

    The current membership of ITU consists of many well-known Internet players such as Cisco, Sun, AOL, Worldcom, etc. and not just "old line" telecom operators.

    Richard

    -----------------------------------------
    Richard Hill
    Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
    International Telecommunication Union
    Place des Nations
    CH-1211 Geneva 20
    Switzerland
    tel: +41 22 730 5887
    FAX: +41 22 730 5853
    Email: richard.hill@itu.int
    Study Group 2 email: tsbsg2@itu.int

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: So, Why not the ITU?
    by Anonymous on Wednesday August 14 2002, @09:35AM (#8477)

    Very simple. The US Government has no interest in giving the ITU any say in the Internet.

    Just imagine the reaction of the US Congress or Dubya should the Dept. of Commerce give the ITU any significant say in ICANN...

    [ 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