Re: national security

John C Klensin wrote:

> With regard to ICANN and its processes, I don't much like the
> way a good deal of that has turned out, even while I believe
> that things are gradually getting better.  I lament the set of
> decisions that led to the US Govt deciding that it needed to be
> actively involved and to some of the risks, delays, and socially
> undesirable statements that situation has created.  
OK, the big issue for those countries that want ICANN to be disbanded 
and for the Internet to be handed over to the ITU is quite simple: ICANN 
is a US-government controlled entity subject to US/Californian law. 
That's great if you're the US government and even semi-reasonable if 
you're an American. Absolutely awful if you're Chinese or Korean. The 
IETF is about as close as we've got as an "authority" on the Internet 
that is not bounded by geographic boundaries, governmental control or 
commercial contract. You can make a reasonable argument that we should 
be running the show here, not ICANN.
The UNITC meeting needed to happen several years ago, but now we're 
there, realistically there is only one option left for a single, 
cohesive Internet to remain whilst taking into account ALL the World's 
population: ICANN needs to become a UN body.
> general".  So, while ICANN, IMO, continues to need careful
> watching -- most importantly to be sure that it does not expand
> into "governance" issues that are outside its rational scope-- I
> don't see "give it to XXX" or "everyone runs off in his own
> direction" as viable alternatives.
Neither do I, but ICANN have clearly demonstrated:

1. They don't listen to us, or those parties who have a genuine vested 
interest in the Internet, UNLESS that party is a US Commercial or 
Governmental entity.
2. Their incompetence at politcal levels has actually caused a delay in 
making the Internet available to those countries that need access to 
affordable communications infrastructures the most.
3. Putting Computer Scientists in charge of anything is fundamentally a 
bad idea. In fact, they have shown they are worse at being in charge 
than politicians and lawyers... they will never get another chance after 
this god-awful mess.
In ICANN's support, the alternative - the "ITU idea" - is *horrible*. 
The ITU is not about open communications infrastrucutres - it's about 
*closed* infrastructures with contracts and licensing and costs and the 
other paraphenalia we want to limit the effect of in the context of the 
Internet.
> On the other hand, one of the nice things about the network as
> it is now constituted is that anyone has the option of
> opting-out: disconnecting, setting up a private DNS and a
> private addressing system, and communicating, if at all, through
> a restrictive, address-and-protocol-translating gateway.  We
No, no, no, NO. To allow this would to happen would be a genuine shame. 
How popular is Internet2? Why? I rest my case...
--
Paul Robinson