On 1 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
ICANN's obligation is to guarantee to the public the stability of DNS at
the root layer.
i disagree...
From ICANN's own bylaws:
The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's
systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[emphasis added]
According to m-w.com, "ensure" means "to make sure, certain, or safe :
Guarantee".
In other words, ICANN's mission is a promise, a guarantee.
But that's not all:
ICANN's contract, or rather "Memorandum of Understanding" with the United
States requires, yes requires, that ICANN, yes ICANN, not the RIRs, not
the root server operators, "to design, develop, and test the mechanisms,
methods, and procedures" ... to oversee "the operation of the
authoritative root server system" and "the allocation of IP number
blocks".
Those are ICANN's own promises that it has made, in legal document after
legal document, to the United States Government. ICANN may say otherwise,
you may believe otherwise. But that's the contractual words in black and
white. It has been the same language since 1998.
In other words, ICANN has made a contractual committment to tell you, as
an operator of a root server, what "mechanisms, methods, and procedures"
you must follow to operate your servers.
And that word "oversight" in the MoU does not mean that ICANN promises to
merely watch how you and the other root server operators do what you do
very well. The word "oversight" includes an ability to reject and to
command. In other words, ICANN has promised the USG that it's authority
over root operations supersedes your own.
We are all well aware that in actual fact that ICANN has no legal
authority over the root server operators. And we are all aware that the
root server operators have been wary of entering into agreements with
ICANN regarding the operation of the root servers. That, however, has not
stopped ICANN from making a written promise to the United States govenment
that it will both oversee the root server operations and "formalize" its
relationship with the root server operators.
Perhaps ICANN is willing to admit that it has no real authority -
presumably by declaring to the US Department of Commerce that it considers
those sections that I mentioned to be obsolete and not obligatory upon
ICANN, and by removing the obligation to "ensure the stable and secure
operation" that is contained in its own bylaws - and clearly articulating
to everyone, governments and businesses included, that ICANN is nothing
more than an advisory body that operates only by eminating good vibes in
the hope that others, who do have real power to act, will act in
resonance.
In the meantime ICANN goes about telling governments of the world that it
does far more than emit nudges and hopes; ICANN tells governments that it
ensures and guarantees.
And outside of the IETF and related communities ICANN does not say that it
is merely an advisory body lacking authority. ICANN's message to the
business and intellectual property communities is that ICANN stands strong
and firm and will let nothing interfere with the stable operation of the
internet.
Your note makes my point - that ICANN is in many regards an empty shell,
and has been one for years, that has no real power except in the realm of
the (over) protection of intellectual property, allocation of a very few
new top level domains, and the determination of who among compeiting
contenders is worthy to operate contested ccTLDs.
At the end of the day - and it is nearly the end of the day here - the
fact of the matter is that ICANN is telling different stories to different
groups. To the IETF, ICANN holds itself out as one of the guys, merely a
warm and fuzzy "coordinator". But to the business community, ICANN holds
itself forth as a guarantor of internet stability. And to the United
States Govenment, ICANN has undertaken to make legal promises to the
effect that it is in charge of DNS, including root server operations, and
IP address allocation.
--karl--
PS, if I am "late to the party" on anycast issues than it ought to be easy
for ICANN to articulate the answers to my concerns. This is not an idle
request. The internet community deserves proof that these questions are
truly answered by hard, reviewable, analysis. Moreover, with Verisign and
sitefinder lingering on the horizon it is not beyond conception that
Verisign will wave the flag of bias and ask ICANN to demonstrate why
anycast got such an easy entree.