Any formal body has to have some jurisdiction in which it is constituted.
One can argue whether California non-profit law is better or worse than
being a UN entity. I believe there are arguments against the latter as much
as there may arguments against the former.
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.
nonsense - as constituted today, ICANN is a better forum for interested
constituencies to debate policy FOR THOSE AREAS THAT ARE IN ICANN'S PURVIEW
(not shouting, just emphasis on limited purview of ICANN).
Interesting. Everybody on the sidelines of this; (like me), not Vint or the
other "Internet Founding father's", pretty well assume a drift towards
rational processes in the world winning over a long time frame. How long?
Seems based on the drift rate, pretty darn long.
So ICANN is definitely one of the clearest entities which has a completely,
totally non-geographicly defined constituency. There are others, like
International Civil Aviation Organization for commercial air traffic and WHO
for health. DNS, biological viruses, and jet aircraft all by there nature
challenge rule by dotted lines on the ground, made by chance, desceased
power mad old guys, where rivers flow; (now, that's a reason for a boundry;
Wow. its RUNNING WATER. Lets have a war right here), etc.
So an somewhat negative example is air transit. The whole structure makes
air travel a detail of world war I. Anybody smart enough to read should
realize, no matter how horrific a (set) of wars are, they aren't forever,
and the structure of such a thing should look beyond the present. So, here
is a reasonably understandable negative example. A thought experiment would
be if DNS wars happened after the twin towers attack. All questions would be
framed as security issues, no matter how farfetched the reasoning.
Fortunately for the DNS, this isn't the case. But with Voice over IP
inevitable to abolish PSTN telephony, the DNS also becomes the world
directory of electronically reachable persons; (with WWW and LDAP hanging
off of it). SO civil libritarians, anarchists, and conspiracy theorists are
poking around in a domain of reality that is truly, wired to everything
else, and everyone else, longterm.
So, as said above: "One can argue whether California non-profit law is
better or worse than being a UN entity". I guess your right. But there
should be, and probably will, (see the LONG DRIFT theory above). A
completely tracable process much like representative political processes
which has no geographic hooks whatsoever. Oddly though, since the material
world is where things are changed by the acts of humans; this is
problematic, I guess. If even a NGO structured ICANN tells a named person to
change a RR, there are two(+) geographic named places. One where the person
ordered happens to be, and the second where the computer(s) happen to be.
Third is the place(s) where the descision occurred. Some of these can be
completely masked by technology; for instance, the ICANN type descision
maker could have some PGP style exculsive permission to Telnet into the DNS,
no matter where it is; (any they might be enjoined from knowing it), and
change it.
What this simulates is techno-omnipotence, to avoid political meddling /
incomptence.
I think considering how new in jurisprudence terms the DNS conflicts are,
ICANN has done a reasonable job. I read many judgements from Montreal and
Geneva (WIPO) and only thought one was grossly wrong. And I think WIPO
effectively censored that arbitrator; ( only used once after. He's overboard
for life, probably for the two mistake's) [HEY like California... three
strike, you know]. (TATA group of company's versus Bodacious TATA's is, I
believe, clearly in error). Another thing that is somewhat comical (and sad)
is WIPO is still based on licking the pavement of geography based power.
(sad). They organize these named persons by national origin. This is an
insult to them, and to the parties in disputes.
We all know this is to prove some obscure non-reality of fairness. But,
there background professionally, etc is more likely a bias than national
origin anyway. All references to national origins should be minimized, and
almost inaccessable. I think the arbitrators, likely with or without "I'm so
legit I even SMELL ethical", paper trails probably mean well. A DNS battle
is a winner take all dispute with non-trivial consequences. So its an acid
test generally.
Generally, for the accountability and major structural decisions for ICANN,
Maybe the Kennedy school of goverment should make a REALLY big matrix of
possibilities, and someone should throw a dart and do what it hits. If that
DOESN'T work, repeat it excluding that option. Can't possibly work worse
than electing politicians; (look around). I like the Delphic oracle system;
(decisions made by stoned teenage girls on tripods). Worked great until they
ran out of toxic vapours. We have a reasonably supply of stoned teenage
girls here when the weathers compliant. So we could do this decisionmaking
here (Canada) for 6 months/year, then move it to Brazil. See? I can be just
as international as WIPO, (with less, well, no... overhead!).
For DNS decisions: I conclude unfortunately with the suggestion the best
thing is a benevolent dictator with infinite wisdom, and who is immortal.
Three things:
1) Wisdom
2) Benevolent
3) Immortal
But Jon Postel only managed two of three.
Regs,
Dan
Original (incorrect decision in my opinion):
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0479.html
http://www.zafars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/VOnes/
About ICAO:
http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto.pl?icao/en/history.htm