In article <telecom24.447.5@telecom-digest.org>, PAT writes:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For the life of me, I do not understand
> why United States insists on keeping total control of Internet for
> itself, rather than at least sharing control with other countries.
I do not understand why the United States Government remains under the
illusion that it has any such thing.
> I mean, just consider how much spam, scam, illegitimate advertising,
> viruses, spyware, etc -- in aggregate total about half of the
> internet -- ICANN has fostered since its inception.
I also do not understand why PAT remains under the illusion that ICANN
has anything whatsoever to do with any of these things. Is NANPA
responsible for the sleazy MCI marketing campaigns of yesteryear?
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wollman@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will try to explain this once again. To
say "United States has control of the internet" is a short way of
making a longer statement, to wit: "The internet is controlled to a
large extent by the 'root servers'; the computers which direct the
requests for connections to one place or another. Since the 'root
servers' are by and large in the United States, or under the
supervision of the United States, therefore, for all intents and
purposes the internet is controlled by the United States." Only instead
of making that longer statement, we often times just abbreviate it by
saying, "United States has control of the internet". Yes, there are
exceptions to that, but they are inconsequential.
When we say "ICANN runs the internet" that also is a short way of
telling a longer story, to wit: "Every person or company or
organization in the United States who wishes to have an internet
address in one of the traditional suffixes for addresses such as
'.com', '.org', '.net' or others is required to deal not only with an
ISP or a registrar to obtain the desired address (that is, if they
wish to have recognition of that address and some way for others to
see their pages or reach them by email), but they must also agree in
writing to a very one-sided 'contract' presented to them by ICANN and
make an annual extortion payment required by ICANN which goes to fund
the overseas trips and other friviolities in which ICANN engages
itself. If you fail to sign the required one-sided contract and/or
fail to make your annual extortion payments then you do _NOT_ get your
domain name (in effect a domain name allows for two way conversation
with the outside world.) This contract you are required by ICANN to
sign tells about all of ICANN's rights; how _they_ if they choose to
do so can revoke your right to use the name, and the rules _you_ have
to follow. Of course it has nothing to say about you having any rights
such as the right to be free of others sending spam or scam or viruses
or the right to protect your domain name except through some sort of
feeble arbitration which they (ICANN) control. Basically, when you
deal -- as you must! -- with ICANN in order to be on the net, you do
it their way or you don't do it at all. And no, NANPA is or was not
responsible for the sleaze which oozes out from MCI each day, since
NANPA never required any contracts pertaining to behavior of its
users the way ICANN does. ICANN _could_ have written contracts for
users with some protections for users built in if they had wanted to,
but Vint Cerf did not and does not want that to happen. So when we
make the statement "ICANN controls Internet", that is a short form of
the longer proceeding paragraph. If NANPA were to require contracts
from users -- telco or otherwise -- which outlined standards of
behavior required (**as ICANN could do if they were anything other
than a tool of big business**) then in that case, yes, NANPA would
have some responsibilty for MCI's sleazy activities.
So before you take umbrage or exception to the statements "United
States controls Internet" or "Internet is controlled by ICANN" go
back and fill in the blanks _entirely_ with the realities of life. PAT]
Garrett Wollman (wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu)