TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Lisa Hancock:
> Lisa, the first thing we need to do is uproot the ICANN gang; they are
> as worthless as anyone can be. Then install new people in ICANN who
> take a harsher attitude. Do not expect anything until ICANN is
> totally cleaned out. Esther Dyson and Vint Cerf are the worst. They
> have to be the first to be gone. Not a very good prospect, is it?
That is like saying that the solution for telemarketers is to uproot
TELECOM-DIGEST and install new people in TELECOM-DIGEST who take a harsher
attitude; and that PAT is the worst.
Just what authority, pray tell, does ICANN have to do anything of what you
envision? ICANN is the "Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers"; it is a registrar. They have no control over who is connected
to the Internet. Nor do they have any control over IP address
allocations; that is done by IANA, not ICANN.
ICANN operates the root DNS servers and defines the names at the root, but
its authority to dictate what goes on under the root is limited or
non-existent. In particular, ICANN operates none of the non-root domains.
Furthermore -- and this is important -- the modest authority that ICANN
has to operate the root DNS servers and define names at the root is based
upon the *voluntary* acceptance of ICANN's operation and definition by the
worldwide Internet community. This acceptance is based upon the fact that
ICANN acts as an impartial registrar and NOT as a policy-setter.
ICANN may have an MOU from the US Department of Commerce; but the
governments of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. don't care at all about what
the US Department of Commerce says. They do, however, accept ICANN's
management of the root; and obtained ICANN delegation for the .CU, .IR,
and .KP domains respectively.
There have been numerous entities who have held themselves up as
alternatives to ICANN and run their own DNS root. The individuals behind
these entities are widely perceived as crackpots and are largely
Nonetheless, nothing stops you from creating your own DNS root, expelling
anyone you feel is a spammer, and telling the world that they should use
PATDNS instead of ICANN. Maybe you will succeed, everyone will use
PATDNS, and spammers will plead and do anything (even stop spamming) to
get you to allow them back into PATDNS. Then again, maybe the French will
repay their war debt; the SS Titanic will rise from the bottom of the
ocean and enter New York Harbor in triumph; John Kerry will have his
inaugural ball; and George Bush will learn how to pronounce "nuclear".
You seem to think that there is some Internet Dictator at the top who
is not doing his job, and that that ICANN is that dictator. What
people have been trying to explain to you is that there is *no*
Internet Dictator and *no* authority at the top; nor has there been
one since DCA relenquished control over the Internet in the 1980s.
NSF had a somewhat more modest level of control over NSFnet, but that
came to an end over a decade ago.
Since that time, it has been anarchy. That's what we said we wanted,
and we were severely punished by being given exactly that. You may
not like the fact that it is anarchy -- nor, for that matter, do I --
but that is the reality of the situation.
-- Mark --
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe it is time to get rid of the
anarchy method (and really, users just *think* they are an anarchy;
AT&T [for example] could crush such an 'anarchy' in a minute if they
chose to do so, at least when the two year 'waiting period' on Net
Neutrality is complete.)
And since you want to make an example of TELECOM Digest, let's do so.
Do I ask all web sites and users to sign contracts giving up the
right to their name? No ... but ICANN does. Do I assign the final
three letter suffix to user's site names? No ... but ICANN does. Do I
have any influence at all over DNS? No ... but ICANN does. How many
things can *I* do? Very few compared to ICANN ... do the various
resistrars account for their activities to me? No ... but they most
certainly account to ICANN.
You know, Mark, it gets really irritating listening to you and the
other spam enablers continually apologizing for ICANN's so-called
limitations. And everything is always someone else's fault, which
is the main reason spam/scam is at an all-time high on the net; the
fact that spam enablers like yourself REFUSE to use realistic
approaches to stopping it. Why don't you begin trying to work along
with other netizens instead of continually throwing up road blocks