[MemberPubPol] Re: [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[Fred Baker]

On Jun 9, 2005, at 1:13 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> we're obviously the right people for the job" doesn't work. I need an 
>> argument that points out issues with the current structure - ICANN, 
>> RIRs, registrars and registries, etc etc etc and demonstrates that 
>> none of those problems would have happened if ICANN had been a treaty 
>> organization and no new problems would have materialized,
>
> No, sorry, the fact that something worked well in the past, in a 
> homogeneous and collaborative environment like the Internet was until 
> the end of the Nineties, does not prove that it will work well in the 
> future, in a different environment.

I think you missed my point. The assertion being made in government 
circles is that government is in fact the right set of people. You 
assert that the ICANN/RIR/etc set of organizations is the wave of the 
past; it may be, but I'll point out that everyone can in fact get a DNS 
name and an IP address from them, and that the rules under which that 
happens are clearly set forth; I can show you that in the enum registry 
(the one currently being run by a governmental organization) everyone 
is not able to get a registry entry for the country cod they have 
already been assigned, and the procedure for getting the matter 
resolved is unspecified. Saying "that is the wrong structure AND THIS 
OTHER STRUCTURE IS THE RIGHT STRUCTURE" is two statements. You need to 
show not only that the old structure is wrong, but that the proposed 
structure is right.

Personally, I can show you as many problems with the proposed new 
structures as exist with the old ones, and in addition I can show you a 
set of people whom the enum registry is not serving in any way. That 
tells me that the proposed structures have at least as many problems, 
and bring fundamentally new ones. Whatever the ills of the old 
structure may be, the proposed new structure doesn't sound like much of 
a solution.

The "arrogance" I mentioned is in making the assertion that "government 
is the solution" uncritically.