To argue that one will replace another is a bit like the old argument of paperless offices or the end of newspapers.

Kieren

1. Modern DNS software does not use any root servers.

2. TLDs can be automatically selected based on DLD voting.
http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00342.html

3. The next generation Internet architecture places an intelligent “Node” at each home/office. The network simply connects the Nodes without getting in the way.

It will be interesting to see how ICANN delays new TLDs for more changes to happen. The NSF is funding the GENI project to start over. That will take time.

Also, the .COM RE-BID will take time. ICANN will likely claim nothing can be added with all of the new changes coming, that they do not control.

There will also be several movements to clone sections of .COM to offer domain owners BETTER security and stability. The 4-Letter .COM owners are one such “coalition”. They can support their own .COM servers, whois, etc. as a shadow of the main .COM servers. The new DNS software can use different server clusters based on the length of the names.

Thrush opens the letter stating:

“But the process is not, and has never been, an oversight mechanism. The current NOI makes that plain:
“The MOU does not give the Department of Commerce the ability to exercise oversight in the
traditional context of regulation and the Department of Commerce plays no role in the internal
governance or day-to-day operations of lCANN.”"

He then concludes by stating the big concern that Twomey said at the hearing: If the JPA is extended, other parties may view it as continued oversight by the U.S. government and begin working on alternative models.

The letter says that the existence of the JPA is damaging as it leads to the perception that it gives the US government oversight of ICANN.

That’s why ICANN wants it ended.

Aside from the fact that I haven’t seen much “vigorous fighting” – unless one letter every 16 months can be taken as vigorous – it is logical then why ICANN would say to the USG that it wants it to conclude.

The letter also *specifically* explains why it feels that MOU/JPA process did matter, why it was so useful and important in building ICANN.

So when you claim that ICANN feels the JPA “doesn’t matter”, you are 180 degrees off.

You also say: “If this is really just a perception problem, perhaps time would be better spent if ICANN educated the world that the JPA is not an oversight mechanism rather than fighting to conclude it.”

I would argue that an Improving Institutional Confidence consultation that has been running for 16 months, that has been through three periods of public comment, been given three specific sessions at the past three ICANN meetings, spent several months as the lead item on the ICANN front page, saw public sessions held in Montevideo, Geneva, Washington, Christchurch and Senegal, and has received responses from governments across the world, the world’s biggest business organizations, and an enormous range of other respondents — I would argue that that is quite a lot of effort.

Rather than determinedly try to pick holes in everything ICANN says, why not read the letter and see if there isn’t some careful thought and logic in what it says.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

If ICANN were a baseball team, every batter would strike out for 9 consecutive innings. And at the end of the game, ICANN would still be proclaiming that they played a great game.

[...] more:  ICANN to U.S. Government: End Joint Project Agreement Tags: companies-at-parking, Domain, domain-name, parking, parking-companies Published by on Jun [...]