At 19:35 27/05/2008, Ross Rader wrote:
All I'm saying is that I think it would serve our purposes to take a broader, less cynical view of the role that the community has in setting ICANN's agenda and mandate
ICANN as two missions. (1) To manage the IANA function. Something everyone could do. (2) Make believe it does it better than others, in order to address some real needs (network stability, US strategy, staff employment, registrar industry, etc.). Any proposition making ICANN more credible/stable as a IANA operator is good for it to take. Other can be confusing. A rule of thumb, it may be interesting to consider : if a considered role could remain interesting to assume even if ICANN was no more in charge of IANA, I tend to think it would be counterproductive. It would most probably lead to confusion at some stage. The risk, as I noted yesterday, is that ICANN does not adapt to the IANA architectural evolution. I am quite worried by the lack of concern of ALAC in that area. ALAC should be the first to report possible trend changes or events. For example, has ALAC discussed and reported to BoD about: - Web.2.0 impact on DNS usage (amy before I joined)? - ghost root server issue related concerns? For months the Internet could have been put to a progressive stop through DNS core pollution. Have ALS questionned their members on what they think of it and if there is an impact on their way to consider the net. What are their corporate/national plan B? Do they know their real dependance on the root servers system. Do they know the quantity of intelligence they leak through it? jfc