>Personally, I can't see a single advantage to Geneva instead of Marina del Rey or the
>ITU over ICANN. And I can see many disadvantages for Internet users.

The advantage for the world is that the ITU is more accountable to governments than ICANN has shown itself to be. There will be many disadvantages for Internet users; there will be advantages as well. It all depends on how badly ICANN continues to act, and how well the ITU acts.

I'm sorry, how again is being more accountable to governments an advantage for private-sector governance?

Maybe I'm missing something?

I have to agree with Chris. I'm not certain why being accountable to governments is an advantage. Keep in mind that ICANN oversees private actors under contract to it. What exactly would it mean to have the ITU supplant ICANN -- would the ITU assume ICANN's contractual relationships?

And just what are the advantages to users in the ITU?

-- Bret

>I'm sorry, how again is being more accountable to
>governments an advantage for private-sector governance?

I never said it was "an advantage for private-sector governance". I suggested turning the whole thing over to public-sector governance. Public-sector governance can make contracts with private actors; it happens all the time.

>What exactly would it mean to have the ITU supplant ICANN --
>would the ITU assume ICANN's contractual relationships?

Yes. And would re-negotiate and cancel some of them.

>And just what are the advantages to users in the ITU?

The ITU is charterd and controlled by the UN, which is chartered and controlled by the governments of the world. (To varying degrees in both cases, of course.) If you believe that the root is an international resource, having it run by someone accountable to the governments of the world makes more sense than having it run by someone who has shown almost no accountability to anyone.

There is no way to predict whether this will benefit typical Internet users, nor to predict which users will benefit most. However, it is safe to predict that continuing with ICANN will continue to have the current level of benefit.

How about this. You put together 500 words on why the ITU is better forum for management of the DNS. I'll put together a piece of a similar length on why ICANN is the better forum. We'll run them here if you want to stay anonymous. Or submit to the LA Times Op-Ed, if you're willing to sign your name.

Bret

No deal. I don't assert that the ITU is a better forum: I assert that it *can* be a better forum. I don't predict the future (if I did, I would have never given ICANN the early support that I did...).

I certainly don't claim that the ITU looks like a better forum: clearly, ICANN looks better until you see how far they veer from their stated bylaws and procedures. I also believe that the ITU might look pretty lousy now, but they might improve when the harsh spotlight of the DNS-following community gets ahold of them.

Really, I'm not ITU fan. I simply assert that ICANN has consistently failed to fulfill its promise and has not shown any sign of getting better. In the search for an alternative to ICANN, we are left with (a) a replacement ICANNish body or (b) an established body. I am suspect of (a) because ICANN has been very effective at causing false hope, and a replacement body could do the same. In category (b), the ITU is about the only international body with much of an established constiuency. I would be happy to be wrong about that, given how lame the ITU is about getting anything useful done.