<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
Been in transit lately and when not, biting my tongue.<BR>
<BR>
A few points:<BR>
Addressing Karl's 1) & 2) The DARPA->NSF->NTIA/DOC passage of various US federal levers over the net/ICANN are well-documented, and I expect will stand up to legal scrutiny, even in a California court<BR>
a) Karl's more subtle point that ICANN is NOT formally obliged to do anything the US federal government/NTIA tells it to do, is surely correct, and explains why NTIA is now obliged to send somewhat whiny notes to ICANN just like everyone else, if it wants something done<BR>
b) which suggests that the most plausible path toward multistakeholder evolution of control remains going through ICANN, in my opinion, in spite of its faults, such as<BR>
b)1 in spite of the various breaches of proper administrative procedure as can be pointed to in things like the .XXX decision courtesy of a Karl Rove/White House phone call, or the apparent petty harrassment of .ir over switching fax numbers on a timely basis<BR>
c) to be fair to ICANN, it is all of 10 years old (who's throwing the party? ; ), and sometimes seems to act with the maturity and thoughtfulness, of my 10 year old (who is mature for her age, but only sometimes).<BR>
<BR>
with regard to 3), I agree, that first in the final days of the Bush administration one would be truly shocked if the NTIA said anything other than what it did; second, neither Obama nor McCain will 'lose' the Internet, nor wish to be put in a political position in which they could be accused of the same; which suggests that an evolutionary political - technical process, in which ICANN is one but not the only international actor, is the way forward, since the USG won't let go of any lever without a credible and perceived to be fair and operationally effective alternative. It's political, sure, but the economic importance of the net means all governments will tread carefully here.<BR>
<BR>
On 4), while Karl has elucidated how and why multiple roots can work without disruption, the bigger challenge remains that which Parminder has spoken up about, and which many seem to shy away from, explicating how enhanced cooperation on Internet governance can evolve to include governments, business and civil society interests from North and South, and East and West, in appropriate oversight of a globally distributed system of systems, containing many many networks of networks. The vehemence with which we often find ourselves interacting on this list is just a small taste of how hard this will be, but I remain optimistic that as IGF grows up, it can play a helpful role in a more multistakeholder 'enhanced cooperation' process, than the closed-door, governments only process to date. And I don't see this as a simple thing to vote on, it will take time and effort to work this all through. Definitely more time than the Bush administration has left.<BR>
<BR>
In sum, considering the commercial Internet is just a teenager, and ICANN is even younger, things could be way worse than they are - let's look on te bright side. If we could only maintain a modest degree of focus here on the list, we might actually make a contribution ourselves to getting a net which serves civil society first and foremost! (and I am part of the we, so please take that as self-criticism)<BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Karl Auerbach [<A HREF="mailto:karl@cavebear.com">mailto:karl@cavebear.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Sat 8/9/2008 8:18 PM<BR>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein<BR>
Cc: 'Parminder'; Milton L Mueller; 'William Drake'<BR>
Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here<BR>
<BR>
Michael Gurstein wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term "neo-imperialism"...<BR>
<BR>
Or, to be more in vogue, "i-imperalism" or "e-imperalism". ;-)<BR>
<BR>
As my mailbox fill and overflows with the gnashing of teeth and<BR>
shredding of garments about the US Dept of Commerce statement certain<BR>
"facts-of-life" come to my mind:<BR>
<BR>
1. It is not at all clear that the US Dep't of Commerce has the legal<BR>
authority to bind the US to any path in this area whatsoever. (But my<BR>
government has over the last couple of decades rather lost the notion<BR>
that legal authority is a prerequisite for anything, sigh.)<BR>
<BR>
2. But even if the US Dep't of Commerc does not have the legal<BR>
authority, certainly the US gov't as a whole *does* have the power to<BR>
impose its will on ICANN, which exists as a legal entity in California<BR>
which, last time I looked, is still part of the US. And even if ICANN<BR>
were not a creature of US law there is still the fact that Verisign,<BR>
which currently has the contract to do the root zone, isn't going to<BR>
move from the US any time soon.<BR>
<BR>
3. The political situation here in the US makes it pretty much<BR>
impossible for any political animal in gov't to advocate, or even simply<BR>
overlook, any path that would take the ultimate lever of control out of<BR>
US hands. The 1950's may be a long time ago to some of us, but the US<BR>
gov't still wonders "who is the man who lost China" and fears being<BR>
labeled as having "lost the internet". Yes, our gov't needs adult<BR>
supervision, but that's been true ever since 1789. Nobody should expect<BR>
that situation to change soon no matter what happens in our fall<BR>
election this year.<BR>
<BR>
4. There *is* a solution that simply causes all of this to vanish - and<BR>
that solution has, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, always been at our<BR>
fingertips (or in her case, her toe-tips):<BR>
<BR>
There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple,<BR>
consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the<BR>
proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of<BR>
TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms used<BR>
today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or your ISP<BR>
don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one you like<BR>
better.)<BR>
<BR>
That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in line<BR>
with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world. It is<BR>
only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening and<BR>
obviating any single overlord of names on the internet.<BR>
<BR>
--karl--<BR>
<BR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
<BR>
For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>