<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
</font>The first argument against
continued US oversight of the ICANN is political-democratic. I will
respond to your specific points in another email.<br>
<br>
In order to seek
democracy, one need not have to give instances of what a dictator did
wrong, which could be better in a democracy. Inversely, it also
hardly works to quote examples, in defense of dictatorship, of how a
dictator did not do something which he could well have for his
private gain or the gain of his cohorts. Every
dictator knows how to defend at least the illusion of legitimacy for
his rule! (This explains the US gov's action vis a vis .xxx, that you
hold out as such a shining example of US in the role of what you call
as the 'neutral steward(ship) of the Internet community".
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US">And the logic you use
about how a body with more democratic representation can cause
confusion, stalemates and other such problems can as easily be used
against bringing in a democratic parliament instead of a dictator. A
few hundred politicians, all with individual agendas, coming from
very different backgrounds (often from warring groups and tribes in a
new democracy), with little training in the high art of
state-ship.... Well, this seems to presents a worse picture even than
the one you present for the UN, isnt it! But still people, very
knowledgeable people, give their lives to seek just this kind of
democracy. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US">In fact, sometimes, only
sometimes, the immediate results may actually look worse than the
condition before – See, Egypt for instance, there is acute
lawlessness on the streets of Cairo, there is fear of persecution of
minorities, women are afraid of Shariat law being imposed etc. Wise
and knowledgeable people could have predicted this general picture
even before Tahrir square happened. But they went ahead with the
revolution. As famously said, the remedy for the ills of democracy is
more democracy. If we perceive certain kinds of problems in
democraticising the oversight of the Internet, we can think of
different alternative democratic institutional systems, and also the
struggle of improving systems would always be ongoing.But please dont
preach continued lordship of one country over all. <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US">parminder <br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
On Friday 01 June 2012 02:09 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Marilia,
I fully support the spirit of your mail. Good and reasonable points. I wrote an article "Beyond ITU vs. ICANN" ten years ago and, as you have outlined, unfortunately the "good guys vs. bad guys" mechanism continues (very often without any justifiable reason or just for a domestic purpose (in the US) to be treated by an un-informed broader public as the "saver of the freedom of the Internet" in an election year). So far so god (or bad).
But let me take your points one step further and comment on one concrete point:
You say: "a) there is no way to justify US privilege position with ICANN. That needs to be changed;"
I agree in principle but I would like to find out what in your opinion are the privileges your are talking about. IMHO the AoC has ended a lot of the "privileges" which were the subject of criticism in Tunis. The remaining "privileges" of the USG are
a. the right to authorize the publication of TLD zone files in the root (related to the IANA function which includes, inter alia, a trilateral contractual arrangement with ICANN and VeriSign, the manager of the Hidden Root Server) and
b. to have a permanent seat in the A&T Review team.
Interestingly, the controversial .xxx case had a rather unnoticed sideeffect. It demonstrated that the USG executes its "authorization function" as a neutral stewart of the Internet community. As you remember, the USG - following pressure from the US Congress and parts of the US public opinion - was rather critical against .xxx. The EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes wrote a letter to Strickling just after the San Francisco ICANN meeting (where the ICANN Board voted in favour of .xxx) and encouraged him to postpone or stop the authorization of the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root. But NTIA, which is the responsible unit within the USG/DOC, followed just the ICANN/IANA procedure and respected the outcome of the (controversial) transparent and bottom up process executed by ICANN.
What would be your proposal to change this procedure? Do you propose an alternative mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root? With the new gTLD programm we will have probably hundreds of controversial cases soon. Ideas to transfer this function to an intergovernmental body (a UN like Internet Security Council as discussed by WGIG in 2005 or a G 12, as proposed by EU Commissioner Reding in 2010) proofed to be bad ideas. To give the proposed CIRP an authority to approve finally TLD strings (as it was indirectly intended in the Indian proposal which wanted to give oversight functions over ICANN to the CIRP, which would include certainly also the authorization issue) is obviously also a bad idea.
To give the GAC - where all governments have an equal role - an "early warning" and "advice" option under the established new gTLD program seems to me reasonable. Do you believe this is not sufficient and another body should be established to make the final decision? What would happen if all the 2000 new gTLD proposals - after they are adopted by ICANN - would need an authorization decision backed by a consensus among the members of an intergovernmental council of 12, 51 or 190 UN member states? With other words, do you have any concrete idea how the existing (and working) mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root can be further improved (enhanced) respecting also the interests of developing countries and civil society in a better way without damaging the future development of the Internet?
The second point: The permanent seat for the USG in one of the four AoC review teams. What is your proposal here? I agree fully, that the review sofar did not produce the expected results. The (mutlistakeholder and decentralized) review mechanism as such is an interesting innovation and has great potential to be developed into an oversight mechanisms with "hard teeth". The first round was done in a rush. Both the governmental representatives from China and the EU were not satisfied with the procedures. The outcome was rather weak and very general. Implementation of even this weak recommendations takes time. However lets wait what the other reviews teams will produce. We will have more knowledge if the four reviews are completed.
A second round has to go far beyond. In my eyes, the "transparency and accountability" review is central and one should start already now to prepare for the second round which starts 2013/2014. The good thing is, that civil society (via the ALAC) has also a permanent seat in this review! Any concrete proposals how to improve this mechaism?
Wolfgang
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>