[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[Ian Peter]

In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes (to
replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
clarifications are important.

Ian Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang
Kleinwächter
Sent: Friday, 12 August 2005 10:12 PM
To: Izumi AIZU; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

I agree that "internationalization" should remain and has to remain a key
target. But we have to clarify what has to be "internationalized". 95 per
cent of root zone file management is of a poor technical nature which does
not need any oversight, neither from the US nor from the UN or another
intergovernmental body. There are much more risks then opportunities if you
"internationalize" the existing system, that means that instead of the US
government also five or ten or 100 other governments have to say "okay"
before a zone file can be published in the root. What I proposed in the WGIG
was a differentiated approach, that is to remove the governmental oversight
(close to Option 2) and to have a special procedure for indiviudal cases
where the publicaiton of a special root zone file has (international) public
policy implications. The proposal was that the GAC could have a committee
which would react to requests from governments on an ad hoc basis. In the
last ten years there h!
 as been no (politically) controversial publication of zone files in the
root. Temporary problems with ccTLD cases like .af, .iq, .ly and other got
simple explanations and had no real political dynamite. So the committee
would have only little work. But this can change, in particular with new
gTLDs like .cat or .tibet or .basq or even .xxx. And such cases, where
governments have a certain interest, should not be decided by one government
alone. This is my understanding of "internationalization". An
"internationalization per se" makes no sense. 
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Do 11.08.2005 16:50
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report



I mostly agree with Milton in that we need to keep the pressure
to "internationalize" the root zone file management.

At the same time calling for "immediate change" may not be
that realistic, either. By looking at four options presented
by WGIG, none of them are that much outstanding, each
may make some sense in some areas, but no silver bullet,
right?

I think the first objective for us to achieve is to make strong agreement
out of WSIS/WGIG process that "internationalization" be a
necessity, and then the work on the specifics, how and when,
be carried over in more orderly and gradual manner, not an
instant change (no one is arguing for it, I guess).

I don't know if this gradual approach is politically correct or not,
but realistically speaking, we should consider the approach like
this.

izumi



At 10:11 05/08/11 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/10/05 7:56 PM >>>
> >I am personally not holding my breath on this one.  I have seen
> >little or no indication from the USG that they are going to give up
> >their unilateral control any time soon.  I certainly think it is
> >reasonable for CS to put some energy in its response supporting
> >this goal.
>
>Avri, we need to be a lot tougher here.
>Any significant change in the international regime(s) surrounding the
>Internet won't be easy. Any significant change will involve major shifts
>n the distribution of power and thus lead to conflicts of interest and
>some resistance from some quarters.
>
>I hope no one on this list thought that the WGIG would hand in its
>report, all major governmental and private interests would read it and
>say, "yep!" "Sure!" "Let's do it!"
>
>The fact that the USG is not happily embracing change is predictable but
>should not in any way be a deterrent to demanding those changes and
>planning for them. As we have pointed out in some detail, the US
>position is inconsistent with its own policy, is not widely supported
>even in the US among the Internet community, has no support
>internationally, and thus is not sustainable long term. The people in
>the Commerce Dept. and State are not stupid - they know that. Change is
>inevitable. The only question is when and how.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance