[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[Izumi AIZU]

At 14:11 05/08/12 +0200, Wolfgang Kleinw臘hter wrote:
>I agree that "internationalization" should remain and has to remain a key 
>target. But we have to clarify what has to be "internationalized".

I do agree with that. And I do not have final definition of what 
"internationalization"
really mean, per se.

While it is not welcomed to have single government making the final
say, inviting "all" governments on board and let them decide on
political issues directly may not make sense - it may take forever
for some really politically contentious issues.

I just had an interesting conversation with a senior guy
engaged in GAC, over .xxx issue. On the one hand he is
very concerned with the adoption of .xxx, but he is eqally
aware that there will be little possibility of all members of
GAC to reach a consensus on this issue.

If GAC is given the final decision making, could they make
any decision at all? Similarly, on other highly politically
controversial issues, can they decide by majority? or by
consensus?

Even a "small committee" will face this challenge depending on
the composition and decision making procedure.

izumi

>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

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