[governance] text about root, NTIA etc.

[Adam Peake]

Ian had some strong disagreement with my suggestions about language 
about the root zone and NTIA statement etc. so I've tried to rework 
thing.  Nothing I wrote was meant to detract from our very firm 
resolve that "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in 
relation to international Internet governance".

response to Para 76: Administration of the root zone files and root 
server system of the domain name system (DNS):


[new]
Emphasizing our strong agreement with WGIG that no single government 
should have a pre-eminent role in global governance of the logical 
infrastructure of the Internet.
(Lee, perhaps here add text supporting the EU statement upholding 
Internet first principles etc etc) [end new]

[original]
The US statement recently made by Michael D. Gallagher, Assistant 
secretary at the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA), has caused much concern and raised a number of 
questions.

In the absence of any clarification, the statement is interpreted as 
a  manifestation of a US strategy that it will never give up its 
control over  core Internet resources including root zone file, root 
server operation, Domain Name and IP address management, and related 
resource management.

More specifically, it indicates that the current contractual 
framework regarding US  unilateral control over the root zone file 
will be maintained for an indefinite time into the future This 
directly contradicts the consensus of WGIG: "No single Government 
should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet 
governance" (in para 48 of the WGIG report").

The US statement also appears to indicate that US will maintain its 
oversight of ICANN, without describing which areas or functions of 
ICANN are the target object of the oversight. This contradicts our 
understanding of the widely publicized positions of the US Government 
and ICANN that they will not renew the Memorandum of Understanding at 
its expiry date of September 2006 and thus ICANN will gain an 
international independence, once ICANN and its community demonstrate 
its ability to guarantee stability and security of a critical global 
resource under its own authority.

The statement makes it difficult for the world to believe that ICANN 
is, or can ever become, the trusted and fair broker it needs to be. 
We would like to hear from the US representative whether this 
apparent shift/turn around is what it seems.

Civil Society does not fully endorse the current state of ICANN, 
especially in their representational structures and policy 
development processes, and recognizes that there is a lot of room for 
improvement to enhance the participation of all stakeholders as is 
outlined in the WGIG report. However, we also consider that the model 
the ICANN community has developed to date is still far better than 
the direction the US statement revealed.

We understand that the current ICANN model puts the technical 
community in charge of technical resource development, management and 
operation, while it provides an adequate framework for coordination 
and cooperation among private sector (including the technical 
community), governments and civil society (including users  and 
non-commercial entities) in its policy development and decision 
making process.

We call for the evolutionary yet significant improvement of this 
framework, one that enhances the stable, secure and innovative 
functioning of the Internet, and provides increased authority 
achieved by the consensual agreement and involvement of all 
stakeholders.

Unilateral oversight without consent of other stakeholders will not 
contribute to the long-term stability and security of the Internet 
for the benefit of all users and citizens, and may place stability 
and security at risk. [end original]

[new]

Since issuing the statement the US government has explained that it 
regards the DNS as critical to the stable and secure operation of the 
Internet and, consequently, until such time as a workable alternative 
to the current arrangement is presented and agreed, it will maintain 
its historic and current role.

The caucus recognizes this position, and notwithstanding our firm 
position regarding the need to end the  pre-eminent role of the US 
government in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the 
Internet, recommends that:

a.) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments 
have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect 
to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further 
opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to 
ensuring progress, the US government should state that it will take 
no action to cause any TLD to be removed from the root zone file, or 
any redelegation to occur, without the explicit approval of the 
government or economy responsible for the TLD in the case of ccTLD 
and contracting party with ICANN in the case of any other TLD.

b.) Sub-Committee A establish a working group to explore how the 
process of authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative 
root zone file (authorizing additions, deletions and redelegations, 
not operational adjustments) can be agreed to the mutual satisfaction 
of  all stakeholders in the lead up to the Tunis WSIS summit.

We believe this course of action would offer some satisfaction to 
some government's concern and offer a way to finding a lasting 
solution. [end new]


Thanks,

Adam

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