[governance] WGIG comments - points raised at meeting with Elliot Noss

Sun Aug 14 05:33:38 EDT 2005

Robert, you got it :-)))

best

w

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra
Gesendet: Sa 13.08.2005 17:59
An: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Betreff: [governance] WGIG comments - points raised at meeting with Elliot Noss

I had the pleasure of meeting Elliot Noss from Tucows earlier this 
week. As we are both based in Toronto, I thought it of interest to 
chat about WSIS and exchange views on and about internet governance 
and the recently released WGIG report.

Among many things discussed,  Elliot pointed out a recent article of 
his, one where he paints a far more  positive picture of ICANN than 
the governance caucus seems to do in it's current (draft) response to 
the WGIG report. At the same time, he also points out that the battle 
for control of the internet is really about Freedom. This is good to 
hear, and has me thinking about what language (if any) we have about 
that core issue in the response document that is being drafted.

The meeting with Elliot has me thinking that we should be careful in 
what we ask for, what we suggest and recommend at the upcoming WSIS 
prepcom. If we aren't careful, governments could very well use the 
pretext of our calls for reform to create a far worse, a  far more 
closed structure than what we have now with ICANN.

anyway,  something to think about...

regards

Robert

--

CNET News.com    http://www.news.com/
A battle for the soul of the Internet

By Elliot Noss
http://news.com.com/A+battle+for+the+soul+of+the+Internet/
2010-1071_3-5737647.html

Without garnering much attention, a battle is raging for the soul of 
the Internet.

The United Nations and the International Telecommunications Union are 
trying to wrest control of domain names and DNS and IP addresses from 
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. This battle 
manifests itself through the United Nations-created World Summit on 
the Information Society and the ITU-led Working Group on Internet 
Governance.

While the Internet itself is essentially a series of protocols 
adhered to by consent, it relies on a single authoritative root at 
its core. This assures that Internet users end up where they should 
when they type "www.news.com" into their browsers. Anything but 
uniqueness with this vital resource would result in collision and 
confusion. The same would be true for e-mail. Unless senders could be 
sure there was only one unique identifier for a recipient, they could 
not use e-mail with confidence.

Both the United Nations and the ITU have their reasons for trying to 
take control of these vital resources from ICANN. For the United 
Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the nation state 
structure and could become a model for similar efforts covering 
subject matter most appropriately dealt with at a global level.

For the ITU, gaining control of core Internet resources represents an 
opportunity to put the Internet genie back in the bottle and gain a 
greater measure of relevance in the IP networking world. The ITU 
doesn't see itself as merely an overseer of the old circuit-switched 
networks, which it presides over today. Rather, it views itself as 
the overseer of all networks, including the Internet.

While ICANN has its flaws, it also possesses important and unique 
characteristics. Two are worthy of special note.

First, ICANN's form of governance explicitly includes policy, 
technical, business and user interests under one roof. Each interest 
group has a formal role and voice in both policy making and 
governance. Each has a stake in the proceedings, and each is an 
important part of the system. (Yes, users' voices need be heard more, 
and as an active participant in the ICANN process and member of the 
2005 ICANN Nominating Committee, I will continue to work toward that 
goal.) Having these combined interests explicitly inside the process 
avoids some of the perversions that we have seen in other forms of 
governance, campaign finance being perhaps the starkest example.

Second, ICANN is a truly global organization. It is global in the 
sense that the individuals involved each represent one of the above-
mentioned interests but not national governments. This is an 
important concept, in that the Internet is truly a global resource, 
but it is this unique element that creates the greatest challenge. We 
have no model for managing a global resource of this nature. There 
are numerous models for managing international resources--resources 
being managed between nations--but that is not what the Internet is.

In this regard, ICANN mirrors the Internet in that it works by "rough 
consensus." The checks and balances are systemic. This is what has 
allowed for the price of domain names to drop by 50 percent to 75 
percent over the last five years, while service levels have increased 
dramatically. This is what has allowed the Uniform Domain Name 
Dispute Resolution Process to eliminate cybersquatting of trademarks.

The World Summit on Information Society contains 40 delegates, 
including members from Cuba, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, 
Tunisia, Pakistan, Syria, Russia and Egypt. If the United Nations 
controlled domain names and IP addresses, the ability of countries to 
censor the Internet would be greatly enhanced, as would the ability 
to tax or impose other regulatory burdens on these resources in order 
to fund unrelated projects of any kind.

In fact, if the United Nations and the ITU were successful, it is not 
difficult to envision a balkanization of the Internet, as whole 
portions of the network decided they did not want to rely on the 
United Nations and the ITU for their single authoritative root. If 
that balkanization were to take place, the damage to the global 
economy would be incalculable.

In addition, these Internet governance positions would not be plum 
United Nations postings. We could expect to see the likes of Internet 
pioneer Vint Cerf replaced by some dictator's wife's third cousin.

For the United Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the 
nation-state structure.
The United Nations and the ITU are putting forward two main arguments 
for replacing ICANN. They claim such a move is necessary to wrest 
control of the Internet from the United States and that ICANN is a 
private organization, beholden to no one and representing no one.

To be clear, ICANN is a not-for-profit California corporation that 
nominally reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce. It operates 
under a memorandum of understanding with the agency that is reviewed 
and renewed in six-month intervals.

Despite this, ICANN is not American--it is global. There are three 
Americans on a 15-person board of directors. There are six Americans 
on the 22-person generic names-supporting organization council, the 
main policy-making body. Two Americans are on the 10-person at-large 
advisory council. There has not been a meeting in the United States 
since November 2001, and the earliest possibility of a U.S. meeting 
is in June 2007, a 17-meeting gap. (The last North American meeting 
was in Montreal in June 2003, and the next is in Vancouver, British 
Columbia, in December.)

As for it being representative, ICANN has always had one prerequisite 
for involvement: a willingness to take the time and effort to 
participate. There is active representation from Internet communities 
from around the world. The level of participation, the quality of 
participation and the output of the process have steadily improved 
over ICANN's history.

Neither the United Nations nor the ITU can make any of these claims. 
Participation in their processes requires a position with a national 
government or a telecommunications monopoly, neither of which are 
known for their deep appreciation and understanding of the Internet.

There is no doubt that both the United Nations and the ITU are much 
more adept at politics than either ICANN staff or the vast majority 
of participants in the ICANN process. That makes the threat here all 
the more real.

It is important to remember that we all rely on the rich ecosystem 
that is the free Internet. We are all beneficiaries of the innovation 
it spawns, the information it provides and the interaction it 
supports. We cannot take this for granted.

Companies that rely on a free Internet--and there are few technology 
companies that don't--need to become active in the ICANN process 
through the business or ISP Constituencies. Other institutions and 
nonprofits need to get involved through the noncommercial constituency.

Companies, institutions and individuals from around the world that 
have access to their governments' decision makers need to let them 
know that the Internet needs to stay free and that supporting ICANN 
supports that principle. Individuals who care about the future of the 
Internet and believe they can contribute to creating a better ICANN 
and preserving a freer Internet should think about the ICANN-
nominating committee's call for Statements of Interest, which seeks 
qualified candidates to help the organization move forward.

The Internet has contributed more to freedom, education and 
innovation than any other advance of the last number of decades. It 
deserves to be protected from the people and the institutions that do 
not share an appreciation for preserving the values on which the 
Internet was founded.

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>

_______________________________________________
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