[governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response

[Milton Mueller]

Ronald Koven:
Regarding ICANN, we now have a smoking gun for you. The ICANN
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has issued a letter expressing the
view that ICANN's Board should reverse a decision it has already made,
because some members of GAC don't like the idea of having a .xxx
top-level domain. 

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-board-12aug05.htm

Please note that under ICANN's structure, GAC has no authority
whatsoever to ask for such a thing. And yet, it might get it.

Now this is relevant to our discussion in two ways:

First, it validates the worries of those who feel that giving
governments a greater role in Internet "public policy" wil be enabling
arbitrary, political interference in the administration of the Internet.
 (I know this will come as no surprise to you, but read on....)

Second, it demonstrates to you that this threat does NOT come from
nations acting collectively as the "UN." The real threat comes when the
powers of government are undefined and, therefore, potentially
unlimited. In this case, it comes from within the ICANN system, and
especially in those areas where the role of government is NOT bounded by
collective agreements among themselves as to what their authority is and
is not. 

Some governments are using the informal power of GAC within ICANN to
exert a form of pressure that is arbitrary, illegitimate and unlawful.
No international agreement of any kind gives governments, singly or in
GAC, the authority to exert censorship over what domain names exist in
the root. If a formal negotiation among governments was held, it is
doubtful they would ever get that authority. But here they are, right
smack in the middle of ICANN, trying the exercise that authority. 

Now, you have asserted, Rony that the USG "has refrained from
interfering in ICANN's operations." I think this is utterly wrong, given
that USG is the contractor of ICANN and ICANN is ultimately answerable
to it. But looking beyond that rather salient point, the point is that
we have to treat ALL governments as a threat, not just the USG. Today,
it's Brazil and France and a bunch of other govts who are up in arms
about .xxx; tomorrow it could be the US about something that turns it
on. It's logically inconsistent and woefully naive to place your faith
in any one government. The only thing that restrains power is agreed law
(in this case, international law) and (as the old saying goes) eternal
vigilance on the part of the governed. 

--MM



Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

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