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

[Veni Markovski]

Milton,

At 17:32 14-08-05  -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Ronald Koven:
>Regarding ICANN, we now have a smoking gun for you. The ICANN

I don't see this as a "smoking gun". It's so normal to have such a 
discussion, that there's nothing more normal than that. It's good that the 
governments have decided to start it. Finally:)

>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.

Actually that's not the intent of the letter. It says "the Board should 
allow time for additional governmental and public policy concerns to be 
expressed before reaching a final decision on this TLD." I'd like to make 
sure in this environment there's no speculations about what was said. I 
somehow wonder why would you think that this is a request to "reverse a 
decision the Board has already made".
On the other hand, of course, having the governments request a longer time 
for discussion, after 5 years of such discussion, seems a little bit 
delayed, but what can we do about it...better late than never.

>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.

Actually GAC asks for more time, not for a different decision.

Veni

p.s. the opinion expressed are my own, and do not engage any of the 
organizations I work with or for.

>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

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