[governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall

[ian.peter at ianpeter.com]

Milton,

The one thing that is for sure is that ICANN will not base its 
decisions on what
you or I think. However I don't read the advisability of various responses the
same way as you do. (and I doubt the current situation will mean the end of
.xxx either, just a delay)

On my reading, ICANN can't win on this one. If ICANN chooses not to 
comply with
GAC or USG requests on this issue, it is opening itself up to further calls
from governments in the WSIS context - with USG on their side this time - for
greater government control of ICANN. That probably would spell the end of
Option Two for government involvement in ICANN and GAC as a useful 
vehicle, and
lead to something more harsh.

If ICANN complies with a request from GAC on the other hand, it shows 
GAC to be
a workable model for input of governmental concerns that can be built on and
refined. There are some fine nuances of language needed in responding, but to
ride roughshod over both USG and GAC's concerns at this time would be 
suicidal.

My reading is that the .xxx process was flawed, something I argued here 
in June.
Raul says (and I agree) the decision was unintelligent as well. I said 
some time
ago that it was a bad bit of timing strategically. The chickens have now come
home to roost and ICANN probably won't look good whatever it does. And 
no point
in blaming governments for this, the current situation was both 
predictable and
predicted.



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +617 3870 1181
Fax +617 3105 7404
Mob +614 1966 7772
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet)
www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005)


Quoting Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

> Raul:
> Your views are reasonable and reassuring enough, but we see things
> differently. Let's agree to move beyond our different interpretation of
> the role of the USG.
>
> Let's agree to focus instead on two other issues 1) the role of
> governments in gTLD approval and in ICANN generally; 2) whether ICANN
> works on the basis of known procedures and rules, or whether "anything
> goes" based on how much political noise you can make and how politically
> powerful you are.
>
> Those are the more fundamental issues.
>
> 1) Role of governments
> GAC or governments must not have an arbitrary veto power over gTLD
> selections. In a true multistakeholder governance process like ICANN,
> they do not have special status - they must participate in the TLD
> evaluation on the same level as everyone else. If they are too lazy or
> incompetent to follow the process until it is over, why should they be
> able to veto it later? If they did not like this process they can
> propose to change it in future decisions.
>
> Raul, if ANY other segment of ICANN had raised objections to a TLD
> after the Board had made a decision -- ALAC, GNSO, ccSO, etc. -- would
> we have this result? There is only one honest answer to this question:
> No. Thus, the .xxx delay constitutes an important assertion of national
> government claim to superior authority and power. I reject that
> assertion. I hope ICANN does, too.
>
> Furthermore, no gTLD proposal should have to be acceptable to every
> government in the world, because no gTLD proposal ever will be so
> acceptable. In this case, governments have proven that they are
> concerned exclusively with scoring political points, not with sound
> administration of DNS.
>
> 2) Process
> I am very surprised by the alacrity with which people accept the fact
> that ICANN basically has no rules, that anything goes as long as a few
> powerful people (USG, Twomey, a few GAC members) can quietly agree among
> themselves. Defined rules and transparent procedures are the only friend
> the less powerful participants in international institutions have. If we
> don't have that, we have nothing, because we certainly have no guns,
> vastly fewer resources. The only way there can be fair and open
> participation in an institution is for it to be run according to known,
> easily accessible and predictable procedures.
>
> The .xxx decision tells us that nothing ICANN does follows a known
> procedure, that anything is up for grabs, and that a few powerful people
> can make a few phone calls and overturn any decision it makes. That's
> bad. That's the second reason I feel so strongly about this.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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