[governance] Second Draft of Statement on USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention

[Hans Klein]

I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is the first 
"political" use by the US of its authority over the root.

To date, concerns about the US's "special role" vis a vis ICANN have been 
hypothetical.  The US has had the power to veto ICANN decisions, but it has 
not (visibly) done so.

The world watched closely when .PS was added to the root, and the world 
held its breath when the Libyan TLD registry experienced some operational 
failures. But in fact  these cases were not the result of geo-politics.

So the US could -- and did -- claim to have a good track record as the 
neutral overseer of the IANA function.  But that good record is now marred.

First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its authority 
over the root.  It manifests the unique power that the US has.

Second, this action is based on explicitly socio-political concerns (as 
opposed to techno-administrative concerns.)  It is a "political" action. So 
the claim of neutrality is shattered.

So we now have a case where unilateral control of the root by one country 
allows it to impose its political will on the Internet.

Will every government now demand an equal right?  Will all governments wish 
to exercise political control over ICANN?  If so, things are going to get 
very complex indeed!

It is indeed important to react vocally to this development, so that others 
see its significance.

Hans






At 02:46 PM 8/20/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Izumi:
>Thanks for your comment, understand about the lack of time. Frankly, I
>didn't expect you or certain other interim ALAC Board members to change
>your minds about anything. So the revisions were not targeted at you. I
>do however greatly respect your surprising willingness to engage, which
>contrasts quite markedly with certain other ALAC appointees. Thank you
>again.
>
>I would like to address one issue you raise, however.
>
> >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/20/05 2:11 PM >>>
> >AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
> >would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
> >differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.
>
>Of course ICM had no choice but to accept the delay after it was
>requested by DoC. I am quite sure they are not happy about this delay
>and possible reversal. My guess is that they want to be cooperative so
>that they maximize their chances of being treated favorably during this
>delay. But if someone holds a gun to your head and says, "give me your
>money or I'll shoot you" and you respond cooperatively, saying "sure,
>here it is, take it" - it doesn't mean you agree with what is
>happening.
>
>Regarding "urgent need" I think we may never agree, but I am very
>confident about my intuition that this is a critical event in ICANN's
>history. The refusal or inability of ALAC and IGC to address it is quite
>disturbing - especially since WGIG Report identified US unilateral
>control of DNS as a priority issue. I guess people are mixed up because
>of the "pornography" connection. They are overlooking the only two
>critical facts that matter: 1) this is the first time the US Commerce
>Dept has used its special powers over ICANN in a policy context; 2) the
>political pressure is coming from a group that advocates censorship. If
>.xxx decision is reversed and the precedent means what I think it will
>mean, and we say nothing, it is a tragedy.
>_______________________________________________
>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