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

[Ian Peter]

Hans,

Anyone reading this list will know the extent to which I am opposed to US
unilateral control of the root zone. However,

1. I would rather argue this case on the principle of the preferability of
multilateral control of the root zone, rather than on a particular example
which raises more red herrings than an Atlantic fishing fleet.

2. I would prefer to argue unilateral unacceptability in principle, rather
than use an example in which the US point is largely the same as that
advanced by GAC.

3. I would be more careful with my words than to refer to a "veto" when no
veto exists.   

4. I would not argue the case against unilateral control on the basis of
public policy being an area where government has no legitimate involvement,
when government involvement in public policy is a central WSIS theme.

5. I would not argue against unilateral control on a basis which requires me
to defend current ICANN public policy evolution processes (note the wording
of the US letter which makes a distinction between the "ICANN community" and
the "Internet community" (many of whom would not have heard of ICANN, let
alone its processes). 

6. I don't see why the US Government or GAC should have any less rights than
me to write to ICANN and suggest they reverse a decision. 

7.I would do everything I could to avoid confusing the debate on unilateral
control of root zone policy with a debate on censorship or pron.



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hans Klein
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2005 3:34 PM
To: Milton Mueller; aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Second Draft of Statement on
USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention


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

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 19/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 19/08/2005
 

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