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

Mon Aug 22 04:59:04 EDT 2005

Dear Hans,

I agree that the case is very special sand crucial. But we have to be very precise. 

The WGIG criticism against "unilateral control" is pointed to the "authorization function" for the publication of zone files in the root. A (mis)use of this power would occur only, if the NTIA blocks such a publication AFTER it has received the zone file documentation from IANA/ICANN. 

The present letter from NTIA to ICANN is, at this stage, nothing more that part of (a delayed) public comment process. Every government can write letters to ICANN. The problem is that the voice of one government is probably more heard by ICANN Board members that the voice of other governments, but this is part of a normal political process and does not constitute privileged legal positions. The question which could be asked is, why the US Government did not use the GAC process. One point here is, that the GAC has no formal procedures so far for this kind of cases. The "Operating Principles" are extremly vague in this respect.

But you are absolutely right, if one government asks for a delay today for .xxx, another government can ask for a delay of .freedom tomorrow and in the absence of a clear, open and transparent procedure, you open a pandora´s box. ICANN is indeed on slipptery territory. The only way out is to move foreward and to develop (on a multistakeholder basis) a clear and consistent (and content neutral) PDP for  g/sTLDs, as it is already underway. 

I think it makes sense
a. to write a letter to DOC (on behalf of US CS groups) and 
b.to draft a comment for ICANNs gTLD Public Discussion Forum (dateline is October, 15, 2005), see: http://www.icann.org/topics/gtld-strategy-area.html (on behalf of the CS IG Caucus)

Best regards

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Hans Klein
Gesendet: Mo 22.08.2005 07:34
An: Milton Mueller; aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: 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

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