[governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)]

And do we still agree with the text below?

I'll stop here.  I am not meaning to be pedantic by sending these
texts.  This and the other email with language from our reply to the
WGIG report were used as the basis for many of our interventions
during prepcom3. They were the outcome of long discussion and a lot of
effort. It is troubling to me that now we might not agree.  Of course
the discussion moves on rapidly and text like this becomes dated.  But
at a general level we should surely still support these statements?

Thanks,

Adam



Caucus response to the WGIG report.

WGIG report para 15 and 76, on the Root Zone file; "Initial comments
by the European Union and the acceding countries Romania and Bulgaria,
on the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance," of August
1, 2005, and NTIA statement  (NTIA statement "U.S. principles on the
Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System," of June 30, 2005.)

50.  We agree with the WGIG and others that,
- existing flexible, bottom up Internet governance efforts such as
those made by ICANN, are invaluable for the continued security and
stability of the Internet, and must be protected from political
interference and
- existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more
solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.

51. On that note, whilst we applaud the EU's 'initial comments' for:
- recognizing the critical significance of the Internet's founding
design principles, "including interoperability, openness and the
end-to-end principle"
- and for pledging the EU to support a multistakeholder process in its
continued participation in the WSIS process.

However, we regret that the EU makes no explicit reference to the role
of civil society.

52. We also agree with the US government that governments have
legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the
management of their ccTLD,

53. We further wish to emphasize our strong agreement with WGIG that
no single government should have a pre-eminent role in global
governance of the logical infrastructure of the Internet.

54. We note however that the US statement recently made by Michael D.
Gallagher, Assistant secretary at the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), has caused concern and raised a
number of questions.

55. The statement has been interpreted by some as a manifestation of a
US strategy that it will never give up its control over core Internet
resources including root zone file, root server operation, Domain Name
and IP address management, and related resource management, and by
others as a US formal summary of its current policies, without
indicating how or when those policies might change in future..

56. Specifically, the US NTIA declaration indicates that the current
contractual framework regarding US  unilateral control over the root
zone file will be maintained. This directly contradicts the consensus
of Civil Society and the WGIG that "No single Government should have a
pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance" (in
para 48 of the WGIG report").

57. Civil Society does not unreservedly endorse the current state of
ICANN, with respect to its   representational structures and policy
development processes, and believes there is room for improvement to
enhance the participation of all stakeholders, as is outlined in the
WGIG report. However, we also consider that the model the ICANN
community has developed to date is still far better than the direction
the US statement appears to indicate, which is similar in tone to
statements of other governments which do not bound their call for a
greater governmental role involvement in Internet governance

58.  We understand and appreciate that the current ICANN model puts
the technical community in charge of technical resource development,
management and operation. It provides an effective, if still
imperfect, framework for coordination and cooperation among private
sector (including the technical community), governments and civil
society (including users and non-commercial entities) in its policy
development and decision making process.

59. We call for the evolutionary yet significant improvement of this
framework, one that enhances the stable, secure and innovative
functioning of the Internet, and provides increased authority achieved
by the consensual agreement and involvement of all stakeholders.

60. Unilateral oversight without consent of other stakeholders will
not contribute to the long-term stability and security of the Internet
for the benefit of all users and citizens, and may place stability and
security at risk.

61.Since issuing the statement the US government has explained that it
regards the DNS as critical to the stable and secure operation of the
Internet and, consequently, until such time as a workable alternative
to the current arrangement is presented and agreed, it will maintain
its historic and current role.

62.The caucus recognizes this position, and notwithstanding our firm
position regarding the need to end the  pre-eminent role of the US
government in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the
Internet, recommends that:

a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments
have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to
the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further
opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to
ensuring progress, the US government should state that it will take no
action to cause any TLD to be removed from the root zone file, or any
redelegation to occur, without the explicit approval of the government
or economy responsible for the TLD in the case of ccTLD and
contracting party with ICANN in the case of any other TLD.

b) Sub-Committee A establish a working group in the lead up to the
Tunis WSIS summit.
to explore how the process of authorizing changes or modifications to
the authoritative root zone file (authorizing additions, deletions and
redelegations, not operational adjustments) can be agreed to the
mutual satisfaction of  all stakeholders

c) the US government should commit to ensuring the independence of
ICANN from its control by:

- terminating the MOU with ICANN in 2006;
- supporting a host country agreement regarding ICANN;
- issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above
- participating in the proposed multi-stakeholder group (under the
auspices of the Chair of Subcommittee A) to establish a binding
agreement with other governments on the principles and norms of
administration and governance that will preserve the freedom, openness
and innovation of the Internet.

63. We believe this course of action would offer some satisfaction to
some government's concern and offer a way to find a lasting solution.

END

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