[governance] oversight

[Carlos Afonso]

As established in formal statements in the US Congress (a joint 
resolution on Oct.18) and the federal government, the discussion on the 
USG position regarding governance of the logical infrastructure has 
became academic. The position is to keep ICANN under the US government - 
forget about the end of the MOU and so on. So any "common ground" 
between the USA and the rest of the world could happen only on issues 
*beyond* governance of names, numbers and protocols. As the joint 
resolution by the Senate and the House states:

"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That 
it is the sense of Congress that--

            (1) it is incumbent upon the United States and other 
responsible governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that 
the current structure of oversight and management of the Internet's 
domain name and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver 
tangible benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and
            (2) therefore the authoritative root zone server should 
remain physically located in the United States and the Secretary of 
Commerce should maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue 
to manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain name and 
addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet stakeholders 
worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical mission."

This is not law, but several other resolutions (like Senator Coleman's) 
are pushing in the same direction, and this has become formal enough to 
determine the course of things.

In plain English, the view is that the USA government has outsourced 
Internet logical infrastructure management services to a US corporation 
called ICANN and will continue to do so for the sake of ensuring 
continuing control over the network, in the name of "stability and 
security". Period.

So, any negotiation on this with the USA will most certainly be cosmetic 
only in the current state of affairs... Which USA negotiator would risk 
his/her position by going even slightly against this? What are the 
alternatives?

frt rgds

--c.a.

Raul Echeberria wrote:

>Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>  
>
>>wcurrie at apc.org ha scritto:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal 
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I would avoid adopting or making reference to any governmental proposal, 
>>even if just as a starting point. If you start from the Argentinian 
>>proposal, you join the "pro-USG anti-EU" front, and if you start from 
>>the EU proposal, it's the opposite.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>I don't agree with your intepretation.
>I don't think that the Argentinian proposal is a "pro-USG anti-EU" 
>proposal. I neither think that the EU proposal is anti-USG.
>They are just different proposals, and surely there will be negotiations 
>(if there have not been yet) between the different groups.
>
>BTW, don't be afraid of mentioning one specific proposal if it has 
>points that are of the interest of this caucus.
>Different proposals could have different things that would deserve support.
>
>Raúl
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




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