[governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on roottransition -important

[Milton Mueller]

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 10/27/2005 11:53 PM >>>

>The triumverate arrangement could not possibly remain in its 
>current form if one party has withdrawn (Verisign) .So I can't 
>see how this isn't on the table.

The object of the policy was never to have a "triumverate arrangement"
per se but to protect and advance the interests of the specific players.
You must understand that VeriSign - not USG - started out in 1996-7 with
de facto control of the root. USG has wanted all along to get that away
from VRSN and move it to its chosen instrument, ICANN, mainly for
competition policy reasons. The interest of the USG in policy authority
over the root remains unchanged, whether or not VeriSign is part of the
picture. For its part, VRSN just wants its business interests protected.
It now has permanent .com and received .net, which will probably also
turn out to be permanent. So now it accepts ICANN, and astoundingly (if
you read the settlement agreement) agrees not even to criticize ICANN
publicly. But by shifting the arrangements in this way the US in no way
puts its policy authority on the table. 

>I'll be interested to read it and whether the above is merely 
>your interpretation or is based on some clear policy statements 
>of USG that make root zone authorisation more important than 
>oversight.

There is no doubt that policy authority over the root is more important
than oversight via MoU. Without the former, how can you do the latter?
If you don't control where the IANA contract goes and retain control
over RZF modifications, why should any entity agree to Mou-type
oversight? 

There are such statements, but don't have time to point to them now.
Look at DoC's NTIA DNS page for the Sept 16 2003 press release of the
current MoU.  USG has always indicated that the MoU could expire or be
"fulfilled" in a way that makes it unnecessary. Until June 30, it was
always vague about whether policy authority woudl ever be given up, and
after June 30 it is quite clear that it will not; USG sees it as more
important. 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance