[governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the ITU Resolution 102 from Antalya? Is there some interpretation what means what? US Government obviously has supported (or watered down and when yes what was the earlier version?) the text. You will find in the adopted text seven times "enhanced cooperation", half a dozen times "domain names and IP addresses" but ICANN is not mentioned at all. Is this a new US double-strategy? Or a farewell to "private sector leadership"?

wolfgang
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Sun 12/3/2006 6:37 PM
To: aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN	relationship
 
>>> aizu at anr.org 12/2/2006 2:34:09 PM >>>
>I naiively had thought that USG/DOC has had the ultimate authority
>over .com and any other resources, despite, or in addition to ICANN's
>authority which is under the mercy of USG anyway with the MoU.
>
>Is there any really new element between DOC and VeriSign to the
existing
>cooperative agreement?

Yes. 

VeriSign's control of .com began with a National Science Foundation
"cooperative agreement" starting in 1991, which was switched to the
Commerce Dept in 1997. But the whole idea of ICANN was that assignment
and regulation of gTLD registries, including VeriSign, would be
delegated to ICANN. 

The Nov. 30 decision is quite significant because Commerce is giving up
on using ICANN to renew .com, it asserts that it must have final say on
any aspect of the registry contract. Nothing like that formally existed
before. 

>Does VeriSingh have more "freedom" than before?

No, it has less in some respects. 

>Has ICANN really been undermined (looks like)?

Yes, because its registry agreement for .com is now formally reviewed
and approved by Commerce, rather than the decision being fully delegated
to ICANN. If you are VeriSign, you negotiate primarily with Commerce
about .com, not ICANN. 

>Are these change very clear, or subject of interpretation?

Oh, anything can be "interpreted" in different ways, that's what you
pay PR flaks for, and that's why certain apologists will never concede
anything. 

Just read the agreement, to me it's very clear that this is (yet
another) significant departure from the concept of an independent,
globalized Internet governance authority and a another step toward
stronger US control. 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance