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

Mon Dec 4 09:25:12 EST 2006

Dear Danny,

What you write accepting multilateral roles across the board, as I read it,
seems very sensible in that *university think=tanks for instance* have
usually relied on *budgetings* that translate often into quasi or real
private sector endeavors in significant parts rather than purely civil
society endeavors (or, certainly grass roots endeavors).

I don't meant this pessimistically; overheard at World Bank once:  'Budgets
are what stand between (in the good sense as well as others) Governments and
Projects'.

A review of the history of computing itself seems to support this inclusive
POV and render it not unpalatable.  (Sidebar: You seem both a realist and an
idealist at the same time, nice work! Classic and romantic mixes, as
perceived here .. just an interpretation of course).

:) Linda..

On 12/4/06, Danny Butt <db at dannybutt.net> wrote:
>
> Hasn't it always been the case that the government of the US (or any
> economically powerful free-market economy) gives the "private sector"
> a "leadership role" when that is coextensive with geopolitical
> interests?
>
> I always saw ICANN as being on a USG leash that would be pulled
> whenever convenient, or if it became too international - regardless
> of the formal wording of the MoU. Hopefully we can now dispense with
> the distracting fiction that ICANN was an model of a mythical user-
> led global internet. The primary actors in that organisation have
> always been more or less in accord with USG interests, gestures
> against "government control" notwithstanding.
>
> From my POV, a truly multistakeholder process advocated by civil
> society has to assert multilateralism as one of its strongest
> principles, rather than using idealist antipathy to any governmental
> involvement as a way of avoiding the questions about who actually has
> the power in IG arrangements.
>
> Danny
>
> On 04/12/2006, at 6:45 AM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> Danny Butt
> db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
> Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
> Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
> Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.)
> InterNetizen, ARPANet forward;  Presenter,/ Intervenor  Internet
> Governance Forum Athens 2006, WSIS/SMSI Tunis -II '05;  WSIS Geneva '03.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061204/70f6cdac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061204/70f6cdac/attachment.txt>