[governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root

[Parminder]

Milton wrote:

> Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between two

> distinct things:

> 

> 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the

> inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are

> rules are made.

> 

> 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF).

 

> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two.

 

On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection between the two is
obvious. 

 

For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to relinquish
control over RZF? And this even at the risk of courting considerable
international ill-will for sticking to a very illogical and untenable stand
of unilateralism. Is it only because US is concerned about technical
stability and security of the Internet, and others may not be? Others are
equally concerned, and there cannot be any real difference of opinion on
this issue. It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it wont be
difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team of
international experts or some other expertise based arrangement.  Everyone
knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider political
control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to exercise such
political control over Internet. US government has other controls as well
through its legal relationship with some IG related bodies. 

 

>Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be

> accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help

> to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses its

> authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be

> accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition policy

> and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government

> business.

 

 

I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe
international law, should stick to all new and old international treaties
etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to ICANN's
interpretation and its goodwill? Or to US government which has all kinds of
control over ICANN? Every higher political power exercises its political
authority through reserving some powers of last resort. (ICANN being
incorporated under US law makes its subject to so many of these powers of US
gov which can kick in during an emergency - emergency for the US - that this
fact itself is scary for non US citizens). It is more important to have
these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control over RTZ is seen as
one of such powers that enable exercise of political authority. Whoever has
legitimate political power over public policy issues related to Internet can
only enforce it by having some powers of last resort over the actual running
of the infrastructure. This much is obvious, even if we may still debate
which body or arrangement should exercise political oversight over Internet.


 

 

 >Governments can have 1

> without 2. 

 

Maybe they can. I do not insist that formal process of authentication of RTZ
modification is the only 'control lever' available for enforcing political
oversight. There can be others, but this lever is being used at present by
US, and others see it as one of the main levers as well. One or the other
such lever will be needed for 'enforcing' political oversight. So if one
agrees with the need for political oversight, then one may have to see RTZ
control as a connected issue.      

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu]

> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 8:59 PM

> To: apeake at gmail.com; Governance

> Subject: Re: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-

> lateral oversight of the root

> 

> >>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>>

> >Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting

> >proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root

> 

> A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is

> Burr's.

> Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it.

> 

> Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between two

> distinct things:

> 

> 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the

> inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are

> rules are made.

> 

> 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF).

> 

> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can have 1

> without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be

> accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that help

> to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses its

> authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be

> accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition policy

> and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government

> business.

> 

> But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have some

> kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It seems to

> me that giving governments*any one or any collection of them*some kind of

> final veto power over the RZF is just asking for trouble. The Burr

> proposal tries to deal with this by saying that governments can intervene

> only to protect technical stability and security. But this is like telling

> a fox he can only eat one of the chickens he is guarding when the

> stability and security of the farm is threatened. The fox will always want

> to eat the chickens, and will use any excuse he can to define something as

> a threat to the farm's stability and security.

> 

> Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue as

> to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of the

> Internet. But they will know how their political interests are affected.

> They will want to control or affect the RZF for political reasons, not

> technical ones.

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060726/6a57d303/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060726/6a57d303/attachment.txt>