[governance] ITU IG Resolution

[Lee McKnight]

Jeanette, Adam, Milton, everyone,

Re the USG stance re ccTLDs and sovereign nations, remember I
deconstructed that on this list right after the Dept of Commerce's NTIA
issued its '4 principles' statement June '05:

USG now recognizes governments of nations have final say over their own
ccTLDs, not usg or icann.   Or whomever happens to be operating it at
the moment. That's realpolitik 101 of ccTLDs these days. 

June 05 the US DOC/NTIA said: " Governments have legitimate interest in
the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD).  The
United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy
and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. 
As such, the United States is committed to working with the
international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the
fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's
DNS."

My impression is ICANN has gotten the message and is working harder to
assist governments with ccTLD concerns of one sort or anothers. ICANN
will need more support from governments, not just USG, in the next moves
in the chess game as Wolfgang put it, than in the past.

(And of course, if explicit pro-IPR/UDRP language can be inserted in
bilateral trade agreements, all the better from the perspective of this
US admin and oh yeah the usual suspect powerhouse DC lobby groups.)

Lee 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 11/24/2006 12:10 PM >>>


Milton Mueller schrieb:
> Adam:
> These free trade agreements that attempt to globalize US anti-privacy

> Whois policies are truly evil things, and indicate the degree to
which
> US of A policy is driven by intellectual property interests. 
> 
> But I am not sure what they have to do with the ITU, except that the
> USA has been promoting WTO and trade agreements as a way of
bypassing
> ITU power over the international telecom sector for a decade now. 

It seems, the USG also bypasses ICANN and assumes that contracting 
governments have full control over the management of their ccTLD. One 
wonders what the ccNSO is for if the US government can negotiate all 
relevant matters in bilateral contracts, no?
jeanette

> 
>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11/24/2006 6:04 AM >>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
> wrote:
>>>  That's an amazing resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can
write
> six
>>>  pages on the management of Internet domain names and addresses
and
> not
>>>  mention ICANN even once!
>> Amazing perhaps, but also entirely predictable; did anyone really
> believe
>> the spin that the Tunis Agenda constituted a unanimous
> intergovernmental
>> bear hug for ICANN?  Moreover, while the TA called for enhanced
> cooperation
>> on public policies to be started by the UN
> Secretary-General---involving all
>> relevant organizations and stakeholders---by the end of the first
> quarter of
>> 2006, it seems that not much has happened besides some sotto vocci,
>> selective bilateral/small-n consultations.  Not surprising then
that
>> governments would want to see the agenda carried forward on a
> multilateral
>> basis in the ITU.  Of course, the "involving all stakeholders"
> language may
>> be of little practical consequence in the ITU without reforms that
> will not
>> be forthcoming in the near term.
>>
>> Some other notable bits of word-craft for deconstruction:
>>
>> "the development of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and the
> Internet,
>> taking into account the requirements, features and interoperability
> of
>> next-generation networks (NGN);"
>>
>> " Member States represent the interests of the population of the
> country or
>> territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;"
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting problem.  The US (USTR) is writing clauses 
> into bilateral free trade agreements requiring the ccTLDs of the 
> country signing the FTA to adopt some form of dispute resolution 
> policy. Example, words from the US/AU agreement goes on to also 
> indicate whois "each Party shall require that the management of its 
> country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) provide an appropriate 
> procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles 
> established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy.
> 
> 2. Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD provide

> online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact 
> information for domain-name registrants."
> 
> Search string such as "ccTLD free trade agreement" in google finds a
> bunch.
> 
> I would think one way to read this is that US also thinks member 
> states control ccTLDs and can enforce rules  on them.  Not what I 
> thought the US position was in WSIS.  But I might be getting 
> hot&bothered over a non-issue...
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> " the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other
> Internet
>> resources within the mandate of ITU."  [phrase appears five times
in
> the
>> text]
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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