[governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here

[Karl Auerbach]

Michael Gurstein wrote:

> It seems to me that the issue here is whether the term "neo-imperialism"...

Or, to be more in vogue, "i-imperalism" or "e-imperalism". ;-)

As my mailbox fill and overflows with the gnashing of teeth and 
shredding of garments about the US Dept of Commerce statement certain 
"facts-of-life" come to my mind:

1. It is not at all clear that the US Dep't of Commerce has the legal 
authority to bind the US to any path in this area whatsoever.  (But my 
government has over the last couple of decades rather lost the notion 
that legal authority is a prerequisite for anything, sigh.)

2. But even if the US Dep't of Commerc does not have the legal 
authority, certainly the US gov't as a whole *does* have the power to 
impose its will on ICANN, which exists as a legal entity in California 
which, last time I looked, is still part of the US.  And even if ICANN 
were not a creature of US law there is still the fact that Verisign, 
which currently has the contract to do the root zone, isn't going to 
move from the US any time soon.

3. The political situation here in the US makes it pretty much 
impossible for any political animal in gov't to advocate, or even simply 
overlook, any path that would take the ultimate lever of control out of 
US hands.  The 1950's may be a long time ago to some of us, but the US 
gov't still wonders "who is the man who lost China" and fears being 
labeled as having "lost the internet".  Yes, our gov't needs adult 
supervision, but that's been true ever since 1789.  Nobody should expect 
that situation to change soon no matter what happens in our fall 
election this year.

4. There *is* a solution that simply causes all of this to vanish - and 
that solution has, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, always been at our 
fingertips (or in her case, her toe-tips):

There is no reason whatsoever that the internet can not have multiple, 
consistent root systems, each offering up its own perception of the 
proper set of top level domains (disputes over conflicts of names of 
TLDs would be handled by exactly the same international mechanisms used 
today to deal with global brand names, and besides, if you or your ISP 
don't like what one root zone offers you can simply use one you like 
better.)

That system can work, and work without chaos, and it is quite in line 
with the way that we work as humans in a multi-lingual world.  It is 
only our own mental blocks that prevent this from happening and 
obviating any single overlord of names on the internet.

		--karl--

____________________________________________________________
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