[governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here

Sun Aug 10 22:53:01 EDT 2008

Lee and all,

  Thank you for your remarks and opinions.  I think you made
my ahd Karl's longs standing case.  ICANN needs "Adult"
supervision, and why in part, that is does.  The only question
remaining is, is DOC/NTIA the best choice, and if not, whom
is.  A secondary question might be:  Could and should DOC/NTIA
or whomever else that might replace same, have a more forceful
contractual arrangement with ICANN, and how and what social
principals should be a part of that arrangement.

  Oh yes, and Lee, as an aside, remember always, brevity, brevity,
brevity.  >:)

Lee W McKnight wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Been in transit lately and when not, biting my tongue.
>
> A few points:
> Addressing Karl's 1) & 2) The DARPA->NSF->NTIA/DOC passage of various
> US federal levers over the net/ICANN are well-documented, and I expect
> will stand up to legal scrutiny, even in a California court
> a) Karl's more subtle point that ICANN is NOT formally obliged to do
> anything the US federal government/NTIA tells it to do, is surely
> correct, and explains why NTIA is now obliged to send somewhat whiny
> notes to ICANN just like everyone else, if it wants something done
> b) which suggests that the most plausible path toward multistakeholder
> evolution of control remains going through ICANN, in my opinion, in
> spite of its faults, such as
> b)1 in spite of the various breaches of proper administrative
> procedure as can be pointed to in things like the .XXX decision
> courtesy of a Karl Rove/White House phone call, or the apparent petty
> harrassment of .ir over switching fax numbers on a timely basis
> c) to be fair to ICANN, it is all of 10 years old (who's throwing the
> party? ; ), and sometimes seems to act with the maturity and
> thoughtfulness, of my 10 year old (who is mature for her age, but only
> sometimes).
>
> with regard to 3), I agree, that first in the final days of the Bush
> administration one would be truly shocked if the NTIA said anything
> other than what it did; second, neither Obama nor McCain will 'lose'
> the Internet, nor wish to be put in a political position in which they
> could be accused of the same; which suggests that an evolutionary
> political - technical process, in which ICANN is one but not the only
> international actor, is the way forward, since the USG won't let go of
> any lever without a credible and perceived to be fair and
> operationally effective alternative. It's political, sure, but the
> economic importance of the net means all governments will tread
> carefully here.
>
> On 4), while Karl has elucidated how and why multiple roots can work
> without disruption, the bigger challenge remains that which Parminder
> has spoken up about, and which many seem to shy away from, explicating
> how enhanced cooperation on Internet governance can evolve to include
> governments, business and civil society interests from North and
> South, and East and West,  in appropriate oversight of a globally
> distributed system of systems, containing many many networks of
> networks.  The vehemence with which we often find ourselves
> interacting on this list is just a small taste of how hard this will
> be, but I remain optimistic that as IGF grows up, it can play a
> helpful role in a more multistakeholder 'enhanced cooperation'
> process, than the closed-door, governments only process to date. And I
> don't see this as a simple thing to vote on, it will take time and
> effort to work this all through.  Definitely more time than the Bush
> administration has left.
>
> In sum, considering the commercial Internet is just a teenager, and
> ICANN is even younger, things could be way worse than they are - let's
> look on te bright side. If we could only maintain a modest degree of
> focus here on the list, we might actually make a contribution
> ourselves to getting a net which serves civil society first and
> foremost! (and I am part of the we, so please take that as
> self-criticism)
>
> Lee
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com]
> Sent: Sat 8/9/2008 8:18 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
> Cc: 'Parminder'; Milton L Mueller; 'William Drake'
> Subject: Re: [governance] USG on ICANN - no movement here
>
> 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
>
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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