[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[Adam Peake]

Comment below: 

On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote:

> Here are a few comments in line with JK
> 
> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop
> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by
> court order?) to delete that ccTLD?
> 


This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok <http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/>.  Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004.  U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it seems we shouldn't worry too much.  However, whatever we think the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go away.  It might be helpful to codify what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that up in nice language).
 
This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next April, discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and agree a policy statement on root operations.  Not going to agree anything much in two days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group to come up proposals/recommendations. A working group that reports progress and outcomes within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed by a broader community.  Might make it part of a larger effort looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it should be one of the topics.  More on this in another email.  
 
Adam


> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions,  must be agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml).  
> 
> 
> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight
> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent
> of the UN?
> 
> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it.  If the USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. 
>  
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t