[chapter-delegates] Re: [MemberPubPol] Surprise statement by U.S. government on ICANN and DNS

[Gene Gaines]

On Saturday, July 2, 2005, 7:59:16 PM, ian.peter wrote:

> I'm writing on this subject here simply lest it be said that ISOC's membership
> seems disinterested in indefinite continuance of US unilateral control of root
> zone policy.

> This member as well as most who have written here are concerned that the root
> needs to be internationalised or globalised, whatever your choice of language.

> WGIG will most likely present some possible models. An easy one would
> have been
> GAC. But now we see a stated reluctance to discuss alternatives from USG.

> I wrote elsewhere that this puts ICANN in a difficult position. Say nothing
> about the particular subject of the root zone edit function (not vague
> statements about the MOU), and the widely held global perception that ICANN is
> a mere tool of USG policy will be reinforced.

> The same applies to ISOC. Not to at least express disappointment at this
> development would indicate that deference to the status quo is more important
> to ISOC than internationalisation of the net. ISOC only needs to say that
> "alternatives should be explored as the Internet grows" or something
> like that.

> Saying nothing at this point of time is the worst option for both ISOC and the
> Internet.

Ian,

You ask for a response to the Gallagher statement, and I am glad
you did.

MY SHORT ANSWER:

As a U.S. citizen, all I can say, at this time, is: (a) for this
statement to come as a surprise is really bad, (b) in any case
the timing, given the coming WGIG report to be issued soon, is
very bad, and (c) I am not sure what the statement means.

I want to learn more about the background here.

MY LONG ANSWER:

I suspect there is more here than meets the eye.

Two examples.

1) Does it mean that the U.S. NTIA is taking back some control
   from ICANN?

   "The United States will continue to provide oversight so that
   ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical
   mission."

   Does this mean that the U.S. government will move to limit
   ICANN to naming only?

2) Consider paragraph four.  I summarize that paragraph as:

   "... Internet governance ... there is no one venue to
   appropriately address the subject in its entirety ...
   In these fora, the United States will continue to
   support market-based approaches and private sector
   leadership in Internet development broadly."

   Is this statement a signal that the U.S. government intends
   not to accept any move by WSIS to set up an international
   Internet governing authority?  If so, this is the most
   important of the entire statement.

The U.S. Government position statement was announced by Michael
Gallagher, (NTIA Administrator & Assistant U.S. Secretary of
Commerce) at the WCA (Wireless Communications Association
International) 2005 conference in Washington DC on June 30.
I was a speaker at this conference, but did not attend
Gallagher's session.

Given that is the July Fourth summer holiday here, I have found
only one reporter that was present for Gallagher's statement.
Here is the story he wrote as a result of being there:
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

US Will Not Give Up Control of Internet Services
From: www.ecommercetimes.com/story/44357.html

By Keith Regan
E-Commerce Times
07/01/05 11:13 AM PT

"The U.S. government intends to preserve the security and
stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System
(DNS)," Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher said. He
added that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) is the "appropriate technical manager of the
Internet DNS."

Reversing a course that had it on track to cede control of the
Internet's main pipelines, the U.S. government now says it will
not cede oversight of the computers that control most Web
traffic.

The U.S. had been weighing whether to turn over control of the
13 so-called "root" servers, the source where top-level domains
are maintained and traffic is sent to and from, to the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Latest News about
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

However, Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher told a
gathering of the Wireless Communication Association (WCA) that
the Bush administration recognizes that turning over control of
the core of the Internet could create security concerns.
Security, Stability

"The U.S. government intends to preserve the security and
stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System
(DNS)," Gallagher said. He went on to add that ICANN is the
"appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS."

Gallagher said a clear policy was necessary because of the
rising importance of the Internet for various forms of
communication and commerce.

The news will likely be greeted with mixed reactions from
various quarters. ICANN's plentiful critics had expressed
concern about that group receiving more authority over the
domain name Latest News about domain name system. On the other
hand, foreign governments were quick to condemn the U.S.
decision.

The root servers themselves are in private ownership, but the
government has kept policy control, approving through ICANN and
its hand-chosen registrars the millions of domain names allowed
to be established in domains such as .com and .net.

ICANN was tapped by the Commerce Department to oversee the
domain system in 1998. At the time, the plan was for the U.S.
government to step aside once ICANN had established policies,
processes and technology adequate to handle the system
autonomously. Many observers thought the handover would take
place in September of 2006, when the current contract with ICANN
expires. US-Centric Infrastructure

The United Nations has been studying the issue of Internet
governance and is expected to issue a report later this year
calling for some aspects of Web oversight to be granted to a
UN-sponsored agency such as the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU).

Such a move would likely enjoy strong international support from
nations increasingly concerned that the Internet is becoming a
U.S.-centric infrastructure.

Acknowledging those international concerns, the Commerce
Department said it was "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" while also giving individual countries a say
in the management of the system, especially when their own
country-specific domains are involved.

However, Gallagher also made it clear that the U.S. feels that
total control over the Internet cannot be effectively
centralized, saying "there is no one venue to appropriately
address Internet governance in its entirety."

Michael Froomkin, who runs the ICANN Watch blog, said the timing
was "weird" given that the UN is still at work on its proposal
for changing the governance structure.

"Nothing will change immediately as a result," Froomkin said.
"The short and medium term, the implications of this statement
are political, not operational as the status quo for operations
remains unchanged." International Community

The policy statement will likely come as a shock to the
international community, including U.S. allies. "Some of them
are going to be very upset with this change in policy," Froomkin
added.

ICANN has been said to have been gearing up for the expected
handover of root server control in a year's time. However, some
recent events might have convinced the Bush administration that
the agency wasn't ready for the prime-time role.

The group has drawn loud and sustained criticism for some of its
moves, including a decision on establishing new top-level
domains such as the controversial .xxx domain for pornography
sites. It also drew barbs for its decision to let Verisign
continue running the .net domain after a controversial review
process that did not include much in the way of public input.

Also, ICANN might have taken it on the chin a bit when domain
name servers were hit with a domain-hijacking attack in January
of this year, Jupiter Research analyst Joe Laszlo noted.

Laszlo told the E-Commerce Times that while the attacks probably
couldn't be laid at the feet of ICANN, it could have been viewed
by some as evidence their governance of domain names was not as
strong and secure as it should be.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This may be of value to some.  I went through the Gallagher
statement and cut out the feel-good no-substance words.
Here is the remainder, which for me are the important words:
 
Policy statement by U.S. Government

Title:  U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and
        Addressing System

Date:   30 June 2005

"The United States Government intends to ... maintain its
historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the
authoritative root zone file ...

"The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate
public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the
management of their ccTLD. ... 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.

"ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS
... and related technical operations ... The United States will
continue to provide oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus
and meets its core technical mission.

"Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in
relevant multiple fora ... there is no one venue to
appropriately address the subject in its entirety ... In these
fora, the United States will continue to support market-based
approaches and private sector leadership in Internet development
broadly."

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The above is the U.S. Bush administration speaking what I assume
is policy on an important issue.

My guess is the motivation for issuing the statement at this
time in the WSIS activity, and probably the soon-to-be-released
WGIG report.

In the face of all this, I am committed to the Internet as a
whole being open, free, maintaining high operating quality, and
not under the control of any single government or authority.

Having said that, there must be an orderly and fair process for
operation -- for such matters as root, DNS, naming,
harmonization, dispute resolution, protocol development,
security, defense against illegal uses. This, then requires some
organizations to perform these functions.

To be successful, this process must be totally transparent and
open to all peoples of the world.

I am against ANY entity having substantial control, including
the U.S. Government, the UN, and ITU.

I see the Internet as having the greatest opportunity for
participative democracy the world has ever seen, greater than
the noble experiment in democracy the United States of America
has conducted in its 229 year existence (it will be exactly 229
years tomorrow, July 4th, our Independence Day).

That is why I consider ISOC and the IETF important, why I put
my effort into seeing them fill the incredibly important roles
that are needed for the Internet to live up to its potential.

Gene Gaines
gene.gaines at gainesgroup.com

-- snip --