[chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[cdel at firsthand.net]

Fred Baker wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>> Suggesting that WSIS/WGIG wants to dismantle ICANN and is a danger 
>> for the free Internet is plain FUD.
>
> I generally agree with your thoughts on this article, Patrick. I don't 
> think the article serves ICANN very well, because of the obvious 
> rhetoric it contains, and because Tucows (an internet registrar) is an 
> interested party in the discussion.
>
> The matter of whether ICANN is a US organization or a global one 
> depends, I think, a lot on one's perspective. As you know, I (speaking 
> for myself) think that US DoC/NTIA should have terminated its 
> relationship with ICANN, ceding matters to it, a long time ago. When 
> ICANN was formed in 1997, there was a presidential directive ordering 
> them to do so, and the contract terms were that DoC would cede the 
> functions to ICANN entirely in 2000. That has been renewed a couple of 
> times and IIRC expires in 2006. DoC should, IMHO, at that time let it 
> drop.
>
This failure to release the reins has changed the situation. Would all 
the constituents that should be involved agree with ICANN being given 
full powers today? Would CENTR or the IAB or the RIR's? The question 
should be asked to the constituents and Internet users and ISOC would be 
the body to ask the question if we are to have a hope of understanding 
what needs to be done.


> Now, suppose it did. Elliot's argument is not that ICANN is global 
> because it meets outside the US. He argues that it is global because 
> its directors are majority non-US and because a variety of 
> stake-holders, including non-US governments, have defined seats at the 
> table, and because outside of the operational relationship with DoC, 
> the US Government has an identical seat to everyone else's. If one 
> assumes that DoC does not renew its contract with ICANN but rather 
> cedes control to ICANN entirely, would his arguments about ICANN then 
> persuade you that ICANN is a global organization that happens to be 
> incorporated in California, much like ITU is a global organization 
> that happens to have a physical instantiation in Geneva? If not, why 
> not? Is this simply anti-US sentiment on your part, or is it based on 
> something more solid?
This should NOT be about anti-US sentiment! Indeed the US should be 
thanked for its gestation of Internet to the world. Actually the number 
of prizes heaped on Vint and Bob is a testament to the enormous regard 
that peoples around the world have for what they and the US have 
achieved with the Internet.

However a corporation serving under US law remains within US 
jurisdiction. We may have to live with this until such time as ICANN can 
become institutionalised as a Treaty organisation or we can find other 
ways to internationalise ICANN.

But unless you think this makes it really acceptable over the longer 
term please note recent cases in the UK where UK citizens are being 
extradited to the US on charges brought from activities transacted in 
the UK which are not crimes in the UK that impacted a US corporation.

ICANN as a US corporation managing Internet resources adds tentacles 
from US jurisprudence into national jurisdictions around the world 
reinforcing what I think is already a growing and questionable precedent 
being set through mutual law enforcement treaties designed to protect 
against terrorism being applied to civil issues.

Legal systems reflect cultural differences at least as much as moral 
ones and are developed at least in democratic countries through 
legislation made in representative institutions such as Parliament or 
Congress. As a voter in the UK I have a say in that process. I am not a 
voter in the US. Where does this process end? When an Azerbyjani finds 
himself extradited from Azerbyjan to California because his Internet 
site is selling domain names for bikini's designed for the notorious 
Caspian Sea Water Sports Society that infringe prudish Californian laws? 
(Yes it is that ridiculous!)

So I think there are good reasons to ensure that ICANN is not purely a 
US organisation. Ideally if Internet is to become pervasive then ICANN 
should be local everywhere and working through local Internet 
participants and jurisdictions. Now we can't expect the ideal probably 
but we should bare it in mind.

> You are correct that WSIS/WGIG is not directly an attack on ICANN. I 
> think it is fair to say, however, that the ITU would like to use WSIS 
> to unseat ICANN and get the functions ICANN performs awarded to it, 
> and that there are factions in WGIG that would like to similarly move 
> power and control to the UN. The questionnaire that made the rounds 
> not too long ago, asking rhetorically whether the UN should form an 
> oversight body and then diving into all the details assuming that the 
> answer was "yes" was very symptomatic of that. That discussion is in 
> fact where the term "internet governance" originated, with three 
> essential sets of parties arguing about who should or should not have 
> power in the management of the root zone - those who want the 
> ICANN-managed system, those who want to set up random roots, and those 
> who want some variation on governmental control of national roots 
> managed through the ITU along the model used by the telephone network 
> for national dialing plans.
The issue is the perception that IP address and DNS address allocation 
are choke points that centralise things in a similar way as to telephony 
resources. Unless we devise allocation protocols that dissipate the 
choke points then we will be faced with power seekers.

ICANN only really deals with a/ below and it only does that because 
there is general desire to maintain uniqueness at that level. However 
the other stuff is managed all over the place. The key thing for any 
entity dealing with a/ is that it leaves the other layers open which is 
where IETF Standards are important.

a/ root and unique resource allocation
b/ interconnection fabric
c/ access fabric
d/ security (in the round)
e/ content / applications / accessibility

So my concern with the WGIG process is more on the potential impact on 
open Standards than on ICANN directly.

> Something that would serve the discussion better, I think, would be a 
> requirements analysis. This would involve at least three parts - a 
> cessation of discussion of "Internet Governance" as a topic and 
> replacement of that discussion with several discussions of the 
> questions discussed under that title, a frank discussion of the 
> money+power issues (this is all about money and power), and a 
> technical discussion of what would best serve the Internet. If 
> technically the best solution is to have national roots, maybe it 
> would be simplest to discuss switching to that model. If switching to 
> a directory model has technical merit (as John Klensin has suggested) 
> in handling the trademark and IDN issues, maybe we should do so. But 
> we can't have a rational technical discussion without technical 
> proposals and technical analyses of the trade-offs. If one wants to 
> talk about Digital Divide issues, which come up under the rubric of 
> Internet Governance, maybe one should talk about them as Digital 
> Divide issues. If ITU or UN is actually a good place to manage the 
> root or roots from, we should be able to get technical and 
> organizational documentation from them that would demonstrate the 
> relevant competencies.
I think you are right. There are very good reasons for ISOC to promote a 
discussion on the prospective options for future Internet management 
going forward along the lines you talk about above. In fact an ISOC 
meeting or even a conference would be applicable where ideas, papers, 
results of testbeds etc can be presented in a factual way. We should 
spend time looking at and generating awareness of the structural options 
for what Internet can be as well as for what Internet is today.

One comment though. Drawing things back to a technical argument to try 
to win a political one is rarely successful in politics unless you have 
already won the argument.

Christian

Christian de Larrinaga