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

[TeddyAP]

At 05:21 PM 6/7/2005, cdel at firsthand.net wrote:
>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.

I have an idea about ISOC Treaty,
Its posted:
http://www.isoc-id.org/01_isoctreaty.php

ISOC HQ should be a moderator, how to implement it.

-teddy

>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
>
>
>