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

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Fred Baker said the following  on 07/06/2005 20:54:

>So I guess I hear two points of discussion:
>  - some would like ICANN to become a treaty organization, and may have 
>good reasons for their viewpoint.
>  
>
>The argument "we're from 
>government, so we're obviously the right people for the job" doesn't 
>work.
>
The reverse argument, ie "we're from the private sector, so we're
obviously the right people for the job" doesn't cut it either.

> I need an argument that points out issues with the current 
>structure - ICANN, RIRs, registrars and registries, etc etc etc and 
>demonstrates that none of those problems would have happened if ICANN 
>had been a treaty organization and no new problems would have 
>materialized,
>
You are twisting the logic. We are just point out the weaknesses of the
current model, which was designed to address technical or business
issues, not political ones. The goal is not to radically change the
current model, but rather to enhance it where it is not satisfactory.

>My question about Taiwan's country code is a very real one, 
>and very painful for the people of Taiwan. 
>
The real issue is that other member countries of the ITU did not have
the willingness  to oppose the pressure of continental China, including
most probably, your country and mine.  As citizens, we should send
signals to our representatives in the UN system that this is
unacceptable and that is is not the mandate we have given them.

The ITU, like other government agencies, is hands tied to the political
(un)willingness of its members countries.  If we want to change the ITU,
let's first change the way our governments deal with the ITU.

>There is not currently a 
>ccTLD for the Palestinian Authority, because .pl hasn't made it onto 
>the right ISO list, but Palestinians can indeed get domain names - they 
>just happen to be Israeli. 
>
See http://www.iana.org/root-whois/ps.htm

>Regarding the anti-US sentiment, I have to say that I think the tone of 
>this entire discussion would be dramatically different if ICANN were a 
>non-treaty organization incorporated in some other country, such as 
>Ireland, Japan, or whatever. 
>  
>
This is not an anti-US sentiment.  Once it was decided that ICANN would
be subject to a MoU with the DoC, it could only incorporate in the US 
to make it legally enforceable.  Hence, your question is purely rethorical.

Frankly, I do not mind where ICANN offices are physically located. What
I am concerned is that an organization which should serve the needs of
all of the 6 billion people on earth  is placed under the authority of
one government. However wise and objective such government can be, there
is a risk it may use its power for personal rather than global objectives. 

Patrick