Re: [ga] FYI: EU Council thinking about ICANN

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Alex and all assembly members,

  Yes, Chris Wilkinson I believe posted this in a preliminary
report about two weeks ago on another forum and was carried
by some internet press...  It is however clear that the EU is
quite unhappy with the direction ICANN has been going and
is heading...

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> [This is a note from the Presidency of the Council of the EU
> -- the body of the member states -- to Coreper, the Committee
> of Permanent Representatives, sort of ambassadors to the EU.
> The document is from 3 June 2002 and it's preparing the
> Telecom Council meeting on 17/18 June 2002. It confirms the
> rumour that there has been an undocumented GAC meeting in
> Canberra and gives some insight into the current EU member
> states' thinking about ICANN. Some interesting excerpts
> follow. /// Alexander]
>
> http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st09/09526en2.pdf
> ------------------
> [...]
> 1. The ICANN Mission
>    ICANN should have a clearly defined, limited and stable mission,
>    giving priority to technical functions that are essential for
>    the coordination and stability of the Internet. Certain existing
>    activities could be reduced to improve that focus. Relevant legal
>    and contractual work should be reduced to what is essential.
>
>     The ICANN mission should be stabilized: the agreed definition
>     should be adopted and revised by the Board by a 2/3 majority,
>     after a GAC opinion.
>
>   Bottom-up participation and consensus building should continue to be
>   guiding principles of ICANN's working methods. [...]
>
>   In many cases, ICANN’s mission impinges on public policy issues. In
>   these cases GAC must play a stronger role in the decision making process.
>
> 2. The Public-Private Partnership
>    There is a need for clarification of this open public-private
>    partnership ICANN must be, in which governments should have a greater
>    involvement, particularly in matters of public policy.
>
>    Government involvement in the ICANN processes should be through an
>    enhanced relationship between ICANN and GAC rather than through
>    direct governmental participation in ICANN's Board and Budget.
>    [...]
>
> 3. ICANN structure, membership and financing
>    The private sector participants concerned are responsible for reaching
>    mutually acceptable agreements regarding the structure of ICANN, its
>    membership and financing and its decisionmaking processes. Due
>    consideration should be given to the adequate protection of the
>    public interest by strengthening the standing of GAC Advice.
>
>    Such agreements, however, must give full weight to internationalisation,
>    transparency and fairness and to maintaining the principle of geographic
>    diversity and representation throughout the organisation.
>
>    Governments should [...] satisfy themselves that the interests of other
>    appropriate international stakeholders are adequately recognised in the
>    final structure.
>
>    Governments should not contribute directly to ICANN's budget.
>
> 4. Treatment of public policy issues
>    Where ICANN's activities are likely to involve public policy implications,
>    ICANN must consult the GAC. The scope of relevant public policies should be
>    agreed in advance between GAC and ICANN[1 -- Public policy issues may
>    include, for example, competition, DNS Security, ccTLD policy,
>    IPR, languages and geographical terms, abusive registrations, data protection
>    and privacy, telecommunications numbering.] The ICANN Board should only
>    be able to ignore or reverse GAC advice in such areas by a super [2/3]
>    majority. In all cases, ICANN should inform GAC on how its advice has been
>    taken into account. The legal implications of this approach need to be
>    considered further.
>
> 5. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
>    Governments agree that the GAC is the principal forum for the international
>    discussion of public policy issues related to the ICANN mission and the Domain
>    Name System. In this respect, Governments attach great importance to strengthening
>    the role of GAC and ensuring its independence from ICANN.
>
>    In order to effectively fulfil this role vis-ā-vis ICANN, GAC needs to work
>    more effectively and be better integrated into the policy formulation process.
>    This will require the necessary organisation and secretariat and in due course a
>    more appropriate legal structure. Governments should provide the necessary
>    resources to this effect. In anticipation that other administrations
>    will also make available such resources, the European Commission is also
>    encouraged to allocate appropriate resources for this purpose. Responsibility
>    for the GAC secretariat could thus be shared between several GAC participants.
>    This secretariat would provide services to GAC both for policy making and logistics.
>
>    GAC may seek the assistance of other qualified international entities for specific
>    tasks or projects.
>
> 6. Reserve Powers
>    Governments will of course retain reserve powers of last resort in the event of
>    ICANN failing to fulfil its essential tasks and for the public oversight of the
>    maintenance of the authoritative Root Zone File. This responsibility would be
>    exercised through the GAC or another appropriately constituted entity.
>
> 7. Control of the Root Zone File
>    Governments, in co-operation with the stakeholders concerned, need to work
>    towards internationalising the oversight role currently exercised by the United
>    States government. Implementing the agreed reforms should be phased in the
>    interests of stability. Governments, including the EU, will wish to re-visit the
>    outcome of the current ICANN reform in the foreseeable future. Monitoring the
>    results of the reform and ICANNīs performance should be part of GACīs remit.
> [...]
> ------------------
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html