Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

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

Jaenette and all assembly members,

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2002, at 11:38, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> I agree with most parts of your description. I am not convinced though it would be the
> best solution if the ITU stepped in and took over the control over the root.

  We at INEGroup agree with Jaenette here as well.  However it would
seem to me that there is not reason why the ITU could not set up their
own set of Root servers and structure and than interface those with
the Legacy/USG root servers.  Of course ICANN would object and
likely attempt to block such an interface.

>
>
> What I find really unfortunate is that the idea of self governance is linked to the
> oversight of one government.

  Agreed fully here!  And because of this the MoU and White Paper
clearly states that the stakeholders/users should do this oversight
as well as be in control collectively as a At-Large body.  However
ICANN has played games with this to the extent of thwarting
such a structure...

> What is necessary I think is some form of political
> framework that would enable a new attempt of self-governance. ICANN's failure and
> incapability of reforming itself in a legitimate way does not prove that self-governance
> is impossible alltogether. ICANN's failure does prove though that both stricter and more
> comprehensive forms of accountability are necessary. By comprehensive I mean more than just
> one government should oversee names and numbers administration.  Ideally, this could be
> achieved by a convention that restricts the role of governments to a minimum of
> sanity, fairness and similar types of checks. Such a convention would provide the political
> space for a new attempt governance model that aims to manage without direct government
> intervention. Btw, "regulation of self-regulation" has become quite a popular strategy
> recently.
>

  If I understand you right here Jaenette, you are talking about the market
doing the "Regulation of self-regulation"?  If so, I would tend to agree.
The only difficulty is what form would such a structure be.  ???  I believe
that a At-Large structure open to any and all stakeholders/users is the
only fair and legitimate way this could be achieved.  Some market forces
or segments, such as the present constituencies of the IPC and the BC
seem bent of not allowing for this, as they choose to seek a strangle
hold on the majority of control.  This of course will fail, and in some
areas and ways has already failed.  It is only that the ICANN BoD
and staff have yet to recognize this failure or refuse to...

>
> Jeanette
>
> > I'm not more versed than you, and do not want to correct you, but will
> > nevertheless propose a different reading.
> > What the ITU is doing is simply to encourage its members to participate
> > *directly* in the management of the process. This does not mean that the ITU
> > wants to candidate itself to replace ICANN (although it is not impossible
> > that some people in the ITU might think so).
> >
> > But maybe the interesting question is, rather than arguing again over
> > "bureaucracy", "government vs. private sector", and the usual amenities,
> > "why is this position different from the previous position?", namely the
> > encouragement to participation in the entities that manage the process.
> > My answer is simply that it is because ICANN has failed to address some of
> > the concerns of the members of the ITU, and therefore the ITU is encouraging
> > its members to take direct action to correct the problem.
> >
> > Some of you might remember the comments of Wilkinson and Twomey about
> > representation in ICANN, I think it was in Yokohama, but I might be wrong.
> > They both stated that, should ICANN fail in providing a mechanism for
> > representation of the individuals (the discussion was about AtLarge
> > Directors), governments would have stepped in.
> > Some oldcomers might also remember that this was exactly my point in some
> > discussions at the times of the IFWP, and in the creation of ICANN: let's
> > try to have self-governance, but be aware that we better get it right the
> > first time (and therefore be prepared to compromise for the sake of broader
> > consensus rather than to push one specific solution upon other unwilling
> > stakeholders), because we might not have a second chance.
> > Well, here we go.
> >
> > But this, as I said, does not mean that the ITU will take over. It only
> > means that the governments cannot accept a situation in which a supposedly
> > private entity, de-facto run by one of the Governments of the world, has the
> > power to rule over the Internet world-wide.
> > ICANN is exaggerating now, and is stretching the thing too far.
> > On one hand it seems incapable to curb the monopolistic/oligopolistic
> > ambitions of some powerful actors, and on the other hand is denying
> > representativity to the less powerful, like individual users.
> > On one hand it allows free hand to the major gTLD, and on the other hand it
> > is trying to impose unnecessary rules to the ccTLDs, that should be
> > answerable to their local community (and to their individual governments),
> > not to a centralized body.
> >
> > But where do we go from here?
> > It was Karl, if I remember correctly, who advocated that there was no need
> > to have just one organization that fulfills all tasks and duties of the
> > current ICANN. We could have a "functional" breakdown allocating tasks to
> > different entities (existing ones, or created "ad hoc").
> > If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be
> > delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that
> > seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the telephone
> > system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty
> > Organization. Or the management of the A-root, a typical thing that should
> > be protected by international law, and not be left under the authority of
> > one Government.
> > Of course, other tasks might be completely out of scope for the ITU, or even
> > for any other similar organization, and should be left to a different body
> > or mechanism.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Best regards
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
> > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
> >
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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