<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)
Dear Karl,
beware. The use of "Gov" is misleading as the Gov is the one which conducts
the nations policy on behalf of the State. We have two different issues.
- the digital sovereignty of the States and the rights of the nations
(people) protected by the rights of the States (digital sovereignty)
- the policy of their Governments using the law, international agreement,
technical delegations etc.
The current ICANN drift (cf. Vittorio's use in ITU document) towards
"national digital sovereignty" is extremely clever. Let compare:
- State digital sovereignty. This concerns the States as super users
protecting their rights and therefore through them those of their citizen,
of their economy, of their culture the way they want. There are established
fora for them to concert (ITU, UN, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO, etc.)
- national digital sovereignty. This is a confuse concept (except when
speaking of the USA at large as a sovereign nation over the other nations -
one has to be a sovereign over something). Confuse because nations have no
other existing system to globally interoperate and to see their rights
protected but the States. So if there are sovereign rights of nations, and
States are not those to unilaterally protect them,
- someone has to provide that protection though its unique authoritative
power (ICANN? ITU?)
- it must equally enforce its jurisdiction and therefore rule on (or
contract) everyone.
So, you are absolutely right that ITU is better protection, beause if ICANN
wants to rule the world, long ITU practice shows that it wants to serve the
world as an international arena (you may not be pleased with the results,
but everyone accepts).
But this must not lead to a confusion of what are the sovereignty rights
involved or delegated and how they are defined and protected. We do not
want ICANN to use ITU as a way to de facto sign a global ccTLD contract in:
- being acknowledge as the unique technical interlocutor (including
IETF/IAB reps)
- seeing some TLDs trying to find in the ITU a way to locally or globally
obtain a de facto monopoly and to lead States to believe that things like
standards, naming, access control, root management are "technical" issues
delegated to ITU and then to ICANN (nor to see others to use it against
States as being supported by an international rule).
We also do not want that many mission creep matters are this way decided as
pure industry matters delegated to ITU. It would most probably enforce for
ever the current money losing and commercially sterile naming economical
model invented by ICANN. And make innovative modes more complex.
States must stay sovereign. Internet must be a place of liberty. That does
not means a revolutionary tool creating a conflict between nations and
their States, towards a worldwide Gov. This would lead to an over reaction
of the States (which are not well informed on the matter by lack of
modelization and technical, societal and governance experimentation).
An over reaction we start seeing like in the current French law
proposition. From the Good Samaritan right to stop an illegal site, now the
provider should stop it under his own responsibility. From the cooperation
agreement with Verisign, a national public service of naming is created
(the same in the USA: cf. kid.us act). Progressively a de facto monopoly
concept develops.
Is that a bad move? Would ICANN's people be God's Angels, I would say no,
since it permits to insure a good consistency of the whole system.
jfc
On 00:43 09/03/03, Karl Auerbach said:
>Let's compare the who has power in ICANN against who has power in the ITU
>and see which gives the internet user community a better chance at having
>an impact:
>
> ICANN Participants who have actual roles in the making of policy:
> - Governments (frequently through self-appointed representatives
> without
> actual credentials to represent their countries)
> - Selected industries (ISPs, intellectual property owners,
> DNS registrars/registries)
> - Educational institutions (not educators, but the institutions)
> - Non commercial organizations
> - Regional IP address registries
>
> ITU Participants who have actual roles in the making of policy:
> - Governments (through formally appointed representatives)
> - Selected industries
>
>What is interesting is that the internet user community is present in
>neither of these. (ICANN's nominating-committee/ALAC/ROLO/structure can
>be dismissed - it is no more a meaninful vehicle for public participation
>than were the village soviets in the USSR, the system upon which ICANN has
>seemingly modeled its structure for public participation.)
>
>Now, ICANN itself has made the claim that governments adequately represent
>the interests of their citizens. If one believes this, than the internet
>user community would naturally prefer the ITU over ICANN because:
>
> a) The government role (and thus the representation of the internet
> users) is
> less diluted by other interests in the ITU than it is in ICANN.
>
> b) The governmental role in ITU is more formalized in the sense that
> the representatives are clearly credentialed rather than ad hoc
> self appointees. This means that there is a greater chance for
> the national citizens to exert organized influence on their
> representative.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|