[cctld-discuss] Re: [centr-ga] ICANN before the US Senate... yesterday....
Elisabeth many thanks for a helpful analysis. regards Peter Dengate thrush On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 03:24 AM, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote: > > Personal summary and comments on five testimonies, presented in the US > Senate on 31 July 2003, cf. > http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=889 > > Caveat: > As a non-US citizen, I feel watching Congress hearings like going to a > theater - the actors play their role, I am sitting in the remote > audience. I did appreciate Paul Twomey's conclusion said to the US > Senator Burns: > "I want to help establish that a public-private partnership of the > kind that > ICANN has become is in fact a feasible and appropriate way to deal with > matters like the DNS, over which no single government can claim > sovereignty, > but which all governments and many private parties have important and > legitimate interests in seeing function well." > > > In making this summary my primary interest is about ccTLD, but I made > also a search of following words - how many time those words are used > in provided presentations: > 1. stability and security > 2. ccTLD, ccNSO, country-code > 3. root > 4. government > 5. Congress > 6. MoU > 7. regulate or regulation > 8. Verisign > 9. IPv6 > 10. ITU, WSIS, UN, foreign > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > words used in testimony | Victory| Twomey| Balough| Davidson| > Stahura| > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > 1. stability or security | 16 | 6 | 8 | 8 | > 0 | > 2. ccTLD ccNSO country-code | 9 | 11 | 8 | 4 | > 0 | > 3. root | 3 | 8 | 8 | 3 | > 0 | > 4. government | 2 | 5 | 6 | 13 | > 2 | > 5. Congress | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | > 4 | > 6. MoU | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | > 3 | > 7. regulate or regulation | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | > 2 | > 8. Verisign | 0 | 7 | 10 | 0 | > 16 | > 9. IPv6 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | > 0 | > 10. ITU WSIS UN foreign gov | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | > 0 | > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > > Nancy Victory's primary focus is on stability and security, her > interest on > ccTLD is high (to perceive the change one shall go back to the White > Paper > from 1998 where ccTLD were mention twice, and of no interest to the > global Internet governance). She acknowledges the global factor of > Internet, > and refers to the global Internet community. She refers to the > undergoing > work on extension of the MoU. > > > Paul Twomey's primary interest is in ccTLDs, next are root servers, > VeriSign > and stability and security of Internet. He uses the word "government" > in > general manner, not US-government. It is worth to note he mentions IPv6 > three times, and is the only speaker insisting in this important issue. > > > Ari Balough's main concern is obviously Verisign, but he shares > equivalent > interest to stability and security of Internet, root servers, and > ccTLD. > He uses the word "government" mostly in general manner, with one > exception, > when he recalls the very existence of ICANN "ICANN has been the entity > charged by the U.S. government and a community of Internet interests > with > coordinating certain technical functions of the Internet's naming and > numbering system". He is preoccupied about too much regulation of > registrars > business practices. Ari Balough speaks at length about ccTLD, from > Verisign > business perspective: (a) We are good US company under ICANN contract, > we > provide critical infrastructure, spend hundred millions dollars; at > the same > time there are over 200 ccTLDs, nearly half of all registered names, > mostly > without signed agreement; (b) ICANN is not legitimate, it failed to > have cc > and IP registries in, it failed to have root operators in, and at the > same > time it behaves as unchartered FCC micromanaging VeriSign, and > preventing > VeriSign from doing whatever it feels appropriate in IDNs and WLS. > > > Alan Davidson's primary focus are the powers of the US government and > the > US Congress to oversight ICANN. His statement is quit contradictory > and US-centric. He claims to speak on behalf of Internet users. He > mentions > ccTLD for its own purpose. He is unhappy with ICANN, but he concludes > unfortunately there is nothing else, no one place giving users and > individuals rights to participate in global Internet governance. He > considers > there are insufficient limits on ICANN's regulatory authority. He begs > the > US Congress to control ICANN for the benefit of Internet users. He > mentions > MoU three times. He is afraid of foreign governments, ITU, the United > Nations and WSIS. He is afraid of internal US government changes at > DoC. > > > Paul Stahura's primary focus is the fight with Verisign and ICANN > against > WLS issue. He does not pronounce a single word about ccTLD, ccNSO or > country-code. He points out problems with ICANN's credibility with > regards > to the companies it regulates. He considers the US Congress must > continue to > exercise its oversight jurisdiction by holding the Department of > Commerce > accountable for its activities regarding ICANN. He calls for the US GAO > review of ICANN activities, and refers to internal US legislation to > supervise ICANN and to assess its execution of the MoU. > > -- > > Quotes from testimonies about ccTLD, ccNSO and country-code: > > > Nancy Victory: mentions ccTLD 5 times (using such terms as ccTLD > managers, > ccTLD community, and ccTLD operators), and ccNSO 2 times: > ... > ICANN has refined its mission and restructured its supporting > organizations and advisory committees, including the > establishment of a new supporting organization for country code > Top Level Domain (ccTLD) managers; > ... > Developing Agreements with ccTLD Operators. The fastest growing > segment of the DNS is within the ccTLD community. While ICANN > continues to make progress towards establishing stable agreements > with ccTLD operators, forward movement has been slow. This is > largely attributable to the complexities resulting from the > convergence of national sovereignty assertions, international law > considerations, and the general concerns of global and local > Internet communities. Despite these competing pressures, ICANN > must develop a framework agreement that would appeal to the > majority of ccTLD operators, while recognizing the various > national sovereignty issues involved. The establishment of a > country code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) during the last > year represents significant progress towards this end. > ... > > > Paul Twomey: mentions ccTLD as ccTLD administrators, and insists > at length on ccNSO. > ... > Forming a Country-Code Names Supporting Organization to further > participation in ICANN by the almost 250 ccTLDs around the world; > ... > A majority of the ICANN Board is > now selected by ICANN's Nominating Committee, with the remainder > being selected by ICANN's policy making bodies -- the Address > Supporting Organization, Generic Names Supporting Organization > and Country-Code Names Supporting Organization. > ... > In addition to the Board, the ICANN reforms of the past year created > the Generic Names Supporting Organization and the Country-Code > Names Supporting Organization as two new policy-making entities > within ICANN. > ... > The ccNSO, the formation and structure of > which was agreed to by all involved parties at the recent ICANN > meeting in Montreal, is emblematic of the recent progress. It > reflects a judgment by the country code Top Level Domains that > they must be a part of the ICANN policy development process, and > follows more than a year of detailed discussions between ICANN, > ccTLD administrators and other interested parties. > ... > The ccNSO also includes a detailed Policy Development Process > designed to ensure a balance of input from country code Top Level > Domains from all geographic regions, and an established process > by which to deal with policies of global concern affecting > country code Top Level Domains. > ... > The At Large Advisory > Committee also appoints delegates to ICANN's Nominating > Committee, and liaisons to the managing Councils of the Generic > Names Supporting Organization and the Country-Code Names > Supporting Organization, as well as other ICANN committees and > participatory bodies. > ... > > > Ari Balough speaks at length about ccTLD, from Verisign business > perspective. > ... > ICANN's legitimacy is > hampered by the non-inclusion/non-participation of regional > numbering authorities, the collective community of root server > operators or over 200 country code Top Level Domain registries. > ... > Besides > other top-level domains like .biz and .info, there are over 200 > country-code top-level domains such as .de for Germany, .jp for > Japan and .br for Brazil. These country specific domain names > today represent nearly half of all registered names on the > Internet; soon, they will account for the majority of domain > names in the world. Yet only a handful of these 200+ country-code > domain name operators have executed agreements with ICANN. > ... > This lack of true global support for ICANN limits ICANN's > legitimacy. It is imperative that ICANN be streamlined into an > organization that the country-code operators see benefit in > joining, rather than a burden or risk. > ... > A good first step would be ICANN adopting an approach that > respected sovereignty of the country-code operators and their > ability to govern themselves. In short, to operate within an > ICANN model without fear of ICANN dictates. Only then will the > majority of this important constituency consider joining ICANN. > ... > For many > -- such as root server operators and country-code domain name > operators -- the 'pain' of joining ICANN (onerous contracts, > lengthy review periods, and the unfortunate politicization of > ICANN's administrative functions) has not made membership a > viable option. > ... > We need a body that is legitimate and effective. If it is to be > ICANN, ICANN must: --bolster its legitimacy by ensuring that > critical Internet constituencies that are responsible for the > operation of the global networks and domain names are active and > supportive members; --limit its attempts at business > micro-management in a way that will invite the participation of > ccTLD registries, IP numbering registries and root server > operators and encourage innovation and new services; --abandon > its aspirations to be the unchartered FCC of the Internet; and > --sponsor the discussions and actions regarding the Internet's > security and growth that will ratify a view among all > constituencies that the institution is adding real value. > ... > > > Alan Davidson mentions ccTLD for its own purpose. > ... > And it has recently established > the framework for agreements with country-code Top-Level Domains > (ccTLDs). > ... > They are a striking contrast to the very limited ccTLD > agreement framework, which may indicate how little is really > needed to insure stable coordination of the domain name system. > ... > Moreover, if ICANN is perceived as an unaccountable organization > whose activities impinge the rights of users worldwide, then > powerful entities such as foreign governments, the ITU, or even > the United Nations will accelerate their search for alternatives. > Such approaches would likely include a vastly expanded role for > governments, and could fuel efforts at multilateral regulation of > the Internet -- a costly and user-unfriendly environment that > could constrain innovation substantially. > ... > 6. Acceptance > by key stakeholders, ccTLDs, Regional Internet Registries, etc. > ... > Currently, the registrant of a domain name in the public gTLDs > and many ccTLDs must make certain technical and administrative > contact information available in the "Whois" database accessible > to the public online. > ... > > > Paul Stahura: no single word about ccTLD, ccNSO or country-code. > > -- > Kind regards > Elisabeth > -- > _______________________________________________ cctld-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://www.wwtld.org/mailman/listinfo/cctld-discuss