[ncdnhc-discuss] ITU

[James Love]

Thomas,

ITU has offered to work with ICANN to address the issue of the boundaries of
ICANN policy making. Since this would limit ICANN's mission, what problems
do you see as likely?   Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
To: "NCDNHC List" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:53 AM
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] [fwd] RE: [council] NDNHC summary of comments in
response to Draft 6 (from: tony.ar.holmes at bt.com)


> FYI.
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from tony.ar.holmes at bt.com -----
>
> From: tony.ar.holmes at bt.com
> To: hfeld at mediaaccess.org, council at dnso.org
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:34:15 +0100
> Subject: RE: [council] NDNHC summary of comments in response to Draft 6
>
> Harold
> As someone who's worked in the ITU for the last 10 years (and still does)
I
> was surprised to learn there's growing support within the NCDHC for the
ITU
> to assume greater responsibility. You say those arguing these positions
say
> ITU intergovernmental groups generally are more responsive to NGO and
Civil
> Society concerns than ICANN. The reality is that in ICANN these groups at
> least have the opportunity to represent their views in the debates first
> hand, its not necessarily the case in the ITU. The ITU TSB cannot dictate
> policy on their own, it has to come through the Member State mechanisms,
> however the work is actually done in the ITU Study Groups. The focus for
> ICANN/Internet naming and addressing  issues in the ITU is ITU-T Study
Group
> 2. That Group is primarily concerned with PSTN/ISDN (telephone) numbering
> issues and is therefore made up of large commercial organisations, mainly
> telcos, who discuss and set the policy which is then channelled through
the
> higher level committees. Its worth pointing out that within SG2 there are
> only a handful who understand, or even have first hand experience of,
> Internet matters. Would your members really be happy in handing them
greater
> responsibility???
>
> There are also other issues to consider. Speaking from a European
> perspective most European Governments convene national co-ordination
> mechanisms to agree input into the ITU at the national level e.g. how to
> vote on key issues. Certainly they maintain the right to veto the
consensus
> and vote their own way, but the reality is they rarely do. In most cases,
to
> attend a national co-ord meeting you have to be an ITU member (you have to
> represent an organisation that has joined and paid its membership fees to
> the ITU), for most NCDNH that rules them out of the decision making
process.
>
> There are also other issues to consider. Some European Governments
(Germany
> is a good example) have very limited ability to take any formal decisions
> related to the Internet. Its considered a non-regulated environment so
their
> statutory powers and Directives limit their ability to get involved in a
> manner that that could dictate input into the ITU.
>
> You also referred to the thorny issue of US domination and the
> 'international' nature of the ITU. That's an issue that's been raised very
> forcibly in some of the wider discussions and workshops convened by the
ITU.
> It tends to generate an emotive response from representatives of certain
> countries, but again this isn't always positive if you're looking to move
> things forward. The issues aren't just limited to the political dimension
> either, there's just as much concern over infrastructure, (the
geographical
> position of the root servers in particular). Some parties involved in that
> debate would like to see all progress on other Internet issues stopped
until
> that's been sorted out. Others just view the increasing power of the
> Internet as a threat to existing core revenue streams, particularly those
> that underpin large portions of their GDP gained through telephony
> accounting rate mechanisms engineered through the ITU. Voice over IP has
the
> potential to erode this very quickly!
>
> If any supports is going to be expressed for the ITU to become more
involved
> its really important that all these dimensions are fully understood,
> otherwise the results may well be quite different from what was perceived.
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold J. Feld [mailto:hfeld at mediaaccess.org]
> Sent: 23 April 2002 22:16
> To: Names Council (E-mail)
> Subject: [council] NDNHC summary of comments in response to Draft 6
>
>
> I am still compiling the comments received into a draft, but to
> facilitate discussion (and in case I can't finish in time), I will
> summarize broad trends that have arisen from my consultations with
> NCDNHC and individual members who have contacted me.
>
> 1)  NCDHC continues to support a Board structure where at least half of
> the directors are elected by the internet user community.  There is no
> support for an ombudsman alternative.  There is some agreement with the
> idea that governments can act in the same role of providing
> accountability, but those supporting this believe that governments
> should assume a greater role in managing ICANN.
>
> On a related point, there is growing support within NCHDHC for the ITU
> or ITU-T to assume greater responsibility.  This ranges from arguing
> that ITU should help ICANN draft the mission statement (as per the
> recent letter from the ITU to ICANN) to eliminating ICANN and or making
> it a subgroup of ITU and having ITU assume these functions.
>
> This is by no means a consensus position of NCDNHC, but it is an
> important trendline because it represents a fundamental shift in
> position of a number of members.  Those arguing these positions argue
> that: 1) ITU -- in intergovernmental groups generally -- are more
> responsive to NGO and civil society concerns than ICANN; 2) ITU is more
> international and not subject to US domination; 3) ITU has greater
> expertise.
>
> 2) There is concern in allocating to ICANN policy for ccTLDs,
> Addressing, and Protocols.  Several commentors observed that, at
> present, ICANN _coordinates_ policy for PSOs, RIRs, and ccTLDs, but does
> not _dictate_ policy or decide among competing policies.  I will attempt
> to introduce specific language addressing these concerns.
>
> 2a) Some commentors expressed concern that ICANN should not set gTLD
> policy beyond a minimum necessary to comply with UDRP.  In particular,
> concern was expressed that market forces, rather than top-down
> regulation, should dictate gTLD policy.  Countering this, is concern
> that registries may engage in anticompetitive practices as regard their
> registries and subsidiary registrars.  This is a particular concern
> vis-a-vis Verisign.  There is no consensus on these issues within NCDHC,
> but I present the views of individual commentors for consideration in
> this discussion.
>
> 3) ICANN's consumer protection role should be limited to problems that
> arise out of ICANN's management of the DNS. e.g., issues pertaining to
> name transfers between registrars.  ICANN should not become involved in
> general consumer protection.
>
> 4) There is great concern that ICANN not exercise policy in the area of
> security.  This should be limited to DNs and should be limited to
> coordination, not ultimate authority over policy.
>
> 5) There is support for creating a list of areas outside ICANN's
> perview.  To what does ICANN authority not extend?  Where can ICANN make
> no rules?
>
> Harold Feld
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>