[ncdnhc-discuss] [Fwd: RE: [council] NDNHC summary of comments in response to Draft 6]

[Jefsey Morfin]

The ITU/T is the only realistic response to Lynn's demand for Govs to come in.
Yet Govs are national, ITU/T is international and the Internet is 
multinational by nature.

The only solution - and thanks to Tony to say the obvious the way he said 
it - is for the ITU/T to join with the ICANN, not the ICANN to join into 
the ITU/T. The chance is - as Tony says it - that ITU/T is an Internet Name 
Space manager (through ENUM).

Now, the ICANN alone would however not stand long  as a partner. So the 
partnership must include other bodies which will protect the ICANN becaus 
the ITU/T could not swallow them. The chance is they do exist. They are the 
other TCP/IP public name spaces : the ccTLD alliance,  the USG 
(gov/mil/edu/us), the EEC (.eu), the Open Systems, New.net, Real Names, 
AOL, and many nomenclatures as ISSN, ISBN, even the WIPO...

This is for naming. For adressing there is the same need. Unless IPv6 is 
meant to be an  ISO standard and Registries to be controled by Telcos to 
contro the nets development. As Tony shows it.

IMHO there is also the same need in term of architecture. A concertation 
agreement, where the ITU/T helps us as one among us, under the protection 
of a rotating Chair. Tony rises the point about roots servers, which is not 
a minor issue whaterver ICANN people may believe. But there are many others.

All the necessarily growing mission creep is to be taken apart from the 
ITU/T. It will be adressed in a similar way though rotational Chair 
concertation dedicated committees. But on the "network campus" where ICANN 
might play with others a catalyst role.

Obviously there is an alternative to Lynn's ICANN. It is a lean ICANN @ M$1 
budget, servicing the Internet instead of trying to rule it.
jfc












On 15:11 24/04/02, Harold J. Feld said:
>    From Tony Holmes, pertaining to comments by some in the NCC in support 
> of a greater ITU role in ICANN.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: RE: [council] NDNHC summary of comments in response to Draft 6
>Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:34:15 +0100
>From: tony.ar.holmes at bt.com
>To: hfeld at mediaaccess.org, council at dnso.org
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss