[ncdnhc-discuss] A statement on the ICANN "reform" proposal

[Rob Courtney]

At 9:51 AM -0800 2/25/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 12:21 PM 2/25/2002 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>There is a basic contradiction here: if Internet governance is going to take
>>place via an intergovernmental regime, why start with the existing ICANN?
>
>
>Excellent question, because the answer is that one should not start 
>with the existing ICANN and, in fact, no one is.
>
>Your note nicely highlights your continued failure to appreciate 
>that ICANN is not intended to do Internet governance and that it has 
>not been trying to do Internet governance.
>
>ICANN has been trying to administer some parametric information 
>(names and numbers) essential to the operation of the Internet.

Yes, but by bringing governments into the policy structure there's a 
risk of ICANN over time being pressured beyond its technical mission 
into "real" Internet Governance. While the Lynn proposal several 
times mentions that ICANN's mission is narrow and technical, I don't 
think it establishes enough actual meaningful safeguards against this 
kind of mission expansion. The IRP is gone, and the Ombudsman seems 
to be more of an extension of the Reconsideration Committee than a 
replacement for it.

r

-- 

Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
rob at cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/

  --

Add your voice to the Internet policy debate!
    JOIN THE CDT ACTIVIST NETWORK!
      http://www.cdt.org/join/