[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Reform: Role of ITU

[James Love]

I appreciate Milton's comments below, and also the many postings by others
on this topic.  The fact that there is widespread opposition to ITU having a
role in ICANN related issues is clear.  I would, however, like to clarify
what I have been addressing.  ITU made a narrow proposal, *not to take over
ICANN*, but to participate in a discussion over the boundaries of ICANN's
policy making.   It was this narrow proposal that I found interesting.  Note
also that already WIPO has engaged ICANN in a topic that WIPO finds
interesting, the ADR for trademarks and domain names.  In the ITU case, the
outcome seemed more likely to limit ICANN's policy making than was the case
in the WIPO consultation.

The notion that ICANN will have internal brakes against inappropriate policy
making is appealing, but I think shattered by the Lynn proposal.  It is
possible that Alejandro, Vint and others will listen to the outpouring of
criticism against the Lynn proposal, and offer something much different, but
at this point I don't think it is obvious that the board finds itself in
fundamental disagreement with Lynn/McLaughlin/Touton etc.  Nor has the US
DOC shown much interest in acting as tough as some members of the US
Congress.

ITU may not be the best body to limit ICANN's power.  But I would like to
hear some alternatives *other than* self restraint (which of course we all
hope for).  I asked if the GAC should have a formal terms of reference for
ICANN.  I did not get any comment on that proposal.

Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <richard.hill at itu.int>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Reform: Role of ITU


> Although I am not all that favorable to some of the
> ideas being floated about moving things to the ITU, as
> someone with a lot of knowledge of the telephone industry
> and its history I want to agree with Mr. Hill on this:
>
> >>> "Hill, Richard" <richard.hill at itu.int> 05/01/02 08:44AM >>>
> > whatever ITU may have done 15 years ago was, I think, a reflection
> > of government policies at the time...
>
> ....which policies have mostly changed.
>
> The ITU is dominated by the telecom firms and govt telecom
> ministries. The idea that telecom firms want to or could squash the
> Internet the way that they tried to do in the 1980s or early 90s,
> when it was new, should not be a serious part of this debate.
>
> What makes it even
> less relevant as an argument is that today the Internet
> industry is dominated by telecom firms, too. One could also
> argue that telcos play a disproportionate role in ICANN
> as well. Certainly the DNSO Business constituency is
> basically a few telcos (AT&T, BT, Telstra) in alliance with
> IP interests.
>
> The relevant issue for us is, which forum and which set of
> procedures are the most balanced and which provides the
> best forum for advancing the policy objectives we share?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>