House Leaders Urge Preservation Of ICANN Role (US)

[Adam Peake]

from the questions and direction of the letter 
I'm wondering if the committee's been well 
briefed about the JPA and particularly ICANN's 
request for early independence at the mid-term 
review.  ICANN and DoC were both very clear the 
JPA is not about DoC's relationship with 
VeriSign, A root etc., and not about the IANA 
contract.  Just likely to stir negative reaction. 
JPA's about operations, accountability in the 
implementation of policy.  The more political 
stuff's in the other relationships the JPA 
doesn't touch.

(Q&A.  1 = Yes.  2 = through relations with 
VeriSign and IANA contract. 3 = Yes.  4 = 
waterboarding.)

Adam


At 9:20 AM -0400 5/12/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>It never hurts to get a letter in front of Congresscritters. The letter
>asks NTIA to respond in _two weeks_ from May 6. I would suggest that
>anyone responding (or if we respond as a group) it be around the same
>time.
>
>To respond to Horacio's question, here are the questions NTIA has to
>answer:
>
>1. Does the Department of Commerce intend to continue its oversight role
>of ICANN to ensure the stability and security of the core Internet
>infrastructure?
>
>2. In what way does the Department intend to continue that role?
>
>3. Does the Department intend to ensure that the key facilities of the
>root server system continue to be housed in the United States?
>
>4. The Chairman of ICANN said in February 2008, at the Department's
>public meeting, "Among the respondents there were concerns expressed
>that ICANN will leave the United States and seek broad immunities from
>legal process by third parties or contracting parties.  Let me be loud
>and clear on this.  That will not happen.  The U.S. for historic and
>practical reasons will remain ICANN's headquarters."  How does the
>Department intend to ensure that ICANN fulfills this commitment?
>
>
>Milton Mueller
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>------------------------------
>Internet Governance Project:
>http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
>>  [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
>>  Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:28 AM
>>  To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>  Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] House Leaders Urge Preservation
>>  Of ICANN Role (US)
>>
>>  Good to know that my track of congressional comments related
>>  to ICANN 
>>  and Internet Governance in general have lead to not only discussions 
>>  on this list, but also blog posts on the IGP :)
>>
>>  In terms of follow-up, would it be of interest to send a response to 
>>  the US congressional leadership before the June ICANN meeting. It 
>>  might be strategic..
>>
>>
>>  regards
>>
>>  Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>  On 10-May-08, at 4:49 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
>>
>>  > Not sure i've seen this on any of the ICANN related lists yet..
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > (US Congress) House Leaders Urge Preservation Of ICANN Role
>>  >
>>  http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2008/05/house_leaders
>>  _urge_preservatio.php
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Posted on May 6, 2008
>>  >
>>  > (US Congress) House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John
>>  > Dingell and ranking member Joe Barton joined 14 other colleagues on
>>  > Tuesday in sending a letter to Commerce Secretary Gutierrez praising
>>  > the administration's continued oversight of the international entity
>>  > charged with administering the Internet.
>>  >
>>  > The lawmakers also asked the Commerce Department to comment on the
>>  > possibility of an overseas relocation of the Internet
>>  Corporation for
>>  > Assigned Names and Numbers, which is currently based in Marina Del
>>  > Ray, Calif. Rumors have swirled in recent years that some foreign
>>  > government and industry stakeholders want ICANN's
>>  headquarters to move
>>  > to Brussels.
>>  >
>>  > The concern comes as ICANN's leaders gradually try to transition the
>>  > coordination of technical functions of the Web to the
>  > private sector.
>>  > "Any change that threatens the important U.S. role in promoting U.S.
>>  > commercial and free speech principles on the Internet can only hurt
>>  > the consumers and businesses that count on this network every day,"
>>  > they wrote.
>>  >
>>  > The letter requests a response to a handful of questions
>>  about ICANN's
>>  > future within two weeks time. While ICANN remains the "best
>>  option for
>>  > reaching consensus in an increasingly divided world,"
>>  members said the
>>  > organization should ensure transparency and promote greater
>>  > accountability in its operations. ICANN constituents meet several
>>  > times a year and their next meeting is scheduled for June 22-26 in
>>  > Paris, France.
>>