[ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings,

Personal summary and comments on five testimonies, presented in the US
Senate on 31 July 2003, cf.
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=889

Caveat:
As a non-US citizen, I feel watching Congress hearings like going to a
theater - the actors play their role, I am sitting in the remote
audience. I did appreciate Paul Twomey's conclusion said to the US 
Senator Burns:
"I want to help establish that a public-private partnership of the kind that
ICANN has become is in fact a feasible and appropriate way to deal with
matters like the DNS, over which no single government can claim sovereignty,
but which all governments and many private parties have important and
legitimate interests in seeing function well."


In making this summary my primary interest is about ccTLD, but I made 
also a search of following words - how many time those words are used 
in provided presentations:
     1. stability and security
     2. ccTLD, ccNSO, country-code
     3. root
     4. government
     5. Congress
     6. MoU
     7. regulate or regulation
     8. Verisign
     9. IPv6
    10. ITU, WSIS, UN, foreign

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
words used in testimony     | Victory| Twomey| Balough| Davidson| Stahura|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. stability or security    |     16 |     6 |      8 |       8 |      0 |
2. ccTLD ccNSO country-code |      9 |    11 |      8 |       4 |      0 |
3. root                     |      3 |     8 |      8 |       3 |      0 |
4. government               |      2 |     5 |      6 |      13 |      2 |
5. Congress                 |      2 |     0 |      0 |       8 |      4 |
6. MoU                      |      3 |     0 |      0 |       4 |      3 |
7. regulate or regulation   |      1 |     0 |      2 |       3 |      2 |
8. Verisign                 |      0 |     7 |     10 |       0 |     16 |
9. IPv6                     |      0 |     3 |      0 |       0 |      0 |
10. ITU WSIS UN foreign gov |      0 |     0 |      0 |       4 |      0 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nancy Victory's primary focus is on stability and security, her interest on
ccTLD is high (to perceive the change one shall go back to the White Paper
from 1998 where ccTLD were mention twice, and of no interest to the
global Internet governance). She acknowledges the global factor of Internet,
and refers to the global Internet community. She refers to the undergoing
work on extension of the MoU.


Paul Twomey's primary interest is in ccTLDs, next are root servers, VeriSign
and stability and security of Internet. He uses the word "government" in
general manner, not US-government. It is worth to note he mentions IPv6
three times, and is the only speaker insisting in this important issue.


Ari Balough's main concern is obviously Verisign, but he shares equivalent
interest to stability and security of Internet, root servers, and ccTLD.
He uses the word "government" mostly in general manner, with one exception,
when he recalls the very existence of ICANN "ICANN has been the entity
charged by the U.S. government and a community of Internet interests with
coordinating certain technical functions of the Internet's naming and
numbering system". He is preoccupied about too much regulation of registrars
business practices. Ari Balough speaks at length about ccTLD, from Verisign
business perspective: (a) We are good US company under ICANN contract, we
provide critical infrastructure, spend hundred millions dollars; at the same
time there are over 200 ccTLDs, nearly half of all registered names, mostly
without signed agreement; (b) ICANN is not legitimate, it failed to have cc
and IP registries in, it failed to have root operators in, and at the same
time it behaves as unchartered FCC micromanaging VeriSign, and preventing
VeriSign from doing whatever it feels appropriate in IDNs and WLS.


Alan Davidson's primary focus are the powers of the US government and the
US Congress to oversight ICANN. His statement is quit contradictory
and US-centric. He claims to speak on behalf of Internet users. He mentions
ccTLD for its own purpose. He is unhappy with ICANN, but he concludes 
unfortunately there is nothing else, no one place giving users and
individuals rights to participate in global Internet governance. He considers 
there are insufficient limits on ICANN's regulatory authority. He begs the 
US Congress to control ICANN for the benefit of Internet users. He mentions 
MoU three times. He is afraid of foreign governments, ITU, the United 
Nations and WSIS. He is afraid of internal US government changes at DoC. 


Paul Stahura's primary focus is the fight with Verisign and ICANN against
WLS issue. He does not pronounce a single word about ccTLD, ccNSO or
country-code. He points out problems with ICANN's credibility with regards
to the companies it regulates. He considers the US Congress must continue to
exercise its oversight jurisdiction by holding the Department of Commerce
accountable for its activities regarding ICANN. He calls for the US GAO
review of ICANN activities, and refers to internal US legislation to
supervise ICANN and to assess its execution of the MoU.

--

Quotes from testimonies about ccTLD, ccNSO and country-code:


Nancy Victory: mentions ccTLD 5 times (using such terms as ccTLD managers,
ccTLD community, and  ccTLD operators), and ccNSO 2 times:
...
  ICANN has refined its mission and restructured its supporting
  organizations and advisory committees, including the
  establishment of a new supporting organization for country code
  Top Level Domain (ccTLD) managers;
...
  Developing Agreements with ccTLD Operators. The fastest growing
  segment of the DNS is within the ccTLD community. While ICANN
  continues to make progress towards establishing stable agreements
  with ccTLD operators, forward movement has been slow. This is
  largely attributable to the complexities resulting from the
  convergence of national sovereignty assertions, international law
  considerations, and the general concerns of global and local
  Internet communities. Despite these competing pressures, ICANN
  must develop a framework agreement that would appeal to the
  majority of ccTLD operators, while recognizing the various
  national sovereignty issues involved. The establishment of a
  country code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) during the last
  year represents significant progress towards this end.
...


Paul Twomey: mentions ccTLD as ccTLD administrators, and insists 
at length on ccNSO.
...
  Forming a Country-Code Names Supporting Organization to further
  participation in ICANN by the almost 250 ccTLDs around the world;
...
  A majority of the ICANN Board is
  now selected by ICANN's Nominating Committee, with the remainder
  being selected by ICANN's policy making bodies -- the Address
  Supporting Organization, Generic Names Supporting Organization
  and Country-Code Names Supporting Organization.
...
  In addition to the Board, the ICANN reforms of the past year created
  the Generic Names Supporting Organization and the Country-Code
  Names Supporting Organization as two new policy-making entities
  within ICANN.
...
  The ccNSO, the formation and structure of
  which was agreed to by all involved parties at the recent ICANN
  meeting in Montreal, is emblematic of the recent progress. It
  reflects a judgment by the country code Top Level Domains that
  they must be a part of the ICANN policy development process, and
  follows more than a year of detailed discussions between ICANN,
  ccTLD administrators and other interested parties.
...
  The ccNSO also includes a detailed Policy Development Process
  designed to ensure a balance of input from country code Top Level
  Domains from all geographic regions, and an established process
  by which to deal with policies of global concern affecting
  country code Top Level Domains.
...
  The At Large Advisory
  Committee also appoints delegates to ICANN's Nominating
  Committee, and liaisons to the managing Councils of the Generic
  Names Supporting Organization and the Country-Code Names
  Supporting Organization, as well as other ICANN committees and
  participatory bodies.
...


Ari Balough speaks at length about ccTLD, from Verisign business
perspective.
...
  ICANN's legitimacy is
  hampered by the non-inclusion/non-participation of regional
  numbering authorities, the collective community of root server
  operators or over 200 country code Top Level Domain registries.
...
  Besides
  other top-level domains like .biz and .info, there are over 200
  country-code top-level domains such as .de for Germany, .jp for
  Japan and .br for Brazil. These country specific domain names
  today represent nearly half of all registered names on the
  Internet; soon, they will account for the majority of domain
  names in the world. Yet only a handful of these 200+ country-code
  domain name operators have executed agreements with ICANN.
...
  This lack of true global support for ICANN limits ICANN's
  legitimacy. It is imperative that ICANN be streamlined into an
  organization that the country-code operators see benefit in
  joining, rather than a burden or risk.
...
  A good first step would be ICANN adopting an approach that
  respected sovereignty of the country-code operators and their
  ability to govern themselves. In short, to operate within an
  ICANN model without fear of ICANN dictates. Only then will the
  majority of this important constituency consider joining ICANN.
...
  For many
  -- such as root server operators and country-code domain name
  operators -- the 'pain' of joining ICANN (onerous contracts,
  lengthy review periods, and the unfortunate politicization of
  ICANN's administrative functions) has not made membership a
  viable option.
...
  We need a body that is legitimate and effective. If it is to be
  ICANN, ICANN must: --bolster its legitimacy by ensuring that
  critical Internet constituencies that are responsible for the
  operation of the global networks and domain names are active and
  supportive members; --limit its attempts at business
  micro-management in a way that will invite the participation of
  ccTLD registries, IP numbering registries and root server
  operators and encourage innovation and new services; --abandon
  its aspirations to be the unchartered FCC of the Internet; and
  --sponsor the discussions and actions regarding the Internet's
  security and growth that will ratify a view among all
  constituencies that the institution is adding real value.
...


Alan Davidson mentions ccTLD for its own purpose.
...
  And it has recently established
  the framework for agreements with country-code Top-Level Domains
  (ccTLDs).
...
  They are a striking contrast to the very limited ccTLD
  agreement framework, which may indicate how little is really
  needed to insure stable coordination of the domain name system.
...
  Moreover, if ICANN is perceived as an unaccountable organization
  whose activities impinge the rights of users worldwide, then
  powerful entities such as foreign governments, the ITU, or even
  the United Nations will accelerate their search for alternatives.
  Such approaches would likely include a vastly expanded role for
  governments, and could fuel efforts at multilateral regulation of
  the Internet -- a costly and user-unfriendly environment that
  could constrain innovation substantially.
...
  6. Acceptance
  by key stakeholders, ccTLDs, Regional Internet Registries, etc.
...
  Currently, the registrant of a domain name in the public gTLDs
  and many ccTLDs must make certain technical and administrative
  contact information available in the "Whois" database accessible
  to the public online.
...


Paul Stahura: no single word about ccTLD, ccNSO or country-code.

--
Kind regards
Elisabeth Porteneuve
--