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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Elisabeth and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  Thank you Elisabeth for your candid comments and/or remarks
regarding the Senate hearing this time around regarding ICANN.

  It is a bit demeaning to hear that our US Senate are like
"Actors" in the discharge of their duties from a French
Citizen.  It would seem that mending fences between
our two countries is not in the forefront of  your mind
or thoughts.  I hope that the Senate committee members
will not take offense to your remarks.

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> 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
> --

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801