[ga] Re: [Politech] Milton Mueller replies to Politech over Verisign, ICANN column

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Declan, Milton and all,

  Very good review by Milton here, and one that has been discussed
recently on the DNSO/GNSO GA list see:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/

  As I in my capacity as Spokesman for IENGRoup have made clear
much along the same lines with Milton, Verisign was Granted
in perpetuity the .COM TLD, and at a later date is supposed
to be turning over .NET, they basically via contract can pretty
much do with .COM whatever they like unless DOC/NTIA
decides to step in and enforce their authority which will almost
assuredly guarantee legal action initiated by Verisign and lead
to likely long and protracted litigation...

  Also see comment and remarks at:
 http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00453.html
>From Karl A.
and  http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00484.html
Also from Karl A.
and  http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00481.html
>From Jeff Williams

 This I am sure ICANN would like to avoide as well will yet again
stain what ICANN had done in it's error in giving and recomending
to DOC/NTIA such an contracted agreement written by Joe Simms
and Louis Touton.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Previous Politech message:
> http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech/2003-September/000007.html
>
> ---
>
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:04:46 -0400
> From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
> To: <declan@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Response to Geist column
>
> If the Sitefinder incident can spark greater public interest
> in Internet governance then that's great, and Michael Geist's
> column does us a service by calling attention to it and
> highlighting its implications.
>
> But there's some very troubling implications in Michael's response.
> Consider, first, this:
>
>  >Despite the Internet community's near unanimous outcry against the Site
>  >Finder service, it quickly learned just how powerless it has become. ICANN,
>  >the supposed steward of the domain name system, took until Friday evening
>  >to issue a weak statement calling on VeriSign to voluntarily suspend the
>  >Site Finder service while it reviewed the matter.
>
> The problem is that the ICANN regulatory system works on the basis
> of contract, and it's not clear whether what VeriSign did violates
> their contract. As critical as I am of ICANN and its regulatory system
> this kind of a flaw is NOT unique to ICANN - any system of regulation
> of private actors by public authorities has gray areas which allow
> private actors to do things that may not be in the public interest,
> requiring the authorities to adjust their laws, contracts, or franchises.
> Especially new regulatory regimes in new industries. So the rational response
> is for ICANN to act within its authority and to amend or clarify its contracts
> to prevent such things in the future. This episode is far from over.
> The GNSO Council (which I am on) and other organs of ICANN reacted
> quite strongly against VRSN and are just now moving into action.
>
> Does Michael prefer a powerful, dictatorial ICANN that can
> immediately, without any rules, order registries to conform to its edicts?
>
> A much better question to ask is this: Why does the DNS catch a cold
> when VeriSign sneezes? In other words, why does one registry control
> over 90% of the market in the United States and 85% of the gTLD
> registrations worldwide? Because of ICANN's - and the US government's -
> refusal to expand the name space to create competition.
>
>  >National governments, who
>  >were witnessing one company tamper with a public resource they
>  >had promised to protect, also did nothing, rendered powerless by
>  >their years of adherence to a self-regulatory policy that diminishes
>  >traditional regulatory oversight.
>
> Hold on. Reality check. Does Michael think that national
> governments would automatically have drawn the contracts better
> in this case? In truth, the VeriSign-ICANN contract was drafted
> with the U.S. Dept of Commerce breathing down everyone's necks.
> Many other national governments are even more ignorant, concentrating
> entirely on preserving the acronyms of intergovernmental
> organizations, seizing control of their country code TLD, or creating
> even stronger protections for intellectual property interests.
>
> Improved public representation within ICANN would do more to
> solve this problem than turning it over to governments. Even now,
> within ICANN's flawed and industry-biased self-regulatory process,
> VeriSign is the dominant provider that everyone hates, and can be and
> usually is outnumbered and outvoted.
>
>  >In fact, last week the United States government
>  >extended ICANN's mandate over the domain name system for an additional
>  >three years, guaranteeing many more years of governmental abdication of
>  >leadership responsibility.
>
> And the alternative is? ....remember, this is not a national infrastructure,
> it's a global one. There are currently no global structures for DNS
> regulation. Take a look at what's being said about Internet
> governance in WSIS if you want to get the flavor of how an
> international intergovernmental organization would handle things.
>
> --MM
>
> ---
>
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:49:55 -0400
> From: Gene Gaines <gene.gaines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Organization: Gaines Group
> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Politech] Reply to column on VeriSign: Don't ask for
> government intervention
>
> Declan,
>
> I say Henrik is wrong.  I read what he says as: justified by my long
> years of working in government agencies, I can make statements such as
> "... prof Geist, he is talking up his posterior."  as a justification
> for my and other governments taking a course of making no public
> statements and delaying or taking no action on an problem that affects
> essentially every user of the Internet worldwide.
>
> Underplaying the Versign SiteFinder issue, and as we say in American
> vernacular "sweeping the issue under the rug" may be comfortable for
> such a distinguished individual as Mr. Nilsson. But dealing with such
> issues is governance of the Internet, freedom, and the rights of
> individuals is seldom comfortable. Does seem important, though.
>
> Gene Gaines
> gene.gaines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sterling, Virginia USA
> _______________________________________________
> Politech mailing list
> Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

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