[ga] ITU and Internet Governance

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

The content below is part of a recent document entitled "ITU and Internet Governance",  written by  ITU Director H. Zhou.  For the full article see http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/wg-wsis-Zhao-rev1.doc

 
4.11     ITU and ICANN 
As a new organization started in 1998, ICANN has had significant success in many areas under its competence, particularly in its operational and administrative work in encouraging new gTLDs, promoting competition, and implementing dispute resolution procedures. 

Having read the paper issued by Dr. Lynn, then President of ICANN, who called for a reform of ICANN in February 2002, I was impressed with his recognition of the fact that ICANN had not succeeded in obtaining support from all governments around the world. He particularly indicated that early attempts to keep governments away from Internet matters proved wrong, and he asked for increased engagement by governments. 

We noted that ICANN has made great efforts to reform itself. Many positive changes, such as internationalizing its board, are widely recognized. Surely there is still a lot of work to be done for this young organization. We have to give it more time to change. 

The US government has played a unique role in the development of ICANN. In the early days of Internet development, the issues were in the hands of a few US experts, later on with a few competing US organizations. Realizing in 1997 the significance of the issues related to Internet governance, the US government initiated the concept of ICANN and provided its support to ICANN in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN, which assumed some of the functions that had previously been performed by a contractor (IANA) of the US Department of Defense. The US government has always encouraged ICANN be develop into an internationally accepted organization. Keeping in mind its responsibility to maintain stability of the global Internet service, the US government carefully choose not to relinquish its own role up to now. I have noted a statement by US authorities to the effect that the US government will not extend its MoU with ICANN !
after the
 expiration of the current MoU in 2006.

I share the same concerns as the US government concerning the stability of Internet and the role of the private sector. ICANN served a need that existed in 1998 while the Internet and IP-based services were emerging as a large-scale public infrastructure and offerings. As there is no a better solution so far, in my opinion, we ought to recognize and appreciate the efforts made by the US government.

As a matter of fact, since the creation of ICANN in 1998, ITU has supported and cooperated with ICANN. In July 1999, ITU signed an MoU on ?Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO)? with ICANN, ISOC/IETF, W3C and ETSI. After ICANN reform, ITU continues its role in the Technical Liaison Group (TLG). ITU supported the nomination of candidates by PSO to the ICANN Board since 1999. ITU also committed to the work of ICANN Independent Review Panel Nomination Committee before 2002. ITU was one of founding member of ICANN?s Governement Advisory Committee (GAC). In reply to the public call for ICANN Reform launched by the then President of ICANN, I prepared a paper, after intensive informal consultations with ITU members, which was submitted to ICANN in April 2002, and which was unanimously supported by the ITU Council-2002. And ICANN and ITU have worked together to organize workshops on ccTLDs and on the top level domain ?.int?.

While we appreciate the changes ICANN has introduced into its own process, we have to address another important issues: its own legitimacy and its role with respect to intergovernmental coordination. The latter cannot be easily achieved, in my opinion, within ICANN?s current structure.

During recent years, particularly during the WSIS debates, ICANN has been under challenge for various issues. It would be fair to say that not all criticisms were justified. Some issues were in fact beyond ICANN?s competences. However, some ambiguity in, or misunderstanding of, ICANNs plans and actions, not necessarily as expressed by its staff or its members, but as perceived by external people, led to some criticisms. 

It would be necessary and useful if the mission of ICANN were further clarified, and restricted to its areas of technical competence. The WGIG provides a good opportunity for ICANN to establish a different image.

One option is that ITU should support ICANN to continue wherever it has successfully managed its tasks so far. That is, to support ICANN as an organization to deal with technical and operational matters of Internet domain names and addresses, in particular IANA functions that are unrelated to intergovernmental cooperation and coordination for public infrastructure and services. In this option, ITU would welcome and support ICANN?s contribution to all policy discussions wherever appropriate. 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.