Re: [ga] ITU and Internet Governance

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.


This US Govt. statement could not be found on the ICANN site.

When was this said? Was it in response to the last status report of oct 2004?

ICANN comes to New Zealand in 2006.
Without MoU, will it only be charged with the IANA function?



> 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 d! 
> omain ".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.

Its "members"??  ICANN has no members.

Does the ITU mean the stakeholders enumerated in the latest draft Strategic 
plan (that excludes the individual DN registrants)?
Or the "members of the Internet community" that ICANN always refers to?



> 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.


"wherever appropriate" as determined , presumably, by the ITU.

Hmm. Venenum in cauda.


--Joop--
www.icannatlarge.com