IP: from ICANN reICANN says: "no foreign government ...

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> X-Sender: >X-Sender: mmr@192.0.34.50
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:36:01 -0800
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Mike Roberts <roberts () icann org>
> Subject: Re:  IP: ICANN says: "no foreign government ...
> Cc: vcerf () mci net
>
> Dave -
>
> I think a few comments are in order about this particular bit of vivid 
> journalism and its antecedents.
>
> Since the beginning of the DNS privatization process back in 1997, there 
> has never been any doubt that the U.S. Government was (a) assuming 
> authority to undertake the privatization, and (b) offering to complete a 
> transition to private sector technical management of the DNS provided that 
> certain conditions were met.  Chief among those conditions was that the 
> community could demonstrate its ability to provide for stable management 
> under a regime of bottom up consensus decision making.
>
> The Department of Commerce [the lead USG agency],  ICANN, and the major 
> stakeholders have been on that track ever since and have made considerable 
> progress in meeting the conditions established by the government in the 
> White Paper and in the MOU transition agreement with us.
>
> With respect to the situation of the country code Top Level Domain 
> Registries, the original Postel position remains ICANN policy today. As 
> Jon put it,
>
> "The IANA takes the desires of the government of the country very 
> seriously, and
> will take them as a major consideration in any transition discussion."
>
> This was good advice when Jon said it, and it remains good advice 
> today.  The desires of the relevant government, though not the only factor 
> considered in promoting operation of ccTLDs in the best interests of the 
> local and global Internet communities, are indeed taken very seriously.
>
> Subsequent to the formation of ICANN, its Governmental Advisory Committee 
> undertook to develop a framework with some proposed policy guidance and 
> some practical advice about how to bring the original "gentlemen's 
> agreement" relationships of the Postel era forward into the much more 
> complex environment we have today.   There has been, and continues to be, 
> considerable debate about how best to forge the trilateral relationships 
> among governments, their ccTLD organizations, and ICANN into a suitable 
> set of documents.  For a recent example of the working out of an 
> arrangement to meet the needs of a specific country, Canada, see
> <http://www.iana.org/cctld/reports/ca-report-01dec00.htm>
>
> ICANN is a work in progress.  Are there tensions between and among the 
> various technical, economic and geo-political interests involved? 
> Certainly.  Is there a need for a regime that simultaneously meets the 
> need for continued worldwide interoperability and stability of the 
> Internet while respecting legitimate national government 
> interests?  Certainly.  Are we there yet? Nope.
>
> Regards.
>
> - Mike



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/