IP: ICANN assumes control of all country codes Fwd:Froomkin's take on .au matter

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> X-Sender: cook () pop3 netaxs com
> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:24:35 -0400
> To: dave () farber net
> From: Gordon Cook <cook () cookreport com>
> Subject: ICANN assumes control of all country codes Fwd:Froomkin's  take
>  on .au matter
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by linc.cis.upenn.edu 
> id f85HQWJ24001
>
>
> dave
>
> I know you are jet lagged, but if you cant sleep tonight, PLEASE read this 
> entire URL essay on ICANN watch by Michael Froomkin.  IF your IP readers 
> are concerned about the survival of an end controlled internet with room 
> for the little guy, they better start going to the respective 
> congressional committees of which Senator Hollings may be a good place to 
> start.
>
> Important congress critters are Tauzin and Dingell (House communications)
> House Sub committee  on Telecom and the Internet Fred Upton is chair 
> subcommittee. Ed Markey is ranking member. (Known to dislike Icann.) John 
> Shimkus (Illinois rep) Chip Pickering active and important 
> bellweather.   Tom Davis is the representative from Network Solutions 
> write off as a lossŠ.  On demo side not much clue beside Markey.
>
> Senate Commerce Chair Hollings  is critical and in fact has a key staffer 
> who is knowledgeable on this issue having been an ISP sys admin!
> Rockefeller has been active but his key staffer has just gone to FCC
> John Kerry (Mass) is knowledgeable
> Senator Boxer needs to be educated having had a bad experience with a 
> cyber squatter
> Senator Burns is knowledgeable
>
> Activate commerce committees which are frustrated but understand that when 
> they get unhappy and they do that the intellectual property people on the 
> judiciary committees come out in ICANN's favor and succeed in squelching 
> any rebellion.  Therefore judiciary committees need to be involved as well.
>
> Leahy must be made understand from freedom of speech issues
>
> Barney Franks in the house judiciary committee is sympathetic and very 
> important
>
> Zoe Loefgreen (spelling?) commerce (?) Zoe is the silicon valley 
> representative and has clues.
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin () law miami edu>
>
>
>
> > http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/dotau.htm
> >
> > --
>
>
> How ICANN Policy Is Made (II)
>
> A. Michael Froomkin
> ICANNWatch.org
>
>
>
> In a watershed moment in Internet history, ICANN declared this week that 
> the ICANN staff can re-assign the .au ccTLD at will, without a finding of 
> misconduct, without a public comment process, and despite the opposition 
> of the incumbent ccTLD manager. In so doing, ICANN in effect 
> simultaneously declared
>
> that it can redelegate a functioning ccTLD over the opposition of the 
> current delegate; that controversial dictates of the so-called ICANN 
> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) will be treated as ICANN policy even 
> if they have never been voted on by any other part of the ICANN machinery; 
> that a major change on redelegation policies will be made in secret, 
> without any public discussion; that a major decision on the governance of 
> a functioning TLD will be taken unilaterally and secretly by the ICANN 
> staff, without either a publicly documented comment period or a vote of 
> the DNSO or the ICANN Board. that it's ICANN/GAC policy to support the 
> creation of national mini-ICANNs as an end-run around ordinary government 
> procedures.
>
> All this from one report recommending the redelegation of .au? Yes. Even 
> if you like this outcome, and there are reasons why you might or might 
> not, there's quite a lot to be concerned about how ICANN got there and 
> what this tells us about where ICANN is going.
>
> [Snip]
>
> here is the conclusion by froomkin:
>
> Why This Is Serious
>
> ICANN now takes the view that if a government wants to take a ccTLD, or 
> wants it delegated to its mini-ICANN, "IANA" can do that, without a 
> finding of fault on the behalf of the existing ccTLD operator.
>
> There are three grounds for concern in this story. The first, as I've 
> suggested in this narrative, is that ICANN persists with the fiction of 
> IANA to the detriment of open processes. This is dangerous. The second, 
> also set out above, is that ICANN creates new policies on the fly -- this 
> time with the added bonus of turning GAC's advisory role into one of pure 
> policymaking, unmediated by any other ICANN body. This too is dangerous. 
> The third is that ICANN's new policy essentially puts governments in 
> control of ccTLDs. That's complicated, but subtly dangerous too.
>
> Ultimately, I think governments can, and should be, allowed to exert 
> control over ccTLDs designed to serve their nations. RFC 1591 requires 
> that the ccTLD operator have a local presence, and that means that 
> governments will always have the power to regulate (or even jail) the 
> ccTLD operator. But in democratic governments, regulatory decisions have 
> to be made according to established and legitimate processes. Taking a 
> functioning ccTLD from someone against their will is not something a 
> democratic government would necessarily find it easy to do. Similarly, all 
> sorts of ccTLD regulations -- the UDRP comes to mind -- may only be 
> possible if enacted through ICANN, or a series of mini-ICANNs.
>
> ICANN was already a means by which the US government did an end-run around 
> ordinary government procedures. Now ICANN's taking the show on the road.
>
> Useful links
> Story in The Australian
> http://it.mycareer.com.au/breaking/2001/09/03/FFXQIBM55RC.html
> slashdot discussion
> Sydney Morning Herald story
>
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook () cookreport com   Index to 9 years
>  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com         From now through 
> Sept 15th
> half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL back 
> issues.
> Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml
> ****************************************************************



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