A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> At 12:53 PM 7/13/99 , Craig McTaggart wrote:
>
> >describes as ICANN making itself into an "International government for
the
> >Internet" is precisely what this whole process has been about: basing
IANA's
> >functions in an internationally-recognized, authoritative, stable,
> >non-governmental body.
>
> There is an incredible range of options within those general
> specifications. The "good NewCo" was that specified
> in the White Paper. ICANN has emerged as the antithesis.
>
> Maybe this is inevitable when you move to a non-profit
> (government or private sector) orientation - only in
> the non-profit world you have fewer safeguards. Clearly
> what we have here is little more than the gTLD-MoU
> regime moved from Geneva and the ITU to California and
> ICANN. The players, religion, and methods are all
> pretty much the same.
Isn't it the "internationally-recognized and authoritative" part where
governments *have* to be involved in some way? The only way the White Paper
plan (which I liked) could work is with (a) the very active support of the
USG and (b) the recognition of most of the nations which the Internet
'reaches'. There are significant public policy issues involved now
(although i expect that is one point on which we disagree sharply) and it is
perfectly legitimate for governments to take part to ensure that their
citizens' interests are protected and, yea verily, even advanced. ICANN is
probably learning the contours of the support which it enjoys from those
many governments right now, support which it desperately needs (where else
is the next round of funding going to come from?)
The halcyon days of the Interent's homogenous research-oriented user
community are over. This is serious business now and serious public
interest issues are engaged. However, the governance structures which we
have now are essentially identical to those of 20 years ago. They have
simply been scaled up and some contracted out. Aren't the old governance
structures simply incompatible with the Internet's new role? Clearly the
proprietary-TLD people think so, because Postel wouldn't add their new TLDs.
In fact, aren't they the ones who pushed this whole reform process in the
first place? They want their new TLDs, but preferably not an effective new
governance structure which recognizes the Internet's global significance.
I agree that the ITU is on one level a relic of an earlier age when national
cartels carved up the global telecom market for their own benefit, but at
another level they do know a lot about coordinating global networks for
global benefit. If the ITU regime is so unpalatable, how about the WTO
agreement on basic telecoms? Its Reference Paper
(http://www.wto.org/wto/services/tel23.htm) actually calls for more
government regulation, not less, by requiring each country to have an
independent regulatory authority to facilitate competitive markets.
Similarly, breaking NSI's monopoly (which is now miraculously a good thing)
has required the creation of new regulatory structures. The route chosen
has been a chain of private contracts, and what some find objectionable in
them are exactly the same kinds of things that public regulators have to do
to create stable, competitive markets. If some private-sector body could
apply the principles in the Reference Paper to the administration of the
Internet's technical infrastructure, I'd be satisfied, but unfortunately it
requires real legitimacy and enforcement power, which IANA, ICANN, or any
other IANA-like body could not have without international governmental
support. I suppose it's the line between support and meddling (or even
subversion) that is causing the fuss right now.
Yes, the WTO is based in Geneva, but surely it's beyond reproach?
Craig McTaggart
Graduate Student
Faculty of Law
University of Toronto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
