Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> Exactly the opposite of what we were told:
>
> "The Commission has confirmed to the US authorities that the powers
> retained by the United States DoC regarding ICANN should be effectively
> divested, as foreseen in the US White Paper. The necessary governmental
> oversight of ICANN should be exercised on a multilateral basis, in the
> first instance through the Governmental Advisory Committee."
It is true that ICANN has always said that the GAC would not be a
governmental oversight body but rather a simple advisory committee.
However, it's easy to understand, I think, why the Europeans are
unhappy with the DOC's continued control of the process and of
ICANN. For them, the GAC is the lesser of two evils, since it is
something into which they at least have some input, whereas they
don't have any into the DOC.
This is not to say that the GAC should be invested with oversight
power, but merely why the Europeans, in their frustration with
American manipulation of the process for their own benefit, are
proferring the GAC as a remediation of their political problem
regarding ICANN.
Of course, it's clear that neither the GAC nor the US DOC has any
business whatsoever exercising political control over ICANN or the
Internet. If, to fill the political void, a NewCo responsive to the
White Paper had been created, that is, some structure which included
in a meaningful way all stakeholders both geographical and across
classes (classes in this case being primarily the different Internet
infrastructure levels and users), the Europeans would have no need
to line up behind a Governmental Advisory Committee composed of
people who not only do not legitimately represent their respective
populations but know little or nothing about the Internet and its
problems.
Europeans, Asians, Latin Americans, and all other non-US Internet
stakeholder populations can be expected to reinforce and stand
behind the GAC, and perhaps create other quasi-governmental
political structures within ICANN, so long as the ICANN Board and
the Supporting Organizations are effectively under the control of
US-dominated groups and US citizens. Token non-US persons on the
Board and on the councils of the SOs, persons who although not US
citizens respond to the political pressures of US corporations, for
example the non-US ISOC members, the European telco representatives,
and the WIPO and INTA operatives, can never take the place of
genuine non-US participation in a world-wide NewCo, and the belief
held by the US DOC and the US State Department that other nations
can be fooled and manipulated is erroneous. Americans may be so
naive as to accept without protest a NewCo dominated by special US
interests, but the world's populations are not.
As a direct consequence of the aborted birth of the White Paper's
NewCo, the GAC will thrive and ICANN will come increasingly under
its sway. This is the only alternative to total US domination left
open to the international Internet communities outside the US. It is
a very bad thing to create and empower a governmental bureaucracy
within ICANN, but it is inevitable given the nature of ICANN.
Only the dissociation of ICANN and a return to the precepts of the
White Paper can forestall the accretion of power to the GAC.
Michael Sondow
=================================================================
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS
http://www.iciiu.org (ICIIU) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel(718)846-7482 Fax(603)754-8927
=================================================================
