http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/de83199b341886d0753140c37093a98e/index.
html

The Credible Threat

Dr. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and 
E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.

If you have been following the debate over Internet governance over the 
past few years, you know that while ICANN supporters (U.S., Canadian, 
Australian governments; business lobby) and critics (developing world 
and occasionally Europe) argue over the optimal approach, particularly 
with respect to government involvement in the domain name system, the 
reality has been that possession is all.  The U.S. government retains 
ultimate control over the system and thus the debate is somewhat 
academic.  In assessing the outcome at the World Summit on the 
Information Society last fall, I argued that:

"the U.S. simply had a very strong hand and played it well.  Changes to 
the governance structure ultimately requires U.S. agreement since 
possession is even more than the proverbial 9/10th of the law.  The U.S. 
had loudly indicated that it was not prepared to make concessions.  
During the negotiations at the PrepCom it adopted a very hard line - 
even raising the prospect of pulling back on ccTLD sovereignty or 
turning over the Internet Governance Forum to a private sector group 
like ISOC.  Without a credible threat (the threat being the creation of 
alternate root), the U.S. was able to maintain its position and 
ultimately force everyone else to deal."

The alternate root has always lurked in the background as a possibility 
that would force everyone to rethink their positions since it would 
enable a single country (or group of countries) to effectively pack up 
their bags and start a new game.  The U.S. control would accordingly 
prove illusory since a new domain name system situated elsewhere would 
be subject to its own rules.  While the two could theoretically co-exist 
by having ISPs simply recognize both roots, the system could "break" if 
both roots contained identical extensions.  In other words, one root can 
have dot-com and other other can have dot-corp, but they can't both have 
dot-com.

It is with that background in mind that people need to think about a 
press release issued yesterday in China announcing a revamping of its 
Internet domain name system.  Starting tomorrow, China's Ministry of 
Information Industry plans to begin offering four country-code domains.  
In addition to the dot-cn country code domain, three new Chinese 
character domains are on the way: dot-China, dot-net, and dot-com.  As 
the People's Daily Online notes this "means Internet users don't have to 
surf the Web via the servers under the management of the Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of the United 
States." In other words, the Chinese Internet becomes a reality 
tomorrow.  With it, the rules of the game may change as 110 million 
Internet users will suddenly have access to a competing dot-com (albeit 
in a different character set) and will no longer rely exclusively on 
ICANN for the resolution of Internet domain name queries.  This change 
was probably inevitable regardless of the status of ICANN, however, the 
U.S. position can't possibly have helped matters.  Indeed, some might 
note that while Congress has been criticizing U.S. companies for harming 
Internet freedoms by cooperating with Chinese law enforcement, those 
same Congressional leaders may have done the same by refusing to even 
consider surrendering some control over the Internet root to the 
international community and thereby opening the door to an alternate 
root that could prove even worse from a freedom perspective.

This week's announcement certainly doesn't mark the end of a global 
interoperable Internet.  It does move one step further toward that path 
since in Internet governance terms, the credible threat is now real.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"telecom-cities" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/telecom-cities
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to