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/