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 loss?.  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/