I agree with the 2 remarks of Chris: The risk of capture comes
from any government or intergovernmental organization, as well as any other
group.
CCWG is about defining mechanisms of accountability of ICANN to
its community, and we have defined 4 accountability purposes:
·
Comply with its own rules and processes
·
Comply with applicable legislation, in jurisdictions where it
operates
·
Achieve certain levels of performance as well as security
·
Ensure decisions are for benefit of the public, not just for a
particular set of stakeholders
The 4th purpose is
to avoid any capture from any party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de
Chris Disspain
Envoyé : dimanche 1 mars 2015 00:20
À : Greg Shatan
Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016
Budget for Dept of Commerce: Testimony on IANA Transition
Hi Greg,
I believe this issue falls into the remit of CCWG, and needs to be in Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the package ultimately considered by the NTIA.
Can we first get clear what the issue actually is.
I assume it is NOT ‘capture of ICANN by foreign
governments in the long term’ is it?
Is it capture by governments generally? Or is it capture by any
group?
Cheers,
Chris
On 1 Mar 2015, at 09:37 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
Here's an email that I
recently sent to the CWG. In response, Seun Ojedeji noted the Senator's
concern with the possible capture of ICANN by foreign governments in the long
term, and that a key goal of the transition must be protecting ICANN from any
possible capture as it continue to operate IANA.I believe this issue falls into
the remit of CCWG, and needs to be in Work Stream 1 so that it is part of the
package ultimately considered by the NTIA.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message
----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:23 PM
Subject: US Senate Committee Hearing on 2016 Budget for Dept of Commerce:
Testimony on IANA Transition
To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
<cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
All:
The US Senate held a hearing
on the Department of Commerce's 2016 Budget (2016 commences October 1, 2015). A
transcription was just published, and I've excerpted (as is) the Senators'
questions and Secy. Pritzker's answers relevant to the IANA Transition -- see
below. The full transcript may be found at:
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=102898&topicId=235950016&docId=l:2311907759&isRss=true&Em=4&md5=&sendDate=20150228
(FYI, much more time was spent on fishing, the paper industry
and weather forecasting than on IANA)
Greg
SEN.
RICHARD C. SHELBY HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FY2016 FUNDING REQUEST AND BUDGET
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
February
26, 2015 Thursday
EVENT
DATE: February 26, 2015
TYPE:
COMMITTEE HEARING
LOCATION:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
COMMITTEE:
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
SPEAKER:
SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY, CHAIRMAN
WITNESSES:
SEN.
RICHARD C. SHELBY, R-ALA. CHAIRMAN
WITNESSES:
PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
…
SHELBY:
Senator Langford.
LANGFORD:
Thank you. Thanks for being here as well.
PRITZKER:
Thank you.
LANGFORD:
I'm grateful to be able to have the conversation. I want to talk a little bit
about where we stand with ICAN (inaudible) conversation and DNA. So my
questions--I'm sorry, DNS, not DNA. DNA would be fun to talk about as well, by
the way, if you want to talk about that.
The
budget request has a note in it that I thought was interesting. It says FY 2016
NTIA will continue to develop, implement and advocate policies positioned in
the U.S. to meet growing complexities and political challenges related to
internet governance and the domain-named system. Tell me the status of where
you are headed on this. And obviously Congress has spoken back on it and is a
little hesitant. So specifically, while you're talking about the status on it,
how are you balancing the foreign policy objectives with United States
commerce? And I mean commerce as a whole of our business world and how
dependent we really are on this internet.
PRITZKER:
Well, let me start by saying our NTIA role is stewardship of the internet. And
so moving--our goal has been to continue to move ICAN to a multi-stakeholder
model. And, in fact, we deal directly with ICAN and the leadership of ICAN and
their CEO is coming in tomorrow.
LANGFORD:
Can I interrupt for just a second? The question there is the why? And I think
it's the foreign policy question.
PRITZKER:
Why?
LANGFORD:
Why try to move that outside of our stewardship? Has it been a problem that
we've been the steward with it? Why remove American stewardship from the internet?
PRITZKER:
Well, the challenge and we--we're not giving up our stewardship of the
internet. But the challenge that we face with the ICAN-IANA transition is this
is--and, first of all, we're not going to give up our position of overseeing
the IANA domain name situation unless we can ourselves there's a
multi-stakeholder process and it's not going to be jeopardized, that there's
going to stability and resiliency and security in the domain name system and
that it meets the needs of global customers, and it remains that the internet
will remain free and open.
The
challenge we face in our role is the perception of our goal in the global
environment. There is a lot of pressure, as you said, from foreign governments
to, in essence, take over control of the internet and try and create places
where governments are in control of what's happening with the internet. We
think that is the wrong direction to go, and therefore we feel we're really an
oversight. ICAN is actually performing the IANA functions. And so our goal is
that ICAN continue to perform those functions, but the appearance of our
engagement creates this notion that the U.S. is a government in control and
that's against where we ultimately--we want to be able to argue with the rest
of the world. That's not what we want to see for the internet.
LANGFORD:
Right. I understand. And the skepticism is when we release the first
generation, there may be some good oversight of that. And then what happens
five years from now, etc.? So what happens with China and Russia? I just want
to be able to express some continuing skepticism.
PRITZKER:
Senator, I share your concern about that. And one of the criteria that I've
said is we've asked for ICAN to explain to us how they're going to be
accountable to a multi-stakeholder process and there cannot be what I call a
hostile takeover of ICAN.
LANGFORD:
Correct, and I would affirm that.
…
KUNTZ:
Let me ask about a very different field for a moment, if I might, which is
ICAN. When I was in the private sector, I did some work around web domains and
website acquisition and control. We had a trademark, the company I was in, that
had been inappropriately taken over as a web domain by a company with no
relationship to it, and I got involved in this.
This
was a long time ago and I was struck at how at that point NTIA was playing a
critical role in oversight of ICAN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers, which I think is widely known to the small community of people who
pay a lot of attention to this. And I'm frankly very concerned that there is a
proposal to transition ICAN completely away from the Commerce Department
oversight and management, and I just want to make sure that ICAN is really
prepared to make that transition and will have adopted some core key principles
about protection from government capture, budgetary restraint and a separation
of functions, and this is something I wrote to you about back in December and
co-sponsored a resolution that passed in the Senate calling for these reforms
before there is any transition. I just wanted to make sure that I had your
sense of whether you thought these reforms were important to complete before
there was any movement towards it.
PRITZKER:
Well, Senator, I share your concern. I think the transition at the IANA
transition is one that's important because there are down sides for our
engagement there. Having said that, making sure that we don't--that ICAN can
responsibly continue to carry out that function, making sure that it is
multi-stakeholder managed and driven, making sure it meets the needs of
customers and in a timely and efficient manner, and that we remain a free and
open internet. All of those are priorities.
We
are awaiting proposals. We're not in any rush. We're working very carefully
with ICAN, but we're waiting for proposals as to how they can make sure they
would satisfy all those performance requirements and also proposals for how
they will improve the accountability of ICAN so that there cannot be what I
call a hostile takeover of the board of ICAN.
Copyright
2015 CQ Transcriptions, LLC
All Rights Reserved
CQ Transcriptions
--
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman
Frayne & Schwab
Partner |
IP | Technology | Media | Internet
666 Third Avenue | New
York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
|
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. |