Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Thank you for putting this out, Carlton!
I've always had the same gut reaction as you - its interesting to see it documented.
I agree; I have believed that the USG would always find some excuse to maintain ICANN as a US possession. Indeed, the creation of At-Large could easily be seen as a half-measure towards demonstrating internationalization -- without actually letting go of anything. I see this USG move as one more symptom of a global retreat from globalization brought on by the worldwide decline in trade and prosperity. However, it would be a crucial mistake for US politicians to assume that ICANN can forever maintain a monopoly under American control. China, has long threatened to implement a parallel system to ICANN to circumvent dominance by the USG: http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html Should the US exert deeper control over ICANN there would most certainly be a backlash, not just from China but also from the EU and elsewhere. And ICANN won't be able to do much but watch its competition -- driven by very different objectives -- take shape. Of course, one possible outcome will be that the USG will have stake in ensuring that ICANN is more responsive to international concerns, and the role of At-Large could conceivably be enhanced and expanded (even over the objections of other constituencies). Perhaps we could do something to encourage such an agenda. - Evan