ICANN, the JPA and Draft Cybersecurity Act 2009
I have always had a difficulty seeing how my Uncle Sam would let go of something so clearly strategic, especially when most Americans hold it was bought and paid for by American money. So when I opined to some of you that the JPA - or some form thereof - shall forever be with us, some said this was an "over the top" assessment. Follow the link and see the rattles of the the ordinary American political mind. Note well that the politicians named here are not your usual klavern of rightwing firebreathing nativists. These - Snow and Rockefeller - tend to sterling centrist perspectives, if not actively liberal. The *draft* *Cybersecurity Act 2009* [http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf] establishes some facts on the ground. Read *Sec 2: Findings* carefully. The *recitals* in this part justify what is proposed: the maintenance of the DNS infrastructure currently jobbed out to ICANN is a strategic and critical infrastructure resource which is fundamental to the security and continued well-being of the United States. Plainly put, it is ineligible for "foreign" control. Focus on *Sec 3: Cybersecurity Advisory Panel* and note who are the persons elegible for appointment to help USG/DOC make the decisions on JPA. Be sure to read carefully *Sec 8: Review of NTIA Domain Name Contracts*. The provision for extending USG oversight of ICANN is documented here and the mechanism by which that will be assured. Here is further grist for the mill, compliments of Milton Mueller's blog: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/2/4141451.html http://www.cdt.org/ Kind regards, Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies.
Thank you for putting this out, Carlton! I've always had the same gut reaction as you - its interesting to see it documented. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:25 AM To: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: [ALAC] ICANN, the JPA and Draft Cybersecurity Act 2009 I have always had a difficulty seeing how my Uncle Sam would let go of something so clearly strategic, especially when most Americans hold it was bought and paid for by American money. So when I opined to some of you that the JPA - or some form thereof - shall forever be with us, some said this was an "over the top" assessment. Follow the link and see the rattles of the the ordinary American political mind. Note well that the politicians named here are not your usual klavern of rightwing firebreathing nativists. These - Snow and Rockefeller - tend to sterling centrist perspectives, if not actively liberal. The *draft* *Cybersecurity Act 2009* [http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf] establishes some facts on the ground. Read *Sec 2: Findings* carefully. The *recitals* in this part justify what is proposed: the maintenance of the DNS infrastructure currently jobbed out to ICANN is a strategic and critical infrastructure resource which is fundamental to the security and continued well-being of the United States. Plainly put, it is ineligible for "foreign" control. Focus on *Sec 3: Cybersecurity Advisory Panel* and note who are the persons elegible for appointment to help USG/DOC make the decisions on JPA. Be sure to read carefully *Sec 8: Review of NTIA Domain Name Contracts*. The provision for extending USG oversight of ICANN is documented here and the mechanism by which that will be assured. Here is further grist for the mill, compliments of Milton Mueller's blog: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/2/4141451.html http://www.cdt.org/ Kind regards, Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
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
Evan: Well said and an insightful final paragraph. Some member constituencies actually dismiss the intent of the USG in ICANN simply because they cannot embrace the subtle multilayered strategic operation that is involved here. For they tend to confuse the accents at the top with a disinterested American future. More's the pity. It became very much clearer to me that the USG/DOC might be the At-Large's greatest strategic ally in defining our relationship with ICANN when I read the letter of December 2008 on USG/DOC's unease with the introduction of new gTLDs. This is not to say there is congruence between USG/DOC and At-Large policy perspectives. Far from it so don't go conflating agendas here. But it is entirely useful to recognize that you could follow the tracks of the elephant thru the high grass and find the waterhole. Yes indeed, the At-Large is more important to ICANN's future prospects as an "independent" entity than some recognize. Up until now, maybe. Carlton Samuels On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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
Carlton Samuels wrote:
Some member constituencies actually dismiss the intent of the USG in ICANN simply because they cannot embrace the subtle multilayered strategic operation that is involved here. For they tend to confuse the accents at the top with a disinterested American future. More's the pity.
Indeed.
It became very much clearer to me that the USG/DOC might be the At-Large's greatest strategic ally in defining our relationship with ICANN when I read the letter of December 2008 on USG/DOC's unease with the introduction of new gTLDs.
This is not to say there is congruence between USG/DOC and At-Large policy perspectives. Far from it so don't go conflating agendas here. But it is entirely useful to recognize that you could follow the tracks of the elephant thru the high grass and find the waterhole.
Agreed, providing that you don't fall into the elephant dung. My own analogy-du-jour likens the situation to "tag team" professional wrestling. Right now At-Large and the USG have common opponents (in those who would use gTLD process to stifle expression, minimize access, and give ICANN mandates that it neither deserves nor is able to manage). For argument's sake, I will call the opposing team "GAC Attack and the Terrible Trademark", while we are "Mission Accomplished and Large-at-Large". Together we have the ability to triumph, given our international finesse and our teammate's sheer strength and capacity for brutality. However, after this particular match is over -- win or lose -- we could well find the next flying kick to our head coming from our "partner", as a bloodied Terrible Trademark pleads that it's more loyal to Mission Accomplished than we are. I think I've had too much coffee today. Have a good weekend. - Evan
participants (3)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Thompson, Darlene