The US loves to talk about the value of multistakeholderism -- in fact today an announcement was posted on the NTIA website pointing to a joint statement on the part of US Ambassador David A. Gross and Assistant Secretary John M. R. Kneuer that extolled this value -- see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2007/IGF_110807.html ...however, actions speak louder than words. in the .us namespace we used to have a multistakeholder .us Policy Council; members included: Consumer Project on Technology American Library Association American Intellectual Property Law Association U.S. Chamber of Commerce registrar and registry representatives In the new contract just awarded to NeuStar to manage the .us space, the multistakeholder .us Policy Council has been replaced by a blog, a message board and an RSS feed. see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usca/usTLD2007_17_L_Outreach.pdf The contract was awarded without a public comment process, and the notion of multistakeholder policy development has been jettisoned in favor of single-stakeholder policy declarations, namely policy by US Government fiat. If the US really values the multi-stakeholder policy development process, then why aren't we seeing such being played out in the .us ccTLD? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Danny Younger wrote:
If the US really values the multi-stakeholder policy development process, then why aren't we seeing such being played out in the .us ccTLD?
With all due respect, is this really a matter with which ICANN At-Large ought to be concerned? What interest does At-Large have on a global level -- or even a regional one -- on an issue which seems to me to be an American internal matter? Conversely, if the US tried to get involved in other ccTLDs' internal politics I would imagine a trail of outcry. - Evan
Hi Evan, As ICANN is currently under the thumb of the US Administration, the views, attitudes and actions of that Administration impact all of us. That impact is currently felt in the at large through the ongoing revisions to the MOU that spell out the series of ICANN obligations. If we cannot trust the USG to honor a commitment to the concept of multi-stakeholder participation (and clearly the USG has already abandoned adherence to the White Paper principle of representation), then assuredly the at-large will want to push for an ICANN that is freed from this yoke, for an ICANN that is willing to be accountable to the entirety of the international community rather than solely to a single taskmaster. -- Danny --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
If the US really values the multi-stakeholder policy development process, then why aren't we seeing such being played out in the .us ccTLD?
With all due respect, is this really a matter with which ICANN At-Large ought to be concerned?
What interest does At-Large have on a global level -- or even a regional one -- on an issue which seems to me to be an American internal matter?
Conversely, if the US tried to get involved in other ccTLDs' internal politics I would imagine a trail of outcry.
- Evan
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (2)
-
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch