2009/10/6 Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>
On 6/10/09 12:24 AM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I am saying that, even in non-democratic regimes, a government represents
the
interest of its (Internet-using) publlc more than its "Internet community" ever will. ... ICANN is within its rights to refuse transfer of a ccTLD to a "registry" just started by the Supreme Leader's cousin.
How are you drawing the distinction between a non-democratic regime making an appointment, and... a non-democratic regime making an appointment?
Technical competence and stability of the would-be registry and nothing more.
I do kind of resent the implication that I have no sense of the general public views. My introduction to the TLD arena was as an Internet user in Australia that wanted .AU to be managed better. Through a process in the mid-1990s I was part of a community group that created an organisation to run the domain. That failed, and we tried again, which succeeded. I was an inaugural "demand" director (equivalent of "at large"). We went through the process of encouraging the Australian Government to get involved, and in 2000 went through the process of convincing ICANN to do a redelegation.
I am not disputing your commitment to the issue. However, if you assert that "most people" are in favour of allowing ccTLD squatters to remain in place untill they reach a mutual agreement with the sovereign government (as opposed to immediately recognizing government authority), I would suggest that you may be out of touch when considering the public at-large (and not just the self-interested "Internet community" of contracted parties, domainers and consultants). This has been your first experience with At-Large, the only 'constituency' that ICANN had to identify, subsidize, and be the subject of significant outreach. We have, by definition, no self-interest in Internet issues. And here you are finding extremely little backing for a point of view you say is supported by "most people". I think it is worth noting that so far I have only seen contributions from
people in countries in western countries with stable governments, for which these kinds of cases where the government is totally out of sync simply don't happen. I think it would be unfair to claim any consensus denoted by silence is broadly reflective of the Internet users who deal with the kinds of issues we are referencing.
I am simply referring to your comment of what "most people" say. You certainly have not achieve such consensus in At-Large, so you are not entitled to make that claim in this context. As for your other assertions... Canada currently has a minority government, has had four elections since 2000 and just dodged a threat of another this year. Myanmar has had essentially the same regime in place since 1962. Stability is in the eye of the beholder. The point is, it is not up to ICANN to make any judgment calls other than purely technical. ICANN is not a savior of free speech on the Internet, nor is it qualified in any way to speak on (let alone judge) the legitimacy of governments. Your point of view is indicative of the awfully misguided mission creep that has led ICANN so badly astray. Positions such as yours make it impossible for ICANN to serve as the purely technical body it was designed to be, because -- in sitting in judgment of whether regimes are "worthy" of asserting authority over their country's ccTLD, -- you have dragged ICANN into a political realm in which it has neither mandate nor skill. I am fairly new within ICANN and obviously still learning. When we had a skirmish at the Cairo meeting because some free-speech activists wanted a soapbox, I was adamant that ICANN was not meant to involved in national politics or anti-government advocacy. Apparently I was wrong. - Evan