From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@attglobal.net>
To: <DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Fri, Jul 7, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Comments on DNS Transition, Docket No. 060519136-6136-01 Control of the Internet has become a hot topic internationally.
Perhaps not by accident, it has been the power of the Internet
to
improve the lives of people, both in developed and developing
countries, that has excited the developing countries to raise
more
sharply the issue of "Internet Governance" and to
state the need for
representation in such a regime.
Much of the focus of Internet Governance has been upon
ICANN, perhaps
the only organization that can be identified by many
as central to
the functioning of the Internet. In reality, however,
ICANN
principally focuses upon the technical coordination of
the Internet's
naming and numbering schemes, and while this has turned
out to be a
more complex undertaking than may have been originally
conceived,
ICANN has very little to do with the day to day functioning
of the
net.
With regard to the governance of the Internet, there
are many other
organizations involved including national governments,
which in
effect have much more of an impact on their inhabitants'
ability to
be empowered by the Internet that any collection of other
involved
organizations. This is conveniently ignored in many discussions
on
the subject.
The DNS has been through a number of transitions, not
all of them
helpful. The privatization of gTLDs by the National Science
Foundation to Network Solutions in 1993-4 was a blunder
of historic
proportions, and we are all still suffering mightily
from this
well-intentioned but quite horrible decision. The creation
of ICANN
in 1998 was in part an attempt to recover from the unintended
consequences, unforeseen by NSF, of this action.
During its 8 years of existence, ICANN has managed to
introduce
substantial competition into the DNS arena and has cautiously
expanded the name space. It has had to walk through legal
mine
fields to do so. Its community has actively involved
itself into
discussion and debate on a variety of subjects, the members
giving
voluntarily of their time and energy to do so. ICANN
has also
restructured itself twice, each time after realizing
that its own
governance model needed reform. In general, this has
been an open
process, open to participation to anyone who wanted to
participate.
ICANN has not been without problems. I disagree substantially
with
some of the things that it has done in the past, as well
as some of
the things that it is doing today. It is not perfectly
transparent,
but i would argue that total transparency may be an ideal
that is
neither attainable nor always desirable.
There is no doubt in my mind that ultimately the Internet
will have
to evolve to some kind of status that has a greater degree
of
international control than it does now. However, given
the current
state of ignorance with respect to the Internet in international
circles, I am convinced that internationalizing its control,
especially through the UN System, would be a very big
mistake and
would substantially blunt both innovation and empowerment
of users in
the future -- in fact, those very users, in developing
countries
for whom the Internet represents a way to break down
the digital
divide, would be hurt most. Perhaps in 10-20 years the
international
community will be ready to be a steward to this unique
and valuable
resource, but it is not ready now.
I would recommend that the U.S. Government adopt the
following posture:
1. Renew the Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN
for a medium term period.
2. Support the possibility of ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee
evolving into a stronger role within the organization.
3. Both directly and through industry associations and
NGOs, strongly
support educational efforts to inform the international
community
about the Internet and how it works, especially at the
governmental
level where it is most needed.
4. Take strong measures to assure governments that the
U.S. is
committed to a free and open Internet, and that it will
never
disconnect a government from the network (as if it could
do so,
anyway!)
5. Begin discussions to determine if there is any form
of
organization that exists of could be created that would
provide an
acceptable transition to greater international control
in the future,
and not necessarily the near future.
While I do not know how much of the opposition to the
MoU is
generated by uncertainty regarding possible U.S. Government
actions,
I believe that it is important to recognize this as one
significant
source of discontent, and to send as many signals of
reassurance as
possible to counter it. To make the point, Assistant
Secretary
Gallagher's statement of last summer assumed an unnecessarily
provocative tone that did nothing to reduce any such
anxiety; it
could and should have been worded differently and it
would have made
the same point.
This debate will continue; it is guaranteed to continue
with the
establishment of the Internet Governance Forum and its
expected life
of 5 years. The U.S. needs to be involved in this discussion;
it's
an opportunity both to educate and to move toward shared
positions as
mush as is possible.
Involvement is such discussions also a way in which
U.S. foreign
policy can support the benevolent use of the net to help
developing
countries achieve economic and social progress and reduce
ignorance
and poverty. That, after all, is immeasurably more important
than
who "controls" the root. We should be reminding
others of that
whenever discussions of the DNS and ICANNN assume an
unwarranted
measure of self-importance.
George Sadowsky
|