[LINK] Re: OzIT: ICANN to go "private" (?)

[Antony Barry]

Begin forwarded message:
>
> The attached message has been automatically discarded.
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"  
> <froomkin at law.miami.edu>
> Date: 16 November 2004 2:54:59 PM
> To: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au>
> Cc: link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: OzIT: ICANN to go "private" (?)
> Reply-To: froomkin at law.tm
>
>
> well, that is what icann has always wanted
> just has to avoid the UN, and the ITU and persuade the US
> not easy. and not up to them.
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Roger Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> [Comments at the end]
>>
>>
>> No role for UN in ICANN
>> Simon Hayes
>> The Australian IT Section
>> NOVEMBER 16, 2004
>> http://australianit.news.com.au/common/print/ 
>> 0,7208,11393890%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
>>
>> THE global domain name governing body has warned off the UN, saying  
>> it will operate as a private organisation when its agreement with the  
>> US Department of Commerce expires in 2006.
>>
>> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is  
>> responsible for managing the domain name and internet protocol  
>> address system, and operates under an agreement with the US Commerce  
>> Department.
>>
>> ICANN chief executive Paul Twomey, an Australian, said the  
>> organisation would cut its ties with the department when the  
>> agreement expired in 2006, and ICANN would not be under the authority  
>> of any international organisation.
>>
>> "The internet is 200,000 private networks linked by private  
>> agreement," Dr Twomey said.
>>
>> "At the heart of the way the internet works is that it grows quickly  
>> through the private-sector model. It's not formulated by  
>> international treaty."
>>
>> In a 63-page strategic plan to be issued today, the US-based body  
>> plots its future, including a fund to encourage participation of  
>> developing countries and more regional meetings.
>>
>> The document projects a marginally increased budget for additional  
>> activities, rising from $US15.8 million ($19.5 million) in the  
>> 2004-05 financial year to $US19.5 million in 2005-06.
>>
>> The budget could be increased by increasing charges on registrars and  
>> country code administrators.
>>
>> Some of that money will be spent on increased security, and although  
>> ICANN is not setting itself up as a major funding source, it is  
>> planning to develop a special fund for research into network  
>> security.
>>
>> "We don't see ourselves as a major funder of international research,  
>> but as an enthusiastic endorser of international initiatives," Dr  
>> Twomey said.
>>
>> ICANN wants to increase interest from the developing world, which  
>> missed out on the first wave of internet commercialisation in the  
>> early to mid-1990s.
>>
>> The organisation wants more representation from developing countries,  
>> and supports moves to bring more domain name country codes back under  
>> the control of those countries.
>>
>> These countries have been using UN mechanisms such as the World  
>> Summit on the Information Society in an attempt to influence the  
>> development of the internet.
>>
>> Dr Twomey said there was no chance the UN could control ICANN.
>>
>> "The Americans are explicit that they see their role in due  
>> diligence, and once that has happened they don't think it's the role  
>> of government to run the internet," he said.
>>
>> ICANN is on track to complete the 35 milestones set in the agreement  
>> with the US by 2006.
>>
>> It has already reached 10 of these goals.
>>
>>
>> [I wonder what Twomey means by 'private'.  It could mean 'not  
>> government', which is a mixed blessing, and needs discussion.  We  
>> don't want any of the USA, the PRC, or the 220-nation UN running the  
>> Internet;  but we also don't want national governments to have *no*  
>> role in governance.
>>
>> [But 'private' could also mean 'not public'.  Is Twomey saying that  
>> individual users can only have a voice in Internet governance if they  
>> can stump up enough money to be one of the "200,000 private networks  
>> linked by private agreement"?
>>
>> [My 4-workstation local IP network is hidden behind a router running  
>> Network Address Translation (i.e. with only one IP-address, and  
>> without the 4 workstations being visible to the net).  Is mine one of  
>> those 200,000, or are there two tiers of private networks?  I doubt  
>> if I can afford the entry fee to the big league (any more than I can  
>> afford to be a participant in W3C); and I'm wealthier than the  
>> average SOHO operator]
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                          -->It's warm here.<--
>
>
>
phone : 02 6241 7659 | mailto:me at Tony-Barry.emu.id.au
mobile: 04 1242 0397 | http://tony-barry.emu.id.au