|
November 2, 1999 Los Angeles, California ICANN GAC Public Forum I. Welcome — Twomey A. Meeting being webcast with remote participation II. Presentation and Reading of Communique [link] III. Want to contribute to the decision-making process, but understand that GAC is only one of many policy inputs. A. Trying to make a contribution that's appropriate for governments, letting governments feel comfortable with the process. B. Want to let government representatives go back to others in their capitals. So decision-making is more deliberate ("slower") according to the requirements of governments. IV. Questions A. Perhaps GAC should rethink its citizenship requirement. Why should a representative of a company have to be a citizen of the country to be given weight by the GAC? Example: Richard Lindsay — should be able to represent Japan even though he's not a Japanese citizen. 1. Happy to bring this observation back to the GAC. Sense of the meeting: GAC representatives from each region opposed residency as the relevant variable due to concern of non-citizens from other countries resident. B. Echeberria: Which countries were represented? 1. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Denmark, EU, France, Gambia, Germany, Hong Kong China, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Russian Federation, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, US, WIPO. 2. Apologies from APT, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Libya, ITU, OECD. C. Cukier: Did you discuss data escrow? What were tentative conclusions? Does GAC have authority (in your view) to assure that all data be escrowed to assure stability of Internet? Do nations have sovereignty over their ccTLDs? 1. Recognize that it's an important issue — especially due to WHOIS data integrity, privacy concerns. We talked about these issues generally and haven't yet come to any conclusion. GAC has no authority to demand anything. Consideration has to be given to public authorities in relation to their own ccTLDs. Berlin statement says ccTLDs do have toe be run with the support of the relevant communities. D. Schneider: Re NSI agreements, you say" & takes note of &" Any action? Recommendation? 1. Take note in part because many of the GAC members are somewhat new to the debate. With thirty-something people present, couldn't say that all participants have a common view. Issues discussed in the tentative agreements are issues that remain under consideration by the GAC. 2. Schneider: In NC meeting, much variation among NC members re the proposed agreements. Something similar in GAC? Another round of discussion coming? Intervene? Proposed agreements seem like a step back (to Green Paper) rather than forwards? * Can't intervene! Just a group of governments asked to come together and reflect on implications of relevant national and international law and treaty. But do not turn up at these meetings and tell the Board what to do. Words are neutral because some countries and governments have had much more involvement with these issues than others. Don't want neutrality interpreted as negativity — the text really is intended to be neutral. Certain governments made comments to USG — comments open to the public in the standard comment area. E. Any way to open up the process to more participating governments, to make the process more inclusive? 31 out of 200+ governmental bodies is not representative. Financial burden of attending meetings can be excessive for many smaller countries. Perhaps send agendas in advance so that countries unable to attend can send their comments in writing in advance? 1. Practicalities of teleconference / videoconference are difficult. Still using e-mail as much as possible. Interested in getting pointers to whomever needs to be involved at governmental levels — send contact info. Money is a sense of commitment to the process. Used such an advance comment system this time, and got a comment that way from Libya. But still do need a government person as each country's representative to the GAC. F. Kleinwaechter: What is position of governments in relating to GBDE and ICANN? 1. DNS is but one of several topics under consideration by the same representatives to the GAC. More generally, electronic commerce policy. Industry self-regulation and government oversight interact. ccTLDs have important private-sector components. G. Van Couvering: Inquired in Berlin re meeting re best practices, ccTLDs, etc. What has changed? 1. Received similar comments in Singapore also. Mostly just a timing issue. Also now more consensus about with whom to have the dialogue. Dialogue needs to be on some semi-formal level. 2. Van Couvering: GAC Statement of Principles * That paper does not exist officially. It is a draft only representing the views of a few. I can't discuss a document that was not adopted officially but was only starting point for discussion 3. Van Couvering: IANA has traditionally had role of delegating that GAC is now considering taking. * We haven't resolved this yet. It is very much under discussion, but we see a role for three parties (ICANN, delegee, national government) 4. Van Couvering: To what extent do you see the good performance of ccTLD manager as determining re-delegation? * If a country code TLD is not operating for reasons that a delegee is simply not performing, and the rights of the citizens of a particular country are being infringed because they can't access it, then this is obviously a problem. Performance is a word representing a spectrum, and I can't tell you specifics. 5. Van Couvering: There are some ccTLDs directly run by governments (or not run at all by their governments) — would it be appropriate to hold governments to performance standards as well as regular delegees? * Discussion about this led to general conversation about the ways things are executed. We see importance in distinguishing among roles. Delegee is someone who has formally received delegation, but management and marketing could be done separately or in integrated fashion. There is something to be done if a delegee simply can't perform at all (ie technical competence) because there has to be some level of accountability. 6. Simon: Three things: 1) WGC will meet at 8am. 2) I look for comments from online community. 3) Can you comment on what you've seen in terms of learning curve on part of GAC participants, and level of seniority of participants? Do participants go back and make policy recommendations to their governments? * Some senior, some not. Often reflects where public administrations are regarding the Internet. Variety, but what matters is that we have people who are thinking about the Internet in their governments. I see echoes from participants having taken these concepts home and helping create change. We are also seeing growth in membership. I hesitate to turn it into educational forum for governments, but some of that is going on. 7. Kleinwaechter: Nader has suggested inter-governmental charter to back ICANN. Comments? * As Australian government official, my government prefers to see level of coordination around these issues be done as self-regulation by community as much as is possible. Intergovernmental organization would be too slow, remote from issues. Sense of ownership and expertise is valuable. Participation by governments in GAC seems to suggest that other governments share Australia's view. Formal government recognition of ICANN reinforces that governments are liking this model. Nader's alternative model is one reason why we work so hard to make this one work. We find this more efficient and effective 8. Staub: US Department of Commerce has quite extensive dormant powers that could be exercised in case of necessity, up to and including withdrawing approval of ICANN. GAC has taken notice of agreements that would allow powers to revert to the DOC. How do the GAC governments feel about the US government holding the key to the power and not having any limitations on exercising the power? * Two parts to response. I think there is open discussion and recognition that in the White Paper process the US government recognized an increasing role for global community in domain name system governance. I think some governments and public authorities still remain in discussions around that principle. US government has not backed away from that. If we're very careful in our analysis, it is in some respects a co-regulation model in the sense that we rely on state institutions to enforce it. ICANN can't be policed by Tasmania. In some senses, I think these agreements reflect the nature of the final enforcement fallback power. That is one of the value addeds of the GAC: we lend our fallback enforcement powers to making this work. * Staub: I appreciate the need for a safety valve in the system, but it shouldn't be the cause of an explosion. Unlimited power in the hands of any party is not safe. National interest or a change in an election could cause US to exercise it. Why aren't other nations saying we can live with this only for a little while? * I can't respond to that as GAC chair because different governments have had different reactions, and GAC itself is merely taking notice of agreements without commenting. CONTACT INFORMATION For additional technical information, please contact: Ben Edelman and John Wilbanks |