Re: Internet Governance

[Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int>]

michael_roetto wrote:
> 
> An interesting thought struck me   when reading about the brew-ha-ha over
> the gTLD-MoU.  Clearly, the Internet is becoming a political matter. That
> means not only are politicians now aware of the net, but the discussion
> within the technical community itself is now largely taking place in
> political terms.  Witness the fight over the domain-name space as an
> example of this.
> 

Michael,

First I should say I'm loath to cc: the IETF list who are probably 
totally fed up with hearing about this topic. Out of respect for those who 
certainly have more important things to do, I'll make this only one post to 
the main IETF mailing list on this topic.

Anyway, your take that the DNS administration issues are totally politicized 
is right on the mark. The IAHC/iPOC has traveled incessantly during the 
last 10 months speaking with dozens of regulatory bodies, major companies, 
government bodies, etc - technology is almost never a topic (although this 
has changed recently since the gTLD registrar selection process has started 
and folks have realized that this is actually going to happen). For those 
interested, see www.gtld-mou.org. 

Unfortunately, the desire for commercial control over parts of the Internet 
name space has driven much of the debate. As any 2-year old can tell you, sharing 
is not part of human nature. But the IAHC strongly believed that this was 
fundamentally the right approach drawing its conclusions from other parallels
such as 800 numbers in the US and the example of national registries such as 
in the UK where there are over *375 registrars* for .uk.

Sharing avoids the problems of private ownership, and arguably private abuse 
of the Internet TLD name space. It offers domain name portability for users 
so registrars must compete on price and service and not because they have a 
lock on a valuable TLD. We have tried to put into place a set of checks and
balances that seek to promote the principle of open and fair competition while 
preserving stability. We have tried to develop an equitable system for the 
protection of intellectual property rights but also respecting the rights of 
domain name holders. Since *both* domain name holders and trademark holders 
don't like it, I'll take that to mean that we are finding the middle road.

> If this 'politicization' continues can anything but DNS fragmentation result?
> 

The DNS will not fragment. The major governmental and industry forces now 
involved will assure (through regulatory intervention) that this will *not 
happen*. You might as well argue that the global telephone numbering system 
could fragment. The Net is so strategic for electronic commerce and DNS 
identifiers are such an integral part of commerce, this will simply not be 
tolerated. And here we find an irony - those who can only see their own commercial 
self-interest think that governmental intervention will somehow weigh in on 
their side - with all due respect, keep dreaming. In every conversation with
governmental, industry and regulatory agency, I have seen 0% support for 
private ownership of the TLD name space.

> Does the new POC really represent all the stakeholders in the DNS and the
> larger governance debate? (I don't buy the argument that the gTLD-MoU is
> purely an operational concern) Would some combination of technical and

We don't buy the argument either. The gTLD-MoU includes both policy and 
operational issues but puts the operational issues squarely in the realm of
CORE where it belongs. We have attempted to provide representation of many
stakeholders through the gTLD-Mou Policy Advisory Body and after CORE is
firmly established, I expect the PAB to evolve more fully in its role.

Concerning your comments on the makeup of the POC - you are absolutely right.
Of course, it does not represent all stakeholders in the DNS. We know it. 
Everybody knows it. But the challenge for you or any critic is to move from 
the general desire to a specific proposal. How do you define a real working 
committee with quote/unquote "all stakeholders represented" without having 
the mother of all committees? Heck, every week, we flush out a new 
"stakeholder body". We admit we haven't solve this problem -- and we admit 
we've punted on the issue. We have spent hundreds of hours debating this topic 
with no resolution. In any case, we're going to go through a public request for 
comments on this issue and maybe there are some greater minds than ours who
can suggest a solution.

> non-technical oversight better provide for the future of the network? Maybe
> if governance and operational issues were de-linked  and delegated to the
> proper organizations, the Internet could progress in a more controlled
> fashion.

On the surface, sounds wonderful but the problem is, from our experience, nobody 
agrees on what are the *proper organizations*. 

Bob