[lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] ICANN, the JPA and Draft Cybersecurity Act 2009

[Carlton Samuels]

Evan:
Well said and an insightful final paragraph.

Some member constituencies actually dismiss the intent of the USG in ICANN
simply because they cannot embrace the subtle multilayered strategic
operation that is involved here. For they tend to confuse the accents at the
top with a disinterested American future. More's the pity.

It became very much clearer to me that the USG/DOC might be the At-Large's
greatest strategic ally in defining our relationship with ICANN when I read
the letter of December 2008 on USG/DOC's unease with the introduction of new
gTLDs.

This is not to say there is congruence between USG/DOC and At-Large policy
perspectives. Far from it so don't go conflating agendas here. But it is
entirely useful to recognize that you could follow the tracks of the
elephant thru the high grass and find the waterhole.

Yes indeed, the At-Large is more important to ICANN's future prospects as an
"independent" entity than some recognize.

Up until now, maybe.

Carlton Samuels


On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> Thompson, Darlene wrote:
> > Thank you for putting this out, Carlton!
> >
> > I've always had the same gut reaction as you - its interesting to see it
> documented.
> >
> I agree; I have believed that the USG would always find some excuse to
> maintain ICANN as a US possession. Indeed, the creation of At-Large
> could easily be seen as a half-measure towards demonstrating
> internationalization -- without actually letting go of anything.
>
> I see this USG move as one more symptom of a global retreat from
> globalization brought on by the worldwide decline in trade and
> prosperity. However, it would be a crucial mistake for US politicians to
> assume that ICANN can forever maintain a monopoly under American control.
>
> China, has long threatened to implement a parallel system to ICANN to
> circumvent dominance by the USG:
> http://english.people.com.cn/200602/28/eng20060228_246712.html
>
> Should the US exert deeper control over ICANN there would most certainly
> be a backlash, not just from China but also from the EU and elsewhere.
> And ICANN won't be able to do much but watch its competition -- driven
> by very different objectives -- take shape.
>
> Of course, one possible outcome will be that the USG will have stake in
> ensuring that ICANN is more responsive to international concerns, and
> the role of At-Large could conceivably be enhanced and expanded (even
> over the objections of other constituencies). Perhaps we could do
> something to encourage such an agenda.
>
> - Evan
>
>