| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 The Need to Keep Congress Fully Informed
posted by michael on Monday October 11 2004, @10:40AM
Burce Levinson writes "The MOU between the Department of Commerce and ICANN includes a series of specific milestones that the corporation is required to accomplish by certain specified dates. One of the specific requirements placed on ICANN by the agency is to define "a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet...." The MOU goes on to state that "(strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004)."
ICANN did produce a "strategy document" by the end of September. Christopher Ambler, who has served in numerous internet governance-related duties, often in a leadership capacity, with organizations including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP), the Open Root Server Confederation (ORSC), ICANN, and ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization (ICANN DNSO), had a rather pungent commentary on the ICANN document."
|
|
 |
|
"Specifically, Mr. Ambler made the following statememts concerning the ICANN TLD plan:
1. "ICANN wasn't ready. This is a rush job to meet a deadline."
2. "The Department of Commerce should reject this document as completely insufficient. This is like having a term paper due, and submitting just the bibliography."
3. "This suggests to me that ICANN has no plan, and would like nothing more than to continue to delay."
4. "I cannot imagine how ICANN could put a plan into operation by 31 December, when there isn't even a plan."
However, what is most interesting about the situation is not Mr. Ambler's views of the ICANN plan nor even NTIA's views of the ICANN document. Instead, what it is of greatest importance is how NTIA described ICANN's progress in meeting their duties under the MOU to the U.S. Senate.
With respect to ICANN's progress to meeting their duties under the MOU to define and implement a new strategy for selecting new TLDs, an NTIA official testified before the United States Senate's Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and stated that "the Department will be expecting ICANN to: ... complete and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs by December 31, 2004..." Thus, the NTIA official completely omitted from their testimony the fact that ICANN was already supposed to have "defined" such a strategy and that some type of strategy document had already been made available to the agency by ICANN. Instead, the NTIA official appeared to give the impression that there was a single end-of-year date by which a new TLD selection strategy was to be defined and implemented.
One theoretical advantage for NTIA from their presentation to the Senate Subcommittee is that they were not in a position to comment on or answer any questions regarding the strategy document that they received from ICANN.
To survive in its present format, ICANN needs to earn and maintain the trust of numerous stakeholders, including the Department of Commerce, the United Stated Congress and innumerable internet users around the globe. Development and maintenance of such trust is the responsibility of many stakeholders including NTIA, ICANN's accountants and various internet watchdog organizations and blogs. In the long run, NTIA could have benefited by directly addressing the concerns raised by Mr. Ambler regarding ICANN's TLD strategy plan before the Senate Subcommittee."
[Editor's note: Chris Ambler writes in to say,
I should point out that, while my comments are critical of the report, I am pleased that there was, at least, a report. I expected more, but am glad to see that ICANN is still working on the issue.
Regardless of the content, I see this as ICANN's commitment to have a plan in-place by 31 December in-line with the deadline placed by DoC.
If there is any assistance ICANN requires in meeting this deadline, as an interested party I would be more than pleased to render such. ICANN has but to ask.
I look forward to an open, objective process that finishes the job ICANN started in 2000. I continue to eagerly await the processing of the .Web application, as ICANN made it very clear that those not selected in 2000 were not turned-down, but were simply awaiting the opening of the process. I remain cautiously optimistic and look forward to fair and robust competition, with Image Online Design’s .Web registry in 2005."
-mf]
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
