On the at-large discuss list, Vittorio Bertola disagrees regarding the ITU. Here is what the ITU proposed to ICANN, I can't see too much wrong with that, and SFAIK ICANN ignored it. Now if the ITU is even more business-and government-controlled than the present ICANN, it is at least competent, it does take consumer and end-user issues into account, and it hasn't been captured by narrow interests as ICANN has been.|
The businesses involved with the ITU are far broader both by type and geography, ICANN is representative only of its main funding source, the registrars and registries, and that won't change; and IP interests, and as Jonathan Cohen said at Accra, we're [the IP folks] in the White Paper, end of story, so that won't change either.
The government involvement in the ITU is also far broader, there is no USG DoC or NTIA calling the shots, there is no GAC controlled since its inception by one now non-governmental, that is, unaccountable, now ICANN paid individual [also see followup threads]. The USG seems to have ignored the valid concerns of many of its citizens with regard to the MoU, at least with the ITU both US and non-US citizens have clear paths to and through their governments to influence the ITU, and governments are accountable to a greater degree than some private paid hack who echoes what ICANN wants to hear.
Frankly, broad government and business interests are often not on the same page as those whom ICANN has disenfranchised, but there are some checks and balances on their actions, on governments by their citizens, on businesses by their consumers. ICANN has no such checks and balances, it is a monopoly controlled by a small, unaccountable, mostly US-based clique.
There is a pattern here, not only does Victory not like the ITU (the 'I' standing for international), both the country code TLD administrators, eg: here, and the Regional Internet Registries, eg: here, are not being listened to by ICANN, the rest of the world is not being heard. That was also one of the reasons for killing off the at-large, if it only had US voters it might have been suffered to exist.
It is understandable that the USG would want to maintain control of the internet, for reasons of security, to ensure its view of the world will be heard, to protect and increase domestic business interests. Regardless of the reasons, that doesn't mean the rest of the world should or will meekly go along, particularily if the USG's ICANN 2.0 is as corrupt and incompetent as its predecessor (and as 2.0 is even more insular, less representative, and less accountable, it is hard to imagine anything improving). We can only hope that Victory et al have put significant modifications into the MoU, but unless it is stunningly different, the ITU model still seems to me the better route to go. -g