Very pertinent issues the EU reviews here and quite an articulate position taken thereafter. For the benefit of those of us who shall not be in Tunis, could someone (Waudo? NCS?,x?) share with us what the Kenyan position on the same issue is/is not? walu. nb: and please, please, please do not tell us it is a 'cabinet paper' {read 'state secret'}

...

...

<alice@apc.org> 10/24/05 07:38PM >>> Excerpt:

"No one is denying that the US government has done an excellent job in ensuring that the administration of this system has been fair and efficient. But, many countries are questioning if it is appropriate for one government alone to supervise such an important part of the infrastructure. The problem is that the US government effectively has the right to decide who can run each country's Top Level Domain such as dot.jp, dot.kr or dot.cn, while the governments of the countries concerned are only indirectly involved through an advisory committee to ICANN. It is the US government as well that has the sole right to decide when a new Top Level Domain can be introduced into cyberspace, whether it be a new country-code or a new so-called "generic" Top Level Domain such as .com or .net. The recent controversy around a possible new .xxx Top Level Domain for adult content highlighted this bizarre situation. Several public administrations have expressed concern over this initiative, including the European Commission, but it will be the sole right of the US government to decide whether this Top Level Domain enters cyberspace or not, even though it will be visible on the screens of net users in countries all around the world. These concerns are not new. The EU was expressing them as far back as the mid 1990's. In 1998 the Clinton administration conceded the legitimacy of foreign government's concerns in their White Paper on the Domain Name System. Indeed, the setting up of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in 1998 was in part to enable supervision to be "internationalised". The EU has always participated fully in the ICANN process. But the US government has never transferred this unilateral power. And several countries are concerned that in the US has now gone back on this intention. In particular, in June the US Government announced without warning that it had decided to "maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file." This is very disappointing to Europe and others who have worked towards a cooperative global approach since 1998. The US statement is a recipe for stalemate in the Geneva discussions on this point. The European position Europe, far from being in an extreme position, is in the middle between US unilateralism and much stronger demands from other countries for multilateralism. But our position of deal broker cannot work unless the US recommits to its historic compromise to internationalise the Internet governance regime I would re-emphasise that the EU approach to the Internet is pro-industry and pro freedom of expression. It is mostly similar and often identical to that of the US. We fully appreciate the primary role of the private sector in developing and deploying the Internet technologies and services. We understand that governments must not interfere in the day-to-day operations that underpin the management of the Internet. We fully support ICANN. The EU position is therefore not an attempt by governments to take control of the Internet, as has unfortunately been suggested in some quarters of the press. The EU proposal The EU position is rather a recognition of the obligation of governments to help the Internet deliver on its potential. The Internet is not an unregulated space - anything that is illegal in the off-line world is illegal on-line. Citizens expect governments to take measures to deal with fraud, spam, hacking, violations of data protection and all forms of cyber-crime. Governments also need to do what they can to ensure the stability and security of their national communications networks such as the Internet. Governments need to be able to cooperate with each other at the global level to fulfil these responsibilities. But there is no natural home where issues requiring such cooperation, between governments and stakeholders can be addressed, where problems can be identified and the necessary corrective or preventative action can be engaged. The EU is proposing a new model for international cooperation and a forum based on a set of fundamental principles. This forum would not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but complement them and adhering to the key principles of the Internet - interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle. A predictable and well co-ordinated public policy environment is an advantage for business. The same is true for the governance of the Internet. That's why the forthcoming summit in Tunis provides us all with an important opportunity to take the first steps in building a truly global consensus on how to achieve this aim for the benefit of all the world's businesses, citizens and users. Good governance and government are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Internet was, and is still being built and developed in a spirit of partnership, consensus and openness. The EU is only arguing that governments need to adopt the same cooperative model if they are to ensure their role is a positive one in the continuing story of this amazing technology." http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3877 _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet