|
|
Contents
| Special
Features |
News
| Order
| Glossary
| Opinions
| Acknowledgments
| Contacts
GOVERNMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC
FORUM
- LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
- NOVEMBER
2, 1999
-
- INFORMAL,
UNOFFICIAL, INCOMPLETE and UNAPPROVED NOTES
FROM THE
ICANN
FRONT - ANNUAL
MEETING
-
- Notes
by Ellen Rony, who is not responsible for misspelled
words and names or other
inaccuracies.
-
 CONSTITUENCY
REPORTS- QUESTIONS
- WORKING
GROUP REPORTS
- RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN GA AND NC
- MEMBERSHIP
WORKSHOP
GOVERNMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
-
[These
notes do not include the first 45 minutes of the ad hoc
membership meeting.]
-
- Q - Robert Connelly -
Challenge GAC to rethink the citizenship reqirement. It
is xenophobic to assume an individual who represents a
company is a citizen of that company. Please gtive us a
rationale.
-
- Toomey: More certainty
around citizenship than around residency. Will take it
back to the GAC. In a modern residence reqirement, people
could claim residency in three countries because they do
business in all three.
-
- Q - Which countries
were represented at today's GAC meeting?
Toomey: Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile,
Denmark, EU, France, Gambia, Germany, Hong Kong China,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, New
Zealane, Nieu, Norway, Russian Federation, ,Singapore,
Seden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, US,
WIPO
-
- Q - Kenneth Cukier -
Did you discuss the possibiility of data escrow in ccTLD
space. Did issue of privacy come ujp and what were some
conclusions?
-
- Toomey: Today, we
talk very generally around issues but we do not have
final document. Doesn't represent anything but an
initial discussion. Talking through a lot of
issues.
-
- Q - About escrowing
data again.
-
- Toomey: GAC has no
authority to demand anything of anybody. There has to be
authority given to the sovereign authority as relates to
the rights of their own ccTLDs.
-
- Q - Do nations have
authority over their ccTLDs?
-
- Toomey: Berlin statement
said they do. What we are really concerned is talking
through issues of praciticality. How can we engage in
thinking this through and making this process happen
smoothly.
-
- Q. Michael
Schneider: Regarding the tripartite agreement
{DOC/NSI/ICANN], the fact that GAC is taking note
of the agreement is very enlightening. Will GAC follow
up on that?
-
- Toomey: Many of our
members who are participating are new to the issues so
we are not in the position to say we have a common
view. GAC cannot intervene. We are just a group of
governments to reflect implications of natinal laws
and treaties. Some members of the GAC have made
representations on the agreements. The dialogue is
continuing.
-
- Q - Dana Gallup:
Would GAC consider some means by which you can open up
the process to more participating goverments.
Participation by 31 entitites when there are more than
200 governmental bodies is not truly representative of
those bodies. Consider participation by means of
telephone or video conferencing making the process
more inclusive. e.g. Moldova cannot attend because of
financial burden.
-
- Toomey: Good point.
Praciticalities of teleconferencing are difficult. We
are certainly using online communications. If there
are people in government you think need to get
involved, please let me know. At some practical level
regarding face-to-face, money is in some sense
commitment.
-
- Q - Antony Van
Coovering - Wanted to talk in Berlin about best
practices, ccTLDs but at the time you felt tht wasn't
a good idea. What has changed?
-
- Toomey: One of the
things that has taken place is that supporting
organizations has solidified. There is more general
consensus and we have more dialogue. timingwise, it
was a aprogression to get there.
-
- Q - Antony Van
Coovering : Handed a GAC Statement of
Principles
-
- Toomey: Won't answer
any questions on that. It doesn't represent any sense
of our discussions to date. It was a haflway piece of
work presented by a few people. Answering questions
based on that document would be
inappropriate.
-
- Q - Antony Van
Coovering : Redelegation has been the purview of IANA,
what do you see is the continuing role of
IANA
-
- Toomey: I can't give
you an answer because we don't have one. There is a
role for three parties, ICANN, delegee and the
national government or public authority. What those
roles are is unclear.
-
- Q - Antony Van
Coovering: To what extent do you see the good
performance of a ccTLD manager to be a good
representation for determining
redelegation?
-
- Toomey: Let me
exaggerate and simplify in the inverse to make a
point. If a ccTLD is not operating for reasons that
the delegee is not performing, and the rights of the
citizens in that country are being infringed because
they cannot access it. If it is not broke, don't fix
it. If that is performance, then clearly it is an
issue.
-
- Q - Antony Van
Coovering Is it important to hold governments to some
standard of performance as well as
delegees?
-
- Toomey: Dscussion led
to comment that there are responsibilities on
governments. There are some distinguishments from
delegee and the administration of marketing. They can
be done by different people and different parties in
different locales. Important to make those
distinctions.
-
- Q - Craig Simon -
There will be a meeting of WGC at 8 a.m. Solicit
comments sfrom the online community about this issue.
Please comment on what you have seen regarding
learning curve of GAC and different levels of
seniority when folks go back to their countries and
make recommendations?
-
- Toomey: Some senior,
some are not. Often reflects where various
administrations are in relation to the Internet. We
have a variety. What matters are people who think that
this should be in their community, in their
governments. Getting more and more members and new
people coming who think this is something valuable to
do. I am hesitant to turn this into educations for
governments?
-
- Q - Ralph Nader
proposed that ICANN should be backed to an
intergovernmental charter?
-
- Toomey: As Australian
government position, we prefer to see level of
coordination around technical issues by community
closest to them as possible. Intergovernmental issue
is remote from issues. Assuming that participation of
so many governments in GAC represents a similar
analysis. GAC wording from last meeting keeps
reinforcing role of ICANN. Model that Nader has
indicated is the potential alternative model if this
one doesn't work. We don't think that model will work,
so we are working hard for this one.
-
- Q: Werner Staub:
The US DOC has quite extensive dormant powers that
could be exercised in case of necessity, including
withdrawing recognition of ICANN and agreements that
GAC takes note of . How do governments feel about
this? Basically, one government holds the key to the
entire thing, and there is no limitations on this
power.
-
- Toomey: I think there
is open discussion and recognition that in the White
Paper process, the US government recognized an
increasing role for the participation in the
administration of the DNS. I think some government
authorities still remain in discusisn around that
principle. The second issue is that we would be very
careful in our analysis. In some respects you have to
rely on state institutions to enforce model. A
personal observation: those agreements reflect the
enforcement power of a state as a fallback power. That
is one of the value added parts of the GAC. That
eventual fallback power on the sovereign to enforce
is, I think, a postive thing.
-
- Q - Werner Staub:
Appreciate a need to have a safety valve in the
system, but it shouldn't be the cause of an
explosion.; The unlimited power in the hands of any
party is not safe. Concerned that US could openly
exercise this power in its own national
interest.
-
- Toomey: Cannot
respond to that question as chair because different
governments have different reactions.
-
|
