[Kictanet] EU on Internet Governance-& what is the .KE position?

[John Walubengo]

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 at 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 at kictanet.or.ke 
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet