Comments by John Mathiason, Adjunct Professor of International
Relations, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse
University

**National Telecommunications and Information Administration**

**Docket No. 060519136-6136-01**

**The Continued Transition of the Technical Coordination and Management
of the Internet Domain Name and Addressing System**

1\. The *DNS White Paper* articulated principles (i.e., stability;
competition; private,

bottom-up coordination; and representation) necessary for guiding the
transition to

private sector management of the Internet DNS. Are these principles
still relevant?

Should additional principles be considered in light of: the advance in
Internet

technology; the expanded global reach of the Internet; the experience
gained over the eight years since the Department of Commerce issued the
*DNS White Paper*; and the international dialogue, including the
discussions related to Internet governance at the United Nations World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)?

I was one of those who made comments on the DNS White Paper in 1997.
Most of the points made in those comments continue to be valid, and have
been confirmed by experience:

> 1\. The issue of domain name regulation is related to the wider issue
> of public responsibility for the Internet and within this the role of
> international organizations. Maintenance of the fundamental openness
> of the Internet on the basis of universal access and fair competition
> requires that this essential public good has reasonable regulation to
> ensure a level playing field for all users. As a new, borderless
> entity, the Internet can neither be regulated effectively by national
> governments nor by self-governance of its many and diverse users.

Two principles clearly need further articulation. Openness of the
Internet, which was not specified in the original White paper, is a
critical principle for the operation of the Internet. ICANN should
operate so as to ensure that its decisions do not compromise this
principle. However, what openness implies as a principle needs further
exploration at the international level. Clearly elements from human
rights, like freedom of expression, need to be applied. So does access
by countries that lack resources, as called for in the WSIS Tunis Agenda
for Action.

The second principle is the internationalization of the Internet that
was not included in the White Paper but has now been included in the
Tunis Agenda adopted by the World Summit on the Information Society.
However, the details of what is implied by internationalization have yet
to be worked out. As I said in my 1997 comment:

> 1\. A central principle should be that the policy framework and
> regulatory mechanisms should reinforce the globalization of the world
> economy, accelerate interdependence among peoples and strengthen
> international public institutions in the interest of all of the world
> s people.
>
> 2\. Recognized in a cascading series of conventions, agreements and
> declarations in a wide variety of fields, and embodied in a growing
> number of international institutions to implement these agreements,
> the increased interdependence that characterized the end of the 20th
> century and will be the leitmotiv of the 21st. This has meant that the
> size and context of international public space has grown. This
> borderless world can have incalculable benefits to everyone, but may
> be particularly important to Americans, many of whose national ideals
> are reflected in the way international space has been defined, and
> whose economic well-being increasingly depends on development
> elsewhere and whose physical environment both affects and is affected
> by people outside its physical boundaries. The United States,
> therefore, has a special responsibility to encourage the development
> of international institutions that reflect our values. The Internet
> was a creation of US technology and, in its free and open structure,
> based on fair competition, reflects fundamental American principles.
> But it has passed into the international domain: it belongs to the
> whole world. It is imperative that we help create international
> institutions whose structures and processes are consistent with our
> values.

2\. The *DNS White Paper* articulated a number of actions that should be
taken in order for the U.S. Government to transition its Internet DNS
technical coordination and management responsibilities to the private
sector. These actions appear in the MOU as a series of core tasks and
milestones. Has ICANN achieved sufficient progress in its tasks, as
agreed in the MOU, for the transition to take place by September 30,
2006?

The DNS White Paper only referred to the setting up of ICANN. Clearly
most of the milestones established then have been met. The difficulty
with the transition has been that one of the milestones, "4) consult
with the international community, including other interested governments
as it makes decisions on the transfer" has been incomplete. While ICANN
meetings have had wide participation from different stakeholders, the
expected consultation has not really taken place and the issue of to
whom ICANN should report is still unresolved, since it has become mired
in disputes over sovereignty.

For the transition to take place successfully, an international
agreement about oversight and reporting will need to be obtained.

3\. Are these core tasks and milestones still relevant to facilitate
this transition and meet the goals outlined in the *DNS White Paper* and
the *U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing
System*? Should new or revised tasks/methods be considered in order for
the transition to occur? And on what time frame and by what method
should a transition occur?

The transition has to be seen in the larger context of Internet
governance. Many of the issues that existed at the outset of the DNS
controversy still lurk, such as trademark and copyright issues, and
ICANN has been pushed into policy discussions where it lacks legitimacy
or competence. Over the short run, the transition could be made \--
turning supervision over to the corporate authorities in California \--
but a time frame should be set up for providing legitimate international
oversight.

4\. The *DNS White Paper* listed several key stakeholder groups whose
meaningful

participation is necessary for effective technical coordination and
management of the Internet DNS. Are all of these groups involved
effectively in the ICANN process? If not, how could their involvement be
improved? Are there key stakeholder groups not listed in the *DNS White
Paper*, such as those with expertise in the area of Internet security or
infrastructure technologies, that could provide valuable input into the
technical coordination and management of the Internet DNS? If so, how
could their involvement be facilitated?

The main issue has to do with involving governments in the process. The
existing method clearly does not work. Using an international means
(such as a convention for which States Party would have oversight
responsibility) would be a better option than self-selection by states,
or designation of states by ICANN itself. However, in working out the
international arrangements, innovations will have to be made that will
assure the participation of non-State stakeholders.

5\. The *DNS White Paper* listed principles and mechanisms for technical
coordination and management of the Internet DNS to encourage meaningful
participation and representation of key stakeholders. ICANN, in
conjunction with many of these key stakeholders, has created various
supporting organizations and committees to facilitate stakeholder
participation in ICANN processes. Is participation in these
organizations meeting the needs of key stakeholders and the Internet
community? Are there ways to improve or expand participation in these
organizations and committees?

No comments.

6\. What methods and/or processes should be considered to encourage
greater efficiency and responsiveness to governments and ccTLD managers
in processing root management requests to address public policy and
sovereignty concerns? Please keep in mind the need to preserve the
security and stability of the Internet DNS and the goal of
decisionmaking at the local level. Are there new technology tools
available that could improve this process, such as automation of request
processing?

As noted in my comment on question 3, ICANN is part of a larger issue of
Internet governance. As noted by the report of the Working Group on
Internet Governance (WGIG), there are a large number of public policy
questions that must be addressed if the Internet is to remain secure,
stable and open. There are areas where decisions in some international
regimes have implications for the Internet and vice-versa, but there is
a lack of agreement on the rules to be applied. One option, which I have
noted before, would be to reach an agreement on the principles and rules
of Internet governance through negotiating a Framework Convention. An
agreement on such a convention, following a exploration of needs, could
be an outcome of the process that has begun through the Internet
Governance Forum.

7\. Many public and private organizations have various roles and
responsibilities related to the Internet DNS, and more broadly, to
Internet governance. How can information exchange, collaboration and
enhanced cooperation among these organizations be achieved as called for
by the WSIS?

For effective exchange of information, collaboration and enhanced
cooperation there must be a central coordinating mechanism that can
facilitate information exchange (both by providing a space for this and
establishment of standards) and provide a place for reaching and
recording agreements on cooperation arrangements among stakeholders.
This is not something that can be provided either by individual
governments or by non-state actors, since they lack either the
credibility or the reach that is necessary. In other areas with similar
issues, this is a function provided by international secretariats. At
present, no such international institution has been agreed, although the
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, appropriated resourced,
could provide that function. There are other existing institutions, like
the ITU, that could also be considered, but these have problems of
limited mandates and lack of credibility among some stakeholders. Should
a Framework Convention be negotiated, its Secretariat could provide this
function in the future.