Becky Burr (former NTIA official) and lobbyist Marilyn Cade has made a proposal to create a multilateral working group to oversee the root zone file updates.

I would characterize the Burr-Cade proposal as a “small step for mankind and a giant step for the US” to paraphrase Neil Armstrong. The main merit of the proposal is that it looks like something the USG might want to follow.

Sevaral people suggested there should be no governmental oversight at all but that does not look realistic, in the sense that there can be huge economic and political interests behind ICANN decisions. Historically, governments have always been involved in foreign economic policy decisions (WTO) and would be blamed by their people if they did not. ICANN is yet another such process.

Like it or not, there are sovereignty issues linked to ccTLDs. There is no way one could exclude governments from the decision process.

Regarding the composition of this oversight group, I would say that the European representation should be reviewed. It would not be accepted by the EU that UK, itself a member of the EU, gets a seat on its own. I would rather expect two seats for the EU, one permanent and one rotating according to the EU presidency. The third seat should be for non-EU countries.

The authors of the proposal show they have no clue regarding regional political weightings. Rather, they suggest American-friendly countries. It would be wiser to allow regional governmental councils (African Union, Organization of American States, etc) to designate their representatives.

All in all, I would personally support this proposal as a starting point for discussions. It is incidentally close to a reply to a WSIS questionnaire last year, in which I suggested that the oversight on the root should be done by a sub-committee of the GAC.

Update: Becky Burr will discuss her proposal during the ICANN Strategy Committee Consultations today at 9:00am (Marina del Rey time). There will be a live audio feed.

Update2: This article is also featured on CircleID.

Newsweek is currently running a story in its international edition on the current state of Internet Governance. Don’t rush to read it in the hope of fresh news or insightful comments. This is targeted at a general audience and is thus subject to the generalizations, counter-truths, half truths and politically correct arguments.

A few pearls:

The Open Root Servers Network is depicted as an “anti-american” initiative. Of course, Newsweek failed to mention that Paul Vixie, an American citizen, was running one of these root servers. This would not have helped making the case. And, as is usual these days, critizing, or questioning the rethorics of, an administration is equivalent to being the enemy of a country.

In the same vein, Newsweek considers it is unwise from the French and German governments to pour money into an European IT research project whose goal is to develop a search engine technology. On the other hand, Newsweek does consider that the USG funding of Arpanet and subsequent research that helped develop the Internet is OK. To summarize: US funding of research is fine, but Europeans should not do the same.

Newsweek should have called this article “Internet governance for dummies”. Unfortunately, after reading it, one is still a dummy.

I have started a Google Calendar mentioning Internet governance related events.

The calendar is here is ics and xml formats.

This is work in progress. Feel to inform me of forthcoming events I have failed to mention.

For years ICANN has webcasted its public forums and board meetings, every now and then adding other meetings to the list. I now hear some within the civil society (whatever that means) suggesting that the IGF should use webcasting and similar technologies to allow remote participation, especially for those not being able to attend in person because they cannot afford a travel to Geneva, Greece, etc. We are being told this is a step towards making the process more inclusive.

While this stems from a good intention, it is looks like a bad good idea. I tried to follow some ICANN meetings through these webcasts, only to come out frustrated. Even with a good broadband connection, the quality is rather poor. One can stand the bad video, frozen images and 5 minute delay for only a few minutes. Just imagine what that would look like and how much it would cost using a 9600 bps dial-up connection in Africa. Add to that that communications is really one way. Feeding back your opinion to the meeting is close to impossible, if only for the delay, which would prevent from replying in time.

So, instead of spending lots of money on webcasting, the IGF would do better to spend it on sponsoring the attendance of those delegates who can not afford to travel. Sure, webcasting is sexy, but only for those who can watch it with comfort. However, nothing can replace face-to-face meetings. At WSIS, IGF or ICANN, many of the important conversations are happening in the corridors or at the bar. They are not webcasted. If you want to influence a process, you need to be there.