Of course the wording isn’t contradictory – these things are written to be as ambiguous and open as possible – that’s been the problem for over a year.

The fact is the US government has failed to state what it intentions are i.e. what exactly the principles mean in real terms – sparking the Burr/Cade recommendation that the US give a clear statement about its intention and Emily Taylor’s request that the US make its intentions clear – which then sparked the question from Milton Mueller which then caused Kneuer to indicate that the DoC was prepared to hand over ICANN control.

Between 30 June 2005 and yesterday, all the indications were that the US government was determined to retain control of ICANN *and* the root – just look at the statements in Geneva and Tunis. Yesterday, it made clear it was willing to hand over ICANN.

Kieren

But I’m not convinced what Kneur said constitutes a USG u-turn. Far from it.

The 2005 USG policy to take “no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.”

is surely completely consistent with

“the technical verification and authorisation of changes to the authoritative root. That is a function of IANA that is limited, extraordinarily technical in nature, and very explicitly tied to security and stability from a technical standpoint.”

Kneur’s words yesterday are more detailed than the four-principles statement, and as you say, they do clarify the position. But do they reverse the position? A step back? Not in my mind.

I’ve spoken to a few people at the meeting and everyone is agreed that Kneuer’s statement was very significant. Also ICANN is actively investigating ways of becoming an international body – check out the Pres Strat Committee discussions – ICANN hired the UN’s top legal advisor to provide some information on organisations that work through international law.

Is the USG removing its control from ICANN significant? Yes, massively so. Think VeriSign dotcom, think .xxx. Think ICANN as an autonomous body. The IANA stance is just a fall-back position to enable the USG to keep face and to make sure that it can control how the overall internet is transitioned. It will move IANA to an international body further down the line.

Is this different to what the USG was saying in Tunis? Yes, it is an enormous change. What happened yesterday was history in the making. When it comes to government positions, you simply do not get a bigger change in direction without a general election.

Kieren

In other words, even if it does it cede control over ICANN, it will still have veto power over any root-related decisions ICANN makes. It will still, in essence “rule the root”, and would still be able to use that oversight to kill stuff like .xxx.

Would it be much different than it is today?

There is this strange determination at the moment in the US to find the slightest support and then blow it up to an equal size as all the people that were incredibly critical. Check out the ISOC statement – startlingly critical.

I am staggered by the US media’s blinkered defence of the government no matter what. If the exact same thing had happened here in the UK, the headlines would be: “UK government U-turn over Net ownership”, rather than the virtual definition of bias which is seeking someone (anyone) that agrees with your view and then pretending that’s what everyone said.

I have the whole event on tape, I may do an objective podcast of the meeting to serve as a future resource.

Kieren

With that caveat, I have to say I’m certain I heard some argument for continuing US oversight. Possibly not permenant oversight, but definitely continuing beyond September. NSI maybe? Or Go Daddy?