The Round Table on “kg” domain zone administration, which took place last week, was organized by the National Alliance of Business Association (NABA) and ended up with a great discomfiture. Mr. George Sadowsky, the representative of ICANN – the organization managing the Internet addresses - who was invited to participate in this event, recently had to make the declaration that part of his statements during the Round Table (leaked into Kyrgyzstan’s mass media too) were misrepresented or interpreted incorrectly. Well, let’s start it step by step…
Wordplay
Our reader may ask a simple and even naive question: what for round tables take place? The answer seems obvious: so that people with different points of view on problem had the opportunity to exchange views and, if possible, to decrease the gaps between their positions and achieve consensus. Therefore it is called “round”. But sometimes “a round table” becomes a screen behind which there is a play is going on called “one gate game”. Roughly this was the scenario at the event which was held under the auspices of a respected business association NABA
So what is the main concern of the businessmen from NABA? Is it lack of progress in e-trade? Or absence of competition in registrar’ market? Nope. According to the website of NABA this event the Business Alliance is concerned how much it will cost to the State Service of Intellectual property (Kyrgyzpatent) to administer national domain zone, if ICANN decides to transfer administration rights. It is well known that at the moment «Asiainfo» company is administrator and the only registrar of ccTLD «kg». This situation does not please Internet users nor the government. ICANN is not satisfied as well and this is stated in the recommendations, which was published for Internet community in 2006 by Mr. Sadowsky.
Money should be counted and the duty of any citizen is to make sure that the state funds are spent for the common good of whole society. However persons, who are concerned with the national domain issue, miss two points. First, development of country’s Internet is not interest of businessmen only but pupils, students, housewives — all citizens of the country. Second, despite the fact that the State Service of Intellectual Property is a state body, it is not maintained by taxpayers but earns money itself and pay taxes to the state.
According to the information published on the website of the NABA another point of agenda of «round table» was demonstration of solidarity with above mentioned Mr. Sadowsky, «who declared that if there is no consensus between business community of Kyrgyzstan and the government then ICANN will leave administration rights to «Asiainfo»». This famous expert was invited to «round table» as on-line participant through Skype. The pundit of domain names was at the conference on Sharm El Sheikh and his speech was simultaneously translated for the participants. But according to the translator the audio quality was not up to the scratch. For this reason or another the extracts from speech Mr. Sadowsky — member of ICANN’s Board of Directors — were misrepresented in Internet.
Apart from above-mentioned passage, the expert allegedly declared that «ICANN may not consider application of the government of Kyrgyzstan on the delegation of administration rights of «kg» zone, if it is not supported by local community». Another source provides other version of words of Mr. Sadowsky: « I recommend that the registration and administration should be done by private sector, NGO or association of operators» (Note the highlighted words, we will address them later). In a word, accidentally or deliberately, all the accents were arranged as if the leadership of the international structure for the distribution of domain names, sleeps and sees at the helm of Kyrnet “one of the non-state actors” represented by the Association of Communication Operators. And desire of the state to administer the national domain zone - is nonsense and an assault on the fundamental rights and freedoms.
And who are the judges?
After reading the English translations that the information space of Kyrgyzstan issued for the mass audience Mr. Sadowsky was in bewilderment and expressed it in his letter to the leadership of the State Service of Intellectual Property.
On Wednesday 18 November I participated by remote Skype link from Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt in a round table held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The subject of the Round Table was country code top level domains (ccTLDs). I talked about the history of ccTLDs as well as redelegations. My goal was to discuss the subject generally, without any reference to any one country.
Based upon an English translation, I believe that the text posted on the web site contains omissions, some factual errors, and misrepresentations caused by taking material out of context. Rather than address specific points in an English translation, I believe that it would be more useful to state clearly the main points of my message in my own language. These are my personal opinions; I do not speak for ICANN.
1. The historical basis for ccTLD delegation is contained in IETF’s RFC 1591 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt, and the current IANA policy with respect to the ccTLD delegation and redelegation procedure is contained in the document http://iana.org/domains/root/delegation-guide/. The second document is the definitive guide for IANA, and should serve as the primary reference by everyone involved in any delegation or redelegation activity.
2. I was speaking at the round table in my personal capacity, not as a member of the ICANN Board. The ICANN Board consists of Directors, but I am informed that the word does not have the same meaning in English as it has in Russian. The only people who can speak officially for ICANN are the President and CEO and the Chair of the Board of Directors.
3. Since the beginning of ccTLDs, considerable weight has been given to the views of the local Internet community, and to the extent that the proposed delegation supports the needs of the local (national) community. Point 2 of the above delegation guide describes this in more detail.
4. In my opinion, the Internet community in a country includes all stakeholders who depend upon the correct functioning of the Internet, including users, ISPs, and providers of various Internet-related services. These actors exist in all sectors: government, business, the technical community, civil society and users of the Internet.
5. ccTLDs can be administered by either government agencies, private entities or NGOs, and examples of all three types of delegations exist. My own personal opinion is that, in general (and without specific reference to Kyrgyzstan), ccTLD administration by private organizations and NGOs is more likely to satisfy community needs.
6. ICANN is neutral with respect to delegation choices in any given country. It does not make policies within countries. Decisions must be made within a country.
We had a telephone conversation with Mr. Veni Markovski of ICANN, who gave following explanations:
«I can not comment words of Mr. Sadowsky because I was not present there, but I can tell that the headlines and publication of «24.kg» and «AKI press» contain inaccuracies. We do not comment on the documentation which is received by ICANN, moreover, the issues of redelegation of administration rights of domain names are not publicly discussed. When we consider documents, we do not take any side of parties and guided by the principle that Internet should work continuously and in the interests of the entire community. And it is very important that the redelegation process is carried out without harm to Internet users. Therefore it is important that the parties reached a consensus».
It is obvious even for an uninitiated reader that ICANN does not assume the role of truth in the last instance, and definitely not the role of arbiter in disputes that arise in society as a result of change of the administrator of the national domain zone. There are certain rules, criteria and approaches. But the basic rules of the game must determined by players in the Internet space for themselves at the national level. That is why the main principles of ICANN are the interests of all members of on-line community and consensus among all players in the cyber space.
But role of judges and truth keepers are taken by some structures, who have commercial interest in the issue of ‘kg’ domain zone administration.
In war?
«In fact there is an information war is going on — commented on the situation Mr. Ulan Melisbek, the head of the State Service of Intellectual Property (SSIP). - And our opponents use all means, including illicit ones to create an illusion for Internet community that they are the only actors who can guard their interests. In reality they pursue only one goal, far from unselfish: to keep the status-quo in administration of national domain zone. And they reached the point when they are ready to present representatives of leadership and experts of ICANN as their allies, which fundamentally contradicts to the principles of this organization».
It is not secret that the main opponents of delegation of «kg» domain zone administration to the State Service of Intellectual Property are Association of Communication Operators (ACO) and Mrs. Mambetalieva, head of public fund «Civil Initiative on Internet Policy» (CIIP). Recently they demonstrated growing activity in forming the public opinion that administration rights of the national domain zone should be delegate to ACO. For example,in September during her interview for the one of information agencies Mrs. Mambetalieva stated following: «According to the recommendations of international experts, who closely work with ICANN, the best candidate for the domain zone administration could be Association of Communication Operators of Kyrgyzstan, which included «Asiainfo». In 2006 we invited the international expert, who worked with ICANN at that time, to assess the existing situation on the domain administration. The expert conducted the research and concluded to the conclusion which I mentioned before».
While gathering materials for this article, the author visited website of CIIP, where she found materials under the common title: «Recommendations for ccTLD administration in the Kyrgyz Republic», which were prepared by well-known to us Mr. Sadowsky in 2006. It clearly states: «(In Kyrgyzstan — L.P.) there is only one industry association — Association of Communication Operators. Its members include the majority (but not all) Internet providers, Kyrgyztelecom, mobile communication operators and several companies, which produce telecom equipment. The association majority of Internet community at business level, but it also includes some actors, whose interests do not coincide and sometimes hostile to the interests of Internet community (highlighted by me — L.P)».
And then, in the section “Recommendations”, stated the following: «Possibly there is a need to create a new organization. Association of operators does not represent all the Internet community». In fact: whose interests are represented by the ACO? Some companies of mobile communication and some Internet service providers, who are interested to keep prices for their services at the maximum level. Can they really represent the interests of ordinary Internet users? Are they ready to develop social networks, providing free hosting for certain categories of users and so on? Meanwhile, the public obsessively being hammered into its head that only the ACO can claim the role of guardian angel of Kyrgyzstan’s Internet.
«Tattuu Mambetalieva as well as ACO or any other single non-governmental organization, today do not represent the entire Internet community, and are not authorized to speak on its behalf. This community has not yet fully formed in our country, and representative association of Internet users has not yet appeared, which could act for their interests in the broadest sense, and thus would be free from the interests of a purely commercial nature. Therefore, the state simply has to assume the function of administration of the national domain zone - continued his commentary the head of the State Service of Intellectual Property. - Consideration of the request may be suspended only in case of violation of the rules of ICANN. But we strictly observe the rules. But the rules of ICANN has a procedure forced redelegation. But we do not want it, moreover there is signed memorandum of understanding with “Asia-Info”. Unfortunately, the agreement reached on paper, but so far there is no support from “Asia-info” in practice. On the contrary, is what happens is happens. But at the formal level, so far there is no reason to force the redelegation»
While the opponents of SSIP are trying to plant a seed of doubt in minds of organized parts of Internet community, Kyrgyzpatent confidently moves forward in the solution of technical and organizational issues. The Press office of SSIP informed that recently IANA — the technical structure of ICANN — confirmed that all 4 DNS servers, installed in Kyrgyzstan and abroad for the future administration of domain zone, successfully passed the technical testing. At the moment there is preparation works for registration of Administration Center, which will the technical body, and the highest management body for domain zone will be collegial body - Supervisory Board, which members will include representatives of state bodies, business and surely public unions, who represent all variety of Kyrgyzstan’s Internet community.
Lyudmila PAVLOVICH
Issue 125 (22434)
Slovo Kyrgyzstana
November 25, 2009
Add comment