Question: Though ICANN's mandate is specific and limited and it is not explicitly a cyber-government for the Internet, what organizations and individuals might be brought together in a culture issue question like p.r.china and taiwan are one country or two countries?

Nominee Replies

Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-29 19:43:08 ICANN obviously should not put its head in the sand and say we don't make these decisions, we just make technical decisions. The China/Taiwan issue is an obvious question for ICANN in allocating ccTLDs. The policy decision here is what other organization ICANN will look to in deciding such a complex question. The answer should be based on what organization has public credibility. That may be the U.N. on this issue. But that in itself would be a policy choice, not a technical one. Call it what it is. Donald Langenberg - posted on 2000-09-24 13:38:32 I suggest we should leave that hot potato to the State Department and the UN, and focus on Internet users themselves, avoiding as much as possible their identification with business organizations, interest groups, racial or ethnic groups, or national groups. Harris Miller - posted on 2000-09-18 05:36:36 It is absolutely critical that ICANN remained focused on its specific and limited mandate. The political hypothetical you offer will be only one of the many possible temptations for ICAAN to stray and assume a role for which it was not intended nor designed. Avoiding mission creep will be a paramount responsibility for the Board. Questions like this will no doubt arise. The key will be remember that other organizations are better suited and equipped to resolve them. ICANN will prosper when it keeps its focus on its specific competence. Karl Auerbach - posted on 2000-09-14 11:14:26 You are certainly right when you say that ICANN's mandate is specific and limited. And I'd like to keep it that way. As for your question about who ought to make those very difficult choices that are beyond ICANN's charter: It certainly should not be ICANN. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-13 23:47:20 ICANN has no mandate to resolve contested political issues, and I would hesitate before permitting it to imagine itself in the role of a facilitator. The question is a good one to point out the inevitably political questions that a body like ICANN will face. But the response in each case should be to stick to the mandate -- a technical, coordinating body. Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-09-13 19:42:58 I realize that although ICANN's mandate is (and should be) specific and limited, it is the Internet's first attempt at global, non-governmental self-management, and as such attracts hopes and fears that are much larger than its formal mandate; but if we overload it with too many issues that are outside its scope, we are giving it very little chance to succeed. Questions like p.r.china and taiwan are one country or two countries? are enormously important, but they are already being debated in other contexts (including ISO, which has standardized the separate country codes .cn and .tw in ISO 3166). I don't believe that simply importing that question into another (unrelated) forum gets us any closer to a useful answer.