Re: [ga] BBC News: Whose Net is it anyway?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard and all former DNSO GA members or other intersted
stakeholders/users,

  First, what is a "Responsible pornagrapher" ?  I am sure I don't know
what a definition of such is.  Does anyone else?  Larry Flint is a
pornagrapher
with little taste in his product. Is he not responsible or is he and his
pornagraphy
responsible.  Second, indeed we would agree that .xxx is not needed and
has
conotations that may have a negitive social impact.  However ICANN
should
not be engaged in social engenerring, nor however should DOC/NTIA.

  So to conclude, money walks and BS talks as that very nice hooker
in the phillipines once told me...  So I flipped her a quarter and ask
for change.  >;)

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    BBC News - the News Portal for the UK's National Broadcasting
> Corporation - has this interesting article:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4165920.stm
>
> WHOSE NET IS IT ANYWAY?
>
> Is it time to take control over the net away from the US government?
>
> When it comes to politics and policy making, those of us who take an
> interest in the way the internet is governed are usually treated with
> mild disdain by our activist friends.
> Somehow the details of IP (internet protocol) address allocation,
> domain name resolution and the creation of new top-level domains
> (TLDs) by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (Icann) fail to ignite the passions of even the most committed policy
> wonk.
>
> Few people, for example, could tell you any of the tortuous history of
> the .xxx domain, which is intended for adult-only content, primarily
> pornography.
>
> Originally proposed in 2000 and initially rejected, the board of Icann
> was about to give the final go-ahead to this new home for the world's
> pornographers when the US government said it was unhappy with the
> proposal.
>
> Because of this approval has been put on hold for a month and may now
> not happen, despite the fact that there have been years of discussion
> and consultation and millions of dollars have been spent by those who
> want to run the registry which will provide .xxx websites.
>
> Jumping and hoops
>
> You have to feel a certain degree of sympathy for ICM Registry, the
> company set up more than five years ago to push for the idea of an
> adult-only domain.
>
> After its original proposal was rejected it has lobbied, argued,
> persuaded and jumped through more bureaucratic hoops than a
> well-trained circus seal.
>
> It is even working with a Canadian non-profit organisation to ensure
> that only "responsible" pornographers get .xxx domains.
>
> Having done everything by the book and worked slowly and carefully
> within the Icann process to get approval for the new domain,
> everything was in place for board approval on the 12 August, after
> which it would start planning the rollout and begin making money.
>
> Now it is all on hold because the US Department of Commerce has been
> lobbied by right-wing religious groups.
>
> But all is not lost. In the past the pornography industry has been one
> of the big drivers behind certain technical developments in web
> publishing, from video streaming to online payment systems.
>
> It would therefore be rather appropriate if the way Icann has been
> pressurised when it tries to address the industry's needs forces a
> rethink of the way the net is managed, and that may well happen.
>
> New proposals
>
> Last month the UN's Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
> published its proposals for reform of the way the net is run, and
> these will be debated at the upcoming World Summit on the Information
> Society in Tunisia.
>
> Having a clear cut case where a national government is able to stamp
> its feet and get Icann, who is supposed to be in charge of such
> things, to abandon a two-year process will encourage those who think
> that the current system is unacceptable.
>
> When it comes to .xxx I am not at all convinced that it is needed or
> that it will be useful. It may help some people find online porn, but
> this does not really seem to be a problem without it.
>
> More worrying is that it could be used to create an online ghetto,
> with countries passing laws that require adult content to register
> under .xxx so they can be filtered, with the danger that this will be
> extended to cover anything deemed "unsuitable" for children.
>
> When discussing this issue we need to be clear that pornography is not
> illegal, however distasteful some people may find it.
>
> The degree to which the people involved are exploited or corrupted,
> the impact that viewing pornography has on adults, and the measures
> that can best be taken to ensure that children are not exposed to
> unsuitable sexual imagery are all uncertain, and the evidence that
> does exist is ambivalent and subject to multiple interpretations.
>
> But rational debate is not something we can expect from some political
> or religious establishments.
>
> The recent furore over the "hidden" sex scenes in the Grand Theft Auto
> computer game shows just how ridiculous and irrational the debate can
> get, when a few scenes of CGI consensual sex are used to criticise a
> game that was happily passed even though it condones violence,
> lawbreaking and brutality.
>
> The reason we have complicated structures of government, with
> committees and consultations and formal mechanisms, is to try to make
> it harder for one group, however vehement, to hijack the process.
>
> The question is how Icann can ensure it is capable of running core
> internet functions.
>
> One option would be to reform Icann and make it properly independent
> of the United States Department of Commerce.
>
> The chances of this happening are slim, especially after Michael
> Gallagher from the National Telecommunications and Information
> Administration (NTIA) said in a speech that the US intends to
> "maintain its historic role in authorising changes or modifications to
> the authoritative root zone file".
>
> So we need to look at ways of wresting control from the US, and here
> the only real option is the United Nations.
>
> The existing proposals from WGIG are not ideal, but they are a start.
> The UN system is not perfect, but it is the only forum we have where
> national interests can be put to one side and compromise can be
> sought.
>
> One of the principles that has driven the internet's technical
> infrastructure from the early days of the Arpanet has been to have
> "rough consensus and running code" - to find something that most
> developers can agree on, get something working and then refine and
> improve it.
>
> When it comes to net governance we need to establish a consensus that
> the UN is the right forum, get some mechanisms in place to replace the
> compromised Icann, and then work to make them better.
>
> This is a task that will require the engagement and active
> participation of the whole net-using community, so I think it is time
> for my policy making friends to start learning more about root servers
> and IP version 6.
>
>
>
> Richard Henderson concludes: So all over the world, including here in
> the UK - one of the closer allies of the US - people want to know why
> a single country should retain controlling influence over a vital
> world resource. If ICANN cannot assert and demonstrate its
> independence of USG, and indeed demonstrate accountability to internet
> users all over the world, then the pressure will grow for an
> alternative to take over its functions. It is wholly unacceptable that
> this world resource - or specifically its key functions - should be
> managed by unelected people who are accountable to the DoC of the
> United States, and dependent on it for its continuing mandate and
> existence. This kind of digital imperialism is indicative of a mindset
> that appears to treat other countries with disdain - and goes some way
> towards understanding why alienated groups opt for radical measures in
> opposition to a political elite of a single country that seems to say:
> "We'll do as we damned well like."
>
> Richard H
>
> www.atlarge.org
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827