Re: [ga] "Breaking America's grip on the net"

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Then there may be a breakup. Which is worse?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] "Breaking America's grip on the net"


> Joop and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,
>
> Nice try, but it ain't never going to really happen.  No
> meeting in Geneva or anywhere in the EU is going to
> change the position of this administration regarding
> whom controls the "Root" or the basic infrastructure
> of the internet.
>
> Don't get caught up in such political clap trap Joop.
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html
> >
> > Breaking America's grip on the net
> >
> > After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to
relinquish
> > control of the internet to a coalition of governments
> >
> > Kieren McCarthy
> > Thursday October 6, 2005
> > The Guardian
> > You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of
the
> > internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media scrums
and a
> > charismatic frontman working the crowd.
> > But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's
> > slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words
were
> > calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for
> > generations to come.
> > Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business
> > relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European
> > Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World
> > Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political
coup
> > over the running of the internet.
> > Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat
just
> > feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon
> > explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral
control
> > of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this
> > revolutionary communications medium.
> > The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive
> > issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows. For the
vast
> > majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is
getting
> > on it. But with the internet now essential to countries' basic
> > infrastructure - Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the
> > question of who has control has become critical.
> > And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In
the
> > early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and
funded
> > expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a
private
> > company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann)
to
> > run it.
> > But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had
> > always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's
> > foundation - its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for
the
> > whole internet.
> > A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China,
Cuba,
> > Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it
> > refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU
took a
> > bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide
> > public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that
would
> > be in overall charge.
> > Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its
representative
> > hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went
> > against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of
the
> > internet.
> > But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the
world's
> > governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate
> > control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders
next
> > month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US
> > government can do but acquiesce.
> > But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that
> > "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow
government-set
> > policies, UN-set policies"?
> > No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet
> > governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are
not
> > concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet.
> > Standards are set by the users."
> > Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU
doesn't
> > want to see this change as bringing new government control over the
> > internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and
only
> > on issues setting the top-level framework."
> > Human rights
> > But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so
sure.
> > An overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would stop
it
> > saying 'when you're making this standard for data transfer you have to
> > include some kind of surveillance for law enforcement'?"
> > Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering
> > content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World
Summit
> > - has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller
doesn't
> > see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human
rights
> > groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable
> > claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to
> > happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the
human
> > rights situation."
> > And what about business? Will a governmental body running the internet
add
> > unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system?
> > Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's not clear
to
> > me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart
from
> > get in the way of things that other people do."
> > There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are
> > pointing the same way: international governments deciding the internet's
> > future. The internet will never be the same again.
> >
> > unquote
> >
> > -joop-
>
> 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
>
>