[ga] Re: [Ecommerce] Economist: Gulliver's travails; Internet geopolitics

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thiru and all,

As governments have shown repeatedly that they cannot
even adequately manage their own infrastructure, it seems
odd in the extreme to our members that such a notion
could even be considered seriously.  As ICANN is
supposed to be under the control by contract to DOC/NTIA
and has repeatedly shown a lack luster management of the
Domain name system amongst other aspects, it seems clear
that governments outside the US believe that they can
"Do it better" Yet, recently and several ccTLD's have gone
dark temporarily due to poor government management.

Thiru Balasubramaniam wrote:

> The Economist
> October 8, 2005 U.S. Edition
> SECTION: BUSINESS
> LENGTH: 714 words
>
> Gulliver's travails; Internet geopolitics
>
> Geneva
> The battle to control the internet
>
> SINCE the internet was created in the 1960s as a military-research
> project, America has co-ordinated the underlying infrastructure. But
> other countries are increasingly concerned that a single nation enjoys
> such power, and want to place the internet in the hands of an
> inter-governmental organisation-something America says might hobble the
> network.
>
> At a diplomatic conference last month in Geneva to prepare for the
> United Nations World Summit on the Information Society, taking place in
> November, vocal critics such as Brazil, China and Iran led the
> opposition to America's control. On September 28th, the European Union
> abandoned its support for the current system and proposed a new,
> governmental approach, leaving America more isolated than ever.
>
> Although the internet is largely decentralised and so difficult to
> regulate, the domain-name system is one of the few levers by which it
> can be controlled. Today, the internet is managed by a private-sector
> group called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN), which America helped to set up in 1998 and still oversees.
> ICANN alreadyhas an international board of directors and a governmental
> advisory committee, but many non-Americans want to strengthen the role
> of governments.
>
> The EU proposal, announced by Britain, which currently holds the EU's
> rotating presidency, was intended as a compromise between the UN
> supporters and America. It would create a new organisation to set
> policies over distributing routing numbers, creating new domains and the
> like. Because of its role as chair, Britain, usually America's closest
> ally on internet issues, had to stay neutral and could not beat back
> calls by Denmark, France, Spain and the Netherlands for greater
> government influence over the internet. After the announcement,
> Brazilian and Iranian delegates rushed to congratulate British
> officials, whose faces dropped when they realised the EU policy was
> being lauded by America's loudest opponents.
>
> If ICANN already has a degree of government representation, why is a new
> organisation needed? Many of the arguments advanced come down to
> suspicion of America, and fear that ICANN is a tool of American
> hegemony. But another reason is that, although today the internet's
> address system identifies digital devices, in future it may be extended
> to encompass objects (through melding addresses with radio-frequency
> identification tags), location (via global-positioning satellites) and
> even individuals.
>
> Meanwhile, countries demand sovereignty over their two-letter national
> address suffixes, which due to a quirk of history still ultimately
> reside under American control. Such concerns-which are political as much
> as technical-call for greater government involvement, or so the argument
> goes. All governments calling for change repeat the mantra that the new
> system would be a "multi-stakeholder" process that includes industry and
> civil-society groups.
>
> However, the disingenuousness of the position was made clear during the
> meeting last month in Geneva. Some countries demanded that groups
> representing business and public-interest causes be thrown out of the
> room when governments drafted documents for the summit in November. In
> one instance, delegates from China and Brazil actually pounded on tables
> to drown out a speaker from industry.
>
> To break the impasse, some countries are trying to devise a compromise
> before the summit that will temporarily appease all sides. America has
> endorsed a proposal that would create a forum-devoid of formal powers-to
> discuss these matters. This will enable the issue to remain on the
> diplomatic radar after the UN summit. Indeed, the real battle will come
> in 2006 when America's contract with ICANN comes up for renewal and
> there is a big conference of the International Telecommunication Union,
> a UN body that aspires to fill ICANN's shoes.
>
> Ultimately, the political squabbles are overshadowing more important
> things that could improve the lot of internet users, such as widening
> access to the internet and using technology for development. The good
> news from the UN meetings is that governments increasingly understand
> the importance of technology to society. The bad news is that the
> internet risks becoming suffocated in their embrace.
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> Ecommerce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce

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