Thank you for this link:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm
"Given the Internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential
that the underlying DNS of the Internet remain stable and secure. The United
States ... will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes
or modifications to the authoritative root zone file."
This is arrogant and an insult to all the other countries of the world. It
implies that the US's sole oversight of key DNS functions is justifiable
because sharing that role with other countries would endanger the Internet's
stability and security.
This implication of US superiority in this regard is an unbelievable
unilateral position to take, and shows just how and why the US uses ICANN as
its instrument for retaining control of this vital resource that rightly
belongs to the whole world.
There is absolutely no reason why oversight of key DNS functions should be
restricted (unilaterally) to a single country. This is counter-democratic
and almost fascist in its leanings. In fact, it's imperialistic.
The truth is that people from all over the world depend on the Internet,
contribute to its building up, innovate its use, spend money on it, use it
for health issues and community issues - and this vital shared resource
needs and deserves truly international oversight.
It is staggering that US officials could release a statement like this one -
re-asserting ultimate US autonomy over the Net - and it appears like another
example of "Might is Right" and "We'll do what we want because you can't
stop us".
In the end, I think the world may take steps to challenge these assumptions.
Some terrorists already have.
You can understand - if not condone - the motivation for such reactions,
when the US claims its own right to "do whatever it wants".
Even moderates in countries all over the world must be appalled by US
stances like this one (as they were by the fabrication of claims of weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq, used to bypass the processes of the
international community and justify the Iraq attack - another example of
"ignore the rest of the world and just do whatever we like because we can").
The US should not be acting like "Big Brother" with regard to the Internet
and its key DNS and technical functions. Surely the structures of the
Internet should be managed and determined by the International Community,
not by a single nation?
In this shift of power, oversight should once again be directed towards the
ordinary internet users of the world who care most for the Net's integrity
and freedoms. These users are British, Polish, Japanese, Brazilian,
Australian, South African etc etc etc.
The Internet does not belong to the United States alone.
Yrs,
Richard Henderson
www.atlarge.org