Re: [ga] A Monroe Doctrine for the Internet

[RBHauptman@xxxxxxx]

So you are saying the U.S. Government has done it so well that it should  
continue to do it as well as it has been doing?
 
I am new to these discussions but I was under the impression that is the  
opposite of what most on this List believe. My sense is that the folks here  
believe that the U.S. Government is perceived to be arrogant and has been trying  
to control an issue (The Internet) for which it has no rightful claim or  
jurisdiction.
 
Rick Hauptman
(Serving 42 Million Californians and looking at annexing the states of  Utah 
and Oregon to add to our numbers)
 
dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx writes:

brink·man·ship -- The practice, especially in
international  politics, of seeking advantage by
creating the impression that one is  willing and able
to push a highly dangerous situation to the  limit
rather than concede.

There are times when it is easy to  confuse
brinkmanship with arrogance.  

As ultimately some  entity needs to be charged with
stewardship of the root, the question that  we should
really be asking is this:  "has the current steward
been  so derelict in its duties that a redelegation of
stewardship is  required?"

If the answer is yes, then it would be appropriate  to
list those grievances that demonstrate that said
entity has not  appropriately served as trustee, and
has in fact defaulted on its duty to  the community.

Has the steward failed to be equitable to all  groups
that request domain names?  Has the steward failed to
do a  satisfactory job of ensuring the operation of the
DNS?

As for me,  while I can find some reasons for
dissatisfaction with the current  administration of the
root, I cannot find a sufficient number of  convincing
reasons to delegate the stewardship of the root to an
entity  other than its current steward.










---  Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>  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
> 
> 





__________________________________  
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005  
http://mail.yahoo.com