[ga] Re: [Ecommerce] Lessig on ICANN, the UN, WSIS and IP

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Manon and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

I have some of the same questions Dr. Lessig does [see below].
I also have questions not yet fully answered but possed, regarding
the ligitimacy and process decisions for WSIS and ICANN
I have never recieved answers possed to ICANN that were direct
and too the point or my questions, and mostly I recieved NO answers
from ICANN.  This is a fundemental communications problem I believe
which has it's roots [ psrdon the pun] ICANN's structure and
easrly formulation as well as ICANN's process.

Manon Ress wrote:

> Thanks to Tom Barger for pointer  to Lessig's interview on ICANN and
> UN role, the WSIS and IP.
>
> quote:
> I question whether the [summit] is considering all the issues it
> needs to be. I was a speaker at one of the preparatory committees
> and, before my speech, I was asked about what I was going to talk
> about. I said I was going to talk about the need for balanced
> intellectual property rules in order to produce the best information
> society [possible]. The chairman of my session said I was not allowed
> to talk about intellectual property. She said that?s a problem for
> the World Intellectual Property Organization. It was ridiculous. It
> revealed a way in which the deal was struck to establish the World
> Summit on the Information Society, which was as long as you don?t
> touch intellectual property you can talk about whatever you want. The
> insane thing about that position is that there?s no way to strike the
> right balance unless you consider intellectual property. [For
> example,] database rights are going to fundamentally affect the
> future of the information society. The question remains whether the
> [summit] will be allowed to develop any coherent policy position
> about the proper balance for intellectual property. My skepticism
> suggests that they won?t. This issue will be negotiated off the table
> by those who want to keep control over that policy.
> end of quote
>
> in:
>
> Seven Questions: Battling for Control of the Internet
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3306
>
> Posted November 2005
>
> Should the United Nations control the Internet? That?s the subject of
> a heated debate slated to take place at the World Summit on the
> Information Society in Tunis later this month. The European Union is
> pressing for a U.N. role in governing the Internet, which is
> currently in the hands of a U.S. nonprofit. Lawrence Lessig breaks
> down the debate and offers his views.
>
> FOREIGN POLICY: What is causing the rift between the United States
> and Europe over control of the Internet and what do you think will be
> the outcome of the summit in Tunis?
> Lawrence Lessig: The largest cause of this rift is European distrust
> of the United States. It?s not particularly related to the Internet.
> The Europeans are eager to stand up to the Americans, and that I
> think has been produced by the last five years of U.S. foreign
> policy. It?s not really a cyberlaw problem.
>  From what we know right now, three different things could happen [at
> Tunis]. The Europeans could get it together and actually invoke the
> authority to exercise control over Internet governance, displacing
> the [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or] ICANN
> position. The Americans could find a way to buy them off. Or, there
> could be a stalemate. But what?s interesting is, in 1998, there was
> no question of the Europeans taking over because there wasn?t the
> level of skepticism of the U.S. government, even though there was a
> lot of skepticism about ICANN at the time.
> FP: The EU and several countries say that their ?nuclear option?
> would be to set up a rival ICANN, resulting in two standards for the
> Internet. Do you think that?s a realistic scenario?
> LL: Let?s talk about what that would mean. Right now, there is a
> limited number of root servers that point to the primary root server
> from which you get propagation for everything in your general top-
> level domain (TLD). So there?s a .com server that serves 13 other
> servers that then propagate all changes in the .com name. And the
> same thing is [true] for every other TLD?.org, .ing, [.edu, etc.]
>  From the beginning, people have talked about building an Internet
> that wouldn?t depend upon the TLD hierarchy. It doesn?t mean there
> would be two or three Internets, but that you would have a domain
> name system that wouldn?t depend upon hierarchical naming. As long as
> there?s coordination across hierarchies about ownership of domain
> names, you wouldn?t necessarily produce any destructive results. One
> could query a hierarchy for the answer to the question ?Who owns
> Lessig.com?? and then ask another hierarchy if we don?t get an answer
> from the first one. So it is possible for different systems to evolve
> that would allow the Europeans to control one part and the Americans
> to control another without destroying the ability of the Internet to
> continue to function the way it does now.
>
> What people are afraid of is that there will be a split within the
> single hierarchical system which would result in two different
> populations of the dot-com domain name system existing out there.
> Then there would be a real conflict. My view is that if in fact there
> is a separation like that, there are a lot of incentives for these
> two separate roots to figure out a way to coexist. There would be
> lots of anger [when] you realize that you?re not getting the IBM.com
> you expected. But there?s no reason why you couldn?t have multiple
> root systems.
> FP: Some say a shift away from ICANN would empower countries such as
> North Korea, China, and Iran to censor or control the Internet. Is
> that an accurate criticism?
> LL: The ability to facilitate censorship is independent of the
> question of who owns the roots. Say we have the system we have now
> and China wants to censor it. It builds a list of IP addresses it
> won?t serve content to or won?t allow to be shown on its servers, and
> then it basically uses that list to filter all IP packets that come
> across the Chinese network. If the world had two roots, one China-
> controlled and one U.S.-controlled, then it would be one step simpler
> for China to censor because it could filter its own root. But it
> would still have to do the same things it does now with regard to the
> U.S. root content. The technology you?re using to censor is not
> necessarily tied to the architecture of the root name.
> FP: Do you see international governance of the Internet having an
> impact on the free flow of ideas and commerce on the Web?
> LL: I?ve been a critic of ICANN for a long time, especially in its
> early stages. But I think what it?s trying to do now is pretty close
> to what it ought to be doing, which is just trying to serve technical
> functions in the narrowest possible way. They?ve resisted a lot of
> policy work that they could have been doing.
>
> Right now, I hope that ICANN continues to exercise control. It?s not
> because I have any affection for the U.S. government?s control over
> ICANN, but because I think that they?ve developed an internal norm
> about making as light a regulatory footprint as they can. I would be
> worried about transferring authority because I think that some other
> body coming in might imagine it can use its power over the domain
> names to try to regulate all sorts of policy objectives. We?d all be
> worse off if that happened.
> FP: Are the biggest challenges and questions that face the Internet
> right now essentially social and political, or are they more
> technological?
> LL: I don?t think there?s an ?or.? The fundamental point I?ve
> conveyed in my writing and teaching?apparently no policymaker has yet
> learned this?is that policy is a function of technology. You can?t do
> policymaking in cyberspace without thinking about the interaction
> between technology and policy. It?s as ridiculous to be a policymaker
> and believe that you can make policy without thinking about the
> technology as it is to be chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
> and think that you can talk about competition policy without thinking
> about the economic consequences of the rules you impose. A smart
> policymaker asks, ?What technology will my policy produce?? and ?Will
> the net result of that technology in my policy be the policy result I
> want??
> FP: Are there any decisions that will be taken at the summit in Tunis
> that you see as being overshadowed by the EU-United States conflict?
> LL: I question whether the [summit] is considering all the issues it
> needs to be. I was a speaker at one of the preparatory committees
> and, before my speech, I was asked about what I was going to talk
> about. I said I was going to talk about the need for balanced
> intellectual property rules in order to produce the best information
> society [possible]. The chairman of my session said I was not allowed
> to talk about intellectual property. She said that?s a problem for
> the World Intellectual Property Organization. It was ridiculous. It
> revealed a way in which the deal was struck to establish the World
> Summit on the Information Society, which was as long as you don?t
> touch intellectual property you can talk about whatever you want. The
> insane thing about that position is that there?s no way to strike the
> right balance unless you consider intellectual property. [For
> example,] database rights are going to fundamentally affect the
> future of the information society. The question remains whether the
> [summit] will be allowed to develop any coherent policy position
> about the proper balance for intellectual property. My skepticism
> suggests that they won?t. This issue will be negotiated off the table
> by those who want to keep control over that policy.
>
> FP: What impact, if any, will recent changes to the makeup of the
> U.S. Supreme Court?Roberts and possibly Alito?have on information
> technology, intellectual property, and the Internet?
> LL: No idea. I don?t know anything about Alito?s views about
> technology. I don?t think he?s ever said anything interesting about
> it. I think Roberts, just based on the kind of work that Jeffrey
> Rosen did in his recent New York Times piece, will be smart and eager
> to understand and do the right thing. But I don?t think we have any
> good information about how they think about these issues.
> Lawrence Lessig is professor of law at Stanford Law School and a
> columnist for Wired magazine.
>
> ************************************************
> Manon Anne Ress
> manon.ress@xxxxxxxxxx,
> www.cptech.org
>
> Consumer Project on Technology
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
> Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>
> Consumer Project on Technology
> 1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
> Tel: +41 22 791 6727
>
> Consumer Project on Technology
> 24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
> Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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