[IP] more on ex-FCC Commissioner Harold Furchgott Roth on UN Governance of the Internet
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dana Blankenhorn <dana@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 19, 2005 10:41:53 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] ex-FCC Commissioner Harold Furchgott Roth on UN
Governance of the Internet
http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/07/19/
harold_w_furchtgottroth_gumby.php
Monty Python used to have a running gag called the Gumbys. They would
put on moustaches, shorts, place diapers on their heads, and talk
sheer lunacy for effect.
Former FCC commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth, now a fellow of
the right-wing American Enterprise Institute , is a Gumby.
This guy is so Clueless that, in an age when any wingnut can
practically become a millionaire by snapping his fingers, he can
apparently get his stuff published only in the New York Sun, a right-
wing daily with few readers, no business model, and a crappy Web site
that won't let you inside its home page without giving them tons of
personal information. So no link.
<snip> -- it's actually the previous message
This reads like a Declaration of War from a petulant child.
Especially the crap at the end about Bolton, who is on record as
opposing the UN and all its works.
Roth ignores the fact that this Administration has unilaterally
nationalized management the world Internet, rendering inoperative its
earlier promises to
fully privitize management of the root under ICANN contracts.
Roth conveniently ignores the fact that Americans are the chief
spammers of
the world, the chief producers of spyware, and the cheap thieves of
bandwidth from everyone else, with no promise -- indeed no hope -- of
bringing our laws on these areas into conformance with worldwide
norms. (As the victim of a continuing Joe Job from one of these
hosers, Michael Lindsay of iMedia, I take this sort of thing a little
personally.)
Instead we get this, well, fearmongering. Notice the list of UN
"delegates" -- "China, Cuba, Iran, and other countries." They're
being used deliberately, provocatively, the way red meat is waved at
wolves.
My great fear is that the ITU may take this idiocy as the final word
from
the Bush Administration (rather than a column by a single former
official),
and let a contract to construct a separate DNS root structure, to
which signatories might point in preference to those roots managed by
ICANN.
Does Roth know that? Does he care? Does he think the U.S. can control
the Internet through force of arms?
Is he stupid? Is everyone in Washington so filled with hubris? I
don't live
inside the Beltway, I'm just a freelance tech reporter in Atlanta.
But the place needs to be fumigated.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ip ip" <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:00 PM
Subject: [IP] ex-FCC Commissioner Harold Furchgott Roth on UN
Governance of the Internet
From: Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth [mailto:harold.furchtgott-
roth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:52 AM
Subject: The United Nations Strive To Run the Internet
Suite 800
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.776.2032
The United Nations Strive To Run the Internet
By Harold Furchtgott-Roth
The New York Sun
July 19, 2005
When it comes to the Internet, many American businesses lobby the
federal government intensively on issues ranging from taxes to
security to intellectual property. It turns out that some people
believe these and other issues should be resolved by the United
Nations.
Decades ago, scientists and engineers working for the American
government developed the concept and physical reality of the
Internet. In the early 1990s, the Internet entered the public and
commercial realm not because the United Nations or any other
entity developed a parallel system, but because the U.S.
government permitted its commercial development.
A lesser government would have kept complete control of the
Internet. A less generous government would not have opened its
network architecture or naming conventions. A less trusting
government would have monitored all traffic. A less morally
confident government would have insisted on continuous recognition.
The technology of the Internet would have developed without our
government, but more slowly, less predictably, and with less
universal availability. Our government's opening of the Internet
was not merely magnanimous: It was taken without self-conscious
calculation of any national benefit or harm.
Today, the Internet links networks that span the globe in every
conceivable manner. It thrives because of - not despite - the fact
that no international body dictates its every feature. Our
government and others negotiate rules and enforcement for the
Internet to protect consumers and businesses from unlawful
activities. These negotiations have worked well without
centralized U.N. regulation.
The United Nations, of course, did not invent the Internet, but it
has anointed itself as worthy of planning a new international
governance of the Internet. Last week, the secretary-general of
the United Nations, Kofi Annan, released the Report of the Working
Group on Internet Governance. The WGIG consists of 40 individuals
from both government and private institutions. The U.N. selected
governmental officials from China, Cuba, Iran, and other
countries. Although a few Americans are on the WGIG, our
government, which developed the Internet, did not rate a seat at
the table.
The WGIG report was written in the plebian setting of the Chateau
de Bossey in Switzerland. The report lists a litany of problems
with the Internet, all of which can apparently be handled by a
"global multi- stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public
policy issues." Moreover, in a transparent reference to the
American government, which was not a participant in the group, it
says, "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in
relation to international Internet governance." The U.N. report
modestly concludes, "The [Internet governance] forum should
preferably be linked to the United Nations."
The most disturbing aspect of the United Nations is not so much
its petty personal corruptions or even its bureaucratic
inefficiencies. Many if not most national governments around the
world have differing degrees of corruption and inefficiency. But
the United Nations uniquely seeks to displace national
governmental authority with its own brand of undisciplined authority.
The United Nations is nothing if not ambitious. It seeks a role in
the governance of issues ranging from telecommunications
infrastructure and interconnection to intellectual property
management (apparently, the United Nations is not persuaded that
intellectual property protection is a good idea), from consumer
protection to "the appropriate protection of privacy, personal
data, and other human rights." There is little related to the
Internet that the United Nations does not seek to regulate.
The United Nations cannot succeed on its own. But that it boldly
publishes the WGIG Report supporting a greater U.N. role in
Internet regulation is a step that it would not have taken even a
few years ago.
The Internet has thrived without U.N. governance. Of course, the
Internet could be improved in many ways, particularly the
enforcement of legal rights. The United Nations in its report does
not see a role for itself merely in promoting enforcement; rather,
it sees its role as greater "governance" of the Internet.
Businesses and consumer groups lobby Congress and the
administration daily to adjust regulations affecting various issues
related to the Internet. Perhaps they should also lobby for a
stronger American voice at the United Nations. The
administration's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations,
John Bolton, sits in limbo before the Senate while Mr. Annan moves
forward with his efforts to place the Internet under U.N. governance.
If you prefer not to receive these emails, please send a message to
unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with “remove from list” in the
subject heading. If you would like to be added, please send a
request to updates@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as dana@xxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/