[IP] more on Breaking America's grip on the net
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 8, 2005 10:29:53 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Breaking America's grip on the net
Dave:
Could anyone on IP explain how the US could "be forced to relinquish
control of the internet to a coalition of governments" as The
Guardian might wish? What "force" could be applied and by whom?
I'm all for negotiation. Has the EU (or any others who propose some
sort of internationalization of "control" of the Internet) offered
anything concrete in return for the US giving up the control? What
could the United States possibly want (and reasonably ask for) in
return for giving up control (which is I presume is highly valuable
or we wouldn't be talking about it)? Unless there is a reasonable
quid pro quo, the only rational and reasonable response from the
United States is "no" and the "hell no." If the US simply says "no",
isn't that the end of it? What recourse do other countries really have?
Thanks
Bob
David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 6, 2005 2:50:23 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Breaking America's grip on the net
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Breaking America's grip on the net
After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to
relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments
Kieren McCarthy
Thursday October 6, 2005
<http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/
0,16376,1585288,00.html>
Guardian
You would expect an announcement that would forever change the
face of the internet to be a grand affair - a big stage,
spotlights, media scrums and a charismatic frontman working the
crowd.
But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David
Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic
earbox. The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but their
implications will be felt for generations to come.
Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of
business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK
government and European Union at the third and final preparatory
meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society.
He had just announced a political coup over the running of the
internet.
Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US
sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead
as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's
unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body
that would now run this revolutionary communications medium.
The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely
divisive issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded
blows. For the vast majority of people who use the internet, the
only real concern is getting on it. But with the internet now
essential to countries' basic infrastructure - Brazil relies on it
for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control
has become critical.
And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government.
In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC)
pushed and funded expansion of the internet. And when it became
global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it.
But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many
had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the
internet's foundation - its "root servers", which act as the basic
directory for the whole internet.
A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil,
China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give
up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere",
Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark
changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a
"cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in
overall charge.
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its
representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow
any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in
controlling the top level of the internet.
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the
world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award
themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN
summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international
consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.
But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued,
that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow
government-set policies, UN-set policies"?
No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet
governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments
are not concerned with the technical and operational management of
the internet. Standards are set by the users."
Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU
doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control
over the internet. Governments will only be involved where they
need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."
Human rights
But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not
so sure. An overseeing council "could interfere with standards.
What would stop it saying 'when you're making this standard for
data transfer you have to include some kind of surveillance for
law enforcement'?"
Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for
filtering content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host
of the World Summit - has also come under attack for silencing
online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental overseeing
council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is for
someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop
them violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I
can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human
rights situation."
And what about business? Will a governmental body running the
internet add unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and
a coherent system? Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is
so vague. It's not clear to me that governments know what to do
about anything at this stage apart from get in the way of things
that other people do."
There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers
are pointing the same way: international governments deciding the
internet's future. The internet will never be the same again.
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
--
***************************************
Robert C. Atkinson
Director of Policy Research
Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI)
1A Uris Hall, Columbia Business School
3022 Broadway
New York, NY 10027-6902
212-854-7576
cell: 908-447-4201
***************************************
-------------------------------------
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/