<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on United Nations summit roundup, and why aren't bloggers interested? (3/3)



Begin forwarded message:

From: Adam Peake <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 9, 2005 8:29:24 AM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] United Nations summit roundup, and why aren't bloggers interested? (3/3) 

Dave,
A very long comment, for IP if you wish, giving some background and opinion about WSIS, the UN/EU "takeover" of the Internet, and some of the articles and blogs Declan mentions. And a quote at the end you might find interesting.
No idea why bloggers aren't more interested in WSIS and discussion of Internet governance. It's a shame they're not, they could be fact- checking the many press articles (and comments by at least one US Senator) claiming that the WGIG report recommended transferring authority over the Internet to the UN. WGIG made no such recommendation. They could read the EU statement that has also been characterized as a call for the UN to take over the Internet, as well as being invitation for new friendship with China, Iran and any number of "evil" places <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/ dt21.html> (short, little over 400 words)
What the EU actually asks for is a new cooperation model, not one that replaces existing mechanisms or institutions, but builds on those structures, involving all actors (i.e. multistakeholder), and excludes involvement in any day-to-day operations. A key paragraph seems to be:
"The new cooperation model should include the development and application of globally applicable public policy principles and provide an international government involvement at the level of principles over the following naming, numbering and addressing- related matters:" And it goes on to mention IP addresses, root zone changes, DNS functions etc.
Not clear what "at the level of principles" means (they are diplomats...), but my guess is they are saying to ICANN, the RIRs, root operators, etc., get your processes right (predictable in timing and procedure, transparent and rule-driven) and governments don't need to be involved beyond knowing that processes exist, are being followed, and will be followed in the future; i.e. oversight. They need to see responsible management of a critical global infrastructure. (In my view the RIRs have that, and the rest could learn from the RIRs.)
The EU proposal also mentions the "the importance of respecting the architectural principles of the Internet, including the interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle." Well, we surly wouldn't want any of that would we ... might get in the way plans at SBC!
We also heard that the EU statement was a bombshell, an out of the blue change of policy that shocked US delegates. How about this quote:
"The European Community and its Member States would wish to emphasise our concern that the future management of the Internet should reflect the fact that it is already a global communications medium and the subject of valid international interest.
The European Union has the responsibility to ensure that communications networks are inter-operable and are developed in a way to promote economic and social cohesion and economic competitiveness. 

[two paragraphs deleted]
In the view of the European Community and its Member States however, the globalization of the Internet and the importance of an international framework for the long-term organization of the Internet underlines the need to associate a wide range of international interests with future policy in this area. The European Community and its Member States believe that the future of the Internet must be agreed in an international framework."
This text is from the EU's response to the US Green Paper, March 1998, about 7 months later the "international framework" would be ICANN. See <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/ 03_20_98.htm>
When ICANN was created it was with the promise that privatization would follow (to be completed by September 2000 as an "outside" date!), and that privatization would include internationalization. A number of governments were very involved in ICANN's creation, they helped place people on its initial board. It is reasonable to expect that they signed off on the process on the basis of a commitment to privatization and internationalization. In light of recent US statements that privatization is in doubt, and internationalization was never really seriously considered, does the EU's reaction seem so extreme?
I am pretty sure I remember talking to you in early 1998 about the DNS Green Paper (the green paper that begat the white paper that gave us ICANN.) I think, correct me if I'm wrong, you and a few others were concerned that the US government would use the process to assert control over the DNS where previously they had no such powers, only a loose collection of contracts and historic statements of work. That once in place this new oversight would be unmovable. Unfortunately, I think you were right. Recently Milton Mueller and the Internet Governance project (with support of some very knowledgeable people who have been involved in WSIS for the past 3 or so years) produced an excellent and quite short paper explaining the extent of US government "oversight" and the contracts involved, and why it is such an important issue in WSIS. A very good paper <http:// dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf>
One last quote: "Throughout the world, people are fearful that the United States government will try to dominate the Internet domain naming process. The Internet was originally developed in the United States, so it makes sense that the United States government has played a leadership role in Internet governance in the past. However, the Internet is now thoroughly international, and it is important that the United States government act responsibly in ensuring that any new Internet governance structure that emerges is truly international."
"Governments seem to have a tendency, when faced with something new like the Internet, to act to regulate or to slow it until they understand it. While there may be problems regarding laws and communities that must be addressed, it is important that the United States government permit the Internet to grow and avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on this important new communications medium."
"Any foundation for governance of the Internet should support the fundamental human rights of free expression, free association, due process, and nondiscriminatory administration. While it may not be obvious at a first glance, the management of the Internet domain naming system impacts greatly on these basic human rights. It is through Internet protocol addresses and domain names that individuals and organizations place their speech on the Internet, and it is through these addresses that others locate that speech to read and use it. It is easy for those responsible for administering basic Internet functions to lose sight of this basic fact and unnecessarily burden these important human rights." 

(later in the same statement)
"The Internet should be administered on principles compatible with, but stronger than, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 19, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
<http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/199803/ msg00096.html>
Prepared testimony of David J. Farber, before the Sub-Committee on Basic Research of the House Committee on Science, March 31, 1998.
Great stuff. As relevant for Tunis next week as it was for that House committee in 1998. Thank you for it. 

Best,

Adam






Begin forwarded message:

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Date: November 8, 2005 2:29:31 PM EST
To: politech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Politech] United Nations summit roundup, and why aren't bloggers interested? (3/3) 

Google, IBM, Microsoft, others show up at DC event to back status quo:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5931684.html

EU claims to be "optimistic" that the U.S.'s role will be altered:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/79632/ec-aims-for-greater-internet- control.html 

Bush's "Monroe Doctrine" for the Internet:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84602/kenneth-neil- cukier/who-will-control-the-internet.html 

Larry Lessig on the situation:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3306

-Declan


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Why no blog swarm on Net governance?
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:27:11 -0500
From:   Glover, Daniel <DGlover@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:     <declan@xxxxxxxx>

I answer the question at NationalJournal.com's Beltway Blogroll:
http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/11/ the_un_as_a_thr.php 

November 07, 2005
BELTWAY BLOGROLL


The U.N. As A Threat To Online Speech


Bloggers of all political persuasions rallied online
<http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/11/ billblast_b 
log-.php>  last week to defend their right to speak freely about
American political candidates. But on the global question of who should 
oversee the Internet, an issue with potentially far broader
ramifications on free speech, bloggers have been noticeably less vocal. 
...

Blog-like tech publications such as ICANN Watch
<http://www.icannwatch.org/> and Slashdot <http://slashdot.org/> have 
covered the debate about Internet governance regularly, and
tech-oriented bloggers like Andy Carvin <http://www.andycarvin.com/ > of 
the Digital Divide Network and Steven Forrest
<http://free2innovate.net/archives/cat_internet_governance.html>  at
Free2Innovate.net have opined on the topic. Carvin even created
WSISblogs <http://www.edwebproject.org/wsisblogs/> , a clearinghouse for 
reports from bloggers who cover WSIS-related events.

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds also has mentioned Internet governance
<http://instapundit.com/archives/026077.php>  periodically. But even
with the heft of his influential blog, the issue has failed to gain the 
same traction as the blog swarm
<http://beltwayblogroll.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/07/ blog_days_i 
n_dc.php>  against Federal Election Commission plans to regulate the
Internet.

Bruce Kesler called for more attention to the issue in a post at
Democracy Project
<http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/001913.html> , where he
decried the European Union for aligning with "such stalwarts of
smothering Internet freedom as China, Cuba, Iran and several African
states."

"This issue, this outrageous putsch attempt, deserves an uproar heard
around the world on the Internet," he wrote.
"I honestly don't know why the bloggers haven't been more active on this one," said Adam Thierer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, who has 
covered the topic at PFF Blog
<http://blog.pff.org/archives/internet_governance/index.html> . "It's
perplexing and frustrating." ...

Reynolds said bloggers might not have rallied against Internet
governance because they don't see the United Nations as a threat.
"Perhaps it's a mistake, but I don't think that bloggers take the U.N.
that seriously," he said in an e-mail that referenced the body's
response to human rights abuses in Bosnia and Iraq. "Slobodan Milosevic 
and Saddam [Hussein] have made fools of the U.N., so bloggers don't
think it dangerous."

Kesler added that blogs tend to focus on domestic issues that readers
see as more pressing. "The FEC potential regulations are a more
immediate threat," he wrote in an e-mail, "but the U.N. interference is of wider import, as there are alternate means of and protections of free 
speech in the U.S. but not in many sad places abroad."

He also noted that swarms demand consensus. Although most bloggers who
have commented on the idea of U.N. oversight of the Web oppose the
notion, that view is not unanimous.

"You can see the U.S. conservative spin machine turning this into a
battle between the democracy-loving U.S. government protecting the
Internet from censorship from the dictators and thugs who run the United 
Nations," the blog Rikomatic
<http://rikomatic.com/blogomatic/archive/2005/10/20/senator-coleman- draw 
s-line-in-the-sand-on-internet-governance>  noted last month. "The
reality, of course, is more complex."

That complexity includes a general mistrust of the Bush administration
when it comes to international relations. One blogger characterized the 
administration's emphatic dismissal of a global role in Internet
governance as another example of poor diplomacy
<http://tips.vlaurie.com/2005/washington-blunders-again/> , comparing it 
with the U.S. attitude in rejecting a treaty on global warming.

Moulitsas argued that the administration's "international belligerence
has given the rest of the world little faith that the U.S. will have
global interests in mind when regulating what is, in effect, a global
medium." He added that the U.S. government's decision earlier this year 
to warn ICANN against creating a .xxx Internet space exclusively for
porn indicated that the administration "will impose its political agenda 
on Net governance."
"The Internet isn't served well by having it controlled by the political 
whims of the sitting U.S. government," he said. ...



_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
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/