more on ex-FCC Commissioner Harold Furchgott Roth on UN Governance of the Internet

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dana Blankenhorn <dana () a-clue com>
Date: July 19, 2005 10:41:53 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
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 () farber net>
To: "Ip ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
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 () furchtgott-roth com]
> 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 () furchtgott-roth com with “remove from list” in the   
> subject heading.  If you would like to be added, please send a   
> request to updates () furchtgott-roth com.\
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as dana () a-clue com
> 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 lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/