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

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Adam Peake <ajp () glocom ac jp>
Date: November 9, 2005 8:29:24 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
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 () well com>
> Date: November 8, 2005 2:29:31 PM EST
> To: politech () politechbot com
> 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 () nationaljournal com>
> To:     <declan () well com>
>
> 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 () glocom ac jp
> 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/