[WSIS CS-Plenary] Condi letter

[Adam Peake]

My first thought on reading the register article was "hoax". But 
accepting it as real I am inclined to agree with Milton's clever 
dismissal.
However.
Why would the US Secretary of State write to the UK Foreign Minister 
and President of EU about this, was there as any other WSIS issue 
that caused the US to contact any other govt at this level?  I 
imagine Condi and Jack usually discuss stuff involving billions of 
dollars, pain, suffering and combinations of same. ICANN just doesn't 
seem up there as an issue for these two to worry about.  So while I 
like to think Milton's right, I also wonder if we might be missing 
something.

Adam


At 2:04 PM -0500 12/6/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire 
>list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for 
>specific people]
>
>Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic 
>translation of this message!
>_______________________________________
>
>I saw this. I think Kieren (the journalist) perhaps overstates the 
>case when he says this letter "won" the battle. Reading it, I fail 
>to see any argument that was not contained in the June 30 U.S. 
>"principles" or in oft-repeated arguments made in WGIG and WSIS.
>
>It is also easy to answer these arguments, so perhaps as an 
>educational exercise I do the following.....this kind of translation 
>is something that funredes.org won't supply....
>
>CONDI:
>>The Internet has become an essential infrastructure for global
>>communications, including for global trade and commerce, and
>>therefore we firmly believe that support for the present structures
>>for Internet governance is vital.
>
>MM:
>A non sequitur. If it is a global infrastructure, why support the 
>present structures of unilateral control?
>
>CONDI:
>>These structures have proven to be a reliable foundation for
>>the robust growth of the Internet we have seen over the
>>course of the last decade.
>
>MM:
>Factually incorrect. ICANN and the associated apparatus of U.S. 
>Commerce Department oversight did not exist until beginning of 1999. 
>Internet grew fast before it, during it, and would continue to grow 
>without it. There is no demonstrable connection between these 
>structures of DNS regulation and the overall growth of the Internet, 
>which is driven by the incredible value and efficiency of 
>applications such as email, web-based content and services, etc.
>
>CONDI:
>>The Internet will reach its full potential as a medium and
>>facilitator for global economic expansion and development in
>>an environment free from burdensome intergovernmental
>>oversight and control.
>
>MM:
>True, burdensome oversight and control is to be avoided, but this is 
>true whether the control is intergovernmental, uni-governmental, or 
>the private restrictions of the sort imposed by ICANN.
>
>CONDI:
>>The success of the Internet lies in its inherently
>>decentralized nature, with the most significant growth
>>taking place at the outer edges of the network
>>through innovative new applications and services.
>>Burdensome, bureaucratic oversight is out of place in an
>>Internet structure that has worked so well for many
>>around the globe.
>
>MM:
>Great, so when do we get rid of the U.S. Commerce Dept?
>
>CONDI:
>>We regret the recent positions on Internet governance(i.e.,
>>the "new cooperation model") offered by the European
>>Union, the Presidency of which is currently held by the United
>>Kingdom, seems to propose just that - a new structure of
>>intergovernmental control over the Internet.
>
>MM:
>Translation: What, other governments besides us should be involved?
>
>CONDI:
>>The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005,
>>reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security
>>and stability,
>
>MM:
>...as long as we get to define "security and stability" unilaterally...
>
>CONDI:
>>including through the historical U.S. role in authorizing changes or
>>modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
>
>MM:
>A function which contributes absolutely nothing to the overall 
>stability of the Internet, and indeed seems to foment the creation 
>of alternative and potentially fragmentary arrangements...
>
>CONDI:
>>At that time, we also expressed our support for ICANN as
>>the appropriate private sector technical coordinator of the
>>Internet's domain name and addressing system.
>
>MM:
>...as long as "private sector" means a huge dose of the U.S. 
>Executive branch....
>
>CONDI:
>>We believe that ICANN is dedicated to achieving broad
>>representation of global Internet communities and to developing policy
>>through consensus-based processes.
>
>MM:
>Every once in a while, however, ICANN, VeriSign and the Commerce 
>Department have to go off and settle the real issues on our own. 
>After we do that, we'll come to you for "consultation."
>
>CONDI:
>>We have also expressed our interest
>>in working with the international community to address legitimate public
>>policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to country code top-level
>>domains (ccTLD).
>
>MM:
>So we can thereby recreate on the global internet a set of national 
>monopolies comparable to the post, telegraph and telephone 
>monopolies that kept us all happy for 100 years.
>
>>We wish to underscore that, in our statement of June
>>30, we supported ongoing dialogue on issues related to Internet
>>governance across international forums.
>
>Translation: talk all you like, we ain't changing anything unless 
>you force us to....
>
>CONDI:
>>The United States and the European Union have long worked
>>together toward the goal of global access to the Internet.
>
>MM:
>Of course, we've quarrelled a bit along the way, with us insisting 
>that the access come through American ISPs and you insisting that we 
>slow everything down so you can catch up.
>
>CONDI:
>>The WSIS offers us the opportunity to reaffirm our partnership
>>to spread the benefits of the Internet globally. At the same time,
>>the security and stability of the Internet are essential to the
>>United States, the European Union, and to the world. We firmly
>>believe that the existing Internet system balances
>>the stability and security we need with the innovation and dynamism
>>that private sector leadership provides.
>
>MM:
>Just in case you're brain dead, this means that we choose when and 
>how governments are involved, and when and how the private sector is 
>involved. OK?
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary