The Letter That Won US Internet Control

K-boy writes "Pushing my own scoop, but I think it's a valuable piece of Net history, I have come into possession of the vital letter sent by Condoleezza Rice to the EU over Internet governance. And posted it on the Web. The letter is pretty stern but you should also read it bearing in mind that letters of this type are not only very rare but they are always written in very, very soft diplomatic language. This was not. The result of the letter was that the EU dropped its plan for an inter-governmental oversight body for the Internet and we have ended up with the status quo (ICANN, US government control). The letter was never meant for publication."

Comments

Illiterate

[Doc Ruby]

This letter was sent to the UK, both currently presiding over the EU, and inventor of the language in which the letter was sent, also presumably spoken by Secretary Rice. But it's not even grammatically correct:

" We regret [that]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.

The four principles the United States issues [issued] on June 30, 2005, reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security and stability, including through [sic]the historical U.S. role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file."

I doubt Rice composed the text of the letter. But I expect her to read it before accepting, signing and directing its transmission. And I expect her to notice that she's representing the US with illiteracy. These people are extremely powerful. They could at least learn to write, or read, before being trusted with thinking, deciding, and communicating. That's the sum total of their job, and they don't appear to be very good at it.

Just because the EU backed down in the face of the US defense of our position doesn't mean they respect it. And letters like this certainly do nothing to defend the US from our new reputation of being governed by dumb people with expensive educations, backed mostly by overwhelming force. When working with partners with whom we have competitive interests, we have to show strength, and be right. And we also have to demonstrate at every turn that we are consummate professionals. Otherwise they have reason to doubt that we're competent to do everything right for which we're demanding responsibility, which weakens our position not through substance, but through the style which can be used against us by asymmetrically disadvantaged competitors. We won this one, but at what cost to our momentum for the next confrontation?

Re:I'll set my mom on you!

[Anonymous Coward]

You juxtaposed these two sentences?

" i will call you cynical."

"i would much rather have the united states in control than some beurocratic UN organization that's been proven it has members that can be bought."

You don't really know what 'cynical' means, do you?

Re:Evidence of authenticity please

[don.g]

...the register, which is a pretty reliable media outlet.

Excuse me while I burst out laughing. I hadn't realised that The Register was known for its reliability; rather, the reverse.