Slashdot Mirror
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."
Surely, at most, the control can only be over the root NS. If it's anything else, the UK citizens can always instruct their DNS cache to only respond on *.uk... Problems may occour for mirror sites of course.
Why UNIX?
How did you get this letter, and why did you post it? Isn't that slightly illegal?
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
I don't see any hard comments in the letter. It's just like another soft-diplomatic letter to me. Is the submitter trying to get up a flamewar? no, not on /.
Way to go.
The alarming thing, though, I guess, is that this is considered "strong language" in diplomatic circles. It strikes me as direct, but quite tactful.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
I know this issue has been discussed a lot, and I'm all for keeping things the way they are (it simply works). HOWEVER, what does concern me is growing evidence of U.S. puritanism in the decision process, like the blocking of the .xxx domain on what seems like shallow premises. While the benefits of .xxx are a separate issue altogether, I doubt if European audiences would resist something like that unless they had a very strong reason to do so. I say let ICANN keep control as long as it doesn't become puritan-ized.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
if that is strong language, I don't want to read the 'soft' letters that are usually written. She lays out the reasons they want things the way they are and asks for the change to be reconsidered. After reading the summary I was expecting something more egregious.
There are a lot of folks here with a wide range of experience. Someone please explain to me why I should think this is a big deal.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Can the US, as it is now, stop French surfers from reaching a .FR domain? Can they stop them from reaching a .EU domain?
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
The letter was never meant for publication
You're new to politics, I take it..?
What are the chances that Condoleezza Rice actually has any clue what the "authoritative root zone file" is?
I get the feeling that the head honchos at ICANN basically ran out of decent arguments for maintaining control ("erm, we just like the power buzz!") and just went for big political guns. I mean really, like there's a good excuse for keeping control other than potential political blackmail.
The Net was created by the US government, a whole bunch of US, Asian and Europeans built the hardware running it and a British guy invented the Web. Doesn't look like multicultural involvement has made it terribly unstable. I think China's Great Firewall is an excellent example of what happens when one government has too much control.
Call me cynical...
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
ICANN is not a US government organization. It just happens to be on US soil (just like the UN).
.xxx tld, that the US made the decision. They just happened to agree that its unenforcable and stupid.
ICANN encourages government representation, which includes any country. They even have meetings all across the world, there's no excuse for these concerned countries not to participate.
People seem to think that because ICANN agreed with the US on the
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
I know this is Slashdot, but it looks like even the submitter hasn't read the article! Kind of odd as they also appear to be the person that wrote it...
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
It doesn't seem all that stern to me. I'd hate to see what's considered very very soft. I was half expecting to see Rice threatening to fuckiing bury that EU.
The letter appears plausible. However, I could find nothing to indicate how the poster came into possession of the letter. Under those circumstancs, I am not ready to accept it as genuine.
I like the letter. Rice has a point.
.xxx fiasco has shown ICANN is very much under the thumb of the US government and can't seem to make decisions (especially decisions that are contrary to the ideology of the admininistration or its Christian fundamentalist base) without an 'a-OK' from them. Thats wrong.
However, the administration should follow what they preach. As the recent
This is really not a valid argument. First of all, you can't possibly FORCE smut vendors to use .xxx -- first, it's impossible, and second, it goes against the nature of the Internet. Secondly, please remember that the First Amendment you refer to is an AMERICAN constitutional amendment. It isn't right to bind the Internet -- undeniably an international entity now -- by American laws. Even if you were, I very much doubt that free speech would allow a blanket ban on the .xxx domain.
My question is this: granted that the .xxx domain may not solve too many problems, is there any reason to BAN it?? I'm sure a lot of websites would WANT it, and you could price it at a much higher premium than .com or .net. There are no technical issues -- the only true objection I can see is puritanism. Remember, we aren't talking about FORCING people to move over to .xxx -- such enforced censorship is ineffective and largely a waste of time. It's more likely that .xxx will become more of a "status symbol" among porn vendors and actually sell.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
So why did they grant ".biz", ".info" etc.? And don't tell me they don't grant ".xxx" because they actually learned somthing.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
To whom it may concern,
We invented it, we built it, and we own it.
Piss off.
Sincerely,
Carlos M. Guiterrez Secretary of Commerce
Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State
you guys say that, but i doubt you could point out a single incident where a citizen was restrained from protesting the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
She's black, but why wasn't it mentioned how tall she was, or how much she weigh?
What does skin color have to do with anything exactly?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
you guys say that, but i doubt you could point out a single incident where a citizen was restrained from protesting the government.
Stepped right into the cut.
May the Maths Be with you!
Why is is moderated as a flame bait?
. php
This is exactly what happend in sweden to latvian construction workers. See http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/21/news/laval
Also, it's almost impossible to find work in sweden with an arabic or african name even if you are educated at one of the state universitys. The are examples of people sending houndreds of applications and not even getting a letter back saying that they are being considered for the position. When these people emigrate i britian, canada, usa they find employement almost instantly.
So stop moderating things as flamebait just because it doesn't fit your world view. I though the readers of slashdot liked freedom of expression, or does that only apply when it's the "correct" expression?
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
"The Right Honourable Jack Straw..."
Out of curosity, since when would an American English user use the British English spelling?
Also, would an "official diplomatic entity allow" a raw typo like:
"growth and adaptation , based on" (extra space)
Sure, it could be a typo by the editor, this is The Register ® , of course.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Why all the fuss about the DNS root zone when the real problem with US control of the Internet is that US educational institutions like MIT and Stanford have more IPv4 address space than all of China? Fair IP allocation is what we need!
IPv6 is what we need. Look at the glass as half full, those US institution are encourage/accelerating the switch to IPv6. The hoarding IPv4 perspective is shortsighted. Reallocation does not solve the problem, it postpones the problem a little bit. Getting over IPv4 and moving to IPv6, the soon the better, those institutions are doing us all a favor. It would be interesting to know if encouraging IPv6 has factored into their internal discussions.
I don't think there's ANY country where nobody has ever in any way been punished or discouraged from exercising their free speech. Governments like control, and don't like rabble-rousers. I think it's safe to say that throughout the United States, Europe, and most of the Western world you will not be locked up simply because you are expressing beliefs that dissent from the majority. But in all of these countries, there are examples of free speech being curtailed in some way. That's life. It's always been that way, and will always be that way.
Others have noted grammatical errors highly unlikely in a diplomatic letter.
Even without those errors - Where is the proof that this is real?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Since when are human rights respected in Guantanamo?
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.
granted, the US can be bought, too
Priceless.
You can't take the sky from me...
ICANN was responsible for stopping that tactic. Verisign was the one responsible for implmenting it.
.com and .net. (After an already questionable award giving them .net)
Now ICANN is getting bitten in the ass for making the right call. Verisign is suing them over that decision, and is using the lawsuit as a weapon to get further (non-competitive) control over
My biggest problem with ICANN is that Verisign has too much influence over them. Verisign needs to be nuked.
From: Condi (C-note) Rice, State Dept.
To: Jack Straw and my dogs in theForeign affairs committee , london
Listen Bitches,
The way the internet is ran is important to us in the US. It contributes to our gdp by way of Amazon, Ebay, Skype, Pr0n and Google. We believe our crew should continue to run it. Theres tons more loot to be made and we need make sure our cut isnt disturbed.
As the big summit meeting approaches we want to let you know that the internet in its current supervision is the path we should all maintain. We will not accept any change of governance.
Now a good pimp will realize that you cant have employees on every corner. You get a piece and we get a piece. Thats how we show love and mad respect. We dont need one large pimp orgaziniation and a bunch of street clockers slowing the flow and skimming off the top.
You can bet damn-sure that we will enforce without predjudice and with Shock-and-awe our four prinicples we sent you earlier. Its nothing personal, just business yo.
The US and European Unions have been rolling together for some time now, and we appreciate all your support in our drive-bys in Iraq,Afghanland and points east. But dont mistake our kindness for weakness. The internet was created by our vice president Al Gore, and we must have our sovereignty. Respect is earned not given.
Cool, we out. Dont forget to swing by our Christmas house party at 1600 pensylvania ave in wash, dc. Chicken and beer will be served.
One,
C-Note
I have conclusive proof of the Roswell incident, if only I can get it to you before I am cens :@SD{F CGV NO CARRIER.
(that film sounded funny)
bullshit -- they said the same things about .info and .biz, and yet they popped up magically on the Internet. my point is on discerning the difference between introducing .info and .biz, and introducing .xxx. there is no technical difference.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
The issue was not control of the WWW. It was control of DNS, which is a mechanism of the Internet at large. Yes, DNS affects the WWW. It also affects IRC, FTP, and every other type of service that is accessed via the Internet.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
perhaps you should read my initial reply. i said that while forcing people to move is not viable, making the domain available is free market commerce. my point was that a lot of porn sites might actually WANT .xxx. i explicitly said that forcing people to move was 1) not viable and 2) against the nature of the net. perhaps you should read my bullshit first...
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
I like to think of governments as particularly firmly established and powerful insurance companies.
Basically, a government collects insurance premiums (taxes), pays its employees and executives (senior government officials) with both money and perks, enacts programs to help prevent the need to pay out on claims (e.g. law enforcement, safety departments, education to hopefully provide employable skills, etc.), and pays out to victims of certain types of misfortune (either directly in the form of monetary aid or with other support paid for with tax money.)
As you point out, though, the difference between a government and, say Lloyd's of London or Allstate or whoever is that governments can compel the purchase of their products with armed force. (Don't believe me? Try refusing to pay your taxes...)
The only real differences between different governments are how quickly the guns come out when they want to offer a new "product" ("Democratic" governments are kind of like public companies in that the shareholders often get to vote on new programs [though all kinds of shenanigans can be performed by government authorities to sway the vote or work around a vote that doesn't go the way they want] first, and are then asked more or less politely to participate a few times before the guns come out. Despotic governments break out the guns as part of the planning of the new "product"), what kinds of situations they cover (e.g. degree of health-care provided, how much education is subsidized, etc) and how well they cover them, and what proportion of the premiums gets skimmed off to pay for the salaries, bonuses, and perks of the government officials and employees.
Or so I like to think.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The Register is a very opinionated publication, and this article, like most, is heavily laden with emotional bias and innuendo. I have no problem with that, per se, but I am confused because K-boy's articles from the Tunis conference seemed to be contradictory.
I recall one article which quoted the head of the ITU bragging that -- because of EC support? -- the ITU (the international consortium of telephone companies and nationalized telephone utilities) would control the Internet within five years. K-boy, the Register reporter, was appropriately horrified at that prospect, and pointed out that ITU controls in the past would have quashed the Internet, simply never let it be born.
Now, however, in his article about Rice's forceful US defense of the status quo, the same reporter seems again disturbed (if perhaps less than horrified) that the US is not more open to international governmental influences, and is not more willing to adapt Internet control to the likes of the ITU.
So where *do* you stand, K-boy?
Many of us Netcitizens are willing to put up with the imperfections of the current Internet governance -- hoping that strong contractual obligations on an independent administrator will, minimally, guarrantee the ongoing availability of connections -- rather than see control of the Net slide into the hands of greedy, lowest-common-denominator, trans-national bureaucrats, of which the ITU is a preeminent example.
Didn't Condi's letter and the US lobbying campaign save us from the ITU, a fate worst than (or perhaps equivalent to) death for the Internet as we know it?
One thing Rice's letter suggested to me was the advantage of the home-town team, the established owner and manager, over uppity rebels with independent ideas. The same thing, I fear, would be true of the advantage the ITU regulators would have over disorganized international libertarians, if the US were to declare the Net's infrastructure to be up for grabs. If Internet governance -- which may only today be an oximoron -- were to slide into the international political arena, wouldn't it only be a matter of time before Real Control would be seized by the organization with the best financing, technical savvy, and skills at political infighting?
The current ITU president obviously thinks that it is a foregone conclusion that the ITU would be that organization. Anyone want to predict the future of the Net that would follow?
What does the history of the ITU tell us about the prospects for future innovation and disruptive change in an Internet controlled by the ITU?
Just because the US government is a proponent of a position does not mean that it is wrong.
What? The history of the Internet's growth was based on private-sector investment? Intergovernmental structure would be a burden? As everybody on Slashdot knows, this is a complete rewrite of history. From the late 1960s and before even that, up until the mid-1990s when NSFnet began handing things over to corporate America, the Internet was funded by, invested in, and overseen by the US government. There was absolutely no private-sector investment, just government funds sent to the private sector. The government paid for decades of R&D to create the Internet, and oversaw its creation. Now she is trying to claim that the Internet was created by private sector investment, and that government oversight would just cramp what she says the private-sector investment created. And of course, neither she nor Bush has any intentions of removing government oversight from the Internet. What a joke!
Seems that Ms.Rice has also been tough on the EU in other matters. She's told them to back down on this matter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4497006. stm
My web domain.
I agree - the prospect of US puratanism is scary. Look at the oppression of pornography occurring now! For instance, I have a terribly hard time finding movies of bare naked women oozing semen from their orifices while other women lick it up. I think Bush is probably behind it...
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Mr. of Borg,
a) It has been pretty firmly established here that "Condi" likely had minimal involvement in this.
b) When the letter says "Internet structure", they are, like any well written position piece, sticking to the topic of the letter - in this case the DNS and TLD structure. VOIP is not a vital part of the Internet structure, and quite frankly, the VOIP issue (and P2P issue) you bring up is wildly different, involving enforecement of copyright and fair competition and consumer protection laws already in place. It is already accepted that the US (when involving companies on its soil) is the ultimate arbiter of law. They aren't overstepping their bounds in the VOIP, etc case.
c) "Condi" was likely not instructed to do anything. She was probably asked to lend her name to the document to add weight, and at her own volition chose to do so, likely because she agreed with the contents. If she had chosen not to sign it, it probably would have been shopped around until someone else with some weight behind their name did. I won't comment on her motives, as I'm obviously not privvy to them, but there are rules of diplomacy that aren't all that dissimilar to the rules of Poker. If you tip your hand by expressing an interest in something, your opponent can use that item you are interested in as leverage. By the same token, you try not to give anything away. So the question is, did we tip our hand because we REALLY want to keep this power, or because we simply don't want to budge unless we absolutely have to? This is the equivalent of the US saying "I'll call your bet". We're not raising, and we're not folding.
d) Doublespeak is not unique to the Bush admin. Note Clinton's waffling on the definition of "intercourse" and his "Slick Willy" nickname (used across party lines, even on rare occasions by his supporters). Doublespeak, non-commital phrases, misdirection, etc, are hallmarks of politics, diplomacy, and sales. Never commit until all the cards are in your favor (or forced to), manipulate your opposition to obtain what you need, share (resource and informationally) only what is needed for your ends to be met. Shades of Sun-Tsu - at one degree or another, these are the basics of most social interaction. The more you have to lose, the more rigorously you adhere to these tenets. This is one of the reasons that power and corruption tend to go hand in hand ("absolute power corrupts absolutely"). You don't amass and maintain power without mastering these skills ("a fool and his money are soon parted"). The Bush administration has arguably made the LEAST use of this, as they tend to speak to the press less frequently than other administrations and therefore have less need of watching their language. I won't exactly defend the Bush administration, but your comment here speaks more of your political leanings than it does any actual thought you put into the argument.
Oh, and try resistance every once in a while. I think you'll find it quite effective, especially in electronics.
Oh, was that my outside voice?
I think he is referring to people not being friendly because he doesn't follow certain social norms. Probably related to showing, deodorant, burping, and/or spitting. We have a lot of little rules that we don't like to be around people when they don't follow them, 75% are hygienic, 10% are behavior, 10% is attitude (douche-nozzles, elitists, snobs, etc.) and 5% is miscellaneous.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
I'm worried that I'm feeding a troll here, but I'll take your post at face value.
It's not bad, but there's plenty that could be improved. Ask yourself why:
- the original protocols haven't evolved to keep up with use, resulting in many pseudo-standards and a lot of edge cases that don't work
- spam is rendering things like e-mail and Usenet less usable by the day
- identity theft and large scale fraud are being perpetrated on a wide scale, thanks largely to inherently difficult-to-secure protocols
- similar protocols allow DDoS attacks that can cripple an organisation or even cause it to fail, on the whim of some 14-year-old Russian cracker
- dubious web sites are distributing at best accidentally unhelpful and at worst deliberately damaging information on subjects regulated in the real world, such as medicine, law or finances
- there is little international co-operation on anything but the most serious crimes; they might get the occasional child porn sicko, but minor yet still hurtful defamation takes place all the time, because with effective anonymity comes the freedom to say whatever you like and damn the consequences
- the much-cited architectural robustness in the face of disruption isn't really that robust at all
- the US government does meddle pretty directly with the development of the systems, even though the rest of us don't necessarily share its supporters' Christian right beliefs
and so the list goes on.Little of this is directly related to the technical issue at hand, of course, but I think there are plenty of reasons the Internet as it's evolved isn't as good as it could be if we were making the decisions today with what we now know.
The problem isn't pride, it's that the US government has demonstrated repeatedly that it doesn't give a shit about the international community's views on issues as fundamental as going to war or the health of the planet, and it's willing to make any sacrifices it deems necessary to further its own business and economic interests. This is why the EU, amongst others, would be more than happy for the US government not to have direct control over any aspect of a fundamental technology on which they rely. It's the same reason we're developing an independent GPS-style satellite network, and collaborating on EU-wide defence agreements and technology, and making up our own minds on going to war for oil, and countless other things.
Oh, for goodness' sake, quit with the "we created it" crap already. Sure, the US paid the majority (but by no means all) of the very early money several decades ago, and did a lot (but by no means all) of the very early research. The US is not responsible for all of the work even going back that far, and it certainly isn't responsible for many of the advances that have given the Internet most of the success it's had over the past decade or so.
However, the fact that you apparently don't know that (or choose to ignore/disbelieve it) is an excellent example of why the rest of us don't want you guys in charge any more.
IIRC, there was nothing in the original proposals that specified that the UN would be involved in running the Internet instead of ICANN (though as screwed up organisations go, ICANN are one of the few to really give the UN a run for their money). The important point was simply that it would be something under multilateral control, not a talking shop for the US government.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The US doesn't really "control" the Internet; instead, other nations choose to use the same conventions as the US--for now. If the US screws up on governance, the rest of the world can create its own system. Furthermore, the transition to such a system could be done fairly quickly and with backwards compatibility.
You're kidding right? Al-J is considered to be one of the most balanced media outlets available. Their producers are KNOWN for getting really pissed trying to make sure their news spots and guest speakers aren't crazy american rhetoric spewers OR local nationalist fundamentalists. Try reading or watching it sometime to decide for yourself... not just being told that "it's bad".
It is my belief that the UN is hopelessly corrupt and that the UN exists to create programs that move money through itself so that money can be stolen, all while claiming to be an international body whose mandate is to better the world.
I challenge you to list anything of consequence the UN has accomplished. And if you can, I can list genocides and wars the UN has done nothing about when its charter is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind" or how many blatantly repressive governments sit on its human rights council when its charter is "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small" ? The UN has no credibility. I know things have been bad here in the US lately. But for as bad as it is, the UN is far far worse, and I dont want those jackasses screwing up the internet.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
7 November 2005
....
To:
The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, London
Dear Foreign Secretary,
How are you gentlemen !!
All your base are belong to us.
You are on the way to destruction.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Sincerely,
Carlos M. Guiterrez Secretary of Commerce
Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State
Their website has extensive news in english as well as arabic. I was there quite a bit durring the first part of the war. Their version of the news seemed very slanted to what their intended audiance wanted to hear, which was no real surprise. If your a neo-con right-wing american slashdoter like me and want to get a handle on what stokes the fires of arabic-muslim passion, there is no better place; if your looking for objective coverage, stay away from Al-Jazeera, Fox CNN ect. and try BBC world news instead.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Sir Humphrey Applebey. The total lack of readability, combined with the total demand for power proves it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> Hmm, call me naive, but I would think that "free speech" is an all-or-nothing concept: It's either available everywhere, universally and without restriction, or it simply isn't "free speech."
So what's your position on the whole "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre issue?
> If there are restrictions on the software that only allow it to be "free" in certain circumstances...
You mean restrictions like "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty?" Absolute freedom from restrictions means that any for-profit company could do whatever they wanted with any open-source software and no one could say the first thing about it.
> My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that the US pushes the concept of "free speech" a hell of a lot more then it actually practices it.
And my personal opinion is that if the government keeps you from saying something, it's almost 99% certain that you can walk two blocks and say it all you want. In all the examples given, not once were people kept from expressing their opinions unless they did it while lying on the sidewalk and obstructing traffic.
Shall we agree to respectfully disagree?