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."
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?
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
Yes, they can. The root zone ( "." ) contains the IP addresses of the .fr name servers. French ISPs usually will not have the .fr name servers hard coded, but will ask the root servers (which are hard coded, bind9 has them in the "root.db" file) where to find the .fr name servers. As long as ICANN controls the root zone file, they could remove the .fr DNS servers from it. Then, French surfers would not be able to resolve .fr domain names. Until the French ISPs would hard-code the .fr name servers, that is.
Jan-Pascal
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.
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
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.
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?
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...
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 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.
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!
Looking at my inbox, I'd say that's more than fair.
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!
Umm.... any DNS operator worth his salt will try to limit requests to the "." In the local hints file he should have most of all the tld's so his server shouldn't go asking who's authoritative for .fr By doing that not only do they reduce the load the other dns servers it also would limit affects from what you are suggesting. Where you seem to imply that hard coding is something not done, I'd say that it should be something that everybody already is doing. True at this time the central authority for the hints file everybody downloads comes from ICANN, but if ICANN decided to shove all .fr somewhere else; all you'd have to do is *not* change your local information.
As others have noted, it's a formal title. In the UK, it applies to members of the Privy Council, which includes the Cabinet, and to various nobles with historic titles. Hence, as Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw is addressed formally in written correspondence as "The Right Honourable Jack Straw".
You'll also hear members of parliament refer to "The honourable member for <place>" during debates, for those MPs who aren't Privy Counsellors, or to "The right honourable member for <place>" for those who are. I'm sure you can find more details somewhere like Wikipedia if you're interested.
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.
And UN governance would solve this problem in which way? MIT's and Stanford's IP address space is a done-deal unless what we are really talking about is a comunistic style redistribution of wealth via some kind of UN fiat. That is why the US is opposed to psuedo-govenamental influence over ICANN. If China wants more IP addresses than IP4 will allow, let them use IP6, if EU wants more address space than IP4 will allow, let them use IP6, when enough use IP6 to make it difficult to use IP4 then in a blink of an eye everybody will be using IP6.
The reality is that the internet governace is driven bottom-up rather than top-down. The thing that got ICANN off its' ass and open up more gTLDs wasn't the dept. of Comm's influence rather it was offerings from openNIC and others; of course they'd never admit that because it's important to keep up appearences after all.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds