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 think that the poster just hyped it. Further, I notice that the letter was co-signed by Condi. I'd bet anything that she was just asked if it would be okay for her name to go along with Guiterrez's, but that the letter actually originated in his office. The poster focused on the Rice angle because that seems more exciting than a letter from the Secretary of Commerce. Hype, hype, hype.
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)
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
Let's assume this letter is legitimate and that the Register is right. The language is not strong per se, but the controversial points are 1)directed against the EU position, 2)specifically unilateral (no "coalition" babble) and 3)the EU position is criticized explicitly.
All three of these are typically mediated in diplomacy through indirection. You don't want to trap yourself, because words are your best tool (unless you are willing to make physical threats or change associations). It's convention that most of diplomacy is filler content designed to continue a relationship along the status quo. Redefining a relationship or asserting a new position are all actions with finality. That is usually reserved for when such actions are necessary.
For example, you would normally speak directly against a general position and not directly mention your opponent's position as their position. Neither would you speak from your position as solely your position (the U.S., Iran, North Korea, and China are exceptions) - you would express a general opinion developed from some previous consensus, like a document, or some rhetorical one. Finally, you would not crticize the opponents position, but suggest considerations and alternatives. Labeling an opponent's position with negative terminology and then contrasting that with your positive position is generally viewed as "strong."
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?
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
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.
Private-sector funding, in conjuction with many government grants, throughout the 1990s ushered in a completely different era in the Internet's history. Had the powers at be continued to restrict access, we'd have something that looks like Internet2.
As for your statement regarding "absolutely no private-sector investment," I'm fairly certain that following companies will strongly disagree:
That list can continue on and on, but I think you get the point. I'm not sure where you're from, but here in the US, Uncle Sam does NOT lay telephone wire/fiber/cable. Once again, private-sectore investment.
Does this mean that the Internet was invented by the private-sectore, no; merely, the Internet as we now know it was built through private-sector investments.
Adding levels of bureaucratic oversight to anything constrains development. NASA is a good example of this. Adding "Safety" committees to make sure space travel is 99.999999% safe has brought development of new/risky programs to a crawl.
As a side note, I don't see the purpose of political bashing here. I highly doubt anyone else in either Rice's or Bush's position would gladly give up control of the Internet.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle