[AfrICANN-discuss] Some inspirational reading on IG issues

Tue Aug 27 14:33:42 SAST 2013

I was about to read the piece and then I saw McTim's response... [sigh]

Is there any outlet left in the IG landscape that is not biased, any
party/stakeholder that can be regarded as telling it just like it is, at
any time? Because, really, time is these days the most precious resource
(although it has always been so but maybe less scarce for us to worry about
it that much as we might today.) The politicizing of IG issues is becoming
sickening. Soon, we'll be performing just as efficiently as the US Congress
-- except that it'll be worse, since we don't even have one body we ALL
recognize as the legitimate place where everybody feels their contribution
is given equal weight as to any other party's.

Mawaki

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:04 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Pierre,
>
> This article contains much hyperbole and some factual inaccuracies.
> There are more than 2 root server operators outside the US, and many
> more rootservers (some in Africa) that sit in dozens of other
> countries.  the root-server system is NOT the "backbone of the
> Internet", etc
>
> I think it is inspirational only to the ITU folks who want a larger role
> in IG!
>
> The globaljournal is a Geneva based pro-ITU propagandist.  I've
> written about their hypocrisy before at:
>
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_potkettleblack_the_real_hypocrisy_threatening_future_of_internet/
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Dandjinou Pierre <pdandjinou at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Just sharing this one..And probably some questions on where Africa does
> > stand on IG issues?
> > Pierre
> >
> >
> > http://theglobaljournal.net/group/digital-news/article/1121/
> >
> > And Now The Second Battle Of The Internet
> >
> > by Jean-Christophe Nothias - Editor June 13, 2013
> >
> >
> > The Verizon or PRISM or Snowden affair, revealed by The Guardian, marks a
> > turning point in the history – a very young history – of the Internet and
> > its governance within the international landscape. With the facts as
> > overwhelming as they are frightening, they show above all the mighty
> power
> > of the United States (US) over the Internet and its users. This issue not
> > only concerns the information of American citizens, but also all
> > ‘foreigners’ who have a Google account and other Internet industry
> > heavyweights. We are talking about the very core of Internet governance
> > currently under American domination.
> >
> > The rules in question, such as respect of personal information, net
> > neutrality or digital public policies whether national, regional or
> > international, are at the heart of an ongoing 15-year battle. During the
> > last two years, this fight has taken a more aggressive turn, with the US
> > government, American companies and their close allies pitted against
> those
> > who demand more international and multilateral governance. The US
> government
> > is clinging to its power via a so-called “multi-stakeholder” model,
> lumped
> > together with the believers in an autonomously-ruled Internet, the
> so-called
> > digital freedom fighters who reject all governmental regulation, the
> masked
> > anonymous vigilantes who act as law enforcement, the kings of spam or
> porn,
> > the Internet money makers, the rebel hackers or former hackers, now
> > intelligence officers.
> >
> > Not a week goes by without an enlightened mind cursing governments or
> > recounting the story of the Internet as a pure product of 1960s
> > counterculture, born from LSD or the desire to live in a commune.
> According
> > to such individuals, the founding fathers of the Internet offered the
> world
> > this new space beyond the control of national powers. The reality of the
> > Internet is actually more pragmatic, industrial and economic. And to be
> > honest, the Internet has now become a very political field of battle.
> >
> > As opposed to a phenomenon linked to a form of counterculture, the
> Verizon
> > affair has shed new light on the reality of Internet control. Worldwide,
> > every state plays, whether chosen or not, a role within its own borders,
> > fortified by traditions, law and industrial heavyweights. One country in
> > particular has the power to not only impose its Internet laws on its
> > citizens, but also on ‘foreign citizens’ – that is, the US. This is
> exactly
> > what the Verizon affair has demonstrated. Indeed, it is further evidence
> > there is a need to redevelop and rebalance Internet governance. And this
> is
> > the very thing US officials and large US digital corporations have
> refused
> > to discuss in Dubai, Geneva or elsewhere.
> >
> > The computer scientist inventors of interconnected networks belonged to
> an
> > academic elite from MIT, Berkeley, Stanford and USC. As early as the
> 1960s,
> > they enjoyed a significant amount of financing provided by the Pentagon,
> > NASA and other governmental agencies. These pioneers not only drove
> > scientific and technological development but also Internet ‘policies’ –
> at
> > least until 1998. Until this time, the roots of the Internet were in the
> > hands of academic pioneers. They had a humanist, pragmatic, neutral and
> open
> > vision.
> >
> > One such founding father was Dr Jonathan Postel, himself a computer
> > scientist and editor of the famous Request For Comments (RFCs) that
> served
> > as a model for open discussion and improvement of Internet rules and
> > processes. With John Lennon glasses and long hair, Postel was
> nevertheless
> > celebrated as “Colonel Postel” upon his arrival at the Pentagon – quite
> > impressive since this free man was considered by pioneers as responsible
> for
> > Internet rules being defined outside the governmental sphere. Somewhat
> more
> > worrying for Postel himself was the Clinton administration’s desire, led
> by
> > Al Gore and his emissary Ira Magaziner, to take control of the Internet.
> > Postel understood this from very early on, back in 1997. Of the 13
> servers
> > that today still constitute the backbone of the Internet, Postel
> attempted
> > to unlink the 8 “civilian” ones from the reach of the government. The
> > mathematician pointed them toward a 14th server, a new master he set for
> the
> > purpose, in January 1998. A vigorous phone call from the White House put
> > this digital insurgency to an end.
> >
> > By the end of January 1998, the Internet and its governance fell
> completely
> > into the hands of the US government and those who accepted this forced
> move.
> > In a thwarted attempt, Postel sought without success to entrust Internet
> > governance to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Not to
> panic
> > Internet stakeholders, the US government decided to delegate the
> authority
> > given to universities to an association incorporated in California three
> > weeks after the death of Postel on an operation table in Los Angeles in
> > October 1998. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> > (ICANN) was inaugurated at his grave, with future board members reuniting
> > for the first time at the cemetery in memory of the scientist who
> fiercely
> > protected the development of the Internet.
> >
> > Since its creation, ICANN has been a controversial organization
> > characterized by abuse, non-transparency, lack of representation and
> > conflicting interests. The greatest concern remains its guardianship –
> ICANN
> > is under contract with the Department of Commerce and a change in 2009
> meant
> > a renewable three-year agreement became indefinite. This is contrary to a
> > guarantee of independence. Like other organizations instrumental to
> Internet
> > governance, ICANN cannot be considered a neutral international body. Its
> new
> > president Fahi Chehadé aims to improve this perception – a delicate task
> > even for this specialist in multi-stakeholder governance recalling that
> the
> > Department of Commerce recently contradicted a decision by ICANN. Who has
> > total authority over the management of the Internet backbone? The
> > Californian association or its guardianship authority?
> >
> > From the very beginning, the famous 13 servers forming the Internet’s
> > backbone (the DNS Root Servers) have been in American hands, or in the
> hands
> > of close allies. The two not located in American territory are in London
> > (LINX/RIPE) and Stockholm (NORDU). That is, the two capitals most vocal
> > alongside Washington in favor of the status quo. The strongly anti-United
> > Nations campaign that followed the Dubai conference in December 2012
> worried
> > many who saw there a resurgence of the Cold War. Not quite so, I would
> say.
> > The PRISM affair demonstrates the problem was not so much the danger
> > represented by China or Russia in regards to our exchanges, accounts and
> > personal information, but the fact of having a state and some of its
> digital
> > juggernauts enjoying control of the Internet.
> >
> > Yes, the economic issues are major, especially in terms of high-speed
> > broadband, critical to accelerating the economic development of entire
> > countries. Who should pay for this significant investment? Each single
> user
> > whatever means they have? Public or private national operators? The
> Internet
> > Service Provider that benefits from the connection of these networks? The
> > Internet robber barons such as Google and others? What are the two
> thirds of
> > the world population to do who have no access to the Internet? For two
> > years, Americans have pushed to defend the status quo, even inventing
> > ‘digital’ human rights.
> >
> > A more pragmatic and responsible approach can be seen right by the
> southern
> > border of the US. Mexican President Peña Nieto is among those advocating
> for
> > greater equality, working to enshrine a right to broadband access in his
> > country’s constitution. He turned this into reality on 10 June, when he
> > signed the Constitutional Reform Regarding Telecommunications and
> Economic
> > Competition.  In the same breath, his initiative will break the
> monopolies
> > that controlled Mexico for years. The fortune of the current owner of the
> > New York Times, Carlos Slim, comes from this previous state of things.
> So it
> > goes in the US with ATT, Verizon and Comcast, which shared the market
> under
> > unconcerned eyes – indeed, an approving government. Some voices are
> speaking
> > out, such as former White House official Susan Crawford, who advocates
> for
> > more competition and more public policy, not just regulation obscured by
> a
> > market. Interviewed last April, Alec Ross, the former Special Digital
> > Advisor for the State Department declared to me: “digital human rights do
> > not exist in legal terms, but it is a unifying theme that pleases users.”
> >
> > Months before the WCIT was held in December in Dubai, American lobbying
> > groups attacked the ITU and its proposals for internationalized Internet
> > governance incessantly, with unconditional support from Google. What plot
> > were they denouncing? What crime was the ITU guilty of? Simply, asking
> for
> > an international treaty update that all signatories would be bound to
> > endorse and respect. One of the driving forces behind the hysteria was
> the
> > idea that diplomatic negotiations occurred behind closed doors, away from
> > civil society and industrial stakeholders. Critics invoked the specter
> of a
> > takeover hatched by Russia and China and, in a general manner, by
> > governments.
> >
> > Yet the so-called ‘closed’ Dubai doors were largely wide open. Each ITU
> > member state was free to establish its delegation without limits to
> numbers
> > or quality, and especially to inform whomever they wished without
> restraint,
> > before, during or after the conference. The American delegation alone
> > included almost 120 delegates selected from the elite of the US Internet
> > industry, civil society and government. Two watchwords were given to this
> > multitude: “the word Internet shall not be included in the new treaty”
> and
> > “do not talk to journalists without authorization.” All this in the name
> of
> > web freedom.
> >
> > More surprising was the European position in Dubai. No mandate was given
> for
> > the delegation to vote or engage the signature of the European Union
> (EU).
> > Cyprus, occupying the rotating presidency of the EU, monopolized the
> > microphone, with other member states far less vocal, including France and
> > Germany. In contrast, the Swedish and British representatives were
> working
> > in full swing. Were the compromises negotiated following WCIT so
> dangerous
> > for Europe? No. Tellingly, the absence of conditions preventing EU
> agreement
> > was confirmed in a confidential internal memo (DS 1335/13) from the EU
> > Council on 24 February. “At this stage, there is or remains no obvious
> > reason justifying a conflict between the new Treaty (proposed in Dubai)
> and
> > the benefits.” It was already known as such before Dubai.
> >
> > The argument put forward by the EU to not support the Dubai update of the
> > International Telecommunications Regulations was linked to the proposal
> to
> > use in the new treaty the expression “all operators” rather than
> “recognized
> > operating agencies.” The reason for this – non-authorized extension of
> the
> > treaty. Seeking to maintain good diplomatic relations, it was possible to
> > sign the treaty while imposing a “reservation” on the point of
> disagreement.
> > Its radical strategy led the American delegation to totally reject this
> > proposal, while signing instead some of the treaty proposals that its own
> > delegation approved during the session.
> >
> > This May in Geneva, hostilities continued. In more limited terms but
> still
> > very clearly, the US opposed any involvement by the ITU and its
> committee of
> > member states in the system of Internet governance. Such a perspective
> would
> > allow for the definition of universal principles akin to those already in
> > operation for telephony and satellites. Accepting this logic would shift
> > some of the Internet power away from Washington’s authority. With any
> such
> > international law ratified by the US, the request from the CIA to
> transfer
> > all user information from private operators like Verizon, Google and
> others
> > to intelligence services would be made more difficult. However, the US
> has
> > never embraced multilateralism and remains amongst those counties ranked
> > lowest globally in regards to the number of treaties or conventions
> > ratified.
> >
> > A few days ago, during a WTPF session – an intergovernmental forum under
> the
> > aegis of the ITU – Brazil submitted an opinion for endorsement, which was
> > met with consensus. “Governments worldwide should discuss Internet
> > governance in the framework of the ITU, as a crucial element in the
> > multi-stakeholder system.” The American response, supported by Sweden,
> the
> > United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany was, in essence, “come see
> us in
> > Washington, we will see what we can do for you.” The committee remained
> > calmed, but was clearly outraged by this arrogance. What place do
> > governments have in connection to the Internet under international law?
> The
> > US and its digital industry dominate in every respect. The Verizon affair
> > becomes ever more important because it is this same US administration
> > opposed to a dialogue between states to settle universal rules and
> > principles.
> >
> > The worldwide digital space is in danger. We, the citizens of the world,
> are
> > equally in danger. We need a better and truly democratic
> multi-stakeholder
> > model and governments to be bound by robust international law when most
> > needed – to start with, the US government and its industrial champions.
> >
> > --
> > Pierre Dandjinou
> > Cotonou - 229 90 087784 / 66566610
> > Dakar 221 77 639 30 41
> > www.scg.bj
> > skype : sagbo1953
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AfrICANN mailing list
> > AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20130827/e8f37601/attachment-0001.htm