The Letter That Won US Internet Control 576
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."
Re:Question for experts? (Score:5, Informative)
Jan-Pascal
Re:How! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:How! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:How! (Score:4, Informative)
Bull. It varies dramatically by country. Printing classified information is almost always illegal.
And many countries of the world throw journalists in jail if they annoy the government.
The government of Tunisia (host of the WSIS conference) does this all the time.
Robert Mugabe, dictator of Zimbabwe, said at the WSIS conference said that there is too much freedom of speech on the internet, and got huge applause.
That's why you want to keep ICANN under US control. Could ICANN do a better job? Probably. But it would be far, far worse under UN control.
Re:How! (Score:4, Informative)
This is a common misunderstanding. The knowing disclosure parts of the Official Secrets Act applies to everyone - see section 5, sub-section 2:
Yes, some parts only apply to those who have "signed the Act" (that is, where it can be legally proven that they have been informed of the nature of the Act and its requirements), but it is not the case for the more interesting situations like this.
As to information being ""damaging" w.r.t. the defence of the nation", well, given the current fad in No. 10 to use D-Notices like confetti (Ms. Blair, holiday plans, and other items come to mind).
Re:How! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FUCK THAT! (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone [wikipedia.org]
Re:FUCK THAT! (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/23/politic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/2000/v
Need more? Use google you ignoramus fucktard.
Re:true or not? (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Re:Question for experts? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Kick ass, Condi! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:we'll be throwing this back at her over VOIP (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:It's hardly control (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Honourable? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think it's harsh even by European standards. To me it reads like "we've always controlled the Internet, everything has worked fine, let's not try to fix something that isn't broken." It simply makes sense, and everyone agreed.
Re:just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (Score:3, Informative)
The French have Ca va [trailcanada.com] (add the cedilla in your mind).
The British also use how are you [bbc.co.uk].
The Spanish language uses its own version [davidreilly.com].
The Germans have Wie geht's? [about.com].
Either you're just making stuff up or you hang out with a bunch of inconsiderate assholes. And, yes, that's what I really think.
Re:Enough with this idea of the UN TAXING the Net! (Score:2, Informative)
Preventing the US and USSR from destroying the world by means of a common assembly.
Educating emerging developing nations to better sustain themselves through more efficient farming and fishing.
Peacekeeping in the Balkans.
Disaster relief, which I'll be the first to admit, could be a lot more effective.
Just to name a few...
---
This may not mean a lot to you, but to the countless number of people (not countless enough though) involved, it sure as hell means a lot.
It should be noted though, that a bit of income redistribution to the poorest of countries is only bad if you want to see other nations oppressed by military dictators just so you can keep buying slave manufactured Nikes and cheap oil.
P.s.
Before you start talking about how the Human Rights Council is ineffective and how the Security Council is ineffective, you should really take a good look at WHY it is ineffective.
The Security Council e.g. is really ineffective due to the permanent member nations having veto power. The US has been a really busy bee for the past 20 years throwing veto's left and right, using their veto power nearly 3 times as often as the rest of the permanent member combined. Don't agree with the vote? Then be the beacon of freedom that your president says you are by not doing the undemocratic thing and nullify the vote by saying "NO".
I also find it hilarious at best when I come across people like you bitching about the Human Rights Council when the US forcefully entered a sovereign nation and took people from there with force and have detained them in Guantanamo Bay for nearly 4 years now without trying them for the crimes they are alleged to have committed. Hell, even a mock trial would be something. China, which by many accounts is far from protecting the Human Rights of its people, doesn't piss on the international declaration of Human Rights (WHICH THE US WAS A SIGNATORY TO) as much in many matters as the US has in this so-called "War On Terror".
Wake Up and Smell the Coffee, this War On Terror has in many respects turned American civil liberties into something that not even Stalin could have thought up.
Re:just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, like the americans did when argumenting for an attack at Iraq.
"Directness" of communication has been discussed in the book "Riding the waves of culture", in which it is 1 of 10 culturals "dimensions". As far as I can remember, Europe and USA is much more direct in their way of communication, then most parts of e.g. Asia. (where reading between the lines, and noticing facial expressions are given more attention) Further, I also seem to remember that the nordic countries are the most "direct" of them all. The book is available at amazon, and is one of the best I've read.
Re:just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (Score:2, Informative)