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."
It's hardly control (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's hardly control (Score:3, Funny)
Is occour the British spelling of occur?
Re:It's hardly control (Score:3, Informative)
Encouraging IPv6, not hoarding IPv4 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Encouraging IPv6, not hoarding IPv4 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's hardly control (Score:5, Funny)
Looking at my inbox, I'd say that's more than fair.
Re:It's hardly control (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
How! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How! (Score:5, Insightful)
This administration has gone crazy for secrecy, classifying more documents than any previous administartion. We shouldn't roll over and accept that a letter like this should be anything but completely public.
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:2)
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:5, Interesting)
Re:How! (Score:3)
I found that to be quite amusing too. The real story was the crackdown on the publication of the memo,
More conspiracies (Score:3, Funny)
Re:how is this flamebait? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:how is this flamebait? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How! (Score:2)
Please wait patiently until that happens.
Party officer^W^WFreedom Officer from the free Oceania^WUnited States of America.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Re:How! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How! (Score:3)
Honourable? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Honourable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Either could be transcription errors; it was probably on paper when received. Possibly also if the letter was drafted in London they may use British spelling, at least for communication with the British govt. Diplomats are supposed ot be sensitive to nuances like that; though that level of cultural se
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Honourable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of curosity, since when would an American English user use the British English spelling?
As evidenced by the fact that it's capitalized, it's an official title. You don't "correct" the spelling of someone's title. That's be like "correcting" the spelling of their name.
Re:Honourable? (Score:3, Funny)
;-)
just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (Score:5, Insightful)
What it really is, is a letter written by somebody in commerce (probably at nist), who understands the technical terminology, and then softened by the head of commerce and signed by Rice.
If you have ever read any of Rice's work, you would quickly realize that little to nothing in here is from her.
Re:just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (Score:5, Funny)
I know what you mean... Rice would have written something like "The United States and the European Union of Gay Vampires have long worked together toward the goal of global access to the international blood supply."
--Rob
It was clearly written by (Score:3, Funny)
Re:just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (Score:3, Insightful)
The submitter seems to be European. The site it's hosted on is European. By European standards, this letter might seem harsh. By American standards, it's pretty mild.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar myself, but I think it's a pretty well known thing that Americans are by and large plain-spoken people, whatever side of the political fence you're on (though that's changing a bit as "marketing-speak" starts t
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.
Kick ass, Condi! (Score:5, Insightful)
The alarming thing, though, I guess, is that this is considered "strong language" in diplomatic circles. It strikes me as direct, but quite tactful.
Re:Kick ass, Condi! (Score:3, Insightful)
But, where is the strong wording here? This appears to read as straight, polite, directed and to the point.
The internet's structure (sans spam) seems to be working well. Why change it. If Mongolia created the internet and kept it working fine, I'm sure that most of the users would be ok with that - sans little fears and a bit of "why can't our country run out part of it" pride.
But I do agree with Condi and Gonzales in this case. We create
Why it doesn't work that well today (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
Re:Kick ass, Condi! (Score:3, Interesting)
Invented? Hardly. It's just a packet switched network, a concept which was old by the time the first RFC was written. If you really think about it, what made the Internet popular was the world wide web, which was invented in the UK.
why fix whats not broken (Score:4, Interesting)
perhaps the failure of XXX was other than puritan (Score:2, Interesting)
what if someone has MUFFDIVER.COM and someone else has MUFFDIVE.NET.
My guess? the government took a good long look at the first amendment, and other legal issues, and realized, it would not solve any problem, and perhaps, a court case would arise (which they realize they would have to lose) embarrisingly enough.
Maybe that same case would open up a whole 'nuther mess of worms that would not be
Re:perhaps the failure of XXX was other than purit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:perhaps the failure of XXX was other than purit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:perhaps the failure of XXX was other than purit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why fix whats not broken (Score:4, Insightful)
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
It's not so much the domain name that got blocked, per se (as other posters have said, .biz and .info were no problem) but the idea of forcing "adult content providers" *cough* pornographers *cough* to use the .xxx domain and the .xxx domain only. It would make censorship easy, but how the heck would you force about 70% of the internet to move onto one domain? It got kaboshed not because of puritanism but practicality.
underwhelming (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:underwhelming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:underwhelming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:underwhelming (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:underwhelming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:underwhelming (Score:3, Funny)
What corporate world have you been inhabiting? Apparently not the American corporate world, and definately not New York.
Question for experts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question for experts? (Score:5, Informative)
Jan-Pascal
Re:Question for experts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Enough with this idea of the UN TAXING the Net! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 no
Re:Question for experts? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Question for experts? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ".EU" situation is more com
Say One Thing Do Another... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am all for the ICANN doing its business. Heck, I would hate to have some big government manage the Internet. HOWEVER, I also do wish that the current administration would keep its grubby paws off the Internet as well! I am referring to the hoopla regarding the xxx domains!
Right... (Score:5, Funny)
You're new to politics, I take it..?
I'll set my mom on you! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:5, Insightful)
What are the chances that Condoleezza Rice actually has any clue what the "authoritative root zone file" is?
Pretty high. Dr. Rice is a very bright person with a background as provost at Stanford. It wouldn't take long for her to understand the concept if indeed just the name 'authoritative root zone file' didn't imply enough.
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:4, Insightful)
She's also a classically trained concert pianist, as if all that other stuff weren't enough.
You can agree or disagree with her politics, and I happen to disagree strongly, but you can't deny that she's what they call "one of the great minds of our generation." She just happens to stand as proof that you can be totally brilliant and wrong at the same time.
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:3, Insightful)
What are the chances Rice wrote this in the first place? It was only cosigned by her (along with Guiterrez), and I believe writing this type of thing is almost always delegated down to someone with expert knowledge in whatever field is being discussed. Her signature just means she supports the position outlined. The article just said it was from Condoleezza Rice because she is a well known mem
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:2)
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please,
ANY organization of any significant size is corrupted, it is not the organization though but the people working there.
If you think the US Government is any less corrupt than any similar size organization you live in a dream world, just look at current US politics.
Ask yourself this: Last time you were given incorrect change in your favour, did you correct that mistake or did you just pocket the difference and thought: "Suckers"? If people are tempted by change to be dishonest why would they suddenly become more honest when the payoff is a lot bigger?
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:3, Insightful)
And this has to do with corruption what?
Here's a question: Does it
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it means that by and large, the 1st ammendment has been upheld in the areas of the internet pertinent to the discussion, against pressure by those with money and a sticks up their asses to corrupt it.
Here's a question: Does it matter who does the censoring? In the EU you have anti hate laws that prevent certain forms of Speech, in the US you have things like the DMCA that prevent other things.
I'm going to make a judgement call here and say that political speec
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:3, Insightful)
"By large" is already showing that there is an erosion. Ultimatly though it were the courts who upheld it, not the politicians.
Jingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
granted, the US can be bought, too
Priceless.
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:5, Insightful)
[We] created the internet
Really? Did you lay down the phoneline that comes up to my house? Didn't think so. Did you pay for the ADSL hardware at my local exchange? Didn't think you did that, either. How about the D-Root Server [public-root.com] that guarantees the performance and stability of Internet services in the UK and western Europe? Hmm, then I'd say that statement is bullshit.
Create your own root and use it instead.
Ignoring the fact that only five of the public root servers are in the States to begin with (there are eight or so others scattered around the globe), we already have [orsn.org]. And that is completely ignoring the fact that anybody can set up a DNS server at any time, for any reason, and with any purpose. (And many of the fine folk here at slashdot, have.
All of this whining by socialist Europeans that would rather see the internet turn into some type of global hippie commune where no commerce is transacted and those of us in the first world have to pay for internet connections for some tribal village in Africa...
Ok, what?
Some countries are, or I should say, were backing this whole fucked up scheme because they are (understandably) pissed off with the incompetance of the ICANN. The EU is backing this scheme because they are pissed off with the US for a whole lotta reasons, and the Usual Suspects (China, etc.) are backing this for the Usual Reasons.
Look, I dont want control to go to the WGIG any more than you do, but fucked up posts like yours do not help the issue.
Re:I'll set my mom on you! (Score:4, Insightful)
I wasn't trying to make an history lesson. Thanks for your concern. By the way (and I take it you are American), would you be here today if European hadn't RE-(you have it)-discovered America? Or maybe you are a so-called "Native American" (and even then, you wouldn't be here. And even if I'm in Europe, I certainly wouldn't be here either).
On mathematics and algorithmics history, you may want to check this [wikipedia.org] or that [wikipedia.org]. It's not always about WHO discovered something, but sometimes also about WHO brought back the discovery to other future scientists. The same thing applies to computer history.
Anyway history was definitely not my point in my previous message. I just am bored with all those "the Internet must remain american because DARPA is" postings that are, I think, totally flawed logic. And yes, there was some humor inside.
Re:You are suffering from transnationalist's disea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
government control? (Score:4, Insightful)
ICANN encourages government [icann.org] representation, which includes any country. They even have meetings [icann.org] 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
Re:government control? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It is a non-profit company based in the US (under US law), working on exclusive contract with US Department, while taxing people all over the world (2/3 of income supposedly from Europe, due to ccTLDs)
The U.N. is a multinational organisation, where its headquarter happens to be situated in New York on have extraterritorial soil.
> ICANN encourages government representation,
Oh, that's nice. Guess, why t
Re:government control? (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton agreed to make it independent, but that changed:
Why the U.S. Secretary of Commerce undersigned (Score:2)
a new low (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Stern letter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Chicken Little hype alert (Score:2)
BS - this was as routinely softball as they come.
STERN: (of an act or statement) strict and severe; using extreme measures or terms. How was this letter 'pretty severe'?
Hardly anything 'stern' or extreme about such phrases as '...in the spirit'
As for the claim that the wicked witch sent it, Carlos signed it as well, with his name before hers, signaling tacit involvment by her at th
Evidence of authenticity please (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even without those errors - Where is the proof that this is real?
Stern? Where? This is how I would have sent it... (Score:5, Funny)
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
Question: Did the US Save the Net from the ITU? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The most ridiculous part of the letter (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:The most ridiculous part of the letter (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not! Since there currently is no government oversight for the internet, there's no way to remove it! That's what all the controversy is about. The EU and the UN want someone to be in CONTROL of the internet, because they fear its laissez faire and unregulated nature.
The point everyone except Condoleeza seem to be missing is that the internet doesn't need governing!
Re:The most ridiculous part of the letter (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
US doesn't really control the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:2)
-1, Wrong
Re:No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"issues" (Score:2)
Re:"issues" (Score:2)
Re:FUCK THAT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FUCK THAT! (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone [wikipedia.org]
Re:FUCK THAT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Stepped right into the cut [aclunc.org].
Re:FUCK THAT! (Score:3, Insightful)
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, pro
Re:true or not? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does skin color have to do with anything exactly?
DNS != WWW (Score:4, Insightful)