[discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"

Sat Jan 4 09:05:57 UTC 2014

fwiw, the article is far too simplistic in suggesting it is just between the ITU and ICANN anyway. IG-connected issues have spread far beyond the ITU, to trade talks, the Human Rights Council, UNESCO, the UN GA, and others.

"Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> wrote:
>Did you read the article?  What do you think the viewpoint of the
>article was?  The editorializing was in the article.  I don’t think
>there was “serious editorializing” beyond my attempt to convey the
>viewpoint of the NYT article, whether I agree with it or not.
>
>I’m more of the view that this is a simplistic dichotomy, with more
>than a hint of “nonsense,” as was earlier stated in this thread, and
>that there are more nuanced ways of looking at the ITU and ICANN, as
>well as other organizations involved in “Internet Governance.”
>
>Greg Shatan
>
>
>From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:24 AM
>To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Phillip Hallam-Baker'; 'Brian E Carpenter'
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org
>Subject: RE: [discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
>
>Hmmm… And I guess there was no serious editorializing in your
>“summary”?
>
>M
>
>From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan at ReedSmith.com]
>Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:03 PM
>To: 'michael gurstein'; 'Phillip Hallam-Baker'; 'Brian E Carpenter'
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>Subject: RE: [discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
>
>No, and you know it didn’t.  That was my attempt to summarize the
>dichotomy being painted by the NYT article, and to show how the third
>paragraph below functioned in the overall article (which I felt got
>lost when it was originally quoted to this list in isolation).  You’ll
>note that I stated the article was highly simplistic.
>
>Greg Shatan
>
>From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 1:53 AM
>To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Phillip Hallam-Baker'; 'Brian E Carpenter'
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>Subject: RE: [discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
>
>Hmmm… I guess this came from the NYT? “If it stands for anything, it
>stands for the choice between oppressive, “balkanized” government
>control via the ITU and a more open form of internet governance via
>ICANN.”
>
>M
>
>From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan at ReedSmith.com]
>Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 1:46 PM
>To: 'michael gurstein'; 'Phillip Hallam-Baker'; 'Brian E Carpenter'
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>Subject: RE: [discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
>
>I posed no choice at all – I merely tried to report more accurately
>what the NYT article said, since I felt that the initial snippet from
>the article was taken out of context (either by the poster, or by some
>who followed).  To be clear, the following was quoted verbatim from the
>Times:
>
>“With the Snowden affair starkly highlighting the issues, the new year
>is likely to see renewed calls to change the way the Internet is
>governed. In particular, governments that do not favor the free flow of
>information, especially if it’s through a system designed by Americans,
>would like to see the Internet regulated in a way that would
>“Balkanize” it by preventing access to certain websites.
>
>The debate right now involves two international organizations, usually
>known by their acronyms, with different views: Icann, the Internet
>Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and the I.T.U., or
>International Telecommunication Union.
>
>Icann, a nonprofit that oversees the Internet’s basic functions, like
>the assignment of names to websites, was established in 1998 by the
>United States government to create an international forum for
>“governing” the Internet. The United States continues to favor this
>group.
>
>The I.T.U., created in 1865 as the International Telegraph Convention,
>is the United Nations telecommunications regulatory agency. Nations
>like Brazil, China and Russia have been pressing the United States to
>switch governance of the Internet to this organization.”
>
>Also, whatever one thinks of the ITU and ICANN, I don’t think they
>equate in any way to the Stasi or the Mafia.
>
>Greg Shatan
>
>From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 1:37 AM
>To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Phillip Hallam-Baker'; 'Brian E Carpenter'
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>Subject: RE: [discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
>
>Why do you pose this as a choice just between the Stasi and the Mafia. 
>Are there no other alternatives?
>
>M
>
>From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>
>[mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
>Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 12:44 PM
>To: 'Phillip Hallam-Baker'; Brian E Carpenter
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>Subject: Re: [discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
>
>I thought it would be helpful to the discussion for all to see the
>quote from the New York Times when not read in isolation – the meaning
>changes quite a bit when reading it in context:
>
>With the Snowden affair starkly highlighting the issues, the new year
>is likely to see renewed calls to change the way the Internet is
>governed. In particular, governments that do not favor the free flow of
>information, especially if it’s through a system designed by Americans,
>would like to see the Internet regulated in a way that would
>“Balkanize” it by preventing access to certain websites.
>
>The debate right now involves two international organizations, usually
>known by their acronyms, with different views: Icann, the Internet
>Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and the I.T.U., or
>International Telecommunication Union.
>
>Icann, a nonprofit that oversees the Internet’s basic functions, like
>the assignment of names to websites, was established in 1998 by the
>United States government to create an international forum for
>“governing” the Internet. The United States continues to favor this
>group.
>
>The I.T.U., created in 1865 as the International Telegraph Convention,
>is the United Nations telecommunications regulatory agency. Nations
>like Brazil, China and Russia have been pressing the United States to
>switch governance of the Internet to this organization.
>
>The whole article may be found at
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/viewing-where-the-internet-goes.html?ref=science
>
>The NYT article may be highly simplistic, but it does not stand for the
>proposition that ICANN is in bed with the US government.  If it stands
>for anything, it stands for the choice between oppressive, “balkanized”
>government control via the ITU and a more open form of internet
>governance via ICANN.
>
>Greg Shatan
>
>
>
>From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>
>[mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker
>Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 12:20 AM
>To: Brian E Carpenter
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>Subject: Re: [discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"
>
>
>On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>Hardly. I mean, there may be people who seriously believe the
>NYT type of nonsense, but the people actually involved in making
>the Internet work, including making IANA work and making the DNS
>work, surely haven't believed this since about 1995.
>
>Certainly, things would be clearer if ICANN simply discontinued
>its relationship with the USG.
>
>They can't
>
>ICANN's objective is to be free of all accountability. There is no
>government party that prefers that outcome to the current one where
>ICANN is at least accountable to the US.
>
>Since there is no form of accountability that ICANN prefers to its
>current situation, the situation is not going to change.
>
>There are two sets of concerns a non US government might have re ICANN
>control, the first is that the US would abuse its influence to the
>detriment of a that government, the second is that ICANN itself would
>threaten their national interests and there was no check on their
>decision.
>
>The first one would be self defeating on the part of the US unless the
>deployment of DNSSEC or BGPSEC were to change the switching costs so
>that transfer of ICANN functions to another body was no longer
>feasible.
>
>
>The second would actually worry me rather more. Governments are very
>familiar with dealing with other governments. They have limited
>experience dealing with a group of unaccountable techies who are
>essentially self-appointing.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>
>
>
>* * *
>
>This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
>may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
>are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
>e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not
>copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any
>other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>* * *
>
>To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform
>you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
>advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is
>not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
>of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
>state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending
>to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>
>Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140104/3a3ea0b8/attachment-0001.html>