Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Letter That Won US Internet Control

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the send-an-angry-email dept.

The Internet 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."

cancel ×

576 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FUCK THAT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178547)

Damned US imperialists!

Re:FUCK THAT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178665)

I don't usually reply to trolls, but this time I'll bite.

Many countries are pushing for U.N. control of the internet. These countries, like from the Middle East or the E.U., incidently push against freedom of speech. U.N. control of the internet would allow these governments to push for a network infrastructure where censorship of political views they don't like would become easier and probably standard practice.

Re:FUCK THAT! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178764)

>>the E.U., incidently push against freedom of speech

Oh Jeezus! Should I piss myself or cry?

You really mean you *believe* there is actual 'free speach' in the US? If you're a citizen of "God's Own Country (tm)", pull your fucking head out your ass and look around you!

The EU countries (with the possible exception of the UK, whose govt. is currently lapping up US authoritarian dogma) values the rights and freedoms of the private citizen far more than the USA.

Yeah, yeah - I can hear your repost coming up, but don't just regurgitate pre-cold war history, look at what has happened to the US in the last 20 years, and particularly in the last 10! Scared? I am!

Now do some actual research and tell me America is the 'Land of the Free'.

Re:FUCK THAT! (1)

painkillr (33398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178791)

you guys say that, but i doubt you could point out a single incident where a citizen was restrained from protesting the government.

It's hardly control (3, Insightful)

eneville (745111) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178550)

Surely, at most, the control can only be over the root NS. If it's anything else, the UK citizens can always instruct their DNS cache to only respond on *.uk... Problems may occour for mirror sites of course.

Re:It's hardly control (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178580)

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!

Re:It's hardly control (-1, Troll)

painkillr (33398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178696)

dear whiny bitch:

"first come first served", etc.

just wait for ipv6

How! (5, Interesting)

jollyroger1210 (933226) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178552)

How did you get this letter, and why did you post it? Isn't that slightly illegal?

Re:How! (2, Interesting)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178606)

As long as it wasn't classified, and he didn't come into possession of it by stealing from Embassy Mailboxes, there's nothing illegal about it.

Re:How! (2, Insightful)

Jon Chatow (25684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178639)

That's not entirely true. It could quite well be non-classified but privileged information, and so passing it on (and, certainly, publishing it) would be a violation of the Official Secrets Act.

Re:How! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178672)

This is the United States, and we, unlike the British, have no law that prohibits journalists from reporting classified information. Government officials who illegally leak such information may be liable, but not the journalists that disseminate it.

Re:How! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178706)

Read the link: www.theregister.co. uk /2005/12/02/rice_eu_letter/

Re:How! (1)

Jon Chatow (25684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178782)

The Register is published by the UK company, and hosted by another one (IIRC). And publishing such information may, I believe, lead to charges of conspiracy to disclose privileged information or even conspiracy to commit treason, even in the US. But that's another, quite intruiging, matter.

Re:How! (1)

wfberg (24378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178691)

The fine hacks at The Register probably aren't subject to the Official Secrets Act, not being "a member of the security and intelligence services" or "a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection". Also, publishing this information isn't likely to be considered "damaging" w.r.t. the defence of the nation, etc. Official Secrets Act [opsi.gov.uk] .

In fact, in the UK, journalists regularly get away with publishing "secret" information - just not when they're the BBC (due mostly to their lapdog governor, who should've said "fuck you, here's the complaint department's PO box" during the whole "sexed up intelligence" ordeal - which it turns out the Beeb was in the right about anyway. Note though how they never got slapped with any Official Secrets charges, or even a suggestion thereof.)

Now, slander and libel, those are areas where UK hacks have something to fear from the law - the libel laws are, simply put, draconian. Even so, the Tabloids are still printing absolute idiocy, so those libel laws apply more to lesser folk.

Re:How! (3, Informative)

Jon Chatow (25684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178756)

This is a common misunderstanding. The knowing disclosure parts of the Official Secrets Act applies to everyone - see section 5, sub-section 2:

[...] the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he discloses it without lawful authority knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act and that it has come into his possession as mentioned in subsection (1) above.

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! (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178608)

No. It is almost never illegal for a journalist to post truthful and lawfully obtained information.

Re:How! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178710)

No. It is almost never illegal for a journalist to post truthful and lawfully obtained information.

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! (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178780)

Bull. It varies dramatically by country.

Yes, of course. I should have noticed that it was a British website before posting.

Re:How! (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178623)

Yes, the ninja nazis will shortly arrive from the black helicopthers.

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! (0, Offtopic)

jax_max (936027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178684)

Isn't that slightly illegal?

how is anything slightly illegal? either it is, or it isnt.

Re:How! (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178748)

It doesn't matter to me if it is, or isn't. The workings of government should be transparent to citizens. And if there's a law stating otherwise, it should be removed.

just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178567)

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 /.

Re:just another soft-diplomatic letter to me (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178781)

Indeed. "Surrender in 24 hours or we will occupy your country for 10 years, long after we have captured you, tried you, had a 'oopsie' where you were killed by insurgents and are long since dead and buried." Now THAT is a hard comment!

Kick ass, Condi! (5, Insightful)

Woldry (928749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178569)

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.

IN SOVIET AMERICA... (-1, Troll)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178633)

Black women own Europeans.

Serriously, this truly is kick ass, if only so I can still get some shooters from Japan and other places [moonpod.com] before the Internet literally becomes the, uh...internets.

Re:Kick ass, Condi! (1)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178635)

I think that, as he wrote in his /. post's opening sentence, he's just "pushing his own scoop", I.e., trying to bump up pagereads for his Register article. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Re:Kick ass, Condi! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178717)

Since when could a Slashdot submitter qualify as being from any "diplomatic circles"?

why fix whats not broken (4, Interesting)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178570)

I know this issue has been discussed a lot, and I'm all for keeping things the way they are (it simply works). 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. While the benefits of .xxx are a separate issue altogether, I doubt if European audiences would resist something like that unless they had a very strong reason to do so. I say let ICANN keep control as long as it doesn't become puritan-ized.

Re:why fix whats not broken (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178600)

A quote from Kassovitz's movie "La haine": "A guy falls from the 52nd floor of a building, and during his fall at each floor he repeats to himself: Up to now, everything's allright. The fall doesn't matter nearly as much as the landing."

perhaps the failure of XXX was other than puritan (1, Interesting)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178644)

Say they build XXX.. what then do you do about all the millions of smut websites in existence? force them to move?
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 something they would have to face.

Re:perhaps the failure of XXX was other than purit (3, Insightful)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178774)

This is really not a valid argument. First of all, you can't possibly FORCE smut vendors to use .xxx -- first, it's impossible, and second, it goes against the nature of the Internet. Secondly, please remember that the First Amendment you refer to is an AMERICAN constitutional amendment. It isn't right to bind the Internet -- undeniably an international entity now -- by American laws. Even if you were, I very much doubt that free speech would allow a blanket ban on the .xxx domain. My question is this: granted that the .xxx domain may not solve too many problems, is there any reason to BAN it?? I'm sure a lot of websites would WANT it, and you could price it at a much higher premium than .com or .net. There are no technical issues -- the only true objection I can see is puritanism. Remember, we aren't talking about FORCING people to move over to .xxx -- such enforced censorship is ineffective and largely a waste of time. It's more likely that .xxx will become more of a "status symbol" among porn vendors and actually sell.

Re:perhaps the failure of XXX was other than purit (1)

platypus (18156) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178793)

MUFFDIVER.COM.XXX and MUFFDIVE.NET.XXX if they really want to keep their old TLD strings?
Yes, I know that means reserving TLD.XXX, but that shouldn't be a problem.

underwhelming (4, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178571)

if that is strong language, I don't want to read the 'soft' letters that are usually written. She lays out the reasons they want things the way they are and asks for the change to be reconsidered. After reading the summary I was expecting something more egregious.
 
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 (5, Insightful)

smallpaul (65919) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178615)

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.

authoritative root zone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178663)

I imagine that Guiterrez asked if Condi wanted some of his "authoritative root zone" action and she was all over it, but had a hard time backing out when she found out it wasn't rooting in the down-under sense.

Re:underwhelming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178640)

Yeah, its totally hyped. That's perfectly normal diplomatic language between two countries who already have pretty solid, friendly diplomatic relations.

A total non-issue.

Re:underwhelming (1)

fatboy (6851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178674)

What are you talking about? This is the kind of imperialism the United States has been exerting since WW2! (Tong placed firmly in cheek.)

Hey Fatty! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178690)

>>(Tong placed firmly in cheek.)

Would that be:

a) A SET OF TONGS

b) A THONG

c) A TONGUE

d) A CHINESE MAFIA-STYLE GANG

e) ALL OF THE ABOVE

?

Please elucidate!

Re:Hey Fatty! (1)

fatboy (6851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178726)

My bad, tongue. That's what I get for using aspell :)

Re:underwhelming (5, Insightful)

globalar (669767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178700)

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."

Question for experts? (2, Interesting)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178578)

Can the US, as it is now, stop French surfers from reaching a .FR domain? Can they stop them from reaching a .EU domain?

Re:Question for experts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178645)

Only with the liberal application of nuclear weapons. OR, if the US controls
any large zombie armies they can drop some bgp links. Otherwise, no.
That kind of power is only wielded by the Russian mob.

Re:Question for experts? (5, Informative)

Jan-Pascal (21029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178664)

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

Re:Question for experts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178699)

So yes, in principle at least, the US can stop a French surfer reaching a .fr domain. A more serious and more worrying problem is that the US could stop somebody *outside* France reaching a .fr domain. Say a French surfer wants to read an Iranian page (that is maybe critical of US foreign policy), but cannot resolve .ir. That seems like a more probable problem. For the whole duration of the resulting political arguement, reaching .ir would be very hit-and-miss, relying on an ad-hoc update to ignore the route server for .ir domains.

Re:Question for experts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178751)

Of course, if you wanted so badly to get to this Iranian server, why not use its IP address? This has nothing to do with DNS and the root servers. There will always be another way to circumvent the powers that be. Look at the people of China for example. I don't think you can bottle up everybody.

Re:Question for experts? (1)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178685)

None can reach a EU domain. It opens next week for booking of domains on 7 december 2005.

Re:Question for experts? (1)

painkillr (33398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178741)

pearl harbor day, eh

Yeah, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178582)

is it signed:

"with love always,
  Condi!"

      XOXOXOXOXOXOX

"issues" (0, Offtopic)

chipster (661352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178583)

FTFL:
The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005...
That's a pretty bad error. I wonder if this letter is genuine, if the US Government actually sent the letter with errors, or if the Reg editors fucked the letter up.

And in dealing with international bodies, you'd think the author(s) of the letter would attribute the country they represent in their sig.

Re:"issues" (1)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178627)

i saw that too, but i think it's most likely an error by the transcriber rather than the original correspondance.

Re:"issues" (1)

chipster (661352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178694)

Yeah - I think you may be right on that one.

Thing that tweaks me, is that the article submitter touts that he's the first/only one with the letter, blah blah blah. Correspondence verbosity and accuracy are key for it to be credible. That's really my point - got that down there "wfberg"? Good.

Re:"issues" (1)

wfberg (24378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178660)

I have this hunch that a letter is printed out on paper, and therefore has a whopping big "gummint of the US of A" letterhead. And that an HTML transcript of it might contain typos.

Why do you think that it's not from the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178688)

Our president regularly makes a mockery of the English language on national TV and radio. It comes as no surprise to me that such laziness and lack of intelligence would seep down through the ranks.

Re:"issues"[OT] (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178692)

If you read the full sentence...

The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005, reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security and stability, including through the historical U.S. role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.

The word "issues" is not a noun (as in "the Monday issue of the newspaper") but a verb ("The supply officer issues equipment to the troops.") The US issued four principles.

It's also interesting to note that the submitter also appears to be the original author of the Register article.

After reading it several times, I would also question its authenticity. While I don't claim to any expertise on how the Internet inner guts work, referring to "the authoritative root zone file" just doesn't sound right. I have nothing to really back that up other than it doesn't pass the smell test.

Re:"issues" (1)

globalar (669767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178739)

I read no less than three typos total (one extra space, two grammar). Direct correspondance is the most meticulous of all and the brevity of this letter means it was almost certainly developed in several drafts. So it has to be the Register's mistake (assuming this is legitimate). They probably just got it from email.

The specific country headings all depend on the format of delivery. If a physical letter, then these would be seperate sections for that at the top and bottom of the document. I actually have never seen official electronic correspondance, but I would imagine its formated with PDF or similar.

Re:"issues" (0)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178798)

I tutor English (among other subjects) at the local community college. Were this "letter" to be turned in for credit as a first draft, most of our college's English professors (and probably professors in other fields) would be very disappointed in the student who wrote it. As others have pointed out, perhaps some of these errors were due to transcription from the printed version into HTML (or however the text made its way to the Web), but personally, I hope that this letter is a hoax, since it makes me feel even more ashamed of the government that currently represents the United States to the world.

No. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178593)

I don't like how the US government is controlling the web like this. It's called the internet, emphasis on INTER; international.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178610)

Er... the root inter means between... Between nations is international... Between networks is internet... Inter does not make something international (Ever see an interstate?).

Re:No. (1)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178622)

Interconnected actually.

-1, Wrong

Re:No. (1, Insightful)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178632)

Maybe because we invented the damn thing!

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178651)

...Europe invented the WWW and wants it back.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178662)

I love how your sig matches your personality 100%:
Maybe because we invented the damn thing!
--
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!

Mod parent funny. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178712)

:)

I also love how people think that you may patent an ideea (like interconnecting computers).

Oh wait... in US you actually do that!

re: The Letter That Won US Internet Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178594)

Despite being no fan of Condi Rice, I do believe there would be no improvment in handing control of the Internet over to an international body. Does anyone seriously consider organizations such as the US competent to run anything.

ICANN has worked very well up to now despite handing over dot.COM to Verisign and that is being currently challenged in court.

ECHELON (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178596)

Rice's message was brought to you by Echelon. Monitoring the internet whoever controls it.

was that letter F? (-1, Troll)

Jose (15075) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178612)

F is a very powerful letter, some would say more so then any other letter combined. and obviously if there was one letter that win the US control over the internet...it would be F.

Yup. (-1, Troll)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178697)

Sponsored by the letter F, the number 42, and Elmo. With that $20 million mansion/brothel Elmo rents out, he can sponsor anything.

Say One Thing Do Another... (1, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178614)

>> We believe that ICANN is dedicated to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities and to developing policy through consensus-based processes.

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!

Re:Say One Thing Do Another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178794)

Exactly, I was rather amused that most of Rice's arguments against a centralised governing body running the Internet were things the current administration are actually doing...

Right... (5, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178617)

The letter was never meant for publication

You're new to politics, I take it..?

Good morning (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178619)

I wipe my ass with the UN flag.

Re:Good morning (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178721)

The US flag works better, the stripes collect more faecal matter.

I'll set my mom on you! (5, Insightful)

djkitsch (576853) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178626)

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...

Re:I'll set my mom on you! (0, Flamebait)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178642)

i will call you cynical.

i would much rather have the united states in control than some beurocratic UN organization that's been proven it has members that can be bought.

granted, the US can be bought, too, but usually the less people there are involved in controlling/managing something, the better off everything is. //liberterian

Re:I'll set my mom on you! (1)

djkitsch (576853) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178678)

I think the idea was to have an international organisation very similar to ICANN, comprised of multiple nations' representatives. The main difference would not be in the operations, but simply that they would answer to the UN rather than the US. For what it's worth, I agree that the UN *directly* controlling the root DNS would be a disaster. But the same goes for the US government! That's why ICANN is made up of specialists, and are a separate entity.

Re:I'll set my mom on you! (1)

wfberg (24378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178728)


i would much rather have the united states in control than some beurocratic UN organization that's been proven it has members that can be bought.


Again with the "corrupt UN" replies.. Can you folks find me some newsarticles about rampant corruption at the ITU [itu.int] ? No? Gee.. Now, which organization is running the international phone numbering plan, again? And organized the WSIS?

Re:I'll set my mom on you! (0, Troll)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178743)

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.

You know what? I am pretty much anti-anything that this current administration does, but I have to say that I don't see the problem in letting the US control ICANN. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the US Department of Defense (through DARPA) created the internet. We invested millions and built the infrastructure that makes it possible for people like Tim Berners-Lee to create worthwhile applications (WWW) that ride on top of it. You don't like it? Tough. Create your own root and use it instead.

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 that could care less about the internet is pretty much just that: whining.

The fact of the matter is that any other government could have invented the internet had they been willing to invest the time and money it takes to build new technology, but instead the entire world has benefitted from the investment that the US government made. We share the technologies with other countries freely, and we don't ask anything of them. Go ahead and run your own root nameservers, we won't even stop you. Just don't ask for control over ours.

Think this is unfair? Big bully US government won't share their toys? Tough, go get your own toys.

Re:I'll set my mom on you! (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178754)

Doesn't look like multicultural involvement has made it terribly unstable.

You confuse multigovernmentalism for multiculturalism. Obviously the internet thrives with people from all over the world communicating with very little restriction.

It does not follow that there will be more of this multiculturalism if more governments get involved. On the contrary, more regulation and more bureacracy will lead to more fatcats with new ideas about restricting our use of it.

The example of China's Great Firewall only makes me more convinced that the status quo is best. How would you like China's government to have a say in how the internet as a whole is governed instead of it being limited to its own borders?

government control? (4, Insightful)

calyptos (752073) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178630)

ICANN is not a US government organization. It just happens to be on US soil (just like the UN).

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 .xxx tld, that the US made the decision. They just happened to agree that its unenforcable and stupid.

Why the U.S. Secretary of Commerce undersigned (1)

globalar (669767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178631)

FYI, the reason the U.S. Secretary of Commerce signed this was because the original government oversight, which is now semi-private through ICANN, was under the Commerce department. The current contract, to my knowledge, is still sole-sourced to ICANN through Commerce.

knowledgeable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178634)

would be interested to know who really wrote the letter because the writer seems to be knowledgeable about what is really at stake here. Most politicians so far just said "We don't want to US to control the Internet" which is a layman's way of looking at the situation. I am just curious to know if Condi really took the time to learn about DNS. She is a very smart woman and I think I would respect her even more if she did take the time to learn about the argument before decided which side she was on.

true or not? (0, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178636)

...that "Condi", as some call her, is one of the most intelligent black woman in the USA? Some have said she's the most intelligent. Having failed to combine playing the piano that well and doing politics, I am inclined to believe she's really intelligent.

By the way, is she married, any kids?

Re:true or not? (1, Flamebait)

netean (549800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178705)

why did you have to qualify that with the word "black" I don't care if Condi, is black, white, blue or beige, nor should it matter to you or anyone else. SO you should have just said "....is one of the most intelligent people in the USA"

Glad I don't live in the USA though, it strikes me as the most racist country in the Western World.

Re:true or not? (-1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178735)

> why did you have to qualify that with the word "black"

Because she is black. Now isn't she black? If you have a problem with that, you are the racist sadly.

Re:true or not? (0, Troll)

lj535i (858590) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178738)

We, too, are glad you don't live here.

a new low (5, Funny)

intmainvoid (109559) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178637)

The letter is pretty stern [...] they are always written in very, very soft diplomatic language. This was not.

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...

What they failed to mention... (1, Troll)

s0abas (792033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178646)

was that included with the letter was a check from the U.S. government for an exorbitant amount of money.

Stern letter? (2, Interesting)

teslatug (543527) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178656)

It doesn't seem all that stern to me. I'd hate to see what's considered very very soft. I was half expecting to see Rice threatening to fuckiing bury that EU.

Illiterate (-1, Redundant)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178668)

This letter was sent to the UK, both currently presiding over the EU, and inventor of the language in which the letter was sent, also presumably spoken by Secretary Rice. But it's not even grammatically correct:

" We regret [that]the recent positions on Internet governance(i.e., the "new cooperation model") offered by the European Union, the Presidency of which is currently held by the United Kingdom, seems to propose just that - a new structure of intergovernmental control over the Internet.

The four principles the United States issues [issued] on June 30, 2005, reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security and stability, including through [sic]the historical U.S. role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file."

I doubt Rice composed the text of the letter. But I expect her to read it before accepting, signing and directing its transmission. And I expect her to notice that she's representing the US with illiteracy. These people are extremely powerful. They could at least learn to write, or read, before being trusted with thinking, deciding, and communicating. That's the sum total of their job, and they don't appear to be very good at it.

Just because the EU backed down in the face of the US defense of our position doesn't mean they respect it. And letters like this certainly do nothing to defend the US from our new reputation of being governed by dumb people with expensive educations, backed mostly by overwhelming force. When working with partners with whom we have competitive interests, we have to show strength, and be right. And we also have to demonstrate at every turn that we are consummate professionals. Otherwise they have reason to doubt that we're competent to do everything right for which we're demanding responsibility, which weakens our position not through substance, but through the style which can be used against us by asymmetrically disadvantaged competitors. We won this one, but at what cost to our momentum for the next confrontation?

Re:Illiterate (1)

hachete (473378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178732)

I think the UK backed down over this - I wonder about the outcome if the French held the presidency.

Agree with the rest of your statement

Chicken Little hype alert (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178675)

'The letter is pretty stern [clip] but they are always written in very, very soft diplomatic language. This was not.'

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 the most. You give her far too much credit, in any case.

I'd hate to see your reaction when faced with truly harsh language.

Evidence of authenticity please (4, Insightful)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178679)

The letter appears plausible. However, I could find nothing to indicate how the poster came into possession of the letter. Under those circumstancs, I am not ready to accept it as genuine.

we'll be throwing this back at her over VOIP (-1, Flamebait)

Locutus (9039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178707)

" Burdensome, bureaucratic oversight is out of place in an Internet structure that has worked so well for many around the globe. "

I can see the US Gov digging into the internets freedoms over VOIP in the future and are they not already getting into P2P filesharing networks?

IMO, Condi was likely instructed to do what it takes to keep control in the US. This letter is the typical doublespeak we've come to expect from the Bush Admin.

LoB

I like it (2, Insightful)

danielk1982 (868580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178709)

I like the letter. Rice has a point.

However, the administration should follow what they preach. As the recent .xxx fiasco has shown ICANN is very much under the thumb of the US government and can't seem to make decisions (especially decisions that are contrary to the ideology of the admininistration or its Christian fundamentalist base) without an 'a-OK' from them. Thats wrong.

Decentralization...good or bad? (1)

Phrogz (43803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178715)

From paragraph 3, with my emphasis:

The Internet will reach its full potential as a medium and facilitator for global economic expansion and development in an environment free from burdensome intergovernmental oversight and control. The success of the Internet lies in its inherently decentralized nature, with the most significant growth taking place at the outer edges of the network through innovative new applications and services.

So, what Condi is saying is "For the love of all that's holy, don't decentralize the control of the Internet! Because decentralization in general is what makes it great!"

Good for goose, good for the gander? Or are the goose and gander (control versus structure and content) properly different in this case?

Hookah trolls the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178727)


As we approach the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), we should underscore the vast potential of the Internet for global economic expansion, poverty alleviation, and for improving health, education and other public services, particularly in the developing world where Internet access remain unacceptably low.


Poverty alleviation?

Via the internet?

The US couldn't even get the people out of that stadium in New Orleans to dry land and clean water when there was a bloody big bridge to dry land right next to it.

The Internet will reach its full potential as a medium and facilitator for global economic expansion and development in an environment free from burdensome intergovernmental oversight and control.

Who or what is that talking about?

Free from burdensome intergovernmental control? Spy ware not UScentric does she mean? Or something to do with being able to thwart stations like Aljszeera if they ever need to?

The success of the Internet lies in its inherently decentralized nature, with the most significant growth taking place at the outer edges of the network through innovative new applications and services. Burdensome, bureaucratic oversight is out of place in an Internet structure that has worked so well for many around the globe. We regret the recent positions on Internet governance(i.e., the "new cooperation model") offered by the European Union, the Presidency of which is currently held by the United Kingdom, seems to propose just that - a new structure of intergovernmental control over the Internet.

What exactly is the problem? If the US is so hands off why are they keeping control? And what do they want to control it for?

U.S. role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.

What is so important about root zone files?

And how do they work this out?
a new intergovernmental structure would most likely become an obstacle to global Internet access for all our citizens.

Apart from putting more politicians in control that is?

Is it something to do with taking the bribes outside the USA?

UK leaks (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#14178755)

It seems the UK gov likes to leak stuff. If not the government, then many of the staffers there do.

you're bigging yourself up a bit too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178771)

It's not like you're the only one with the letter - The Register published [theregister.co.uk] it as well - yesterday at 9:07 am GMT

Re:you're bigging yourself up a bit too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178784)

Didn't you see who posted the article?

America, fuck yeah! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14178773)

America, fuck yeah! Comin' again to save the motherfucking internet, yeah!
America, fuck yeah! US control is the only way, yeah!
EU, your game is through, 'cause now you have to answer to America, fuck yeah!
So lick my butt and suck on my balls!
America, fuck yeah! What you gonna do when we come for you now!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?