[WSIS CS-Plenary] "Internet Showdown in Tunis": CNET interview with David Gross

[mclauglm at muohio.edu]

Regarding the following news story, note that Gross mentions, more than
once, reaching out and talking to governments and the private sector. I
think that he missed the memo about CS's role as a stakeholder. So much
for all of the multistakeholder idealism of the WGIG.

Best to all and safe travels to those going to Tunis.

Lisa

[WSIS Trivia: Ambassador Gross's appointment was granted as "gift" to
reward his service as the National Executive Director of Lawyers for
Bush-Cheney for the 2000 presidential election.]



Internet showdown in Tunis

By Declan McCullagh

(Fri Nov 11 08:00:00 PST 2005)

The United Nations' World Summit on the Information Society began with a
high-minded purpose: to bridge the technological gap between richer and
poorer nations. But now the WSIS event, which begins Nov. 16 in Tunisia,
has transformed into a week-long debate about who should control key
portions of the Internet.

Delegates from nations like Iran, China, and Cuba have been clear in what
they want: less control by the U.S. government. Instead, they've suggested
creation of some sort of cyberbureaucracy---perhaps under the U.N.
International Telecommunication Union.

Those arguments have met with a cold shoulder in Washington. The Bush
administration said in no uncertain terms in June that it intended to
relinquish the United States' unique influence over domain names and the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)  that
position. But that doesn't advocate relinquishing total control or
creation of a U.N. bureaucracy.

If the U.N. prevails in this international political spat, business groups
worry that domain name fees would go up and regulations would increase. If
no agreement is reached, there's always the possibility of a bifurcated
Internet divided by geographical region.

CNET News.com recently spoke with Ambassador of Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs David Gross, who's leading the U.S. delegation to
Tunisia. Gross previously was a telecommunications lawyer and a lobbyist
for AirTouch Communications (now part of Vodafone).

Q: What are the stakes at the WSIS summit?

The stakes are really very high. The focus of the summit originally--and
we believe still--is on the use of technology to take advantage of the
historic opportunity to better everyone around the world, economically,
socially and politically. Those are very high stakes.

Q: How much of the current opposition over this issue is a result of
global tensions regarding the U.S. as the world's lone superpower and
involvement in Iraq?

This is an issue that I think should be and will be addressed on its
merits. The Internet has been an extraordinary development in the history
of the world. There are about a billion people connected to the Internet
in a remarkably short period of time.

The system has worked extraordinarily well and arguably better than any
other technology that's ever been rolled out. We seek to ensure that that
continued advancement goes forward. I know by the way that the president
just this afternoon (Thursday) is awarding the Medal of Freedom to a host
of extraordinary Americans. Two of those Americans include Vint Cerf and
Bob Kahn, who are often referred to as the fathers of the Internet.

Q: Does the U.S. government have too much control of Internet governance?

If you look at it the way most people would, it's a very bottom-up
approach. There are a lot of players--civil society and the private
sector--that play an important role. Certainly, the U.S. government has
played an extraordinarily important role in the past. It was because of
the U.S. government and the research funded by it that the Internet exists
in the first place. We think it's working very well. We don't think there
are any pressing problems associated with it.

Q: At the preliminary meeting in New York last year, I found that
discussions were all over the map, including spam, viruses and computer
security. Is there a lack of focus here?

Issues like spam and cybercrime and viruses are extraordinarily important.
We've encouraged WSIS and other forums to work cooperatively in solving
those issues. So we seek to have a very robust and inclusive discussion
about these issues and others as well.

Q: If critics of the U.S. join forces at WSIS and oppose the U.S., are
there any red lines for the U.S that the administration would find
intolerable?

We've been very clear in what we think the summit should be accomplishing
and should be focusing on. We continue to work with governments around the
world and with civil society and with the private sector to secure an
outcome that everyone can be proud of. I'm not worried too much about
other results.

Q: So there's no red line?

At the end of June, the administration issued its four principles. We, of
course, stick by those four principles. They're very clear; the world
asked us to issue clear principles. We make clear what the U.S. government
will continue to do and what we seek to do with the world going forward.
That includes engaging in a dialogue in multiple forums.
We don't think of these things as red lines or blue lines or green lines.
Rather, we think of these things as a clear articulation of where the
world should be going.

Q: Is the U.S. worried about splitting the root, so that computers in two
nations will find different Web sites at the same domain name?

I have not heard any spokesperson for a government say that their
government was interested in the creation of new root systems. I've heard
governments talk about other governments being interested. I think that's
important. The government officials I've spoken with say all of the
incentives are to work on the current system. I have not heard any
government official suggest that there would be benefits to that
government in the creation of an independent root system.

Any new system, any new network would, it seems to us, want to be
interoperable with the current system. One of the keys here that is often
overlooked is that the Internet is technically, constantly changing. It's
constantly evolving and getting better technically. We're not interested
in trying to lock in the current system as the right system.

Q: Have there been any behind-the-door negotiations to try to hammer out
an accord prior to Tunisia?

We've had a series of prepcoms (preparatory committee meetings) including
one in Geneva. That prepcom will be resumed in Tunis starting on Sunday.
We, of course, reached out and talked with colleagues around the world and
talked with governments and the private sector. We'll see what happens.

Q: Which allies does the U.S. government have here? Even Europe seems to
have joined China, Cuba, Iran and so on.

It's hard to pick and choose individual countries. I think the key here is
that what I heard at Geneva at the prepcom is that there's important
common ground that can and will form the basis of a very productive
meeting.

Q: You can't name any allies?

I make it a point never to characterize other governments' positions, so
I'm not going to do it at this stage.

Q: What's the best-case scenario out of WSIS?

The best case is the world gathers together and reaffirms the importance
of using technology to better people around the world; provide increased
opportunity for people economically, socially and politically. That would
be a very important development.

Q: How much of this dispute is symbolic? If the U.S. said, "We'll leave
decisions to ICANN," which has an international board of directors, would
that be enough?

I don't know whether any other group, critics or friends would be
satisfied (and I'd rather not speculate).

[http://news.com.com/Internet+showdown+in+Tunis/2008-1012_3-5945200.html]