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

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Thanks Lisa
I always appreciate your opinion, your clear vision (this time on multistakeholderism illusion) and your respect for the real CS !
Best for you
Jean-Louis Fullsack, CSDPTT
(self-condemned to stay far from Tunis)





> Message du 12/11/05 11:14
> De : mclauglm at muohio.edu
> A : plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] "Internet Showdown in Tunis": CNET interview with David Gross
> 
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
> 
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
> 
> 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]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20051112/0211d7c8/attachment.html