<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Great that some of myths of "control" are dispelled. But in short,
still an argument at an essentialist level for Exceptionalism (US
good discretion) and if it ain't broke don't fix it... and here I
was waiting for the techie-challenged single rooters to take their
own arguments seriously and say,"if there is there is a threat to
THE root, we have to deal appropriately with China to save it..."...
dare I say it, we are back to 2003/4... but not quite... <br>
<br>
Snips (as legitimate fair use) from the article , with comments
appended prefix with hyphen:<br>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br>
The Internet is increasingly important, but "governance mechanism
for such an important international resource is still dominated by
a private sector organization and a single country." (True, but
the Internet is not worse off for it.)</span><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">-- effectiveness is NOT a substitute
for legitimacy.<br>
-- this is a judgement call, a fork in the road, and we can agree
to disagree... but whatever rests on this chain/link of the
argument then is also weakened.<br>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br>
The US retains "ultimate control over the global Internet, which
enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another
country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause
huge social and economic losses to the country." (Theoretically
true, but completely implausible.)<br>
<br>
-- Theoretically there should not be wars of aggression without
UN Security Council mandate. Practically implausible. Opinion
not fact.<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br>
"The United States has taken advantage of its controlover the
Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient
countries and to intimidate and threaten other countries." (Not
true.)<br>
<br>
-- Cuba, Iraq? Enhanced cooperation failures?<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br>
"Ultimate control over the Internet has been an important tool
for the United States to promote its power politics and hegemony
worldwide, and any other country may fall victim to this."
(Again, the US doesn't actually exercise ultimate control over
the Internet. If it did, then China wouldn't be able to censor
the web so effectively.)<br>
<br>
-- which puts into doubt the fact that national level controls
do not already exist in the framing of the argument... i.e.
nationalisation of control.<br>
<br>
"As a big country on the Internet, China opposes the U.S.
unreasonable and unilateral management of the Internet, and
seeks to work with the international community to build a new
international Internet governance system." (The US has not
behaved unreasonably in the past. As is evident from China and
Russia's proposal for an Internatioal Code of Conduct for
Information Security, China's idea of an "international Internet
governance system" would be one where countries would agree, per
para. 3 of the Code, to cooperate to curb the dissemination of
information undermining "other countries' political, economic
and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural
environment." Hello, censorship.<br>
</span><br>
-- Bye Bye Wikileaks?<br>
<br>
-- Not so clear, is enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
(including on domain names) not a form of censorship (albeit not
conventionally defined)? After all Intel Prop is national not
global... perhaps we can see what happens with counterfeiting
issue at ICANN... and check if there is overreach... and
blowback... <br>
<br>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Summing
up: some criticism is valid, but there is no better, more
legitimate and more stable alternative than the current system.
Most of the criticism, however, is politically motivated.<br>
<br>
-- translation? - legitimacy in governance is not an issue... if
it ain't broke, don't fix it... <br>
<br>
-- Translation anti-evolutionary, if there is no concrete
alternative pre-cooked and ready now, the prospect of change
cannot even be considered. Sorry but no thanks. We reserve the
right to define the debate in our own terms. Keep your coins, we
want change...<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As
Internet architecture expert Wolfgang Kleinwächter pointed out
there are now more than 150 anycast root server which makes the
root server system much more reliable and have greatly reduced
what the article calls the US hegemony.<br>
<br>
-- Apologies but this is a point that can be made BOTH for and
against change...<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Importantly,
there has also been a "moment of truth" as far as the control of
the US government regarding publication of TLD zone files is
concerned: the .xxx case. The US goverment was opposed to the
publication and could have - theoretically - stopped it. But
they didn't.<br>
<br>
-- Examples of good governance merely reiterate a point,
restatement or overstatement is not an argument when dealing
with issues of legitimacy... <br>
<br>
-- Framing the debate in terms of pure cases simplifies too
much. There can be "incremental debasement" of rhetorically
stated values. This point is ill-considered. Nothing stops
abuses on a case by case basis. I hope to be wrong, but the
intellectual property frontier is predictably the next one that
would put paid to this view... <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ICANN
will never and can never meet the legitimacy req</span><span
style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">uirements of
a nation state. Because it is no nation state it shouldn't have
to. Its role in Internet Governance can be legitimated through
other avenues of legitimacy, including input, throughput and
output legitimacy.</span><br>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br>
-- The changes to GAC representation show some seek to be more
Catholic than the Pope... apologies for re-using this refrain,
but it is so apt.<br>
<br>
-- Perhaps I am dumb but how can you say can't say there can't
be change, and that there can be other avenues for legitimacy -
unless of course a much reduced notion of legitimacy is
envisaged... <br>
<br>
-- Any way Rosa Parks said she was tired and would not move. And
MLK had a dream. <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rather
calling for an "internationalization" of DNS and root server
management, we should use a functional approach that first asks
what exactly the function of the regime needs to be (ensuring
Internet integrity, stability and functionality in a process
coherenent with (and outputs consoncant with) the Internet's
core values, including the protection of human rights).<br>
<br>
-- selectively taking on evolutionary arguments (like structure
follows function) in this manner shows resistance to change
rather than adaptation. You can have any car you want, as long
as it is black... <br>
<br>
-- effectively protection of human rights here would de facto
mean a hierarchy of rights with US jurisprudence being favoured
explicitly. Here I am decidedly a universalist.<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Internationalization
is not always good. A treaty on DNS issues is not always the
best option. Trust, accountability, rational legitimacy and
distributed decentralized de facto control can serve just as
well.<br>
<br>
-- legitimacy is ALSO about de jure control. Apologies but the
performative "We" reserve the right to determine the terms of
the terms of the debate.<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They
don't actually want Internet governance to be internationalized,
but rather nationalized. The UN, where China has a voice (and
the Security Council where it has veto powers) are only means to
the end of increasing control. <br>
<br>
-- Double standard. US is in de facto "control" (with all the
caveats), this argument is status quo-ist. And unconvincing, if
the US then why not others? And is felicity to a single root not
important anymore?<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rather
than calling on the "US [to] hand over Internet control to the
world" what Chinese media should call for is for "China [to]
hand over Internet control to its people." <br>
<br>
-- Love this stuff. A clear radical position that lambasts China
(in many instances rightly so) but looses the singular important
perspective of de jure and de facto control currently by the US.
Essentially this is rhetorical flourish, because this is
legitimacy argument - the people are legitimate and the Chinese
state is not. Of course, we know the score, this legitimacy
argument is used to stifle the international legitimacy
argument. It remains incoherent and inconsistent no matter how
plausible in some circles. <br>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br>
</span><br>
On 2012/08/21 11:36 AM, Kettemann, Matthias
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at">matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at</a>) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E7F950D1E0C75744892C09CBFA0EB3522CF71EFEB8@ARTEMIS.pers.ad.uni-graz.at"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"\00DCberschrift 3 Zchn";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
font-weight:bold;}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"\00DCberschrift 4 Zchn";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.berschrift3Zchn
{mso-style-name:"\00DCberschrift 3 Zchn";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"\00DCberschrift 3";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#4F81BD;
font-weight:bold;}
span.berschrift4Zchn
{mso-style-name:"\00DCberschrift 4 Zchn";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"\00DCberschrift 4";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#4F81BD;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Thanks, Rebecca .. certainly illuminating.
What’s really interesting is that most calls for
“internationalization” of Internet Governance issues are
actually calls for a re-nationalization via the United
Nations. It’s a new type of ‘<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluewash">bluewashing’</a>
national censorship policies. I’ve written an entry in my
International Law and the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.co.at/">Internet
blog on some of the dangers of this trend</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right" align="right"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Kind regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US">Matthias<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">Institute of International Law | University of
Graz (Austria)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at">Mail</a> | </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com"><span
lang="EN-US">Blog</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> | </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/#%21/MCKettemann"><span
lang="EN-US">Twitter</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> | </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann"><span
lang="EN-US">Facebook</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> | </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/116310540881122884114/posts"><span
lang="EN-US">Google+</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">
<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="DE"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] <b>Im
Auftrag von </b>Rebecca MacKinnon<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 21. August 2012 04:53<br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [governance] People's Daily of China: US
must hand over Internet control to the world<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h3
style="mso-margin-top-alt:3.75pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;font-weight:normal">A
shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece...</span><o:p></o:p></h3>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1155CC;background:white">http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<h3
style="mso-margin-top-alt:3.75pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;font-weight:normal">(</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/" target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;color:#010101;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none">People's
Daily Online</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<h3
style="mso-margin-top-alt:3.75pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;font-weight:normal">)</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222"><o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<h3
style="mso-margin-top-alt:3.75pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;font-weight:normal">11:10,
August 18, 2012 <img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/img/2011english/images/icon16.gif"
border="0"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html"
target="_blank"><span
style="color:#010101;text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1026"
src="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/img/2011english/images/icon17.gif"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<h3
style="mso-margin-top-alt:3.75pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101;font-weight:normal"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html"
target="_blank"><span
style="color:#010101;text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1027"
src="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/img/2011english/images/icon18.gif"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<div>
<div>
<p
style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101">The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a fewdecades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resourceis still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. <br>
<br>
The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1,
2005 that its CommerceDepartment would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for AssignedNames and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 rootservers. <br>
<br>
This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet,which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenlyparalyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to thecountry. <br>
<br>
More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s
Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all
countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike,and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource.The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. <br>
<br>
The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries
can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leadingto the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;background:white"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#010101">During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services
relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared overnight. The United States has taken advantage of its
control over the Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient countries and to
intimidate and threaten other countries. <br>
<br>
The United States have repeatedly called for “protecting Internet freedom.”In fact, it is
only protecting its own “Internet freedom” even at the expense of other countries. Ten
of the global Internet’s 13 root servers are located in the United States, and the U.S.government can supervise the Internet for national security reasons according to the
U.S. law. By doing so, the United States actually gains access to all information
transmitted online, while other countries can do nothing about it. <br>
<br>
Ultimate control over the Internet has been an important tool for the United States to
promote its power politics and hegemony worldwide, and any other country may fallvictim to this. As a big country on the Internet, China opposes the U.S. unreasonable
and unilateral management of the Internet, and seeks to work with the international
community to build a new international Internet governance system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
Rebecca MacKinnon<br>
Author, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://consentofthenetworked.com/" target="_blank">Consent
of the Networked</a> <br>
Schwartz Senior Fellow, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://newamerica.net/user/303" target="_blank">New
America Foundation</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Co-founder, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/" target="_blank">Global
Voices</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Twitter: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/rmack" target="_blank">@rmack</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Office: +1-202-596-3343<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>