[governance] Fwd: [IP] CEI's C:Spin - Dangers of World Internet Governance: from the Proposed Domain for Adult Content

Sun Aug 21 11:36:19 EDT 2005

In our contribution for prepcom 3 we suggested the US govt promise not
to remove TLDs or interfere with redelegations, but seems we forgot to
say "will not block the additions" !

Article perhaps of interest below.

Adam

>Subject: [IP] CEI's C:Spin - Dangers of World Internet Governance: 
>Lessons from the Proposed Domain for Adult Content
>From: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
>To: Ip Ip <ip at v2.listbox.com>
>Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:22:11 -0400
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>From: Braden Cox <bcox at cei.org>
>Date: August 19, 2005 1:13:28 PM EDT
>To: farber at cis.upenn.edu
>Subject: CEI's C:Spin - Dangers of World Internet Governance: Lessons 
>from the Proposed Domain for Adult Content
>Dangers of World Internet Governance – Lessons from the Proposed 
>Domain for Adult Content
>
>Issue No.  182
>
>By Daniel Corbett and Braden Cox
>
>Competitive Enterprise Institute
>
>August 19, 2005
>
>The recent decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
>and Numbers (ICANN) to delay deciding whether to approve the ".xxx"
>top-level domain signals what could be yet another debate about
>"indecency" over communication networks. This time, it's about the
>structure and content of the Internet, not the broadcast airwaves.
>And because it's the Internet that will be impacted by debate
>concerning "indecent" content, international sovereignty and
>cultural integrity is at stake. The fear is that supposedly
>independent technical standards bodies will be hijacked by
>governments wanting to restrict the free flow of content.
>
>The U.S. is not alone in its apprehension over what it considers to
>be illegitimate content. Internet communications spill over national
>borders, connecting and uniting people everywhere. Other countries
>fear that cultural fragmentation and the violation of national
>sovereignty will result from increased interconnection.
>
>ICANN Should Not be a Political Pawn
>
>ICANN -a longstanding player in the Internet governance debate— has
>been in charge of assigning all domain names and country codes
>though the Domain Name System (DNS) since its creation by the US in
>1998. It was created upon recognition that the Internet would best
>be governed by an independent, nongovernmental organization, free of
>politicized demands.
>
>Yet, on June 30 the U.S. ruffled feathers in the Internet governance
>community when it stated its intent to maintain control of ICANN and
>the DNS. In a controversial "Declaration of Principles," the US
>argued that in order to preserve the "security and stability" of the
>Internet and the economic transactions that take place on it, it
>would exercise unilateral control over the DNS. And on August 11,
>U.S. assistant secretary of commerce Michael Gallagher sent a letter
>to ICANN board member Vinton Cerf. The letter stated that the
>Department of Commerce had received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mail
>messages expressing concerns about the impact of the new domain on
>children and families, and it requested a delay in voting on the
>matter. As a result, ICANN's Government Advisory
>Committeerecommended that there should be more time for additional
>governmental and public policy concerns to be expressed before
>reaching a final decision on .xxx.
>
>International Internet Governance Bodies Should not Control Culture
>
>For years, most debate was limited to the DNS and ICANN. However, in
>December 2003 the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a
>United Nations group that studies technological development, created
>the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). Leaders at the
>summit created WGIG because they saw the Internet as a vital part of
>the growing information society and noticed there was broad range of
>opinions as to how the Internet should be managed in a global
>society. Upon its creation, WGIG was charged with creating a working
>definition of Internet governance.
>
>While the WSIS has attempted to increase global access to
>technology, it has simultaneously undermined the benefits these
>technologies have to offer by calling for what is essentially
>"cultural protectionism."
>
>Acting, in large part, on fears of "cultural imperialism," WSIS and
>other international organizations like UNESCO have launched massive
>campaigns to preserve cultural heritage. In attempting to preserve
>cultural identities, these organizations would face a Hayekian
>"knowledge problem"—they would have difficulty in choosing whose
>culture to preserve, what parts of that culture were worth
>preserving, and at what expense culture should be preserved.
>
>This notion of "preserving a culture" wrongly assumes that culture
>is a single, discrete entity that can be protected the same way a
>mother bird protects her young. In the globalized 21st century,
>however, cultures are mutable, shifting, and constantly interacting.
>Those who fear Western culture imposing itself on the developing
>world through technological development often forget that "Western"
>culture is not monolithic, but rather a rich, diverse tapestry of
>many different cultures. The world has become increasingly better
>off because of the free flow of cultures.
>
>Attempts to "preserve" cultures will limit the use of new
>technologies and artificially cut off the developing world from this
>robust cultural exchange.
>
>The Problem of State-Sponsored Filtering
>
>Even more alarming than its mission to preserve cultures is WSIS and
>WGIG's failure to address the issue of countries that block access
>to certain Web sites. Currently, many national governments, from
>China to Saudi Arabia, use filtering technology to prevent their
>citizens from navigating the Web freely.
>
>What kinds of sites are filtered? Pornography, gay and lesbian
>sites, women's rights organizations, sex education and other public
>health sites, anonymizers (which allow users to hide their
>identities online), and certain political and religious groups are
>all subject to filtering in different countries.
>
>Not only are many people deprived access to certain information
>online, but in most cases, they are oblivious to this fact. The
>OpenNet Initiative, a partnership between Harvard, Cambridge, and
>the University of Toronto studies freedom of information on the
>Internet. And off all the nations the group has studied, not one of
>them made its block list available to the public.
>
>WSIS argues that one of the benefits of technological development
>will be better "e-government," or more "transparency in public
>administrations and democratic processes." This is certainly one of
>the many benefits of providing access to technology, but it will be
>negated unless WGIG and other international groups take a stand
>against state-sponsored filtering.
>
>A top-down dictum that all nations stop filtering is not the best
>solution. It is important that solutions to the problem of national
>filtering are sympathetic to every nation's rule of law. For
>example, if a specific Web site violates already-extant national
>laws, that content may be filtered. But this should not stop the
>fight against arbitrary filtering, which is an essential part of
>making technological access meaningful and democratic.
>
>Public Input is Good, Political Pressure is Bad
>
>The debate over the triple x domain involves legitimate debate that
>should be in the public discourse. Will it merely be a location for
>pornography that establishes a virtual red light district, much like
>those in the physical world, where you can visit if you'd like but
>stay out if you want? Is it the precursor toward a requirement that
>all porn be identified by .xxx?
>
>But the point is this: political pressure is unlike that of normal
>public discourse. Political bodies exert influence beyond that of
>any nonprofit public interest group. Indeed, because they have the
>power of law by their side, they wield power beyond that of all
>interest groups combined.
>
>ICANN and other Internet governance bodies should have
>accountability, but not necessarily political accountability to the
>U.S. or UN. These organizations have a role in deciding on the
>technical specifications that will encourage the free exchange of
>information, not limit it.
>
>Braden Cox is Technology Counsel and Daniel Corbett is a Charles G.
>Koch Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
>
>C:\SPIN is produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute
>
>This message was sent to: farber at cis.upenn.edu
>
>To subscribe, please send a message to bcox at cei.org with "subscribe"
>in the subject line.
>
>If you no longer wish to receive CEI's C:/SPIN or have been added to
>this list by mistake, please reply to this message with
>"unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Competitive Enterprise Institute
>
>1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1250
>
>Washington, DC 20036
>
>202.331.1010
>
>http://www.cei.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance