[governance] FW: [A2k] New York Times editorial on ICANN

[Gurstein, Michael]

-----Original Message-----
From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org
[mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Thiru
Balasubramaniam
Sent: October 31, 2005 10:21 AM
To: a2k at lists.essential.org; ecommerce at lists.essential.org
Subject: [A2k] New York Times editorial on ICANN

October 30, 2005
Editorial
Worldwide but Homegrown
Some foreign governments are uncomfortable with the United States'
controlling the nuts and bolts of the Internet. That is understandable.
So much of the success of the global economy depends on its smooth
functioning and the United States has not been a model of receptiveness
to other nations' concerns in recent years. There may be a multilateral
solution down the road, but right now it is in everyone's best interest
to keep control of the Internet where it was founded, in America.

American representatives will have a chance to ease the worries of
America's allies and even its enemies at a digital-world gathering in
Tunisia next month. It will take firmness, but also diplomacy.

Ideally, perhaps, a single nation should not control the essential
workings of the Internet - notably the regulation of who gets which name
and what the various "dot" addresses mean. But United States control is
working. One suggestion, to switch control to the United Nations, would
mean too many cooks in the kitchen, with several of the most interested
chefs being of the unsavory sort, like China and Iran. China's model for
the Internet includes filters, censorship and - recently, with the
shameful help of Yahoo - surveillance leading to arrest.

Since 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - a
nonprofit based in California, but with an office in Brussels and an
international board - has handled the complexities of domain names,
Internet Protocol numbers and other technicalities. That way, the rest
of us can surf and shop in peace, certain to find our favorite online
shops or entertainment, whether we log on in Des Moines or Timbuktu. It
has decided, for example, that this newspaper is to have the only Web
site called www.nytimes.com. The nightmare outcome would be a balkanized
Internet, where countries or regions set up their own Webs, leading to
duplicate sites, confusion and a breakdown in the effectiveness of the
global network. Reasonable people do not want to take that path, so it
should be easy to avoid.

That also means, however, no meddling by the United States government in
Icann's affairs. The recent fuss over the possible addition of a new
top-level domain name for pornographic Web sites - .xxx instead of .com
at the end of a Web address - played right into the hands of would-be
regulators at the United Nations. Opponents of .xxx, including the
conservative Family Research Council, sent nearly 6,000 letters to the
Commerce Department over the summer, protesting the proposal. The
department sent a letter to Icann asking it to delay a decision.

Regardless of the pros and cons of a top-level domain name for salacious
sites (many pornographers, interestingly, are also against it because it
would make it much easier to block their Web sites), the department's
behavior looks a lot like political pressure. That sends the wrong
message to moderates in Europe on the issue of Internet control. The
United States should not give even the appearance of improper lobbying.
If Americans cannot trust the system to run itself, they risk losing it.



_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

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