WSIS declares “all your base are belong to us”.
[rant rant rant rant… -Thomas]
“policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign
right of States” aka “all your base are belong to us”.
Says who?!? I never granted the authority to any state to regulate
Internet-related public policy. I’ve been on the Internet since I first
arrived in college in 1990, and it seems to me that it has managed to
function quite well, thank you, as a collectively collaborative endeavor via
existing models of goverance and dispute resolution.
Can someone define “Internet-related public policy issues” for me? What is
the Internet, but a vast number of computers collectively linked by a common
set of protocols over which many other protocols and applications run. Is my
internal corporate network, subject to the authority of these folks if it
runs TCP/IP? What if it doesn’t? Where does the Internet “stop”? If I set up
a network of computers located across the world that uses a competing system
of communications protocols, are these folks going to suddenly claim
jurisdiction over it? What happens if I hook that network up to the Internet
via some sort of bridge - do I thereby cede authority over it to these
people?
Exactly what do they propose to do with the packets between the while in
transit between my server, desktop, cellphone, etc. and the equivalent
device on the other end of the connection?
What benefit do I, as an end user, a content provider/creator, and a server
manager, gain from this naked power grab? I can’t imagine how can this be
anything but bad…
To give you the flavor of the absurdity of this, let’s do some mad-libs:
“policy authority for Linux-related public policy issues is the sovereign
right of States”
“policy authority for Apache-related public policy issues is the sovereign
right of States”
“policy authority for Usenet-related public policy issues is the sovereign
right of States”
“policy authority for blog-related public policy issues is the sovereign
right of States”
Who are these folks, to think they’re being gracious by permitting us lowly
folks who’ve helped create, nuture, and build the Internet an advisory voice
in running it… to pat us on the head and say, “that’s nice, now run along,
us adults have got serious business to attend to”.
BLEAH.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
p.s. i went and looked up what the WSIS is, and nothing I see on the page
below makes me any happier… exactly when did “civil society” and “the
private sector” become distinctly different entities (I also find it amusing
that somehow they’ve managed to pick a model for representing “the private
sector”, but they haven’t been able to do so with “civil society” - perhaps
that would grant too much legitimacy to the advocates for said sector… or
expose the whole process for the unrepresentative absurdity it is)? Who
decided the “government”, “the private sector” and “civil society” were all
equal partners?
http://www.wsis-cs.org/wsis-intro.html
I’m sure the people involved with this are well intentioned, but it just
makes me queasy… idiotic ideas die a rapid and extraordinarily painful
death under the current system… on the other hand, idiotic ideas have a
remarkable ability to survive even the most determined efforts to squish
them once government becomes involved.
From: Dave Farber
Subject: governmental negotiations closer to
agreement
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:04:10 -0500
Delivered-To: dfarber+@ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 06:48:22 +0900
From: Adam Peake
Subject: Fwd: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] governmental negotiations closer to
agreement
X-Sender: ajp@pop.glocom.ac.jp
To: dave@farber.net
Looks like WSIS text on “Internet Governance” is agreed.
And poor stuff it is.
Adam
Delivered-To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp
Delivered-To: plenary@mailman.greennet.org.uk
X-Sender: veni@198.111.183.129 (Unverified)
To: plenary@wsis-cs.org, plenary@wsis-cs.org
From: Veni Markovski
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] governmental negotiations closer to
agreement
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gn.apc.org
Sender: plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org
X-BeenThere: plenary@wsis-cs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Reply-To: plenary@wsis-cs.org
List-Help:
List-Post:
List-Subscribe:
List-Id: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space
List-Archive:
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:51:36 +0200
>The only major conflicts still open are internet governance and finance.
not governance:
The below texts are agreed.
44. The Internet has evolved into a global facility available to the public
and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information
Society agenda. The international management of the Internet should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations. It should ensure an equitable distribution of resources,
facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the
Internet, taking into account multilingualism.
45.The management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public
policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant
intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is
recognized that:
a) policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the
sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for
international Internet-related public policy issues; b) the private sector
has had and should continue to have an important role in the development of
the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields; c) civil society
has also played an important role on Internet matters especially at
community level and should continue to play such a role; d)
intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a
facilitating role in the coordination of the Internet related public policy
issues; e) international organizations have also had and should continue to
have a important role in the development of Internet-related technical
standards and relevant policies.
46. International Internet governance issues should be addressed in a
coordination manner. We ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to
set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive
process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and
developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international
organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as
appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005.
And this is also agreed by the states in the Action Plan:
4
e) We ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures
a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the
private sector and civil society from both developing and developed
countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international
organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as
appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005. The group should, inter
alia:
i)develop a working definition of Internet governance;
ii)identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet
governance;
iii)develop a common understanding of the respective roles and
responsibilities of governments, existing intergovernmental and
international organisations and other forums as well as the private sector
and civil society from both developing and developed countries;
iv)prepare a report on the results of this activity to be presented for
consideration and appropriate action for the second phase of WSIS in Tunis
in 2005.
f) Governments are invited to:
i)facilitate the establishment of national and regional Internet Exchange
Centres;
ii)manage or supervise, as appropriate, their respective country code
top-level domain name (ccTLD);
iii)promote awareness of the Internet.
