Gordon, Please help me understand why items like the opening of .com, .org, .net to registrar competition should be seen as "sellout of the Internet". Mostly the effect of the intervention of the Europeans is towards the internationalization of the Internet. This is obviously a reduction of the power of the USG on the Internet (BTW, this was the intention of USG anyhow even without intervention of other countries), but hardly a sellout, IMHO. Regards Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 6:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [IFWP] the GIP and European sellout of the internet via > ICANN --a history lesson from the december 1997 COOK Report: > > Note the very prophetic discussion about IBM's global internet project > from > october 1997 > > This from my december 1997 issue > > On October 28, 1997 Rick Wesson posted a Rueters news story to the > IETF list: Internet Companies Welcome Idea of Global Charter > BRUSSELS (Reuters) - A group of U.S., European and Japanese > companies involved in the Internet informally welcomed a European > Union proposal to draw up a charter to govern the global computer > network. The companies, who have united as the Global Internet > Project (GIP), said they wanted to be involved in the process, Peter > F. Harter, global public policy counsel for Netscape Communications, > told Reuters. > > "(They) will individually provide input as to how industry may play > the best role," he said following a meeting in Brussels. EU > Telecommunications Commissioner Martin Bangemann has proposed > drawing up an international charter to deal with questions such as > technical standards, illegal content, licenses, encryption and data > privacy on the Internet and other electronic networks. > > On October 29 Carl Malamud, in a posting to the IETF list, blasted > Bangeman for having a record of no accomplishment and on the > 30th of October Vint Cerf stated: I think what the GIP companies are > saying is that they'd prefer a global rather than a regional > framework for Internet governance - however, I am surprised if > they take the view that the European Commission is the appropriate > body to lead this effort. MCI is a member of GIP and I'm looking into > this to get details. I think it would be helpful if the EC participates in > discussions about Internet issues - especially those that seem to > require compatible legal frameworks around the world to support, > e.g. Digital signatures as a tool for electronic commerce. However, I > think we have adequate mechanisms already in place in which to > discuss and agree upon technical standards (IETF) and > administrative functions (IANA, NICs, CORE, etc). > > On November 2 Einar Stefferud added: Well, I advise everyone to > remember that the Internet is actually like an economy. And I note > that after many decades of war and many millions of casualties, the > world population and almost all governments, corporations and > other institutions have learned that owning and centrally controlling > an economy is not a good idea. All governements that have > attempted central control (e.g., "ownership") of an economy seem to > now wish they did not;-)... > > I suggest that GIP members should all think very carefully before > they assert any kind of control over the Internet. I also would > suggest that MCI and Netscape have not yet shown that they really > understand the Internet all that well. So, what I see here is a > continuation of the great question of > > "Who is going to be king of the Global Hill?" > > My response is: "Who said we need one? In other words, who died > an left the GIP to be King? > > Vint Cerf replied: GIP isn't trying to be King at all. It's just a group > of > companies with a lot of interest in the healthy growth of the > Internet and they have opinions about policy, like everyone else. > There is no cabal here. > > ======== > fast forward to june 1999 > > from a commentator who wishes to remain anonymous > > few people t understand the degree to which ICANN and > its current agenda reflect an "arrangement" that was worked out between > the > Clinton administration and the EU during the period between the Green > Paper and > the White Paper. > > Among the things that the Europeans insist upon are: > * the fate of dot com is an international issue, not a US issue > * dot com net and org had to be opened to registrar "competition" ASAP > * for-profit, proprietary registries are out of the question; even if they > were > not, the idea that the US could unilaterally license them as new TLDs was > also > out of the question; new TLDs could only be authorized as part of an > international process > * WIPO had to be put back into the picture, there could be no competition > among > dispute resolution policies as the Green Paper contemplated. > > So really, we have very high-level European intervention to thank for most > of > what has happened between October 98 and now, and for ICANN's current > direction. > **************************************************************** > The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK > Report > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Exec summaries, glossary etc > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://cookreport.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind Ican and How it Will > Impact the Future of the Internet > http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml > ****************************************************************
