[lac-discuss-es] Fwd: [discuss] [ianatransition] Fwd: [IP] WSJ: The Internet Power Vacuum Worsens

Lun Sep 8 17:36:22 UTC 2014

Colegas,

para mayor claridad sobre mi propuesta, pueden leer este mensaje de Mike
Roberts, CEO fundador de ICANN.

Alejandro Pisanty

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Roberts <mmr en darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [discuss] [ianatransition] Fwd: [IP] WSJ: The Internet Power
Vacuum Worsens
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman en meetinghouse.net>
Cc: 1Net List <discuss en 1net.org>, "ianatransition en icann.org" <
ianatransition en icann.org>

Did anyone think that right wing America Firsters wouldn’t use as much FUD
as they could muster to try to derail the NTIA initiative?  Check some of
the Congressional grand stand statements.

This mess of mistatement and innuendo is SOP.

A “majority” of governments are authoritarian?  That’s a pretty big
paintbrush.

As Jon Postel said way back in 1591, governments do matter.
 Multistakeholderism without a role for governments isn’t going to work.
 ICANN is actually trying to smoke out behind the scenes gorilla behavior
in the GAC by requiring recorded votes with a majority needed for “advice.”
 Raising the Board threshold for rejecting the advice is a nominal quid pro
quo with little effect.

- Mike

On Sep 8, 2014, at 6:49 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman en meetinghouse.net>
wrote:

 Well, isn't this a nice kettle of fish.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
 The Internet Power Vacuum Worsens The U.S. hasn't even abandoned its Web
protection yet, and authoritarians are making their move.
  By
L. GORDON CROVIT
       Sept. 7, 2014 5:11 p.m. ET

The Obama administration plan to give up U.S. protection of the open
Internet won't take effect for a year, but authoritarian governments are
already moving to grab control. President Obama is learning it's as
dangerous for America to create a vacuum of power in the digital world as
in the real one.

In March the administration asked Icann, the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, to suggest a plan for overseeing the Internet
after September 2015, when U.S. governance is scheduled to end. The U.S.
charged this group, which maintains the root-zone file of domain names and
addresses, with somehow finding mechanisms to prevent other governments
from undermining the permissionless, free-speech Internet built under U.S.
oversight.

Instead, Icann set up a process to hand control over to governments. Under
the current "multistakeholder" system, an advisory group of governments has
only as much power as other stakeholders, such as Web registries, website
owners, free-speech groups and other nonprofits. But in August, Icann
quietly proposed changing its bylaws to rubber-stamp government decisions
unless two-thirds of the Icann board objects. In turn, Iran has proposed
that the government group move to majority voting from the current
consensus approach. That would enable the world's majority of authoritarian
governments to rewire the Internet more to their liking.
   Enlarge Image
 Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

What will this mean? Authoritarian governments could for the first time
censor the Web globally, not just in their own countries. Russia could get
Icann to withdraw Ukrainian sites. China could engineer the world-wide
removal of sites supporting freedom for Hong Kong or Tibet. Iran could
censor its critics in the U.S. Website operators could also expect new
global fees and regulations.

Such a change "would fundamentally transform Icann away from being a
'bottom-up' and 'private sector-led' organization and into a governmental
regulatory agency," wrote Robin Gross, a former chairman of the Icann group
representing nonprofits, on the CircleID blog. "Why Icann would voluntarily
choose to empower non-democratic governments with an even greater say over
global Internet policies as this bylaw change would do is anyone's guess."

The Internet Commerce Association, which represents Web businesses, warns
that the proposal "would transform Icann into a government-led
organization," which is "completely counter" to the U.S. requirement that
the Internet remain free of government control.

In a speech in July, a U.S. Commerce Departmentofficial played down the
danger. "The idea that governments could enhance their influence within
Icann by changing its rules to allow for a majority vote on policy issues
reflects a misunderstanding of the policymaking process at Icann," said
Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling. Wrong. Mr. Strickling and his
administration colleagues have misunderstood how serious other governments
are about filling the vacuum of power with repression.

Icann also upset all its major stakeholder groups by ignoring their demand
to make it more accountable absent U.S. oversight. Stakeholders had
instructed Icann to create an "independent accountability mechanism that
provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by Icann
action or inaction in contravention of an agreed-upon compact with the
community." Instead, Icann announced that it would oversee itself.

A dozen stakeholder groups quickly sent Icann chief Fadi Chehade a letter
objecting. "How does Icann intend to handle the inherent conflict of
interest with developing its own accountability plan?" they asked. "Why
didn't Icann invite proposals from the community and why wasn't the
community involved in the drafting of the staff plan?"

An objection sent jointly by business and nonprofit stakeholder groups to
the Icann board said: "This plan, imposed on the community without
transparency and without the opportunity for public comment, creates
inconsistency, disregards proper Icann procedure, injects unfairness into
the process and defeats the purpose of the entire accountability
examination."

Philip Corwin, a lawyer specializing in Icann issues, calls pushback
against the organization "unprecedented." Last week, Icann agreed to put
off the new rules, but only for a brief comment period.

Much of the blame for the splintering of the multistakeholder system lies
with Mr. Obama's naïveté in putting Internet governance up for grabs. He
underestimated the importance of Washington's control in maintaining an
open Internet—and the desire among other governments to close the Internet.
And there still is no plan to keep Icann free from control by governments.

Administration officials pledged to Congress that the U.S. would keep
control over the Internet if the alternative was to empower other
governments or if there isn't full accountability for Icann. Both red lines
have been crossed.

If Mr. Obama persists, Congress should block his plan with a simple
message: The open Internet is too valuable to surrender.

   1.
   <http://online.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-the-internet-power-vacuum-worsens-1410124265#>

   Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/125967-13f5c010> | Modify
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=125967&id_secret=125967-2be3cd17>
Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=125967&id_secret=125967-6e7c78f6&post_id=20140908093243:9A1ECCC4-375C-11E4-822C-EDAB8E26EB49>
<http://www.listbox.com/>
 _______________________________________________
ianatransition mailing list
ianatransition en icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss en 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .