<P>Thanks Lisa</P>
<P>I always appreciate your opinion, your clear vision (this time on multistakeholderism illusion) and your respect for the real CS !</P>
<P>Best for you</P>
<P>Jean-Louis Fullsack, CSDPTT</P>
<P>(self-condemned to stay far from Tunis)<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #ff0000 2px solid">> Message du 12/11/05 11:14<BR>> De : mclauglm@muohio.edu<BR>> A : plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> Copie à : <BR>> Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] "Internet Showdown in Tunis": CNET interview with David Gross<BR>> <BR>> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]<BR>> <BR>> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message!<BR>> _______________________________________<BR>> <BR>> Regarding the following news story, note that Gross mentions, more than<BR>> once, reaching out and talking to governments and the private sector. I<BR>> think that he missed the memo about CS's role as a stakeholder. So much<BR>> for all of the multistakeholder idealism of the WGIG.<BR>> <BR>> Best to all and safe travels to those going to Tunis.<BR>> <BR>> Lisa<BR>> <BR>> [WSIS Trivia: Ambassador Gross's appointment was granted as "gift" to<BR>> reward his service as the National Executive Director of Lawyers for<BR>> Bush-Cheney for the 2000 presidential election.]<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Internet showdown in Tunis<BR>> <BR>> By Declan McCullagh<BR>> <BR>> (Fri Nov 11 08:00:00 PST 2005)<BR>> <BR>> The United Nations' World Summit on the Information Society began with a<BR>> high-minded purpose: to bridge the technological gap between richer and<BR>> poorer nations. But now the WSIS event, which begins Nov. 16 in Tunisia,<BR>> has transformed into a week-long debate about who should control key<BR>> portions of the Internet.<BR>> <BR>> Delegates from nations like Iran, China, and Cuba have been clear in what<BR>> they want: less control by the U.S. government. Instead, they've suggested<BR>> creation of some sort of cyberbureaucracy---perhaps under the U.N.<BR>> International Telecommunication Union.<BR>> <BR>> Those arguments have met with a cold shoulder in Washington. The Bush<BR>> administration said in no uncertain terms in June that it intended to<BR>> relinquish the United States' unique influence over domain names and the<BR>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that<BR>> position. But that doesn't advocate relinquishing total control or<BR>> creation of a U.N. bureaucracy.<BR>> <BR>> If the U.N. prevails in this international political spat, business groups<BR>> worry that domain name fees would go up and regulations would increase. If<BR>> no agreement is reached, there's always the possibility of a bifurcated<BR>> Internet divided by geographical region.<BR>> <BR>> CNET News.com recently spoke with Ambassador of Bureau of Economic and<BR>> Business Affairs David Gross, who's leading the U.S. delegation to<BR>> Tunisia. Gross previously was a telecommunications lawyer and a lobbyist<BR>> for AirTouch Communications (now part of Vodafone).<BR>> <BR>> Q: What are the stakes at the WSIS summit?<BR>> <BR>> The stakes are really very high. The focus of the summit originally--and<BR>> we believe still--is on the use of technology to take advantage of the<BR>> historic opportunity to better everyone around the world, economically,<BR>> socially and politically. Those are very high stakes.<BR>> <BR>> Q: How much of the current opposition over this issue is a result of<BR>> global tensions regarding the U.S. as the world's lone superpower and<BR>> involvement in Iraq?<BR>> <BR>> This is an issue that I think should be and will be addressed on its<BR>> merits. The Internet has been an extraordinary development in the history<BR>> of the world. There are about a billion people connected to the Internet<BR>> in a remarkably short period of time.<BR>> <BR>> The system has worked extraordinarily well and arguably better than any<BR>> other technology that's ever been rolled out. We seek to ensure that that<BR>> continued advancement goes forward. I know by the way that the president<BR>> just this afternoon (Thursday) is awarding the Medal of Freedom to a host<BR>> of extraordinary Americans. Two of those Americans include Vint Cerf and<BR>> Bob Kahn, who are often referred to as the fathers of the Internet.<BR>> <BR>> Q: Does the U.S. government have too much control of Internet governance?<BR>> <BR>> If you look at it the way most people would, it's a very bottom-up<BR>> approach. There are a lot of players--civil society and the private<BR>> sector--that play an important role. Certainly, the U.S. government has<BR>> played an extraordinarily important role in the past. It was because of<BR>> the U.S. government and the research funded by it that the Internet exists<BR>> in the first place. We think it's working very well. We don't think there<BR>> are any pressing problems associated with it.<BR>> <BR>> Q: At the preliminary meeting in New York last year, I found that<BR>> discussions were all over the map, including spam, viruses and computer<BR>> security. Is there a lack of focus here?<BR>> <BR>> Issues like spam and cybercrime and viruses are extraordinarily important.<BR>> We've encouraged WSIS and other forums to work cooperatively in solving<BR>> those issues. So we seek to have a very robust and inclusive discussion<BR>> about these issues and others as well.<BR>> <BR>> Q: If critics of the U.S. join forces at WSIS and oppose the U.S., are<BR>> there any red lines for the U.S that the administration would find<BR>> intolerable?<BR>> <BR>> We've been very clear in what we think the summit should be accomplishing<BR>> and should be focusing on. We continue to work with governments around the<BR>> world and with civil society and with the private sector to secure an<BR>> outcome that everyone can be proud of. I'm not worried too much about<BR>> other results.<BR>> <BR>> Q: So there's no red line?<BR>> <BR>> At the end of June, the administration issued its four principles. We, of<BR>> course, stick by those four principles. They're very clear; the world<BR>> asked us to issue clear principles. We make clear what the U.S. government<BR>> will continue to do and what we seek to do with the world going forward.<BR>> That includes engaging in a dialogue in multiple forums.<BR>> We don't think of these things as red lines or blue lines or green lines.<BR>> Rather, we think of these things as a clear articulation of where the<BR>> world should be going.<BR>> <BR>> Q: Is the U.S. worried about splitting the root, so that computers in two<BR>> nations will find different Web sites at the same domain name?<BR>> <BR>> I have not heard any spokesperson for a government say that their<BR>> government was interested in the creation of new root systems. I've heard<BR>> governments talk about other governments being interested. I think that's<BR>> important. The government officials I've spoken with say all of the<BR>> incentives are to work on the current system. I have not heard any<BR>> government official suggest that there would be benefits to that<BR>> government in the creation of an independent root system.<BR>> <BR>> Any new system, any new network would, it seems to us, want to be<BR>> interoperable with the current system. One of the keys here that is often<BR>> overlooked is that the Internet is technically, constantly changing. It's<BR>> constantly evolving and getting better technically. We're not interested<BR>> in trying to lock in the current system as the right system.<BR>> <BR>> Q: Have there been any behind-the-door negotiations to try to hammer out<BR>> an accord prior to Tunisia?<BR>> <BR>> We've had a series of prepcoms (preparatory committee meetings) including<BR>> one in Geneva. That prepcom will be resumed in Tunis starting on Sunday.<BR>> We, of course, reached out and talked with colleagues around the world and<BR>> talked with governments and the private sector. We'll see what happens.<BR>> <BR>> Q: Which allies does the U.S. government have here? Even Europe seems to<BR>> have joined China, Cuba, Iran and so on.<BR>> <BR>> It's hard to pick and choose individual countries. I think the key here is<BR>> that what I heard at Geneva at the prepcom is that there's important<BR>> common ground that can and will form the basis of a very productive<BR>> meeting.<BR>> <BR>> Q: You can't name any allies?<BR>> <BR>> I make it a point never to characterize other governments' positions, so<BR>> I'm not going to do it at this stage.<BR>> <BR>> Q: What's the best-case scenario out of WSIS?<BR>> <BR>> The best case is the world gathers together and reaffirms the importance<BR>> of using technology to better people around the world; provide increased<BR>> opportunity for people economically, socially and politically. That would<BR>> be a very important development.<BR>> <BR>> Q: How much of this dispute is symbolic? If the U.S. said, "We'll leave<BR>> decisions to ICANN," which has an international board of directors, would<BR>> that be enough?<BR>> <BR>> I don't know whether any other group, critics or friends would be<BR>> satisfied (and I'd rather not speculate).<BR>> <BR>> [http://news.com.com/Internet+showdown+in+Tunis/2008-1012_3-5945200.html]<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Plenary mailing list<BR>> Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>