<P>Sorry Milton</P>
<P>Mrs Albright's letter, was only a letter from a (high) representative of an (important) ITU Member -the USA- to the President of the ITU Council. In other words it was an administrative correspondance, while Mrs Rice's letter has a highly diplomatic relevance.. </P>
<P>Best regards</P>
<P>Jean-Louis Fullsack<BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #ff0000 2px solid">> Message du 07/12/05 16:30<BR>> De : "Milton Mueller" <MUELLER@SYR.EDU><BR>> A : plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> Copie à : <BR>> Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Condi letter<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>> Adam:<BR>> Secretary of State Madeline Albright sent a famous cable to ITU in 1996 when ITU was attempting to privatize DNS and create its own version of ICANN at the expense of USG and VeriSign (then NSI).<BR>> <BR>> The creation of ICANN in 1997-98 involved the highest levels of the USG - the process was run personally by White House advisor Ira Magaziner, as you know well. <BR>> <BR>> Thus, I don't find it surprising or disproportionate at all for Condi to be sending a letter to the EU after the EU split with the US in WSIS. There was a great deal of concern among the relevant business and governmental interests. <BR>> <BR>> >>> Adam Peake <AJP@GLOCOM.AC.JP>12/7/2005 6:55 AM >>><BR>> Why would the US Secretary of State write to the UK Foreign Minister <BR>> and President of EU about this, was there as any other WSIS issue <BR>> that caused the US to contact any other govt at this level? I <BR>> imagine Condi and Jack usually discuss stuff involving billions of <BR>> dollars, pain, suffering and combinations of same. ICANN just doesn't <BR>> seem up there as an issue for these two to worry about. So while I <BR>> like to think Milton's right, I also wonder if we might be missing <BR>> something.<BR>> <BR>> Adam<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> At 2:04 PM -0500 12/6/05, Milton Mueller wrote:<BR>> >[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire <BR>> >list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for <BR>> >specific people]<BR>> ><BR>> >Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic <BR>> >translation of this message!<BR>> >_______________________________________<BR>> ><BR>> >I saw this. I think Kieren (the journalist) perhaps overstates the <BR>> >case when he says this letter "won" the battle. Reading it, I fail <BR>> >to see any argument that was not contained in the June 30 U.S. <BR>> >"principles" or in oft-repeated arguments made in WGIG and WSIS.<BR>> ><BR>> >It is also easy to answer these arguments, so perhaps as an <BR>> >educational exercise I do the following.....this kind of translation <BR>> >is something that funredes.org won't supply....<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>The Internet has become an essential infrastructure for global<BR>> >>communications, including for global trade and commerce, and<BR>> >>therefore we firmly believe that support for the present structures<BR>> >>for Internet governance is vital.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >A non sequitur. If it is a global infrastructure, why support the <BR>> >present structures of unilateral control?<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>These structures have proven to be a reliable foundation for<BR>> >>the robust growth of the Internet we have seen over the<BR>> >>course of the last decade.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >Factually incorrect. ICANN and the associated apparatus of U.S. <BR>> >Commerce Department oversight did not exist until beginning of 1999. <BR>> >Internet grew fast before it, during it, and would continue to grow <BR>> >without it. There is no demonstrable connection between these <BR>> >structures of DNS regulation and the overall growth of the Internet, <BR>> >which is driven by the incredible value and efficiency of <BR>> >applications such as email, web-based content and services, etc.<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>The Internet will reach its full potential as a medium and<BR>> >>facilitator for global economic expansion and development in<BR>> >>an environment free from burdensome intergovernmental<BR>> >>oversight and control.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >True, burdensome oversight and control is to be avoided, but this is <BR>> >true whether the control is intergovernmental, uni-governmental, or <BR>> >the private restrictions of the sort imposed by ICANN.<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>The success of the Internet lies in its inherently<BR>> >>decentralized nature, with the most significant growth<BR>> >>taking place at the outer edges of the network<BR>> >>through innovative new applications and services.<BR>> >>Burdensome, bureaucratic oversight is out of place in an<BR>> >>Internet structure that has worked so well for many<BR>> >>around the globe.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >Great, so when do we get rid of the U.S. Commerce Dept?<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>We regret the recent positions on Internet governance(i.e.,<BR>> >>the "new cooperation model") offered by the European<BR>> >>Union, the Presidency of which is currently held by the United<BR>> >>Kingdom, seems to propose just that - a new structure of<BR>> >>intergovernmental control over the Internet.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >Translation: What, other governments besides us should be involved?<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>The four principles the United States issues on June 30, 2005,<BR>> >>reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security<BR>> >>and stability,<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >...as long as we get to define "security and stability" unilaterally...<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>including through the historical U.S. role in authorizing changes or<BR>> >>modifications to the authoritative root zone file.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >A function which contributes absolutely nothing to the overall <BR>> >stability of the Internet, and indeed seems to foment the creation <BR>> >of alternative and potentially fragmentary arrangements...<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>At that time, we also expressed our support for ICANN as<BR>> >>the appropriate private sector technical coordinator of the<BR>> >>Internet's domain name and addressing system.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >...as long as "private sector" means a huge dose of the U.S. <BR>> >Executive branch....<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>We believe that ICANN is dedicated to achieving broad<BR>> >>representation of global Internet communities and to developing policy<BR>> >>through consensus-based processes.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >Every once in a while, however, ICANN, VeriSign and the Commerce <BR>> >Department have to go off and settle the real issues on our own. <BR>> >After we do that, we'll come to you for "consultation."<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>We have also expressed our interest<BR>> >>in working with the international community to address legitimate public<BR>> >>policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to country code top-level<BR>> >>domains (ccTLD).<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >So we can thereby recreate on the global internet a set of national <BR>> >monopolies comparable to the post, telegraph and telephone <BR>> >monopolies that kept us all happy for 100 years.<BR>> ><BR>> >>We wish to underscore that, in our statement of June<BR>> >>30, we supported ongoing dialogue on issues related to Internet<BR>> >>governance across international forums.<BR>> ><BR>> >Translation: talk all you like, we ain't changing anything unless <BR>> >you force us to....<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>The United States and the European Union have long worked<BR>> >>together toward the goal of global access to the Internet.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >Of course, we've quarrelled a bit along the way, with us insisting <BR>> >that the access come through American ISPs and you insisting that we <BR>> >slow everything down so you can catch up.<BR>> ><BR>> >CONDI:<BR>> >>The WSIS offers us the opportunity to reaffirm our partnership<BR>> >>to spread the benefits of the Internet globally. At the same time,<BR>> >>the security and stability of the Internet are essential to the<BR>> >>United States, the European Union, and to the world. We firmly<BR>> >>believe that the existing Internet system balances<BR>> >>the stability and security we need with the innovation and dynamism<BR>> >>that private sector leadership provides.<BR>> ><BR>> >MM:<BR>> >Just in case you're brain dead, this means that we choose when and <BR>> >how governments are involved, and when and how the private sector is <BR>> >involved. OK?<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >_______________________________________________<BR>> >Plenary mailing list<BR>> >Plenary@wsis-cs.org <BR>> >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Plenary mailing list<BR>> Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>