Faced with the continuing problem of coordinating law making in their repsective nations to satisfy their corporate interests, John Patrick AND HIS FELLOW GIPSTERS continues to work the GIP's PAC (Political Action Committee) known as ICANN. On April 20 1999 after hearing a report from Esther Dyson on ICANN's effort to gain control of internet name number and protocol space, the GIP announced that its next meeting to manipulate the cross border foundation of internet policy will be a "small meeting aimed at identifying the next generation of Internet policy," in Brussels in September. It is to be hoped that investigators from the House Commerce Committee can attend the GIP meeting and then observe the transit of the GIPs wishes into the hands of ICANN as ICANN prepares for its November meeting. John Patrick emphasized the GIP's need for uniformity when he stated: "As the technologies of telephony, broadcasting, and the Internet converge, regulations will collide." The question is which regulations will rule. The GIP has an answer to its stated need "to ensure that legislation and regulation do not impede the growth of the Internet." This statement has been mirrored by Vint Cerf on multiple occasions: in a June 6th interview with Dave Farber I had the following exchange: COOK Report: I also believe that Vint Cerf through Don Heath at ISOC is driving the ICANN direction far more than most people realize. Let me share the following exchange: "Let us dedicate ourselves to the creation of a global legal framework in which laws work across national boundaries to reinforce the upward spiral of value that Internet is capable of creating." Vint Cerf from the RFC the Internet is for Everyone. Sondow on May 14: Is this what you want, Ms. Burr? Becky Burr [US DoC midwife to ICANN] on May 15: I do not know the context of Mr. Cerf's statement, so it is difficult to comment on it. It is worth noting, however, that a "global legal framework" is certainly not the same thing as a global government. Moreover, it is entirely possible to have a legal framework that operates across borders but respects existing national sovereigns. For example, many countries are passing laws related to electronic signatures and other forms of authentication. It will be important to ensure that these national schemes are sufficiently flexible to ensure that cross border contracts between businesses that are executed electronically can be enforced, notwithstanding different national requirements. I suspect that this is the sort of framework Mr. Cerf had in mind. COOK Report: Now perhaps this is as close as we have gotten to the real agenda behind ICANN? To be an international regulatory authority that can be used to make the Internet safe for electronic commerce. Farber: Let me take a slightly different spin. I think that Becky is right in what we should drive for is a common legal framework where national governments don't take approaches to legislation involving the Internet that are totally contradictory with each other and with how the Internet operates. Now it is not just the Fortune 500 that could benefit from this.... I would also like to see an international agreement on cryptography and on privacy. Those affect me and I would like an agreement that would make it impossible to do what is alleged to be going on with echelon. But such agreement had also better not conflict with our national laws for example our bill of rights. I would object violently to anything with lubricated electronic commerce and violated my rights as a US citizen. ICANN may or may not have ideas about governing. It may or may not set up something that leaves it free to do what it wants. But it will still be subject to US law and if it does something that violates the rights of a US citizen, it should expect to be sued. COOK Report: Do you see anything to indicate that ICANN has legally enforceable authority? Farber: It has never been tested. The first time it will probably be tested is when someone tries to collect a dollar for the ICANN domain name registration tax. It will be interesting to see what will happen when someone says "no: I won't pay" and someone probably will say this. If you try to bar such an entity from access to the root servers for refusing to pay you have an interesting situation. Let me give you an ITU analogy. ITU decides to put a tax of 5 cents on every phone call in the world. How far do you think this would get? Now if you turned it around and said if you want to use our facilities you must pay us a fee for that use, it would be a different ball game than saying if you want a domain name whether you use our facilities or not you must pay, it becomes a very different game. ======== But the more things change the more they remain the same. This GIP's agenda of one ruling body for the world internet has been clear at least since octopber 97. 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. ======WHERE ICANN GETS ITS MARCHING ORDERS=========== COOK: well Vint if there is no caball why does esther drop into GIP meeting to report on what she is doing? the following is from the GIP web site: Washington, DC - The Global Internet Project (GIP), a group of senior Internet executives from around the world, met in Washington yesterday APRIL 20, 1999 to discuss issues critical to the future of the Internet. Among the group's announced decisions are plans to hold a workshop in September in Brussels, Belgium on "Next-generation Internet Policy". "In five years, we expect the Internet to reach 5-10 times as many people as it does today, and be 50 to 100 times faster than it is today. In order to ensure the continued success of the medium and its ability to make people's lives better, the Global Internet Project will look at future policy concerns that are on the horizon," said John Patrick, Chairman of the GIP and Vice President of IBM's Internet Division. "Our workshop in Brussels will be a small meeting aimed at identifying the next generation of Internet policy." The September workshop will focus on policies such as globalization and economic impact of the Internet, information overload, privacy, culture clash and the collision of broadcast law with the Internet. The workshop will be an effort to anticipate and address Internet policy problems that could develop as the Internet grows into a mass medium. Since its inception more than three years ago, the GIP has worked with policy makers to ensure that legislation and regulation do not impede the growth of the Internet. The GIP believes Internet and associated technology policies are important elements in the growth of the global economy. "As the technologies of telephony, broadcasting, and the Internet converge, regulations will collide," Patrick said. "For instance, will the different national rules and regulations that govern television and radio apply when tens of millions of people around the world use the Internet to watch television? The workshop will help us explore new policy approaches compatible with the global Internet." In addition to the workshop, the group worked on meeting their fundraising goal of $500,000 for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) with over $400,000 contributed or pledged from international corporations. Esther Dyson, Temporary Chairman of the Interim ICANN Board, met with group while it was in Washington to discuss recent developments at ICANN. **************************************************************** 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 ICANN and How it Will Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml ****************************************************************
