[ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers against censorship

[John Curran]

On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

> My strong impression was that many in the USG (specifically the Clinton administration) saw the Internet as an opportunity for a power grab by the US.   It's hardly surprising if Internet developers from all over the world didn't share that vision.

  
   Strange - we seem to be talking about history of two different Internets...

   The development and management of Internet has always had some form 
   of USG involvement, initial starting with direct funding for various
   development as well as funding for management of critical resources.  
   Over time, this evolved into grants of key developmental work, and 
   from direct oversight (ICCB, 'IAB', FNC) to open multi-stakeholder 
   governance structures (IAB, IETF)

   In fact, the US Government has consistently supported the transition 
   from top-down contracting vehicles to more open bottom-up processes 
   for Internet governance.   In the IP world, this included the 
   decentralization of the IP address management with the delegations 
   to RIPE NCC and APNIC, the approval to move the remaining IP address 
   management from NSI/InterNIC to ARIN in 1997.  In DNS, steps include 
   the formation of ICANN to provide a more international and open process 
   for DNS policy coordination as well as the expiration & replacement 
   of the ICANN JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments framework.

   If someone can point out another organization (other than the USG) which 
   has been more active in consciously releasing its control over the Internet 
   in preference to multistakeholder mechanisms, I'd love to hear about it.
   The evolution to fully free standing certainly is taking a long-time, 
   but that's as much about the maturity of ICANN and multiple new players
   anxiously wanting control in this space as it is about USG letting go.

   Even now, I would not ascribe the actions of a congressional committee 
   bending to corporate lobbying as the general aspirations of "The US 
   Government". It is amusing that the current Administration is now caught 
   having to simultaneously say "the rights of individuals to express their 
   views freely on the Internet are universal" (H. Clinton, Dec 2011) and
   yet disavow that such conflicts with the censorship inherent in SOPA, but 
   again one of those actually reflects long-standing USG policy and whereas
   the other is just an expression of lobbying funds in a pre-election year.

/John