Tweet
some parts from both articles i want to put under your attention.
WSIS Tunis It’s been four years since the issue of how the internet should be run, and by whom, became an official United Nations topic.
And yet despite hundreds of hours of talks, three preparatory meetings and a world summit, there is only one thing that the world’s governments can agree on: Masood Khan, Pakistan’s ambassador.
If a certain US senator and a certain EU commissioner are to be believed, the internet is five days away from total collapse as governments are finally forced into a corner and told to agree on a framework for future Internet governance
--
Respect
Such is the level of respect and trust he has built up with all parties that at the first restart of the sub-committee this Sunday, every speaker without exception (and that includes countries as diverse as China, Iran, Brazil, Ghana, Argentina, the US and UK) went out of their way to stress how useful Mr Khan’s contribution as chairman was.
--
And he did it time and time again, until, eventually, the real points at the heart of the internet governance started forming. "Would reform of the GAC [the governmental advisory council, part of ICANN] answer your points?" he asked Brazil. The Brazilian delegation demured. "You did not answer the question," Mr Khan came back.
It wasn’t just the Brazilians. The US wasn’t allowed to hide either. Would the US please say whether the word “oversight” is ever going to be acceptable to them? Could the US answer the assertion that other countries do not have adequate control over their own domain?
---
In such a way, Ambassador Khan has expertly moved a room full of governments that have been unable to get past the same topic for four years onto a path that now even the most pessimistic can see drawing ahead of them.
It is far from over but when the agreed text on how the internet should be run and by whom appears in front of the World Summit and is approved on Friday, it most certainly won’t be perfect but it will be in no short measure thanks to remarkable abilities of the unassuming ambassador from Pakistan.®
==============
(next morning)
Because of the extremely short timetable, the only deal possible was consensus. And every radical proposal was simply shot down. Today will see a jubilant US ambassador David Gross, a resigned EU (and one that may well learn some lobbying lessons in future) and a depressed Brazil.
The deal represents a remarkable victory for the United States and ICANN : only a month ago they were put on the back foot by an EU proposal that turned the world's governments against the US position.
But following an intense US lobbying effort across the board, the Americans have got their way. Countless press articles, each as inaccurate as the last, formed a huge public sense of what was happening with internet governance that proved impossible to shake.
Massive IT companies - again, mostly US and thanks to intense US government lobbying - came out publicly in favour of the status quo. And the EU representative, David Hendon, confirmed to us last night that in political and governments circles - at every level - the US had pushed home its points again and again.
--
Everyone of course claims victory but the reality is that the US has won out by shouting loudest. Expect to read numerous press articles that claim the United States has saved the Internet from a fate worse than death. That was never true, and there were never any good real reasons why the US should not cede some control to an international formation of governments. But reality and politics have never been good bed-fellows.
The shift to an international body will still happen but it will now be at least five years down the line.
The plus point of all this great theatre however is that the world, and its governments, are now infinitely more aware of how this internet thing really works. ®
sources :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...ood_khan_wsis/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...et_governance/
WSIS Tunis It’s been four years since the issue of how the internet should be run, and by whom, became an official United Nations topic.
And yet despite hundreds of hours of talks, three preparatory meetings and a world summit, there is only one thing that the world’s governments can agree on: Masood Khan, Pakistan’s ambassador.
If a certain US senator and a certain EU commissioner are to be believed, the internet is five days away from total collapse as governments are finally forced into a corner and told to agree on a framework for future Internet governance
--
Respect
Such is the level of respect and trust he has built up with all parties that at the first restart of the sub-committee this Sunday, every speaker without exception (and that includes countries as diverse as China, Iran, Brazil, Ghana, Argentina, the US and UK) went out of their way to stress how useful Mr Khan’s contribution as chairman was.
--
And he did it time and time again, until, eventually, the real points at the heart of the internet governance started forming. "Would reform of the GAC [the governmental advisory council, part of ICANN] answer your points?" he asked Brazil. The Brazilian delegation demured. "You did not answer the question," Mr Khan came back.
It wasn’t just the Brazilians. The US wasn’t allowed to hide either. Would the US please say whether the word “oversight” is ever going to be acceptable to them? Could the US answer the assertion that other countries do not have adequate control over their own domain?
---
In such a way, Ambassador Khan has expertly moved a room full of governments that have been unable to get past the same topic for four years onto a path that now even the most pessimistic can see drawing ahead of them.
It is far from over but when the agreed text on how the internet should be run and by whom appears in front of the World Summit and is approved on Friday, it most certainly won’t be perfect but it will be in no short measure thanks to remarkable abilities of the unassuming ambassador from Pakistan.®
==============
(next morning)
Because of the extremely short timetable, the only deal possible was consensus. And every radical proposal was simply shot down. Today will see a jubilant US ambassador David Gross, a resigned EU (and one that may well learn some lobbying lessons in future) and a depressed Brazil.
The deal represents a remarkable victory for the United States and ICANN : only a month ago they were put on the back foot by an EU proposal that turned the world's governments against the US position.
But following an intense US lobbying effort across the board, the Americans have got their way. Countless press articles, each as inaccurate as the last, formed a huge public sense of what was happening with internet governance that proved impossible to shake.
Massive IT companies - again, mostly US and thanks to intense US government lobbying - came out publicly in favour of the status quo. And the EU representative, David Hendon, confirmed to us last night that in political and governments circles - at every level - the US had pushed home its points again and again.
--
Everyone of course claims victory but the reality is that the US has won out by shouting loudest. Expect to read numerous press articles that claim the United States has saved the Internet from a fate worse than death. That was never true, and there were never any good real reasons why the US should not cede some control to an international formation of governments. But reality and politics have never been good bed-fellows.
The shift to an international body will still happen but it will now be at least five years down the line.
The plus point of all this great theatre however is that the world, and its governments, are now infinitely more aware of how this internet thing really works. ®
sources :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...ood_khan_wsis/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...et_governance/