[uanog] громобойная дискуссия у людей :) Fwd: Re: [Internet Policy] Tim Denton vs Richard Hill on "Statism".

Vint Cerf воистину акбар :) чета ржу :) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Vint Cerf" Date: Feb 7, 2015 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Tim Denton vs Richard Hill on "Statism". To: "William Smith" Cc: "internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org" yep, that was the plan. worked like a charm. v On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:41 PM, William Smith wrote:

As he is most capable of doing, Richard has made an impassioned and well-articulated set of arguments that oppose the current mechanisms that govern two very small aspects of the Internet, using his definition. Naming and numbering are certainly important to the technical operation of the Internet, but are rather inconsequential in terms of the broad and expanding array of services that Richard includes in his definition. Such a realization is inconvenient when the thesis is that the US Government created the Internet as a strategic initiative to further its economic interests. In his paper, Richard states:

Great powers have historically used communication systems (transport routes, telecommunications net- works) to further their economic and strategic interests. This is certainly the case with the Internet: its origins can be traced back to US military-funded research in the 1960s, and subsequent deployment by the military and other government-funded academic programmes.

Presumably the US Government began this initiative well before DARPA’s public disclosure circa 1969. This tactical disclosure would have been part of a much larger strategic plan, perhaps begun in the Roosevelt administration. Bush's seminal article, "As We May Think http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/” is likely the first evidence of this strategic initiative that has resulted in the Internet. There may be earlier evidence but the two most likely candidates, Jacquard https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Jacquard_loom.html and Babbage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage, fail the US hegemony test. An argument could be made that early US statesmen might have begun this initiative during their revolutionary sojourns in France. I may pick up this thread in the future but welcome others to investigate as well.

Moving forward from ARPAnet, the next major tactical operation in this strategic initiative would be for the US Government to feign a lack interest in TCP/IP. This was cleverly done through it support for GOSIP in 1990 by requiring suppliers of technology to the USG to demonstrate support for OSI. The USG persisted with this plan until 1995 when FIPS 146-2 permitted use of standards from ISO, ITU, and IETF as it became evident that TCP/IP was winning the protocol wars.

Machiavelli would have been proud to see his techniques employed in such an inspired manner. (To maintain the facade that it preferred OSI, the US DoD continued to employ OSI in its Defense Messaging System for some time.)

Fast forward to today and one can’t help but be amazed at the skill the USG demonstrates through its masterful manipulation of the many strings necessary to control the activities of ICANN, the RIRs, and the IETF. Additionally, it has managed to align diverse corporate interests into a unified front that marches arm in arm with the USG http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/. This is indeed the best of all possible worlds for the US, its corporate interests, and its citizens.

It should be clear to even the casual reader that Richard’s thesis is correct. The USG, unlike other governments, wishes to “further their economic and strategic interests” and that with the Internet, the USG’s activities can be traced to the 1960’s. Using similar logic, I have demonstrated that we can push the inception date for this strategic plan back further, perhaps to the mid 18th century.

I can’t imagine an alternative interpretation of the historical record.

On Feb 6, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Richard Hill wrote:

I'm flattered that my polemic published in the 2015 State of Power is getting so much attention. Since Mr Denton is mostly attacking his strawman extrapolations of things that I didn't say in my article, I had not planned to reply to his post. But I will reply to the bits that you post here.

I don't know who or what "statists" are, so I cannot comment on what bothers them. I'm certainly not bothered by the fact that the Internet has increased access to information and freedom of expression. On the contrary, I'm bothered by the fact that international law allows, at present, what I consider to be excessive limitations on freedom of expression. I've proposed in various forums that this be changed, see for example 7.1 at:

http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/CWGContributionmar2014/Attachments/25//CWG-March...

And I am bothered by imperialism and corporatism.

I have no desire to take us back to the old days that Mr Denton criticises, nor does my State of Power paper say that. Regarding ITU, it is worth noting that the first international agreement that opened the way for the present liberalized environment was the ITU's 1988 ITRs, and that the 2012 ITRs more cleary state that international interconnections may be based on commercial arrangements.

My paper is hardly confined to a critique of ICANN. On the contrary, it critiques states as well as private companies, stating: "It is tempting for divil society to focus on denouncing the role of governments in regulating the Internet, and in particular authoritarian governments that use it to censor dissent. And it is important to do this, and to do it vigorously. But civil society must also denounce the complicities between governments and private companies in the North, whose abuses go largely unchecked. There is also a need for more democratic governance arrangements that will prevent monopoly profits and monopoly rents."

I recognize that some people don't think that there are any abuses (except maybe regarding copyright) and that there aren't any monopoly profits or rents that need to be prevented (except maybe regarding copyright). Let's agree to disagree on that.

My paper also calls for pervasive use of improved encryption, which is something that is opposed by most states.

Mr Denton is of the view that my short paper does not engage the relevant issues. Perhaps, but the endnotes include references to academic works that, in my view, do engage the relevant issues.

Best, Richard

-----Original Message----- *From:* InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces@elists.isoc.org ]*On Behalf Of *Joly MacFie *Sent:* jeudi, 5. février 2015 22:19 *To:* internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org *Subject:* [Internet Policy] Tim Denton vs Richard Hill on "Statism".

In case you missed it, Timothy Denton has published a detailed rebuttal of purported Richard Hill "statism" on Circle ID

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150203_true_faith_of_internet_governance_sta...

Concluding paras:

It seems to me that what most bothers the statists is that the Internet has broken up the tight controls that states used to be able to exercise over thought, expression, and access to information. I could be wrong. It might be simply a matter of distaste for the United States and its commerce-driven governmental system. Those of us who lived in the days of tightly-controlled telecommunications and broadcasting structures, such as characterized the 20th century, have welcomed the bracing possibilities of the Internet, which has linked computers, and the human beings empowered by them, more effectively than treaty-based obligations ever could. It is important not to romanticize the Internet, but it is more important to get the big picture right. The tightly controlled signals transport system of the 20th century was shattered by the Internet. It is still possible to achieve police state goals through communications, if that is your country's desire, but it has become a lot harder. If Mr. Hill could achieve his desire of taking us back to the ITU world, the carrier-monopoly world, we would experience something like a Counter-Reformation, and the closing of human possibilities from a different direction than unbridled commerce. Personally I do not want to go there, and most of the liberal market societies of this world do not either. Nor do I want unbridled private sector monopolies of distribution or of applications. There is a role for governments in this, and they already have the powers they need to control monopolies and market power. If Disraeli's maxim "power has only one duty — to secure the social welfare of the people" is the criterion by which we judge government by the ITU (or its equivalent) or government by ICANN, then my conclusion is that Mr. Hill's arguments have failed to demonstrate the superiority of the ITU model. I would go farther, and say that, by confining himself to a critique of ICANN and the forces that sustain it, without reasonably examining the statist alternative, he has failed to engage the relevant issues.

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

_______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

_______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

_______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.