[IRP] Fwd: [IP] USG rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy
Mon Mar 1 23:48:38 EET 2010
Quite interesting. What do people think? That the US is pushing for more
governance is not necessarily bad, no? Is there a way to promote human
rights and related policy implementation principles as the basis for the
"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:
> you've asked for anything of interest to be forwarded to the IRP list.
> What I'm forwarding below has already been forwarded by someone else on the
> Governance list, but I thought that since this is a significant article, it
> was worthy of being sent out here as well.
> Having met Kieren many times when he was working at ICANN, I trust his
> Warm regards,
> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [IP] USG rescinds 'leave
> internet alone' policy Date : Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:06:07 -0500 De : Dave
> Farber <dave at farber.net> <dave at farber.net> R?pondre ? : dave at farber.net Pour :
> ip <ip at v2.listbox.com> <ip at v2.listbox.com>
> Begin forwarded message:
> *From:* Richard Forno <rforno at infowarrior.org>
> *Date:* February 26, 2010 9:06:56 PM EST
> *To:* Undisclosed-recipients: <>;
> *Cc:* Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
> *Subject:* *USG rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy*
> Original URL:
> US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy
> By Kieren McCarthy
> Posted in Networks, 27th February 2010 00:06 GMT
> The US government?s policy of leaving the Internet alone is over, according
> to Obama?s top official at the Department of Commerce.
> Instead, an ?Internet Policy 3.0? approach will see policy discussions
> between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet
> constituencies, according to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, with
> those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection,
> cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance.
> The outcomes of such discussions will be ?flexible? but may result in
> recommendations for legislation or regulation, Strickling said in a speech
> at the Media Institute in Washington this week.
> The new approach (
> is a far cry from a US government that consciously decided not to intrude
> into the internet?s functioning and growth and in so doing allowed an
> academic network to turn into a global communications phenomenon.
> Strickling referred to these roots arguing that it was ?the right policy
> for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, and the right
> message to send to the rest of the world.? But, he continued, ?that was then
> and this is now. As we at NTIA approach a wide range of Internet policy
> issues, we take the view that we are now in the third generation of Internet
> policy making.?
> Outlining three decades of internet evolution - from transition to
> commercialization, from the garage to Main Street, and now, starting in
> 2010, the ?Policy 3.0? approach - Strickling argued that with the internet
> is now a social network as well a business network. ?We must take rules more
> He cited a number of examples where this new approach was needed: end users
> worried about credit card transactions, content providers who want to
> prevent their copyright, companies concerned about hacking, network
> neutrality, and foreign governments worried about Internet governance
> The decision to effectively end the policy that made the internet what it
> is today is part of a wider global trend of governments looking to impose
> rules on use of the network by its citizens.
> In the UK, the Digital Economy Bill currently making its way through
> Parliament has been the subject of significant controversy for advocating
> strict rules on copyright infringement and threatening to ban people from
> the internet if they are found to do so. The bill includes a wide variety of
> other measures, including giving regulator Ofcom a wider remit, forcing ISPs
> to monitor their customers? behavior, and allowing the government to take
> over the dot-uk registry.
> In New Zealand, a similar measure to the UK?s cut-off provision has been
> proposed by revising the Copyright Act to allow a tribunal to fine those
> found guilty of infringing copyright online as well as suspend their
> Internet accounts for up to six months. And in Italy this week, three Google
> executives were sentenced to jail for allowing a video that was subsequently
> pulled down to be posted onto its YouTube video site.
> Internationally, the Internet Governance Forum ? set up by under a United
> Nations banner to deal with global governance issues ? is due to end its
> experimental run this year and become an acknowledged institution. However,
> there are signs that governments are increasingly dominating the IGF, with
> civil society and the Internet community sidelined in the decision-making
> In this broader context, the US government?s newly stated policy is more in
> line with the traditional laissez-faire internet approach. Internet Policy
> 3.0 also offers a more global perspective than the isolationist approach
> taken by the previous Bush administration.
> In explicitly stating that foreign governments will be a part of the
> upcoming discussions, Strickling recognizes the United States? unique
> position as the country that gives final approval for changes made to the
> internet?s ?root zone.? Currently the global Internet is dependent on an
> address book whose contents are changed through a contract that the US
> government has granted to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Number (ICANN), based in Los Angeles.
> ICANN recently adjusted its own agreement with the US government to give it
> more autonomy and now reports to the global Internet community through a
> series of reviews. Strickling sits on the panel of one of those reviews.
> Overall, this new approach could enable the US government to regain the
> loss of some of its direct influence through recommendations made in policy
> reports. But internet old hands will still decry the loss of a policy that
> made the network what it is today. ?
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> <http://www.listbox.com>
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IRP