[Feels operational to me.]
<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html>
The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union that the Internet doesn't need new international regulations. The vote was unanimous: 414-0
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round unanimously.
It is can be useful (particularly during an election year) to make
certain that there is no doubt regarding the resolve of government
with respect to positions being taken in international negotiations.
In this case, I believe that the message is now quite clear...
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
Its just the house.... But I suspect Terry & delegation will take note.
/bill
....
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round unanimously.
Perhaps because the earth is usually more properly described as an
oblate spheroid...
Gary
Actually, I believe that the message originated with the Administration
(i.e. NTIA, State ala Ambr Verveer and Ambr Kramer, and WH/OSTP) and
we are seeing the endorsement by the House of that proposed approach.
(For specific details, I would refer to Ambr Kramers remarks from earlier
this week at the ITIC <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2012/196035.htm>)
FYi,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
John,
I like your approach - simply no comments
I think the way as your legislation guys decided to follow can be absolutely wrong.
My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing countires and US native commercial interests that you (not you personally - of course) aimed to protect
All this discussion have only financial background - no more.
Dima
PS
You can reference not only to magazines - but more on House of Representatives which expressed their opinions more openly.
Dmitry -
There is a very real financial issue that developing countries face
with affording the infrastructure that their citizens want to use
(and often used to access to VoIP and streaming media services)
I do think that there needs to be ample discussion of these concerns,
but do not assume that a regulatory regime is the only available
solution the issues raised.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy players(mobile are the same)
We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again to protect our market interests
- no more.
Dmitry -
We're quickly leaving the realm of network operations, but it might
be helpful if you could further explain what you mean by the above
(as it's not particularly clear what you mean by "our own problems")
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
in my stupid opinion it is the problem of a new global still developing global market - key dominated players are from our countries - which see on them as on strategical national strategic assets. Should I explain more?
Or it is already clear?
I classified censorship and IPR protection in the same manner or I mistaken?
in my stupid opinion it is the problem of a new global still developing global market - key dominated players are from our countries - which see on them as on strategical national strategic assets. Should I explain more?
Or it is already clear?I classified censorship and IPR protection in the same manner or I mistaken?
The problem with the ITU idea (apart from being to a certain extent a
me-too scheme) is that it is playing in the hands of nation-states that
wish to regulate flows of revenue and information in a manner that is
detrimental to operational practices for running networks efficiently
(on-topic) and business models for operators (somewhat on-topic) --
and then we haven't even gotten started on the phenomenal possibilities
of instigating government-run monopolies and information chokepoints by
implementing network infrastructure and adressing plans as if IP was
E.164 and there only was one ISP per country. (slightly off-topic)
Support for these ideas can -- IMNSHO -- only come from those who
have something to lose when there is free flow of information and free
establisment of business relations.
Far from wanting to taint the entire ITU by universal attribution I'd
suspect that this is the brain-child of a number of distinct nation-states
who have identified themselves as possibly in need of thwarted cashflow
(from gov't-supported monopolies with fantasy pricing schemes) or feel
that they need to alter the information picture for their subjects.
Either that or the entire ITU-T still believes that SS7 scales better than BGP.
And in fact, they didn't - there's 435 Representatives.
Actually 430. There were 16 "Not Voting". Five seats must be empty.
Republican 229 10
Democratic 185 6
TOTALS 414 16
"it is the "consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to
promote a global Internet free from government control."
Now if they would only practice what they preach.....
It will be interesting to see how that statement gets (ab)used the next time net neutrality, or legislation like SOPA/PIPA becomes a hot topic.
jms
I suspect they meant "a global Internet free from _other_ government control".
Nick
right and i don't think any government body expects to 'practice what
they preach' (it might sound absurd, sarcastic, or ironical, but i am
truly being serious here). it's more of a 'do what i say, not what i
do' mentality.
Actually, it is very likely that they truly mean "free of any government
control", with the confusion coming from the idea that enforcing existing
laws over the Internet (like copyright protection) isn't controlling the
Internet but just routine law enforcement.
Obviously, it is equally possible to view enforcing copyright protection as
a form of Internet control and/or form of Internet censorship, so stating
that governments shouldn't be controlling or censoring the Internet and then
taking down hundreds of domain names is certainly going to cause confusion,
if even the USG offers it as a perfectly logical and self-consistent position.
FYI,
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone. Your mileage may vary.