[LINK] Internet Society Concern

[tomk]

On 13/12/2012 7:12 p.m., stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> NYTimes Editorial
>
> Global Internet Diplomacy
>
> Published: December 12, 2012
>
> Representatives of 193 countries are meeting in Dubai to update a treaty
> known as the International Telecommunication Regulations that was last
> negotiated in 1988 and governs the exchange of telephone traffic between
> countries
>
> But a group of countries led by Russia and China are trying to use the
> deliberations, the first in 24 years and taking place under United
> Nations auspices, to undermine the open spirit of the Internet.
Open ? the first time I saw the word Open in relation to the Internet 
was in 1986 in relation to a proposal for a Chip backdoor that was to be 
placed in every Personal Computer.

I guess that was a sort of an open Internet.

>
> The United States, the European Union and other countries have rightly
> resisted any such effort, which is also supported by the United Arab
> Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Algeria, Iraq and Bahrain. It is bad
> enough that most of these countries already restrict the online speech of
> their citizens, but now they want international law to endorse their
> control and censorship of the Internet and possibly even tighten control
> in ways that would make it harder for users to get information online and
> allow governments to monitor Internet traffic more readily.
>
> One particularly disturbing element of their proposal, a copy of which
> was leaked last week to the Web site WCITleaks.org, has the potential to
> cause major disruptions to the Internet by giving each country the
> ability to manage Web addresses and numbering.

I don't see a problem. The Internet 2 (Academic network) ran in parallel 
with the Internet for a considerable length of time and ironed out all 
the routing bugs.
But lets do a little archiving... (errr, follow the money...)

WCITleaks.org
Base     Record     Pref     Name     IP-number     Reverse Route     
Autonomous System
wcitleaks.org     a     208.94.116.80     (none)     208.94.116.0/22 
Capital Equipment & Logistics, LLC PO BOX 221 COCOA FL 32923-0221 US     
AS40630 CAPEQUILOG Capital Equipment & Logistics, LLC PO BOX 221 COCOA 
FL 32923-0221 US

Edgar search:
Your search - *EDGAR filing for "Capital Equipment & Logistics, LLC PO 
BOX 221 COCOA FL 32923-0221 ...* - did not match any documents.
SEC filing for "Capital Equipment & Logistics LLC" = Ditto - No trace

WCITLeaks.org : ABOUT

Technology Liberation Front <http://www.techliberation.com/> 6 months ago
Quote/ Today we're launching WCITLeaks.org
Well, that's not really true, but member states of the UN's 
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) are definitely going to 
negotiate an agreement related to the Internet at the World Conference 
on International Communications (WCIT - pronounced... Full Article at 
Technology Liberation Front 
<http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/techliberation/%7E3/2kJnVqzTkfk/> /Quote

So a six month old organisation with no actual Company data filed 
anywhere in the USA... hmmm, wonder why they haven't been shut down yet 
by the SEC ?

> 'That important logistical task is currently overseen by the nonprofit
> organization known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers --- and it should stay that way.
Non profit, based in the USA. The country that mandated that since 1973, 
all OIL sales were carried out in American Dollars.  No wonder they can 
afford to do it on a non profit basis... cough cough... Their non 
profits are paid for by you, every time you go to the pump and buy 
petrol (that has passed through the American prop-up Petro dollar scam,) 
you are propping up the American economy by placing foreign currency in 
their banking system.

Foreign currency based on your sweat equity, not American know how.... 
Foreign currency that will disappear once more countries align 
themselves with the BRICS.

> ICANN already coordinates with
> governments, civil society groups and Internet service providers to
> assign and manage domain names . Allowing each country to manage and
> potentially politicize that function by giving favorable treatment to
> some groups or providers would risk fragmenting the Internet, which is
> useful precisely because it's universal and operates on the basis of
> globally accepted standards.
Except if they don't agree with your politics... or if your business 
challenges one of their sacred cows... or you refuse to sign one of the 
"beneficial" trade agreements.... In which case all sorts of routing 
accidents happen with your BGP tables.

>
> Other parts of the proposal would give broad powers to countries
> over "matters of Internet governance." Analysts say that language appears
> to legitimize and validate controls over content and access that many
> nations already use by including them in an international treaty.
>
> The Internet provisions are ill-considered diversions from what should be
> the core purpose of the conference: finding ways to expand access to
> communications technology, including reducing international cellphone
> roaming charges and lowering the cost of wireless and broadband services
> by encouraging competition.
>
> Organizers of the conference, which ends on Friday afternoon, have
> already said that no proposals or a final treaty will be put to a vote.
> Instead, they say an agreement will be reached through consensus. The
> envoy representing Washington, Terry Kramer, has made it clear that the
> United States will not accept any language on Internet controls, which he
> says does not belong in a treaty that should properly focus on
> telecommunications. Subjecting the Internet to more overlapping and
> unneeded regulations would only serve to weaken it.
>
And if the ITU force their version of filtering on the world, then my 
guess is that the BRICS will just create their own Internet.

All this posturing is about one thing... Control and DPI.

If the BRICS hive off 60% of the Worlds population behind an Internet 
2... or Alternet... then how are the Americans going to keep watching 
the contents of each and every packet ? Everyone in link knows that DPI 
has been  with us since BSDI Tahoe and dual /dev/eth?

If countries could be assured of running their own Telephone networks, 
what is the difference in being able to run their own routing, numbering 
and Root servers ?
(Think: A Country wide NAT system behind a single "C Class". Pretty cool 
really.) It would also stop all Pishing, Hacking and Spying.

There is only one difference.... and it has very little to do with the 
Berne Convention or human rights and freedoms.

The events in Egypt showed us that the determined will find ways to 
connect a TCP-ip link out of country, even behind a secure locked down 
and switched off Internet 100% proxy Gateway.

Twitter was running updates from within Egypt approximately five minutes 
after the government turned of the Internet.
Dial-up, Sat-Phones, illegal ARRL RF data bounces etc etc.. I don;t want 
to give away all the secrets, but suffice to say, the Government could 
not prevent their citizens from talking to the world.

Of course without all the foreign currency, Americans are left with only 
hyper inflation on Quantitative Easing Measures that actually pay for 
over three hundred military bases around the world.
That Military machine will fail unless the Petro Dollar can be 
maintained or an alternative can be found.

In these up-coming difficult economic times.... we can be glad that Dr 
Strangelove is not currently an American strategist.
But of course, a cornered 300 pound Tiger, is never a pleasant creature 
to be locked up in a room with.

Australia has always traditionally been aligned with the United States 
as is fitting as they are one of our largest trading partners, right 
behind China, which is one of the BRICS.

As our Prime Minister aligns our commercial interests to suit the 
Australian economy, we need to be open to an Internet that may require 
parallel IPv4 tables based on different numbering schemes that can be 
compatible with BSD routers...
We might even get our very own Root Server.... That is controlled not 
from Palo Alto but from Canberra...