So says this BBC story by Alfred Hermida. It continues:
It is seen as arrogant and determined to remain the sheriff of the world wide web, regardless of whatever the rest of the world may think.
It has even lost the support of the European Union.
Like David Davis has even lost the support of Gordon Brown.
It stands alone as the divisive battle over who runs the internet heads for a showdown at a key UN summit in Tunisia next month.
The stakes are high, with the European Commissioner responsible for the net, Viviane Reding, warning of a potential web meltdown.
“Responsible for the net”, is she? I’d always heard it was Al Gore.
“The US is absolutely isolated and that is dangerous,” she said during a briefing with journalists in London.
If any of the assembled journalists thought to ask her what exactly this danger was, or why the net is liable to melt down unless the Iranians get a share in running it, Mr Hermida does not tell us about it.
“Imagine the Brazilians or the Chinese doing their own internet. That would be the end of the story.
The end of the story… yes, you could say that. Later the article warns that the US faces “opposition from countries such as China, Iran.” I wonder why. Mr Hermida declines to keep me company in my wondering; he doesn’t express any curiosity as to whether the Chinese and Iranian authorities might have any other motive than a selfless desire to share the burden of Icann’s labours, or the American authorities any other motive than nationalism for wishing to fend them off.
AmEx has posted a superb parody which makes another good point:
Britain has an image problem when it comes to broadcasting.
It is seen as arrogant and determined to remain the sheriff of international news dissemination, regardless of whatever the rest of the world may think.
It has even lost the support of the US. It stands alone as the divisive battle over who runs the World Service heads for a showdown at a key UN summit in Tunisia next month.
Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: And then read this Eurosoc article about former Swedish Prime Minister (and UN Special Envoy to the Balkans) Carl Bildt’s editorial in the International Herald Tribune arguing that the setting up of an “international mechanism, controlled by governments” would be “profoundly dangerous” and would be likely to result in “theocrats or autocrats around the world getting their hands on the levers of control.” (Hat tip: Dan.)
Mr Bildt’s line of argument is well expressed, but not at all unusual. Many share his view, including many non-Americans. I am, alas, not surprised that none of these arguments were alluded to on Mr Hermida’s article.
Just imagine nit-pickers in the developed west and the campaigners and activists that they trained abroad petitioning the UN to ban people and text as “hate”, or lobbying for economic franchises.
You know it’s coming.