US stands firm over Internet control

We think it's working very well. We don't think there are any pressing problems associated with it.

At the preliminary meeting in New York last year, I found that discussions were all over the map, including spam, viruses and computer security. Is there a lack of focus here?
Issues like spam and cybercrime and viruses are extraordinarily important. We've encouraged WSIS and other forums to work cooperatively in solving those issues. So we seek to have a very robust and inclusive discussion about these issues and others as well.

If critics of the US join forces at WSIS and oppose the US, are there any red lines for the US that the administration would find intolerable?
We've been very clear in what we think the summit should be accomplishing and should be focusing on. We continue to work with governments around the world and with civil society and with the private sector to secure an outcome that everyone can be proud of. I'm not worried too much about other results.

So there's no red line?
At the end of June, the administration issued its four principles. We, of course, stick by those four principles. They're very clear — the world asked us to issue clear principles. We make clear what the US government will continue to do and what we seek to do with the world going forward. That includes engaging in a dialogue in multiple forums.

We don't think of these things as red lines or blue lines or green lines. Rather, we think of these things as a clear articulation of where the world should be going.

Is the US worried about splitting the root, so that computers in two nations will find different Web sites at the same domain name?
I have not heard any spokesperson for a government say that their government was interested in the creation of new root systems. I've heard governments talk about other governments being interested. I think that's important.

The government officials I've spoken with say all of the incentives are to work on the current system.

Any new system, any new network would, it seems to us, want to be interoperable with the current system. One of the keys here that is often overlooked is that the Internet is technically, constantly getting better. We're not interested in trying to lock in the current system as the right system.

Have there been any behind-the-door negotiations to try to hammer out an accord prior to Tunisia?
We've had a series of prepcoms (preparatory committee meetings) including one in Geneva. That prepcom will be resumed in Tunis starting on Sunday. We, of course, reached out and talked with colleagues around the world and talked with governments and the private sector. We'll see what happens.

Which allies does the US government have here? Even Europe seems to have joined China, Cuba, Iran and so on.
It's hard to pick and choose individual countries. I think the key here is what I heard at Geneva, at the prepcom — there's important common ground that can and will form the basis of a very productive meeting.

You can't name any allies?
I make it a point never to characterise other governments' positions, so I'm not going to do it at this stage.

What's the best-case scenario out of WSIS?
The best case is the world gathers together and reaffirms the importance of using technology to better people around the world — to provide increased opportunity for people economically, socially and politically. That would be a very important development.

How much of this dispute is symbolic? If the US said, "We'll leave decisions to ICANN," which has an international board of directors, would that be enough?
I don't know whether any other group, critics or friends would be satisfied (and I'd rather not speculate).