Slashdot Log In
US Control of Internet Remains an Issue
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Nov 16, 2007 07:36 AM
from the holding-all-the-cards dept.
from the holding-all-the-cards dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "A UN-sponsored Internet conference ended with little progress on the issue of US control over the domain name system run by ICANN, a California-based nonprofit over which the US. government retains veto power. By controlling the core systems, the United States indirectly influences the way much of the world uses the Internet. As the conference drew to a close, the Russian representative, Konstantin Novoderejhkin, called on the United Nations secretary-general to create a working group to develop ''practical steps'' for moving Internet governance ''under the control of the international community.'' The United States insists that the existing arrangements ensure the Internet's stability and there's little indication that the US government and ICANN plan to cede their roles over domain names anytime soon. ''I think (there are) a small number of countries that are very agitated and almost don't care what the facts are,'' said Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, who stepped down as ICANN's chairman earlier this month. ''It's a very small vocal group bothered by this issue. ICANN has existed for eight years and done a great job with its plans for internationalization.'' With no concrete recommendations for action, the only certainty going forward is that any resentment about the American influence will only grow as more users from the developing world come online, changing the face of the global network. The next forum will held next year in New Delhi, India."
Related Stories
[+]
News: ICANN Writes US Government Requesting Independence 131 comments
Combat Wombat writes with word that IP address and domain name overseer ICANN has put in a request to the US government, asking to be freed from ties to the United States. A 'lengthy' report was sent to the US Dept. of Commerce, and covers the numerous steps the organization has already completed along the road to independence. The BBC reports that a meeting will be held soon in response to the report, a reaction to the expected end of US control. "The meeting marks the half-way point for the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) under which ICANN was tasked to comply with a series of 'responsibilities' deemed necessary for its release from official oversight. The JPA grew out of the original Memorandum of Understanding that established Icann and signalled the beginning of the end for US control."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This quickly spins into a ridiculous flame war consisting of something along the lines of "We invented it" - (A claim contested by swedish apoligists), or some kind of line about how Libya is in charge of the UN council on human rights, whatever that has to do with it.
These points, and many other historical arguements, are irrelevant. The only issue here is that the United States currently has control, and is being presented with no good (or even clear) reason why it should give that control up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe one can find a majority that does not like it ( http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [internetworldstats.com] ).
CC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Go for it. No one is stopping you.
Woosh! (Score:3, Funny)
Hint: I'm American.
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
But this isn't really what the people bitching about U.S. control want. They don't really want control over the system as much as they want to take it away from the U.S. I doubt they would do anything different if they had the opportunity (assuming good faith on their part, i.e. that they wouldn't build in some sort of horrendous censorship features, which I think is a serious risk), and honestly I can't imagine they have much interest in the day-to-day operation of what's mostly an automated system.
It's just a political football, nothing more. The countries involved know that the U.S. will never give it up, so it's an easy way to score points at little to no cost.
Parent
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, not to be callous, but just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
I believe that a big reason a lot of people don't want the US in control is because that's the status quo, and people find reasons to dislike the status quo, deservedly or not. Another reason is the general ill will that exists towards the US government worldwide. Yes, there are concerns about network neutrality, and there are concerns about the US abusing its position.
However, when the time comes that the US implements policy that damages the internet in a meaningful way, then we'll see alternatives used. It's how the internet works.
For now, the status quo is fine. Why do we waste so much energy trying to fix something that works?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you mean America's MOST USEFUL FRIENDS, the Saudis?
There, fixed it for you.
The U.S.'s dealings with most of the world are purely utilitarian. Assigning moral or social significance to them is a waste of breath or ink (or electrons), and trying to be sarcastic on that basis is just shooting blanks.
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Informative)
It's not "people" who don't like US control, it's "people who run oppressive governments". Look at the summary: a Russian is complaining about US control at the same time his government is busy trying to copy the Chinese filtering techniques.
Let's look at the Internet Usage By Region graph linked above that innocently labels by continental land masses as if all populations of the world yearn to be free from the USA's oppressive Internet policies. Compare it to the Internet Censorship worst offenders list [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia. Oh, look, apparently as a suprise to many
Of all the major players in the world, the US has the by far best track record (not perfect, just best) of keeping the internet open.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We would if the people that think the General Assembly should be the Governing body for the World had their way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's next? The US complaining if countries X and Y decide not to trade oil to eachother anymore in US dollars, or if country Z decides not to use
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or some kind of line about how Libya is in charge of the UN council on human rights, whatever that has to do with it
It has to do with the respectability of that institution in the eyes of a lot of people. To a lot of people the UN hasn't done anything morally just since the intervention in the Korean War. Many of us are leery of ceding control over anything to an organization that comes off as quite hypocritical in many areas (the human rights council being one of them).
Now I'm not looking for a flame-fest over the pros and cons of the UN. Just trying to explain the viewpoints of a lot of people. Personally, I al
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the number one reason to keep US in "control" of the internet is domestic stability. This is why a lot of foreign countries keep there money here in the US. The fact that we are democratic takes a back seat to stable.
Face it, other than some stupid name resolution, what REAL control does the US have over the internet?
If it's infrastructure, then this can be fixed by the foreign countries laying more cable...
Re: (Score:2)
Note to self: /s/There/Their.
Need more coffee...
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I love America, but I recognize our many flaws, and am quick to point them out, in order to facilitate the making of a better America. But, come on. For starters, this is one of the few international projects that we've gotten almost completely right! Secondly, as a sys-admin, I (and many others on slashdot) will be first to tell you: "If it ain't broke, and the new model doesn't add any needed functionality, don't fix it".
I'm pretty sure this is just bitching about America because it's cool to kick the guy when he's down. If you're going to bitch about America, take a look at our foreign policy, our unilateral support for Israel on the UN security council, our plummeting currency valuation, our mixed-bag relations with China, our disappearing middle-class and rapidly-growing-richer upper class, or the state of our healthcare and education services. Leave ICANN alone.
~Wx
Parent
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
"I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia, the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history, as one of its members. The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons, I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships."
Change out "Soviet Russia" for "PRC" (and to a growing extent Putin's Russia) and this still holds today.
I'm not American, don't get to vote for American laws, and I dislike, nay detest, many, many, policies of the American government. But I would rather have important elements of the Internet under the control of a single democracy than under an organisation that gives equal voice to completely undemocratic regimes of terror.
Parent
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so there are two basic ways in which you can deal with these regimes, talk to them or bomb them back to the dark ages. The PRC may not be a paragon of virtue but they're a great deal better than they were. Why? Because they value the trade they get. And if you want the situation to improve to talk to them, and you keep talking to them.
Parent
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I dont consider the UN 'neutral' consisting of a body of every nation does not mean they do not have a strong agenda
2) irregardless of their 'neutrality' the US built the internet put in all the investment and should benefit by control
3) There has yet to be a compelling reason presented other than 'Its not fair'. Nobody has been significantly damaged by US control.
But then again, taking into account how little US takes UN into account (well, not US, but the present administration) this doesn't surprise me a single bit.
Dont just peg it on Bush, many Americans (Anywhere between 20-40 percent) see the UN for what it is, a body a bureaucrats originally chartered, in spirit, with preventing war through a place of negotiation who have decided to ever justify their existance by meddling in every aspect of member (and non member) nations policy.
So, with that said, let them keep the control, and let the rest keep fighting for their principles and not only oil like some.
LOL I love this, how noble to have gotten rich raping the world and the worlds resources (Europe) and act so condescending to the US less than a 90 years after it all started to fall apart.
Parent
obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
Internet is USA property now (Score:2, Funny)
Why don't we give the governance of internet stuff to somebody like Switzerland? They look like they could do a good job, they hav
Re: (Score:2)
As a European, I do feel there is a need to do something with this issue
Why, what's the problem with the current arrangement other then European mistrust of the United States?
Just look at all the problems they have now (packet shaping, net neutrality, etc...)
Disputes over packet shaping on the individual ISP level lead you to think that ICANN can't govern the root DNS servers effectively? Your kidding, right? And traffic shaping is hardly unique to the United States [azureuswiki.com].
I feel that it has taken faaar too long to get the "ñ" in domain names
And you think the technical obstacles would have been overcome faster by adding more bureaucracy to the process?
Why don't we give the governance of internet stuff to somebody like Switzerland? They look like they could do a good job, they have the money and good reasons to do a good job on worldwide internationalization of internet.
Because Swiss neutrality is slowly being erased in favor of closer t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It issues you cite: "packet shaping, net neutrality, etc..." are all end-user (ISP level) issues. They do not effect the backbones and international communications at all. Furthermore, there is still no legislation at all regarding these issues (though the packet shaping/tampering thing is currently being "worked on")
Putting things into the hands of the UN is a horrible idea, simply beca
Re: (Score:2)
As a European, I do feel there is a need to do something with this issue. Not to be disrespectful, but I don't think that USA are the best people for the job.
Mindless drivel. Euros are just out of joint because they didn't invent the internet but use it like heroin addict. And your governments foster this rhetoric as to them this is far too open and standardized for their liking. They would rather see government controls, like France for example on encryption. None of why governments want shared contro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
L3, and all the backbone providers aren't shaping crap.
That being said, the UN handles the phones don't they? Somehow that's worked.
While yeah, I do get a littly snippy when my tax money was used to create the internet, at what point does it go from an
The economy is the only thing I worry about. (Score:5, Funny)
International community? oh yea despots & tyr (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee Just what I predicted (Score:5, Insightful)
To me this seems similar to a bunch of kids whining that the kid who owns a really nice toy that he shares and lets them all play with should "give up control" of it to the rest of them.
This is especially true since any sort of ceremonious handing over of control would do nothing to the reality of the situation. Sure the US could, in theory, tell ICANN they answer to the UN now (though there are limits to what they can legally make a private entity do). However it wouldn't change who really has ultimate control if everything remained in the US. If the government wanted to, they could still force ICANN to do what they said since, well, they have the guns.
It would be the same thing as if you used a server in my house. Let's say it was my hardware, hosted on my net connection, but I let you use it as you pleased. However you didn't have root to it, I maintained it for you. You demand that since it is your server, I "give up control" to you in the form of root. I do that. Ok great, but I didn't really give up anything. Why? I still physically and legally control the computer. So at some point in the future I decide I don't like what you are doing I tell you to stop, you say no. I just go and unplug the server and change the configuration offline. The "control" you had was an illusion, I was still ultimately in charge because I maintained physical control and legal ownership.
Hence for a real system that isn't US controlled, it requires other countries to set up their own services. Setup your own entity like ICANN, set up root servers that operate under it. Initially, have it just devoted to mirroring ICANN's zone file (there are some small DNS projects like this). However once you've got an established system that works well with good infrastructure backing it, then maybe you approach ICANN about splitting the zone. You take the TLDs relevant to your part of the world, they keep the rest, and you swap zone information. You might find they are quite open to something like that.
Now if that was done in a number of places all over the world, you'd end up with a real robust DNS system that nobody really controlled. If any of the top level entities flipped out, the others could just stop accepting updates from them and their roots would continue to work fine. There wouldn't be any way for a single group to mess up the Internet.
That's what I want to see, something where there really isn't ANY country in charge. However what all these idiots want to see is something where the US just pretends to give up control, we still have something the US retains ultimate control over, except that the day-to-day decisions become run by the UN and are incredibly bureaucratic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To me this seems similar to a bunch of kids whining that the kid who owns a really nice toy that he shares and lets them all play with should "give up control" of it to the rest of them.
This is a little harsh, but entirely true, I'd think.
Imagine, if you will, that the US said, 'fine, you can have ICANN.' And walked away. The 'world' gets control and is happy. Then the US goes about setting up a separate infrastructure to host its own content. Imagine that somehow all US content is migrated to this new infrastructure. What happens? Is there a great-big split in the internet? Do the networks never touch because of DNS issues?
Or would the world, wanting access to the US content, even
Time for a heart bypass? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was the original idea... Back when it was a relatively small system. These days there are a lot of core systems. DNS isn't nearly as distributed as it should be. Someone could definitely take out root DNS servers with a few well-placed nukes. The Internet isn't as interconnected as it used to be either. Most traffic passes through a few specific backbone providers, which could also be taken out with some well-placed nuk
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) There are core systems and networks that make the network more vulnerable to physical attack than was originally planned. I'm hopeful that going forward, in the best interests of low latency and high bandwidth, we'll see more and more of the giant backbone providers doing mesh-like interconnects with each other all across their respective networks, instead of thinking in terms of discrete exchange points.
2) "Routing traffic" isn't the issue. European traffic already stays in Europe (etc). This is an i
UN Hahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but think it would be better off in the US as non-profit than the UN. The UN is political, not a technical organization. So any changes they made would be driven from a political source with ulterior motives. Think, if they messed up commerce because of poor decisions they could argue 18 months about it before making a decision.
And besides, there is nothing stopping any country from doing their own thing provided they are willing to pay for it them selves and not hide behind the UN. Last I checked every country does have their own 2 letter ISO code country assignments. I am not aware of any who are denied access to .com, net etc.
It must have been a slow day at the UN. As if the UN had their way, one must remember it is stacked with mostly poor countries with most of the votes. Why should these countries with the least to lose have more control? Most can't even manage their own .iso.
So make your own! (Score:2, Interesting)
Americans dont trust the international community to do anything right except bitch about Americans.
If you dont like it, no one is gonna stop you from going your own way. Make your own.
Just stop complaining about it.
Where would it go? (Score:3, Interesting)
If we put it under NATO or UN control or something then where do the main authoritative servers get put? The UN doesn't own any territory, which means it would have to put it in the territory or a member state. Either that or they put it somewhere completely neutral (middle of the sea?) at which point the connection is terrible.
So, while it might be good to have it under less potentially influenced control, where would it all physically go?
* which, TBH, if the US Government have a veto on them then I don't really, but that's not important
Solutions (Score:4, Insightful)
Step2: Register domain names under your country code. ICANN has more or less promised not to fuck around with countries TLDs, and quite frankly they wouldn't be that stupid. If you happen to be a major international company that MUST have a
The problem with non-latin characters is technical, not merely political, and moving to a UN organisation won't make the technical issues go away. You would have to come up with something which doesn't break existing implementations, but is simulataneously sufficient enough that you won't have to revamp it again in ten years time. When somebody comes up with a working implementation for this that won't break thinsg across the globe, and if ICANN rejects it on political reasons, then one could start discussing it.
Of course, it would help if the US government would just stay the fuck out of ICANN decisions.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Russia, Canada, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway pressure the UN to force equatorial countries to give up their control of warm winters.
China, and other heavily industrial countries pressure the UN to force the pacific ocean to give up control of clean air.
Interesting parallel - GPS control? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a European, so no Bush fanboi, and I'm ashamed to say that we've got nothing better to propose. The EU, the UN? Hmmm...
I offer the only parallel I can think of, (a free, global system, originally developed by - and for - the military), namely GPS.
GPS is great - period. I travel all around the world, and my cheap GPS receiver always tells me where I am. Thanks to the Internet, I can even get maps/sat pics of 'forbidden' or 'unmapped' places beforehand, and find my way.
Russia's GLONASS and the EU's Galileo are not operational, (think 2010 earliest). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation_system)
The Internet works pretty well too. Except when I travel to....guess where! China, the UAE, Saudi Arabia....in places that have shitty oppressive regimes, esssentially.
So, tell me everyone, who do you want 'in charge' of the Internet?
IPv4 cost, DNSSEC, & control of root servers (Score:3, Interesting)
Specifically, what happens to IPv4 address [potaroo.net] allocation when there is no longer any freely available netblocks [ripe.net]. (Pay special attention to pages 27&29, and watch the accompanying video [ripe.net]). New allocations will come from returned address pools, so a queuing system will have to be implemented at the RIR level. Starting up a new ISP, or expanding your customer base and need more address space after 2010, and your request will go into a FIFO queue.
Now, economists see two distinct futures for a market based on scarcity. One is where cooperation and fairness ensure that everyone gets along, which is the current internet model, and the other is known as the "University of Chicago School of Free Market Uber Alles^W^W^W^WEconomics" government enforced monopoly, where a few select companies are allowed to charge whatever the market will bear with no real competition or alternatives. Maybe a US government sanctioned company called IPbay will become the sole broker to trade netblocks.
In the first scenario, the internet continues to function as it does now, companies needing new addresses will have longer and longer waits and will have to adjust their business plans accordingly. Into a system like this, where address space could be traded, stolen, pirated or worse, RIRs have no real powers to stop it falling into total anarchy. Except, the IETB, IANA, the RIRs, have a new tool in their arsenal to combat anarchy, called DNSSEC [rfc.net].
In the second scenario, one, or a very few, private companies based in the US, of course, take over the entire market for buying and selling IPv4 address space. Want to keep that nice
For router engineers, those who work with BGP and AS numbers on a regular basis, things have been pretty quiet until now. A few bogon filters, and you just generally believe whatever gets fed to you. The internet is mostly "best effort" and if some traffic doesn't reach it's goal, there isn't much that can be done beyond some simple tuning. There is some routing data in the routing registries, but it's rarely up to date and the accuracy depends on whatever random person did the update.
But in a few years, when companies start to get desperate for IPv4 address space NOW!, and can't wait for a proper allocation, they'll steal or buy a prefix. Companies with a large allocation not completely used will renumber internally, and sell the right to announce half their prefix to they highest bidder. Or companies will just find part of an unused block and announce it. Total anarchy! The most conservative estimates for 2012 with rampant de-aggregation and without DNSSEC is that the routing table will exceed 2,000,000 prefixes. Not much routing equipment out there today will be able to cope with that.
With DNSSEC, there will be cryptographically signed certificates [ripe.net] [pdf warning]for every allocation from an RIR [ripe.net][quicktime warning]. When you build your routing table in BGP, you will verify every prefix for origin and valid neighbors based on certificates stored in the RIR whois/routing registry. This will prevent the anarchy part of stealing a prefix and announcing it in the wrong AS. This wil
Re:Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, what do you think you are using to connect to the internet? Tin-cans with string run all the way back to the US and plugged into our infrastructure?
Define infrastructure? Because there's an internet backbone in Australia. There's also at least three [wikipedia.org] DNS root servers in Australia. What's the problem here?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Infrastructure = WoW servers.
They're extremely unhappy that they don't have any Oceanic WoW servers and they just won't STFU about it.
Re:Australia (Score:5, Informative)
But you do [apnic.net], in fact.
Content is not infrastructure.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Then bitch to your telecom companies and/or Government until they upgrade their links to the rest of the world. This has nothing to do with ICANN's control over the DNS root.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then write back from your prison cell about the evils of censorship and the lack of free speech in the US...