US Control of Internet Remains an Issue 303
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."
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: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?
Re:Not really an issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not really an issue (Score:3, Insightful)
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 also think this is a manufactured crisis, because I have yet to see anything that ICANN or the United States has done to the internet that harmed the interests of the rest of the world. And please don't throw '.xxx' out there as your example, as there are many legitimate reasons not to setup yet another TLD and I'd hardly think that a disagreement over porn of all things should be something to get nation-states upset about.
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?
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.
Time for a heart bypass? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not really an issue (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:First come, first served (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
Start with the ccTLDs (Score:2, Insightful)
Start with regulating the ccTLDs. Today nobody cares about unethical principes by ccTLD owners, take a look at Nunames that revokes good
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
Re:UN Hahaha (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Time for a heart bypass? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Internet is USA property now (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats exactly why this can't be given to an international political body. They will just turn it into an unusable mess. I'm a Greek speaker, should Greek letters and accents be in domain names?
Re:Gee Just what I predicted (Score:3, Insightful)
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, eventually partner up with the new system?
If you, as an unhappy member of a foreign nation, feel your content is valuable enough to build an infrastructure to support it, please do so. If the rest of the world agrees, I am absolutely certain that the necessary changes will be made.
But to insist that others abandon a system that works, and works quite well, for pretty much everyone else is just plain hubris.
Is this wrong? If so, why?
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?
Re:ICANN to UN control... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then write back from your prison cell about the evils of censorship and the lack of free speech in the US...
Re:Not really an issue (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, 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.
Re:Not really an issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw all this crap about what the majority wants - the majority wouldn't know what to do with it or how to do it while showing any other concern for anyone else. The U.S. developed and implemented the internet as we know it, and without our infrastructure and investment, it wouldn't exist in anywhere near the form it does today. While as a nation, the U.S. has some problems, I believe that we show a great deal more concern over privacy, security, reliability and usability for all than would any of the numerous communist or socialist nations that make up a healthy majority of the U.N. The U.S. is NOT a democracy (we're a republic, damnit, get your facts right) for a very good reason. Democracy is nothing more than mob-rule, and mob-rule doesn't ever see to the best interests of anyone but the mob (never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups). Philosophers as far back as Plato have warned against democracies and "majority rule", and there is no reason to believe that such application to the internet would be any different, since then the majority of little technologically and economically irrelevant countries that hate the U.S. because we don't pander to their BS economic and social policies would certainly set straight out to screw the U.S. (and any other countries they think they can profit from) over as quickly as possible, and I don't see any good reason why that should be allowed to happen. We're the only nation whose laws and founding ideals are consistent with the ideals that founded and continue to define the internet, and I don't see any other nation as being fit to carry on those ideals, from the people at the bottom to the governmental laws, philosophies and representatives at the top... Australia with its excessive taxes, France with it's communist sympathies, Russia with it's massive corruption, or China with their well known censorship and willingness to sponsor illegal activities, no, I think the U.S. is the only nation remotely fit to govern the 'net.
No, the Internet has done just fine, for the most part, being run when, how and by whom it is, after decades of unimaginable and unprecedented growth. Only the U.S. philosophy of freedom at all costs has kept the Internet from becoming what China has done to the internet within it's own borders, and no one is ever going to convince me that there is any good reason to change or "fix" what isn't broken, esp. when those screaming for change are only doing it out of spite. Screw political football - play by our rules or not at all... The rules were very clear when you signed up for a cross-connect in the first place; you knew who the ball belonged to when you started playing the game. Just because there are more players in the game now doesn't mean suddenly that some communist ideal should be allowed to take over and just demand that the ball's owner give it up to everyone else out of some misguided and dangerously naive sense of community. We're not the bully in the yard, we brought the ball for everyone else to play with, so long as they play by the rules. Anyone who doesn't like it can get the hell off our playing field.
The problem with US control... (Score:2, Insightful)