Plan Would Give Government Virtual Veto Over Internet Governance 65
An anonymous reader writes The debate over Internet governance for much of the past decade has
often come down to a battle between ICANN and the United Nations.
The reality has always been far more complicated. The U.S. still
maintains contractual
control over ICANN, while all governments exert considerable
power within the ICANN model through the Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC). Now governments are looking for even
more power, seeking a near-complete
veto power of ICANN decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if I want some government who may not like my religion or race being able to stamp my website out of existence just because it doesn't jive with their dogma.
I'll take the current means. There is enough religious persecution without having countries knock you offline on the net.
So... Sorry, but no (Score:1)
Whatever the faults of the USA, it really does have about the strongest protections for free speech anywhere. It sure as hell would be better to have governance solely by the USA than by an amalgam of other nations. Just look at the UN where countries like Iran and the Sudan get reps on the UN commission on human rights. UN governance of any aspect of the Internet would surely result in countries like North Korea and China ending up on committees which are empowered to restrict information flow.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I wouldn't exactly say USA has a good track record of protecting peoples free speech. Is your phone encrypted when you pass a checkpoint? You go to jail. Is your laptop encrypted when you pass a checkpoint? You go to jail. Have you googled pipe bombs or vacuum cleaners? You go to jail. Have you blown the whistle on your governments criminal activities? You get to be chased halfway across the planet and go to jail if you're caught. If you do anything your government doesn't like you're labelled a ter
Does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like I can exert influence over either governments or the ICANN in any way, shape or form.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I would rather have the USA, despite all of its faults (and we have many), in control of these things instead of countries like Iran or North Korea.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
An American would think that. Citizens from other countries may well disagree there. Especially because of that unthinking American preference for Americans in charge everywhere.
Really? Do tell us about all the governments that would rather have Iran or North Korea in charge of ICANN. Please :)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
1. Iran
2. North Korea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm from Norway. I think the United States has handled it well and there are few countries I would trust to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
A-ha!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from Norway. I think the United States has handled it well and there are few countries I would trust to do so.
Pretty much the same feeling, and from most people I know in tech circles. Though I'm in Canada, and my view is Canada-centric. But the vast majority of people here don't trust the UN at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. So you disagree!
Tell us all about it!
Note: This disagreement brought to you by American-backed free speech...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course this is about power shifting towards governments in general. This is to be expected - after all, we can't just have random people running the internet and governments happen to be the very things that represent their countries internationally. I expect ICANN to become something like the ITU: A UN agency that handles infrastructure governance. That does seem to be the safest and fairest option. Do Iran and North Korea get a voice? Yes, they do, just as they should. But that doesn't mean they run the show.
Re: (Score:3)
after all, we can't just have random people running the internet
I will differ with you here. Random people can and do "run the internet" all the time. Individual network service providers choose to whom they are going to connect. They choose how to route their traffic. Anybody can choose to use alternative DNS roots. The internet can be run by random people just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this is about power shifting towards governments in general. This is to be expected - after all, we can't just have random people running the internet and governments happen to be the very things that represent their countries internationally
(Emphasis mine.)
Why not? That's basically what Jon Postel [wikipedia.org] did: he basically singlehandedly administered the DNS root and was IANA.
Sure, things are different now, but we certainly have had random people running the internet. It worked then, why not now?
Re: (Score:2)
"Random people" includes any single government. Jon Postel might have been trustworthy but his government isn't. Not when international politics are invo
Re: (Score:1)
Well NZ Could run it just fine, we have no "real" army, navy or nuclear capability we can't afford to piss anyone off, anyone who declared war on NZ would probably get laughed at. NZ is also small enough to not be a major political power and have little/no say in global politics but is also a modern country with infrastructure to support this control. We also have free trade agreements with Both the USA and China.
Re: (Score:3)
Are those our only choices?
Until it became the world's shopping mall, governance of the Internet was rather simple.
At this point, I'd be content to see the Internet blown up completely and something else take its place. It's been too badly corrupted to ever deliver on any of the promise it had when it first became open to the general
Re: (Score:2)
The usenet was setup in 1980? 1981? I am willing to bet that at least by 1982 someone had sold a physical object to another usenet poster. Thus the internet has been corrupted for at least that long.
Re: (Score:2)
A swap meet is one thing. A job board, "for sale" signs, no problem.
Commercial uses of the Internet were prohibited until 1995 when the NSF ended its sponsorship of the backbone and turned it over to commercial services.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, commerce is the downfall of any civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet does not qualify as "a civilization". And certainly it is possible for civilization to have commerce without the Internet, don't you think? Somehow, people managed before 1980.
Re: (Score:2)
No but civilizations always work to make commerce more efficient and the internet is obviously a great way to do that. What next, complaints about people using the postal system to transact commerce.
No, I guess you are correct. Those of us who live in smaller towns should not be able to take advantage of the larger shops and choices without actually driving to the "big city" and we should be getting all of our entertainment the old-fashioned way by driving to the live theater.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was worth doing, then why didn't the private sector do it?
They actually did. I don't know if you're old enough, but the private sector created what they said was going to be an interactive network that would connect everyone. It was called, "cable TV".
When cable rolled out, there were these boxes you could input to answer questions and it was going to be how you communicated with peo
Re: (Score:2)
If you want what was there before 1995, then you are still free to provide that. There is no law nor rule that says you cannot. Just like there is no law nor rule that says you must purchase anything from Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean more than just two ISPs for the entire country?
Actually, you are NOT free to provide that. Not any more.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I get you. Democratic governments give you, the citizen, no ability to influence affairs.
I know you're trying to reference the fact that your nation(almost certainly the US) has a broken democracy, but I still challenge that it doesn't result in complete disenfranchisement.
Re: (Score:2)
It's considered broken by people who don't get involved. Their effort revolves around complaining on website.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's considered broken by people who do get involved, because we have a crappy two party system where the two parties are nearly identical on the one front that truly matters: Fundamental and constitutional liberties. Those of us who vote third party realize that voting for the lesser of the two evil scumbags does not solve anything, and yet we are few.
In a democracy, and especially a two party cesspool like ours, you get the government that other people deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the brokenness isn't that it is two party. If that were truly what citizens wanted, it'd be natural and good. The problem is that the electoral mechanics that underlie it strongly incentive arbitrary long-term political alliances among groups with highly disparate beliefs.
I'd argue that in-turn promotes a disconnect between the actual voters and those they vote for, but now I'm comparing a hypothetical universe against the real one. And we all know that imaginary universes with the changes I wa
Re: (Score:2)
2 parties suck, but n parties; coalition governments and regular reformations of coalitions also suck. Too much power in the hands of small parties that end up holding the balance.
I'm in favor of no political parties. But accept it's untested IRL and could continue politics being only affordable to the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is to give kingmaker power to fringe parties. It's not like Italian politics are to be emulated.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a small country in Europe. Even if I were to make an attempt at some kind of extremely diluted exertion of power by casting my vote for a nationally elected representative, it would still not amount to anything, because we have close to no power internationally.
They Don't Get It? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DNS is still pretty centralized though.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of, because many people still agree on using the ICANN root zone. The root zone is relatively small. Replacing it with something functionally identical that isn't under unilateral control of a US company is entirely possible, and ICANN's consent is not required.
Re: (Score:1)
As is IP address allocation.
Re: (Score:1)
Human society isn't some entity you can control. It's a network of individual entities. There are hubs, but there is no human society "core". Of course, this won't stop people from making the attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
What power does the ICANN have (Score:2)
root DNS, nothing else? There alternative DNS systems, and even when IANA blocks a TLD, the TLD operators can purchase a second-level domain from a unfrequented TLD like nauru, and run their service as a "second-level TLD".
Oh, I tremble from the might of ICANN, it can assign PORT NUMBERS!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There alternative DNS systems
That nobody but crazies and enthusiasts use.
Seriously, you're talking about a world where we haven't been able to get IPV6 up and running. Do you really think people are going to voluntarily switch roots, and put up with the catastrophic brokenness that would bring?
Not packed enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like the governments bent on censorship have managed to pack the ICANN board enough to get this proposal seriously considered but not enough that the ICANN board can't still usually override them:
ICANN is now proposing that the threshold be increased so that 2/3 of eligible ICANN board members would be required to vote against GAC advice in order to reject it
Why else would ICANN's own board even be considering giving this power away?
Virtual Veto? (Score:2)
Is this functionally the same as a meatspace veto? What about a holistic immersion filibuster via TRON-esqye deconstructing LASERs?
Whose government is that? (Score:1)
I'm afraid I certainly do not recognize Obama --to name one-- as my governor.
No good will come of this, no good of any kind (Score:2)
Legislating Whispers (Score:1)
So what? (Score:2)
If they want veto power, just kick them off of the rest of the network and watch how fast they come crawling back --- their population of people will literally whip the crap out of them for the lack of facebook/reddit/slashdot/amazon/younameit.com access.