US vs. UN Control of the Internet

xm15e3

UN Wants more influence over the net:

http://news.com.com/The+U.N.+thinks+about+tomorrows+cyberspace/2008-1028-5643972.html?part=dht&tag=npro&tag=nl.e433

U.S. Insists on Keeping Control of Web:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050929/D8CTTNAO0.html


This should be a fun discussion.

My Opinion: Since my Taxes paid for the core and development of the system and it is still a part of US National Defense, the UN and the PRC can take a flying leap. What are the chances China, or Kofi Annan, would be as tolerant as the US with sites as critical of them as this one is of Washington? I don't know, but I sincerely doubt it.

Sand

Yeah I read about this a few months ago. I cant see any justifiable reason for moving control of the internet from the US to the UN. Its not even aout taxes etc - its that the US has a proven track record in having a pretty tolerant attitude to websites. Whereas if it goes to UN control youre talking about giving China, Russia, Cuba, and the likes influence over what can and cannot be on the internet. And China has a proven track record in trying to ban free speech on the internet.

xm15e3

Sand wrote:

And China has a proven track record in trying to ban free speech on the internet.

Didn't Google help them out with this. Seems like they developed a Politically Correct search engine/filter for the mainland.

bonkey

xm15e3 wrote:

Since my Taxes paid for the core and development of the system and it is still a part of US National Defense, the UN and the PRC can take a flying leap.

So why doesn't the US just remove itself from the rest of the web, keep control over its own network, and leave the rest of the people who used the knowledge they gave (without precondition) to build a compatible network alone?

An apt comparison would perhaps be the IAEA. That was your tax-dollars at work too. Reckon the US should insist on taking back power from the IAEA as well?

dahamsta

First of all, this ongoing saga isn't about “the Internet”, it's about the Domain Name System, i.e. the translation of hostnames to IP addresses. The Internet will do just fine without ICANN if it needs to, and ccTLD associations have been discussing alternatives for many years now. If the Internet at large decides that US control of the DNS is no longer viable or logical, all Internet operators have to do is migrate to alternative roots. It would be a complex, last resort move, but not that complex.

Secondly, it's an exaggeration to claim that the United States “paid for the core and development of the system” in either case. In the case of the Internet there's no denying that DARPA had a big hand in the creation of the Internet*, however similar discoveries were being made in the UK and other places around the world, and the Internet couldn't exist without the co-operation of everyone. And DNS wasn't a DARPA project to the best of my knowledge, it was invented at an institute associated with USC (although I don't know who was funding the research).

adam

* Go Al Gore!

mike65

I thought Regi cotrolled the interweb?

Mike.

SkepticOne

If the DNS goes to Kofi and his friends, boards.ie will still be at 82.195.136.36.

Other important IP addresses:
195.10.120.135 (www.paddypower.com)
217.114.167.249 (www.eircomleague.ie)
217.78.0.10 (www.evening-herald.ie)

dahamsta

mike65 wrote:

I thought Regi cotrolled the interweb?

He does, but Cloud's a mind control expert.

Hobbes

The root DNS is basically a cash cow. However it is one that can be sidestepped if its felt it is causing problems.

As for censorship of the net. Have to laugh everytime China is brought up. What these people fail to realise that major western corporations are quite happy to censor the internet for the Chinese but it is the Chinese government that gets the flack for it.

I also notice no outrage at the fact that US is now wanting the FBI to mandate what software you are allowed run on your PC (only effects US citizens though so we are ok). http://beta.news.com.com/2061-10804_3-5884130.html

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

I also notice no outrage at the fact that US is now wanting the FBI to mandate what software you are allowed run on your PC (only effects US citizens though so we are ok). http://beta.news.com.com/2061-10804_3-5884130.html

That reminded of that Russian guy that was arrested in the States...something to do with encryption....even though he did it in Russia IIRC.

Hobbes

sovtek wrote:

That reminded of that Russian guy that was arrested in the States...something to do with encryption....even though he did it in Russia IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

I also notice no outrage at the fact that US is now wanting the FBI to mandate what software you are allowed run on your PC (only effects US citizens though so we are ok). http://beta.news.com.com/2061-10804_3-5884130.html

I just read the link. Funnily, for me it read that the FBI want to be able to tell you what software you can't run on your pc, not what you can...which isn't quite the same thing*.

I don't see a huge problem in that. I mean...the police almost everywhere tell you at the moment that you can't - for example - run movies of child pornography on your pc, so they already take a stance on deciding what you are and aren't allowed run.

The problem would/will arise when the law agencies start trying to make something like encryption software illegal. Again.

jc

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

which isn't quite the same thing*.

True, but only for the reason that they don't have to put a pre-approval process in place.

I don't see a huge problem in that. I mean...the police almost everywhere tell you at the moment that you can't - for example - run movies of child pornography on your pc, so they already take a stance on deciding what you are and aren't allowed run.

That is already covered by another law though. Why do they need a new law to cover that? From what I see it is more to do with stopping people running VOIP /encrypted software that FBI will have a problem cracking.

rsynnott

This is ridiculous exaggeration. The US wants to retain control of the root DNS servers. Ultimately, if they make trouble (a return to the CDA or something) then other groups (Europe in particular) can set up their own root servers. It would be a split of the namespace, but not a complete disaster.

And saying that the US "made the Internet" is also a bit of an exaggeration. In particular, HTTP, the protocol which delivers websites, originated in CERN

Sand

As for censorship of the net. Have to laugh everytime China is brought up. What these people fail to realise that major western corporations are quite happy to censor the internet for the Chinese but it is the Chinese government that gets the flack for it.

They obey the laws set out by the local government of the Chinese socialist paradise, not entirely palatable laws but with China its kind of hard to cherry pick. The old dilemma with China, trade with them warts and all or hope something rubs off, or dont. Are you saying the corporations are pressuring the Chinese government into passing these laws?

That is already covered by another law though. Why do they need a new law to cover that? From what I see it is more to do with stopping people running VOIP /encrypted software that FBI will have a problem cracking.

So youre worried the FBI are evesdropping on your chats with your friends? As opposed to crinimals and the like?

democrates

xm15e3 wrote:

UN Wants more influence over the net:
http://news.com.com/The+U.N.+thinks+about+tomorrows+cyberspace/2008-1028-5643972.html?part=dht&tag=npro&tag=nl.e433
U.S. Insists on Keeping Control of Web:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050929/D8CTTNAO0.html

This should be a fun discussion.

My Opinion: Since my Taxes paid for the core and development of the system and it is still a part of US National Defense, the UN and the PRC can take a flying leap. What are the chances China, or Kofi Annan, would be as tolerant as the US with sites as critical of them as this one is of Washington? I don't know, but I sincerely doubt it.

First off it''s interesting to note that it was the public sector not the private sector that gave rise to the internet, that has to be the most severe kick in the nuts to anti-'statism' libertarians ever. The lesson is that the freedom of individuals to solve problems creatively is paramount to the well-being of society, we don't require the greed of the investor elite to make our best possible future happen, quite the contrary, freedom of the many is the way forward, not the oppressive central-command hierarchies of totalitarian regimes or western corporations. And the so-called libertarians know it. That's why you won't find any mention of Ricardo Semlers Industrial Democracy phenomenon 'Semco' on the Cato institute website. The true potential of ordinary people seems to scare them, and such embarrasing selectivity employed in their analyses marks their output as propaganda designed to further the interests of the elite.

As for one country controlling the infrastructure upon which the rest depend, how dare you USA (new-europe). ICANN's refusal to create a .un tld is obnoxious, an affront that will be renowned in history for its arrogance. Clip on the ear in order.

On the other hand, for the interim, what class of UN body would take on the power of ICANN? The ITU had the power to create the internet, but never did because it is infested with state telcos with a vested interested in the status quo. We'd still be thanking them and paying extortionately for Minitel++ if it wasn't for arpanet. And would China gain an effective veto on this proposed UN-icann using economic and military might to strong-arm other voters as the US does in the world bank, imf, and wto? Not acceptible, they don't value the opinions of their own citizens, let alone anyone elses. And Cuba? Seriously. If Fidel is so commited to the good of his people why haven't Cubans got industrial and direct democracy? He values power and control above the freedom of citizens. Che must be spinning in his grave. To call the UN democratic when so many members are based on military regimes rather than national elections is a joke. Let's not allow that camels nose under the internet control tent just yet.

If we are to learn any lesson from history it is that no one group can sustain absolute and unaccountable control. By all means let us collaborate and agree global standards rather than having wasteful vhs v betamax or hd-dvd v blu-ray battles in the end market, but let us set up a UN body that serves 'we, the peoples of earth' based on civilised principles that serve the people rather than operating based on the political exigiencies of individual nations or interests of investor lobby groups. Much as I don't like the dominance of one country over ICANN, I'm sceptical about the interest of totalitarian regimes in wanting to dislodge ICANN. At least the fundamentalist capitalists are more likely to protect freedom than the dictators, so I've no big problem with the status quo so long as there's no clear problem with the operation of ICANN. I await points that convince me that ICANN is holding back anyone, compared with how a proposed alternative body would better enable these victims.

rsynnott

democrates wrote:

First off it''s interesting to note that it was the public sector not the private sector that gave rise to the internet, that has to be the most severe kick in the nuts to anti-'statism' libertarians ever.

Actually, most of the interesting bits were from the universities.

democrates wrote:

As for one country controlling the infrastructure upon which the rest depend, how dare you USA (new-europe). ICANN's refusal to create a .un tld is obnoxious, an affront that will be renowned in history for its arrogance. Clip on the ear in order.

There's a .int....

democrates wrote:

At least the fundamentalist capitalists are more likely to protect freedom than the dictators, so I've no big problem with the status quo so long as there's no clear problem with the operation of ICANN. I await points that convince me that ICANN is holding back anyone, compared with how a proposed alternative body would better enable these victims.

Freedom has been badly eroded in the US lately, tho. (Are they still trying to do that flag-burning thing?) The problem is not the current status of ICANN, but ICANN in a decade or two, when it's too late.

democrates

rsynnott wrote:

Actually, most of the interesting bits were from the universities.

There's a .int....

Freedom has been badly eroded in the US lately, tho. (Are they still trying to do that flag-burning thing?) The problem is not the current status of ICANN, but ICANN in a decade or two, when it's too late.

True, and universities are by and large public sector, ie funded by taxpayers to provide a public service, though some academics may be described as Igor Schwezoff wrote in Borzoi of artists - when they think of social obligation it is only what society should do for them.

The .int was not what the UN requested, they requested .un, but were snubbed by ICANN - "you can't" effectively being their defiant reply. The neck!

I'm still trying to see what the practical problem of US control of ICANN is, even in 2025, though I'm there on the principle. Given echelon and other spy systems are running away and that software patents and treacherous computing are live issues, I don't see a comparable threat from ICANN being in US control. If the UN got their way tomorrow what practical benefit would accrue? The work of OASIS is on the other hand astounding, both ebXML and the openDocument format, yet even those pale beside the IETF and W3.org aladdins caves of open standards. Perhaps those are the real jewels the UN ultimately has it's eyes on now that I think of it :eek:

Hmm. And donning the Nicolo Macchiavelli hat for a moment, though the US may have no great practical interest in the specific issue, it's another example of the battle between US hegemony and unilateralism vs UN global consensus and the principle of international law, so regardless of the paltriness of the ICANN issue, the US'll fight tooth and nail to preserve their ideological stance. So watch the Geiger counter Iran, as I remind myself that adherance to high ideals is a luxury of those on the sideline.

dahamsta

Can ye point me to a few links about the UN TLD? That one completely slipped me by and Google will only throw up results for the "control of the internet" garbage. TBH, although I think ICANN should be adding TLDs to the roots every day, not every year, I fail to see why the UN should get priority and I'm not entirely sure why un.int isn't enough for them.

rsynnott

democrates wrote:

True, and universities are by and large public sector, ie funded by taxpayers to provide a public service, though some academics may be described as Igor Schwezoff wrote in Borzoi of artists - when they think of social obligation it is only what society should do for them.

There's an important distinction between the public sector and things partially paid for by the public sector.

democrates wrote:

The .int was not what the UN requested, they requested .un, but were snubbed by ICANN - "you can't" effectively being their defiant reply. The neck!

The two-letter country codes, are, as the name implies, generally reserved for countries, though a few have been granted to non-sovereign entities.

democrates wrote:

I'm still trying to see what the practical problem of US control of ICANN is, even in 2025, though I'm there on the principle. Given echelon and other spy systems are running away and that software patents and treacherous computing are live issues, I don't see a comparable threat from ICANN being in US control. If the UN got their way tomorrow what practical benefit would accrue?

Security from a future which may yet include a fundamentalist Christian US. As I've said before, though, there are ways around this.

democrates wrote:

The work of OASIS is on the other hand astounding, both ebXML and the openDocument format, yet even those pale beside the IETF and W3.org aladdins caves of open standards. Perhaps those are the real jewels the UN ultimately has it's eyes on now that I think of it :eek:

Nonsense; nothing to do with ICANN. And having 'control' over those standards would do no-one any good.

democrates

rsynnott wrote:

There's an important distinction between the public sector and things partially paid for by the public sector.

The two-letter country codes, are, as the name implies, generally reserved for countries, though a few have been granted to non-sovereign entities.

Security from a future which may yet include a fundamentalist Christian US. As I've said before, though, there are ways around this.

Nonsense; nothing to do with ICANN. And having 'control' over those standards would do no-one any good.

OK apologies Ken Shabby for time-wasted on the .un application story, after over an hour on google I have to conclude I was misled and it was actually the .health domain application of the UN body WHO that was rejected by ICANN. And it looks like there are good reasons for the rejection. Clicky (lo! how boards did bring truth and moderation)

Point taken about fundamentalist christians, I've seen more debates about god in the western media since Al Quaeda entered the public consciousness. Some people are polarising already, playing right into the hands of those who want to provoke a clash of civilisations. But I think the greater threat to ICANN is from private interests. Reading the controversy around the .info sunrise and gtld evaluation process has now shaken my confidence in ICANN, anyone know if those problems have been sorted?

I know ietf and w3.org are not part of ICANN, but the point is that if the UN wins the argument that bodies which do work upon which the rest of the world depends should be controlled by the UN, they could be next on the list.

As for the value of controlling these bodies, see http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response for an example of how private interests attempted to intoduce software patents to w3c standards. Huge advantage accrues to corporations when 'their' standard is chosen over a competitors. If that is a US corporation vs a foreign one, how do we know W3C are objectively doing what's in the best interests of end users? I am not making any allegation, but they are left open to such charges as they are administratively based in one country where they may be subjected to local influences. I don't think anyone should underestimate the relentless nature of private interests to usurp for their own gain.

The dns was not designed for it's current applications. For a start, the 26 trademark categories conflict. McDonalds carpet shop are legally entitled to a trademark in ireland for 'McDonalds' in that business category, but mcdonalds.ie is gone to the food category, the other 25 trademark categories can whistle. The .com situation is worse. In the long term the dns should be overhauled for ease of use. Imagine if you could search domain names using a standard form, and filter by country and trademark category. If you think about it there are probably other innovations which would make the dns a lot more useful, such as a hits history and integrating trademark searches and applications. These can be implented in such a way that the core dns is still fast, and make finding what you want a lot easier.

The problem is that the US have the greatest stake in the current sorry situation, which artificially elevates the value of .com domains to their advantage as so many are registered there. Why would they give that up? And can we expect a US ICANN to be an agent for such change?

dahamsta

Interestingly, Paul Vixie of BIND fame recently joined the ORSN Project.

http://www.circleid.com/article/1219_0_1_0_C/

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Are you saying the corporations are pressuring the Chinese government into passing these laws?

Quite the reverse, the western corporations help the Chinese government enforce these laws.

So youre worried the FBI are evesdropping on your chats with your friends? As opposed to crinimals and the like?

? as pointed out the law only applies to US citizens. Anyone who is non-US can use stronger encryption. But as for listening in on whoever you like, Hoover is a good example of why this is a bad idea.

SkepticOne

Hobbes wrote:

Quite the reverse, the western corporations help the Chinese government enforce these laws.

Thats probably why people blame the Chinese rather than the corporations contracted to carry out the work. The Chinese, from what you are saying, are the ones in charge.

If the US government employed Indian or Chinese companies to implement similar measures people would blame the US not the companies although some might object to the work being sent abroad.

rsynnott

SkepticOne wrote:

Thats probably why people blame the Chinese rather than the corporations contracted to carry out the work. The Chinese, from what you are saying, are the ones in charge.

If the US government employed Indian or Chinese companies to implement similar measures people would blame the US not the companies although some might object to the work being sent abroad.

It has been argued before that companies should not assist a foreign regime in something clearly unethical; for instance IBM was criticised for providing information machinery for German concentration camps, and to the South African police.

democrates

Sure look at weapons exports!
Good luck trying to get any international teaty agreed against this type of thing, the only country where the people are adequately in charge is switzerland because they have direct democracy, the rest of us effectively have things decided based on one vote per euro/dollar etc instead of one vote per person.

SkepticOne

rsynnott wrote:

It has been argued before that companies should not assist a foreign regime in something clearly unethical; for instance IBM was criticised for providing information machinery for German concentration camps, and to the South African police.

You can certainly hold corporations responsible for their part in these regimes. I remember watching a programme where a British businessman described being held in a prison in Saudi and he noticed that the leg irons were made in Sheffield. He quite rightly had a problem with this. However, the decision to hold him there on trumped up charges was made by the Saudi regime. They would have done so with or without the help of the Sheffield company.

It seems to me that you have to look to the regime first and this is what most people do. In the case of the Chinese government and their decision to restrict internet access, it is understandable that people will mainly be concerned with the decision itself rather than the choice of contractor.

Rozie

If we were talking about the entire 'net, I'd feel safer with UN control.

The U.S. really does rule the internet - you can't get into a single forum debate any more without a huge gang of conservatives ganging up on you, shoving "points" down your throat and absolutely refusing to actually argue properly. I'm really getting tired of that. I never feel comfortable expressing any views whatsoever on message boards now because of it. Unfortunately that means it gets pent up and comes out on "Local" boards more often

The Internet should belong to the world, not America. It is after all, a global construct.

As for it being about domains, "Local" country addresses are often very expensive, I believe a .ie domain is considerably more than a .com address. If it were to be controlled by the U.N. rather than the U.S., then there would most likely be a flat rate domain registration free for every country, encouraging more .whatever country extensions. That might be interesting to see. It might also encourage other countries to take a bigger hold of the internet.

It could also mean that .us become the standard for United States websites, as opposed to .com. Who knows what those crazy europeans might do.

But if there's one thing the Americans love, it's control and power, so I don't see them giving up even the domain name resolution control thingie anytime soon at all.

"We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet," said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."

I love how he says something assertive, oblivious to what he's meant to be talking about, and doesn't back it up with a single reason why. Just like the afforementioned Intarweb debat0rs.

What would happen to the InterNIC though, and similiar organisations? Would it end up with cheaper domain registration for everyone, or more expensive?

Zombrex

xm15e3 wrote:

What are the chances China, or Kofi Annan, would be as tolerant as the US with sites as critical of them as this one is of Washington? I don't know, but I sincerely doubt it.

Ever tried putting up a "Simpsons" themed website, or something that breached the DMCA even though it actually didn't breach any international copy right laws ... or ever tried to legally share something over a P2P network, or discuss the damages of Scientology. :rolleyes:

The idea that US laws have keep the Internet "free" is rather ridiculous TBH.

Victor

Um, if you can have .eu, why can't you have .un?

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0208/internet.html