Remind me again why this is a good thing.
06 Oct 2005, 1:02 pm
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html
But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for generations to come.
Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet.
Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium.
The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows. For the vast majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is getting on it. But with the internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure - Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.
And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it.
But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's foundation - its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for the whole internet.
A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.
But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies"?
No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users."
Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."
Human rights
But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so sure. An overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would stop it saying 'when you're making this standard for data transfer you have to include some kind of surveillance for law enforcement'?"
Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World Summit - has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human rights situation."
And what about business? Will a governmental body running the internet add unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system? Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's not clear to me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from get in the way of things that other people do."
There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are pointing the same way: international governments deciding the internet's future. The internet will never be the same again.
Okay, so the "evil" US relinquishes its control of root servers for a media that it helped create. Then suddenly, the EU and UN can come in and take away control through a consordium by giving it to countries like Tunisa and China. I am sure China will be delighted in using this to advance their cause in stifling government criticism and pro-democracy movements. Step 1 was getting American companies to bend over and censor certain words that have been spoken - which has met with great success, unfotunately.
But besides that, no one is even talking about monetary comepensation, or some form of recognition. The US, which had the biggest hand in helping and funding the internet (actually it was our military) just simply has to give up control and and walk away. How fair is that? This is almost like the UN charter saying that no country can colonize and claim land in space. Its just another way for them to go beyond their role of mediator and step into juruistiction over which they dont have control over.
_________________
"I was trying to learn how to turn a large fortune into a small one." - Elon Musk, when asked why he had funded SpaceX
06 Oct 2005, 5:25 pm
All of this could have been avoided had the USA bothered to do what every other country in the world has done, which is to assign domain names that end in the two-letter country code. Then you could bicker amongst yourselves as to who gets a ".us" domain versus a state domain like ".tx.us" versus a "special" domain like ".com.us". BUT NO! Rather than abolishing the antique TLDs, companies in the USA lobbied to create new ones like ".xxx", etc. and some want ".tv" stolen back for domestic commercial use. Without the ".com", ".edu" and ".net" domains every country could have its own root servers, but since those old TLDs are used in other countries there will always be fighting over who gets to assign names. If two countries have companies with the same name then both will want the ".com" label because it's a competetive advantage over ".co.uk" or ".tw" but only one can have it because those TLDs have no associated geography. The perception will always be that as long as ICANN answers to the USA government, the USA company will always have first kick at disputed names. And as long as the USA controls all of the root servers they can disrupt other countries at will.
_________________
What would Flying Spaghetti Monster do?
06 Oct 2005, 5:33 pm
Will this make the net more local or more worldwide I guess we will find out . All long with more local control all so means some of the small places will have more access but all so more petty things they will try to control. The model in the US were the gov does not control most content sould be promoted in a worldwide model. Allow each user within reason to access whatever they want . The gov that think they know best for their citzens need to get a clue. They forget gov does good for big projects to benfit the most ppl like roads, heath care but not so good being a morality police.
_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
06 Oct 2005, 9:17 pm
Are all the root DNS Servers located in the US? I was under the impression that they were scattered around various (though selected) countries around the world.
Besides, the publicly-acknowledged root DNS Servers are backed up by hidden ones that can be brought online, should the 'public facing' ones come under attack.
08 Oct 2005, 6:53 pm
Are we a tad confused? Networking technology was developed ny the US military, but also by academia (giving us gems like alohanet). The internet in terms of modern usage was developed by Tim Berners Lee at CERN. In terms of innovation the US pron industry probably leads the way.
The fact that the question is asked regarding "is this right", is in itself the only answer I need. Yes. Most Americans (please do not read this as an attack on Americans in general, it's more of a commentary on the way I see people overalll) seem to be unaware of the way the rest of the world sees them, and when they do see it, a "positive gloss" is quickly applied. Apart from the fact that Pres Bush (aka the voice of God" has respect for nothing other than the rights of the oil industry and the occasional right wing christian think tank, the US has always put its own interests first, when the DoC is in charge of things like the internet, you might understand that this makes anyone who is not American a tad nervous in their business dealings on the net. At the moment ethnocentricity and the making of a buck are paramount, people would like to feel they have some control over the internet, not necessarily in a negative censorial sense, but that in view of the increasingly intolerant and aggressive attitude of the American Gov., that there is some control of what happens.Stories of the abuse of power (like the Echelon system, anti-encryption measures, etc) have made people a little cynical of the land of the free ( apart from the genocide on the indigenous people, failure to share the land with the indigeous people, production of the Blues, Jazz and various other cries of the oppressed).
In a nutshell, by giving away so enthusiastically the hard won rights that they earned Americans have brought this on themselves. the hardware that founded and provided the basis of the net was provided by America, that does not mean that they should be allowed to abuse it at will. Have a look at the countless flames on Linux forums on the subject.
08 Oct 2005, 8:20 pm
What has the us done to abuse its foothold on the internet compared to China? We know china moniters its citizens internet useage. We know they censor any public animosity towards them or even take steps to put them in prison. Compared to that, the US has been angels. The biggest reason the US has to moniter to the internet is the intercept terrorists messages, not you.
You actually limit freedom of speech accross the internet if you allow the DNS servers or what-not to go to countries like Tunisa because then it makes it easier for them to monitor what their citizens have to say and close it down.
09 Oct 2005, 5:20 am
Like everything else, it depends on where your baseline is. Do you think it is reasonable for the rest of the world to equate lack of control with freedom? re-organising domain names makes a lot of sense for many parts of the world, but is not possible while the US controls all. some sort of vote would be nice.
