U.S. Insists on Keeping Control of Web

[Pax]

See the news story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050929/ap_ ... et_control

U.S. Insists on Keeping Control of Web

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 29,10:35 AM ET

GENEVA - A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer....

...One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or
ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the
United Nations....

...In 1998, the U.S.
Commerce Department selected ICANN to oversees the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them everyday, likely without knowing it.

Although ICANN is a private organization with international board members, Commerce ultimately retains veto power. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography....

I think the US has no right to command such undemocratic control over a vital global resource such as the Internet, and what is needed is a more democratic multipolar control perhaps via the UN. The EU's advocating a "new cooperation model," which would involve governments in questions of naming, numbering and addressing on the Internet.


Also see the article The Net Censors

[Worldbystorm]

My understanding is that ICANN tends towards a libertarian-right approach, i.e. a soft regulatory touch. That of course could change, but I'm not certain that UN oversight would constitute an improvement.

My understanding as well is that ICANN is responsible in effect for the processes that get information onto the web, naming etc, rather than shifting the data itself. As for websites being cut off at a stroke, that seems unlikely.

[Libero]

It is beyond me how anyone concerned about freedom of information over the internet can object to the status quo, as opposed to some hypothetical multinational solution.
If it ain't broke...

On the other hand, the United Nations cannot even maintain the toilets in their General Assembly building.

The internet works and remains reasonably free-for-all. Why risk screwing that up by handing control to a notoriously incompetent body, one whose membership includes such illiberal states as China?

[stringjack]

It is beyond me how anyone concerned about freedom of information over the internet can object to the status quo, as opposed to some hypothetical multinational solution.
If it ain't broke...

Well, the point may be that the freedom of information can be increased through reform (not through the UN; that's probably a silly idea).

[Libero]

It is beyond me how anyone concerned about freedom of information over the internet can object to the status quo, as opposed to some hypothetical multinational solution.
If it ain't broke...

Well, the point may be that the freedom of information can be increased through reform (not through the UN; that's probably a silly idea).

Of all the nation states in the world, the US is one of the least likely to seek to regulate content on the internet (as distinct from monitoring it). At least given the power it has had and the history of exercising it, it has been quite benign.
It also strikes me that the US Commerce Department is quite likely to see the current hands-off approach to content as positive for, well, commerce.

I struggle to imagine any set of reforms which would not increase the influence of states with a greater motive than the US to regulate, interfere and generally nanny us about online. Put it this way: I can think of lots of states I don't want anywhere near regulating the internet, but can think of very few I would favour ahead of the US. I hope that makes sense in pointing away from a multilateral approach...

[stringjack]

I struggle to imagine any set of reforms which would not increase the influence of states with a greater motive than the US to regulate, interfere and generally nanny us about online. Put it this way: I can think of lots of states I don't want anywhere near regulating the internet, but can think of very few I would favour ahead of the US. I hope that makes sense in pointing away from a multilateral approach...

Oh, I agree. I'm thinking of reforms, probably of a technical rather than regulatory nature, that would put the web further beyond the reach of any government control, US or otherwise.

[Worldbystorm]

I think Libero has it just about right. Imagine a UN oversight committee headed up by the Chinese and the Russians for example?

The Chinese controls on the internet (aided it would appear by certain companies) are pretty fearsome as it stands.

This is one case of a private enterprise being put in a regulatory role that seems to be working just fine.

[Pax]

It is beyond me how anyone concerned about freedom of information over the internet can object to the status quo, as opposed to some hypothetical multinational solution.
If it ain't broke...

On the other hand, the United Nations cannot even maintain the toilets in their General Assembly building.

The internet works and remains reasonably free-for-all. Why risk screwing that up by handing control to a notoriously incompetent body, one whose membership includes such illiberal states as China?

Well as imperfect as the UN is it's better than a free for all. And I think you're taking a benevolent view of what ICANN is and could become (as is worldbystorm excluding his/her "That of course could change" proviso). As regards China et al and internet control, the current trajectory as proposed by the Bush administration could very well see a far worse situation in the Chinas of this world (1).

So what's worse a globally democratic control mechanism with say the EU ensuring manners of a free speech nature are put on the Russias and Chinas, or for them to split away with their own supported* mechanisms?

*Again The Net Censors is worth a read here.

....In 1994 he dropped BBC world news from his Star satellite feeds after it broadcast an unflattering portrait of Mao Zedong. In 1997 he ordered his publishing house HarperCollins to drop a book by Chris Patten, the former governor of Hong Kong. He slagged off the Dalai Lama (12) and his son James attacked the dissident cult Falun Gong(13).

His grovelling paid off, and in 2002 he was able to start broadcasting into Guangdong. “We won’t do programmes that are offensive in China,” Murdoch’s spokesman Wang Yukui admitted. “If you call this self-censorship then of course we’re doing a kind of self-censorship.”(14)

I think, if they were as honest as Mr Wang, everyone who works for Rupert Murdoch, or for the corporate media anywhere in the world, would recognise these restraints. To own a national newspaper or a television or radio station, you need to be a multi-millionaire. What multi-millionaires want is what everybody wants: a better world for people like themselves. The job of their journalists is to make it happen. As Piers Morgan, former editor of the Mirror, confessed, “I’ve made it a strict rule in life to ingratiate myself with billionaires.”(15) They will stay in their jobs for as long as they continue to interpret the interests of the proprietorial class correctly......

But it’s unsurprising the current administration’s opposition to a more multipolar democratic form of control. The UN summit next month should prove interesting with seemingly everyone lined up against the US’s approach.


-----
(1).
See the two news articles below,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4327928.stm

Net power struggle nears climax
The US has got an image problem when it comes to the internet.
It is seen as arrogant and determined to remain the sheriff of the world wide web, regardless of whatever the rest of the world may think.
It has even lost the support of the European Union. It stands alone as the divisive battle over who runs the internet heads for a showdown at a key UN summit in Tunisia next month.
The stakes are high, with the European Commissioner responsible for the net, Viviane Reding, warning of a potential web meltdown.
"The US is absolutely isolated and that is dangerous," she said during a briefing with journalists in London.

"Imagine the Brazilians or the Chinese doing their own internet. That would be the end of the story.
"I am very much afraid of a fragmented internet if there is no agreement." ……..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/stor ... 02,00.html

EU says internet could fall apart

• Developing countries demand share of control
• US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform

Richard Wray
Wednesday October 12, 2005
The Guardian

A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control.

The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart.

At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce….

…. The US government, which funded the development of the internet in the 60s, said in June it intended to retain its role overseeing Icann, reneging on a pledge made during Bill Clinton's presidency…..

And below from the wiki on ICANN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN

…..On 17 May 2004, ICANN published a proposed budget for the year 2004-05. It included proposals to increase the openness and professionalism of its operations, and greatly increased its proposed spending, from US $8.27m to $15.83m. The increase was to be funded by the introduction of new top-level domains, charges to all Domain Registries, and a fee for all domain name registrations, renewals and transfers (initially 20¢ US for all domains within a country-code top-level domain, and 25¢ for all others). The Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR), which represents the Internet registries of 39 countries, has rejected the increase, accusing ICANN of a lack of financial prudence and criticising what it describes as ICANN's "unrealistic political and operational targets". Despite the criticism, the registry agreement for the top-level domains .JOBS and .TRAVEL includes a US $2 fee on every domain the licensed companies sell or renew.
Along with the successful negotiations of the .TRAVEL and .JOBS namespace, .XXX, .MOBI, and .CAT are some of the new applicants in front of ICANN. The recent introduction of the .EU Top Level Domain to the root, and the currently proposed .ASIA multiregional suffix are developments to watch.

ICANN is making strides towards their aggressive and ambitious goals that sit in front of them, and they are recently doing outreach to improve public perception and correct misunderstandings of their motives and mandate. In May of 2005, ICANN participated in the Domain Roundtable Conference in Seattle. They are, however, under fire from the United Nations' Working Group on Internet Governance.

Meanwhile,ICANN is seeking to privatize itself, withdrawing from its connections to the US Government and the US Department of Commerce. Support from these National Top Level Domain Internet registries is a missing critical milestone within the commitments that ICANN has made to the US Department of Commerce…..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/31 ... 2buck_fee/
ICANN imposes $2 internet tax
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/01 ... et_policy/
Bush administration annexes internet

Extraordinary statement
By Kieren McCarthy
Published Friday 1st July 2005 10:41 GMT

Get breaking Internet news straight to your desktop - click here to find out how
An extraordinary statement by the US government has sent shockwaves around the internet world and thrown the future of the network into doubt.
In a worrying U-turn, the US Department of Commerce (DoC) has made it clear it intends to retain control of the internet's root servers indefinitely. It was due to relinquish that control in September 2006, when its contract with overseeing body ICANN ended.

The decision - something that people have long feared may happen - will not only make large parts of the world furious but also puts ICANN in a very difficult position. The organisation has slowly been expanding out of its California base in an effort to become an international body with overall responsibility for the internet….

[watch-this-drive]

As regards China et al and internet control, the current trajectory as proposed by the Bush administration could very well see a far worse situation in the Chinas of this world (1).

How does anything in the (1) section of your power-dump post suggest that the internet worldwide could become worse than mass censorship of the internet in China?

As for your detour to have a pop at Murdoch, I dont know of any internet media operator in China that doesnt bend over when the Chinese government tells it too, as Yahoo did recently - if you are taking such a odd detour shouldnt you put it in context?

[Pax]

As regards China et al and internet control, the current trajectory as proposed by the Bush administration could very well see a far worse situation in the Chinas of this world (1).

How does anything in the (1) section of your power-dump post suggest that the internet worldwide could become worse than mass censorship of the internet in China?

Assuming you're genuine here....

I did not make such a suggestion. Read the entirety of it again.

power-dump post

*What a langer.

As for your detour to have a pop at Murdoch, I dont know of any internet media operator in China that doesnt bend over when the Chinese government tells it too, as Yahoo did recently - if you are taking such a odd detour shouldnt you put it in context?

Detour? Out of context
*