Governing the Internet Report Released 344
An anonymous reader writes "After the speculation on earlier this week, the Working Group of Internet Governance
(aka the United Nations attempt to govern the Internet) has just
released their much anticipated report. News
coverage and a helpful
summary point to the four options on the table and the likely
outcome in the months leading up to a final conference in Tunisia in
November."
Already prepared to take over? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The four options... (Score:1, Insightful)
The United States developed the internet, with many large investments (DARPA etc.), and now we are expected to just give it up?
The United States has perhaps the most to lose, economically, if the internet were to "go down(whatever that means)"
The universal access tax scares me. You don't need a tinfoil hat to see why a worldwide tax is a bad idea and an awful precedent.
The internet has become a security issue- Aside from all the defense networks etc, we need to be able to keep tabs on extremist groups on the web, note that there is a widely circulating how to video about how to cause the most damage with a b#mb on a bus.
As popular as "America is an Imperialist" sentiment has become, we still believe in freedom of speech. What happens when China decides that no one should use the word democracy? What happens when France decides that the word Nazi can't be used?
Just some thoughts.
Re:The four options... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about the UN trying to get control and power where they currently have none. They want this power so that they can be more like a government. The problem is, they are a treaty organization, not a government. They are not elected. They are not accountable to the people they want to govern.
Please stop trying to make the UN into a world government. It is nothing more than a forum for countries to discuss their issues and posture on the international stage. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:The four options... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the scots created the TV, give up your cable network now!
The United States has perhaps the most to lose, economically, if the internet were to "go down(whatever that means)"
Every country has something to lose.
The universal access tax scares me. You don't need a tinfoil hat to see why a worldwide tax is a bad idea and an awful precedent.
Don't you pay now to get an internet address? What's the difference with a tax?
The internet has become a security issue- Aside from all the defense networks etc, we need to be able to keep tabs on extremist groups on the web, note that there is a widely circulating how to video about how to cause the most damage with a b#mb on a bus.
Somehow I expected the terrorist issue to be raised! It's irrelevent to the subject of ICANN
As popular as "America is an Imperialist" sentiment has become, we still believe in freedom of speech. What happens when China decides that no one should use the word democracy? What happens when France decides that the word Nazi can't be used
What has this got to do with domain names?
Just some thoughts.
You managed to mention terrorists AND nazis. Congratulations.
Thoughts on the synopsis... (Score:4, Insightful)
However looking at all the options it essentially boils down to three things:
1. The U.S. cedes real control to the international community
2. The U.S. cedes token control to the international community (option #2 proposes creating an international forum to "discuss" internet issues - read: eventually inconsequential)
3. Start from scratch
While it's tempting to hate on the Americans for refusing to give up control of the Internet's foundations, any kind of sharing would lead to power sharing with nations including China and Russia.
Slashdot has posted numerous articles about the Chinese iron fist when it comes to dealing with anything on the internet. I find it frightening to even think about the prospect of having my internet access dictated in some part by the blatantly power hungry government of this nation. Yes, the Americans are no white knights either, but I'd rather have their faulty system of checks and balances than the outright corruption and byzantine system of governance that still controls much of the world today.
Think about the recent stories of "adopting a Chinese blog" to protect the bloggers from chinese government reprisals. What do you think the Chinese would demand first if they were given real control of our internet access? Control of any content that originates from China - which means these bloggers who almost got away, would be tracked down again.
Eventually the answer is going to come from somewhere in between. There isn't going to be a peaceful transition of the entire system from the americans to the international community. But rather different parts of the world will begin to develop their own networks with differing levels of compatibility, and software and hardware vendors are going to make a killing in providing systems that can handle these multiple formats and networks.
This diversity will arise not only from politics, but from new technology too and I can totally see the European Union developing a "new internet" that provides alternative control to what the americans have -- and then subsidizing the cost of this network so that it is taken up by major subsets such as India and the Pacific, until it eventually supercedes the now "legacy" american systems...
Re:The four options... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The four options... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of countries have a lot to lose. Putting control of something in the hands of the people who have the most to lose is a bad idea.
There is already a universal tax. It's called a "Registration Fee".
There is nothing stopping us from keeping the same tabs on extremists. It's like you think the internet is in a building somewhere. All we control are ten or so big domain servers. And, if you want to google "How to build a Nuclear Bomb" you'll find plenty of video on that. Not like Terrorists need the internet to figure out how to bomb a bus. They do have a bit of experience.
China != the UN. We may "believe" in free speech, but the surest way to make sure it stays free is to make sure that no one entity has complete control over it.
Just my opinion.
Merely step 1.. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is merely Step 1 in a long-term approach to txing internet usage.
1. Form a global council.
2. Make claims of global intellectual inequality
3. The UN, ACLU, and (insert names of politicians trying to buy votes here) decide to "level the playing field" by taxing those who have "won life's lottery" (have a domain name) and redistributing funds to under achieving locations.
Some time in the future.. U.N. Ambassador from Nauru (pop. 10,000) "Mr. Chairman, the people of Nauru beg this body to level the intellectual playing field by providing every man, woman, and child of Nauru a computer and high speed internet access..."
Four years after that..
EBay reports a 0.000002% bump in sales due largely to the army of Nauruvians selling brick-a-brack via their shiny 386 PC's.
I shiver at the thought of the "level playing field." Or, possibly, I've run off in the weeds on this one.
Happy Friday!
Will the U.N. do better than U.S.A? (Score:2, Insightful)
The U.N. needs to show the world that it can consistently manage its programs in a competent, honest and equitable manner before we trust it with such an important piece of world-wide infrastructure.
At least the U.S.A. has a vested self-interest in the internet continuing to work well.
Re:Thoughts on the synopsis... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he does underestimate the requests of the foreign powers. The foreign governments want the Internet to become a single entity ruled under single law - Germany wants no mention of the word Nazi, France wants no mention of white flags, China wants no mention of freedom or pornography, etc.
This is the truly scary part of what turning control over would entail. Sure, there's a difference between technical and political control - but political control eventually corrupts the technical. How long would it be before incredibly stupid mandates begin to filter down?
As for those who are decrying the United States as corrupt and no longer free - you may very well be right. I won't argue that we as a nation have some very serious issues to answer for, and that our current governmental body is severely lacking in many areas, including integrity and honesty. However, do not confuse the American people with the American government. Outright acts of hostility and control will still be met with outrage and political action - most of the problems with our government have been created through subterfuge on our government's part, leaving nothing for the people to focus on.
Honestly, I'd like to know if any United Nations governance body was prepared to handle the issues like spam, virii, identity theft, etc., and how so? What benefit does this transfer of "power" garner the world? Listing things like "connectivity is expensive and the cost should be borne by the rest of the world rather than the third world countries" -- no, I'm sorry, we paid for our connectivity when we needed it. If you want help paying for said connectivity, ask the United Nations for grants, or other companies or organizations for aid. Do not build it into the governing body of the Internet to be abused by all.
I especially like the claim that Internet virii and spam are problems created by the Internet's current governing bodies and the third world countries have to purchase "at great expense" methods of dealing with these issues.
There's an off switch, folks.
The remainder of their problems are similar, in my opinion. Someone thinks that having control will magically solve their problems because they can issue mandates about how people are supposed to behave. Whatever.
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shit, some don't even have running water for most of their population, let alone electricity.
=Smidge=
Obligatory Neuman quote (Score:3, Insightful)
What are we fixing? (Score:1, Insightful)
What's broken?
If there's some legitimate problem that we are addressing, someone please educate me. I can't help but think this is little more than more Anti-American sentiment going awry.
I thought from such a technical crowd, this would be the first question that would be asked.
Re:The four options... (Score:5, Insightful)
You may not even realise it, but the thinking exemplified by the above quote is exactly the reason the international community is so wary of leaving the US with any controlling interest in the Internet at all.
The US did not create the Internet. It may have played a larger part in some aspects than other countries, but it is neither responsible for all of the technological innovation, nor for even the majority of the investment, nor for keeping it running as it stands today. The fact that ICANN and its overlords are effectively US-government-controlled is an anomaly, not the norm.
The current US administration has demonstrated a great willingness to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations economically, legislatively and even militarily, essentially to further its own economic interests. This doesn't exactly engender trust on the part of those nationss' governments, and you can't really be surprised that they don't trust the US to "do the right thing" any more.
Re:Make your own (Score:3, Insightful)
Far more Internet infrastructure is outside the US than inside it already. The rest of the world has `created their own', and joined it to yours. If you want to unplug from the rest of the world, then have fun watching your economy collapse.
Re:The four options... (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't you pay now to get an internet address? What's the difference with a tax?
British monarch to American revolutionary:
Don't you pay now to get your tea? What's the difference with a tax?
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty hard to avoid "giving up control" if everyone around the world starts using different root servers. It's like talking about Google refusing to give up controlling the search engine market. Only because people use it do they have control.
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Make your own (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:1, Insightful)
Hell, while we're at it, let's let the Human Rights Commission be run by Libya.
What the hell's next? Zimbabwe in charge of the IMF? Cambodia in charge of UNICEF? Cthulhu in charge of "Interfaith Relations"?
Re:The four options... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of little things, but a few big things:
1) Nobody "taxes" me now to get on the internet. I think you're being to generous to the U.N. I think they're talking about taxing everybody on the internet.
2) That would be a huge precedent in the U.S. to allow an access tax for internet service. Its a bad precedent since I would have no way to advice my representative about the best use of the money.
For example, I can easily call my senators and representative on matters that I care about (and I have sent letters and called them). How do I go about complaining to my U.N. rep about an internet tax? In fact, how do I get to vote on them?
You do remember the Boston Tea Party and why those guys dumped the tea overboard right?
Re:What are we fixing? (Score:4, Insightful)
There! That oughta keep us busy for a while!
Seriously, it's not anti-American sentiment. It's a somewhat back-door attempt for the UN to have a real governing ability over issues that they've never been able to address through resolutions. Some country isn't playing nice with regard to intellectual property? Hit 'em in the Internet. At least, that's my theory...
Re:The four options... (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States is not a "colony of people from all over the world". The vast majority of Americans were born here.
I realize what you were trying to say, but does it really have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion to know, for example, that one of the inventors of the internet has ancestors that came over on the Mayflower hundreds of years ago? Talk about moot.
The UN could make a fresh beginning and make the internet really secure.
And on what record do you base this assumption? The UN has not done a whole hell of a lot lately to keep the world secure.
The US hasn't either, but the difference is in 3 years George Bush will be gone, but the UN will still be around bickering amongst itself and just generally doing nothing. I'd put my bets on the US any day, for the long term.
Besides, it's worth remembering that the internet was created as a US defense department program to guard against a nuclear attack. Asking the US to give it up is really no different than asking us to hand over the plans to the B-2 bomber to the UN - it just ain't gonna happen. It is a national security issue.
If the rest of the world wants its own internet under the auspices of the UN, let them develop it. In the meantime, the US has never done anything to restrict the growth of the current US-controlled system, so why complain? I see no reason why we should have to give something up simply because other people want it - has the rest of the world just become the equivalent of a spoiled child?
The UN Would Be An Atrocious Government! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about the UN trying to get control and power where they currently have none. They want this power so that they can be more like a government. The problem is, they are a treaty organization, not a government. They are not elected. They are not accountable to the people they want to govern.
Exactly right. I'm all for the world setting up an alternative set of more egalitarian root servers, but ICANN is hardly a democratically run organization, and has, quite frankly, demonstrated even more corruption than Verisign in this context (and that's saying a lot).
People forget that the UN's constituents aren't the people of the world, their constituents are the governments, most of whom are actively oppressing the people. Expecting liberation from a body that, by and large, represents oppressors, and certainly represents rulers, is a fool's bet.
Re:The four options... (Score:5, Insightful)
Presuming you have enough language skill to know that "create" is not equal to
"develop, nurture, and improve", which country did create it?
The US created the the Internet, and there is no question about
that. It has been at the core of it from the very beginning.
That being said, it doesn't mean it owns it. But considering the US's
20-year stewardship of the net which has provided an incredibly fertile
ground for growth, with plenty of opportunities for all countries, I think
they are a better choice than the UN for this.
The UN is a case of the inmates running the asylum. Any organization which can
put a Syrian delegate as the chair of its human rights commission has shown
what it is made of.
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a very good analogy indeed! Why, how accurately and wisely does it cover the brutal war the UN has waged on the US, the tank battles near Houston, the nuking of Atlanta, and the poignient ruins of the White House smouldering even now! And the rape analogy! Whoooweee! Brilliant! That probably refers to the mass execution by the Canadian forces, under the command of a Chinese general of the orphans near Minneapolis, no?
How about this analogy:
---
There is a rich man who pays a hermit to experiment with stuff.
One day the hermit discovers the telephone. He sets up the first exchange and people are starting to use the new invention.
Before long the whole town is using it. The discussion turns to ways of assigning phone numbers and emergency services and what not.
But then the rich man waltzes in and says: "You peons have no right to be doing any of this, I own the telephone, the wires, the exchange, and the very idea of people talking to each other, its all mine!".
The town at first, politely, tries to point out that while indeed, the rich man was instrumental in the discovery, as he financed it, the thing is now a part of the knowledge of humanity and he cant simply demand it back.
The rich man, being an arrogant ass, is not convinced in the slightest. He wants all of the phone system to be run from his estate and he will decide all the important things, such as who gets the phone numbers, and who are to be cut off should they be "uppity" and "disrespectful", and whose conversations are to be tapped to make sure that he is not involved in some religions the man does not approve of.
The town organizes a town hall, and after much deliberation decides to move parts of the exchange from the hermit's house to the town hall (even though the hermit has operated it flawlessly) because the hermit's house is on the crazy rich man's estate and they are afraid one day the maniac will just come in with his butler and pull the plug on people he does not like. This fear is compounded by the fact that the man just recently attacked his neighbour and burned down his house "pre-emptively", claiming he had a dream that the neighbour will strangle him in his sleep.
The story would not be complete without the stable boy of the rich man, who enamoured with his master, wrties an alegory, which he nails to the barn door, decrying the "rape" and "murder", "perpetrated" on his master (and which is full of horses and horse manure which the stable boy loves). The alegory starts with:
" Ok, how bout a little analogy. The rich man and his wife were riding in a nice cart with 4 well bred horses ..."
Re:This is progress? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, he died. Second, he's the guy that handed power to these asshats, through Darth Cerf.
I liked Jon, he was great, but all this DNS mess happened on his watch.
The origin of this problem dated back to when Steve Wolff privatized the NSF backbone thus creating the non-governemnt controlled internet.
The problem is he forgot to privatize the name and address spaces (and in retrospect says this was a big mistake - duh). So, administration of these remained under US contract, where it exists today. This is a natural choke point and acts like a magnet for power seekers.
But, once you understand the net is not centrally controlled, it's edge cotnrolled, and you can decide where you point your DNS then you really don't care what any government does.
So the US and ICANN have screwed up the root servers? Big deal, I havn't used them in a decade, nor have millions of others.
Primary the root for yourself; become your own root server, then what ICANN or the UN does is utterly irrelevant to you.
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is precisely what is being discussed. Noone is talking about taking over the servers paid-for by the US. UN is about to buy their own and run them if they need to, but even more mundanely, they are merely discussing the process of assigning the IP addresses and names, which is exactly euivalent to the work the ITU has been doing with international phone numbers.
This does not stop however the "UN is World Government is the Coming of the Beast!" types from running around screeching about "rape" and "murder" with arms flailing.