Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Announcements Your Rights Online

Governing the Internet Report Released 344

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the new-for-summer dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Governing the Internet Report Released

Comments Filter:
  • by hkmwbz (531650) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:04AM (#13071593) Journal
    I'm not very informed about this, but have they set up a group to take over, even before the US has agreed to giving up control?
    • Managing the root servers is one thing, but that is not overseeing the Internet. Truthfully Interpol is the only recognized international police force. Interpol is not a court it is a police force. A police force in a country outside the US will be more willing to heed a warrant from interpol then one from the US. Interpol isn't playing with creepy agendas like the US has been of late.
      • Interpol was made mainly to help in kidnapping and murdering producers and traffickers of certain drugs and substances that can be used to make those drugs. Drugs which lawmakers in the member countries have officially deemed to be something they don't want other people to use, because they just kicks out of being authoritarian statists I guess. Though its mandate has grown wider than that.

        I would call that a creepy enough agenda.

    • even before the US has agreed to giving up control?

      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.

      • if everyone around the world starts using different root servers.

        That a big word, 'if', the real question is 'why'. Other than a few countries and individuals who, 'just don't like it', where is the compelling reasons. Has the U.S. been a bad steward of these services? Sure one (well, many) can easily 'grip' about the policies of the (current) U.S. government, hell just poking into practically any thread on slashdot will show the anger of at least some motivated people. However most people only

    • by hcob$ (766699) on Friday July 15, 2005 @08:11AM (#13072044)
      Ok, how bout a little analogy. The rich man and his wife were riding in a nice cart with 4 well bred horses. They were going along delivering goods, minding the horses, maintaining the wagon. The rest of the town sees this and thinks: "wow, thats nice. I like that." Then as time goes on, the city council likes the way the man and his wife are doing things, espescially since everyone is clammoring for their goods. So the City council says "Hey, why don't you let us drive the cart. Oh, and we'll tax everyone who uses it." The man replies that he wouldn't like that at all. So the City council meets and decideds on a course of action. One day they attack. The turn over the cart, burn it, kill the horses, rape the woman, and drown the man. Now they build a cart with about 25 people conversing on how to build it and it works. However, it takes 10 million to repair and if it fails once.... everyone in the town has to have a meeting to talk babout how to fix it.
      • Here's a better analogy: a rich country was using a nice network with well bred routers. They were going about, transferring data, maintaining the network. The rest of the world says "wow, thats nice. I like that." Then as time goes on the world attaches their networks to it and it all works very nicely as a single giant network owned by many people but run by the country. Then the rich country lets one of its appointed custodians do stupid things, like redirecting all non-existing .com to a dumb search pag
      • One day they attack. The turn over the cart, burn it, kill the horses, rape the woman, and drown the man.

        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 orphan

  • The four options... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Guppy06 (410832) * on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:09AM (#13071616)
    ... from TF summary:
    1. ICANN stays but the governmental role changes through the creation of a Governmental Internet Council. The GIC replaces the GAC and assumes the role currently held by the U.S. Department of Commerce in ICANN oversight. There are advisory roles envisioned for the private sector and civil society.
    2. No need for oversight organization. Stronger GAC and creation of international forum for discussion of Internet issues.
    3. Creation of International Internet Council that would assume responsibility for the Internet governance issues that arise on the national level. ICANN's mandate would need to be altered based on the development of the IIC.
    4. Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.
    Personally, I'm wary of the first option's reference to roles for "private sector" and "civil society." I have a hard time not reading "private sector" as "Microsoft" and "civil society" as "political lobbyists."

    • by saider (177166) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:28AM (#13071715)
      This is NOT about the UN looking out for the best interests of the world population. This is NOT about liberating the internet from the evil Americans. This will NOT impact censorship or any freedoms that we enjoy on the internet.

      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.

      • by FreeUser (11483) on Friday July 15, 2005 @09:27AM (#13072765)
        This is NOT about the UN looking out for the best interests of the world population. This is NOT about liberating the internet from the evil Americans. This will NOT impact censorship or any freedoms that we enjoy on the internet.

        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.
    • This would be a great time to implement IPv6 as well... The US invented and implemented the internet... thanks for that, but we need to move on. Starting from scratch in conjunction with IPv6 should be a good idea.
      -
  • Option #4 (Score:5, Funny)

    by lord_paladine (568885) <wdnm91q02@sneakemail.com> on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:11AM (#13071625)
    Option #4 - Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.

    W.I.C.A.N.N?

    I always knew it tooks a certain amount of magic to make the internet run smoothly.

  • LOL (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:16AM (#13071647)
    I couldn't bother to read the report as I know it will never fly. After all, who's going to accept Tunisia as the center of the internet. LOL

    In any case, IF the europeans where to branch off with their "own internet" it would only last until it became inconvenient for the USA. At that point the US would declare that the internet should be free and it would "liberate" it from the europeans.
  • by 91degrees (207121) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:17AM (#13071658) Journal
    They have effective control anyway. If they all decided to point their DNS servers to a certain place, then that would be adefacto domain name registry. I'm sure the same applies to IP addresses.

    Sort out some fair means of representation, and get them to select a root administrator. They all have the same ultimate goal - a stable internet - and they al understand the internet. The same cannot be said of the US government or the UN.
    • Heh. The UN is too untrustworthy, but commercial telephone and cable companies aren't? They've got corruption already built into the system. Talk about a universal tax. You'd be charged for every pageview, and DNS lookup.

      Whoever controls it, they have to be accountable to the users of the system, or they need not exist at all.

      Just for the record, I'm fine with the "not exist at all option." If various groups set up their own master domain servers, we could have a little biological competition to determine
  • by Jerle0 (899471) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:24AM (#13071692) Homepage
    3. Creation of International Internet Council that would assume responsibility for the Internet governance issues that arise on the national level. ICANN's mandate would need to be altered based on the development of the IIC.
    All of the negatives aside, one thing I like about ICAAN is there is one point that everything leads back to. If control over the internet is split among various nations, it seems it would be too easy for the pieces of the internet to become segmented if the nations involved ever had a dispute over something. That might give countries like China, who already do strange thigns with the internet, the possibility of completely cutting themselves off from the rest of the world.
  • Option 5. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CosmeticLobotamy (155360) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:24AM (#13071695)
    Option 5: Realize this entire discussion is about as pointful as the UN discussing how to run Steak and Shake, should they ever acquire it.
    • I'm guessing Steak and Shake is some US food place, right? If that's the case, then your comparison is missing the point: the UN can't easily meddle internally in the US, but if the other nations representing it want to dump the US control of DNS, they can relatively easily just switch to an alternative system. Then the US can either play by everyone else's rules or not play at all. It gets no third choice of "status quo".

  • Free the DNS ! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Arthur B. (806360) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:24AM (#13071698)
    It's not a matter of who gets what hostname. A hostname is juste a convenient way to reach a server, it is definitly NOT the killer feature that will boost marketting for a website. Anyway I see hostnames disappearing in the future. It is already happening, a good rank in Google search results is already way more important than the proper domain name. Another solution implies the distribution of signed IP/hostname pairs by renowned organizations. Such pairs could be copied and distributed by any ISP. If gnu.org, google.com and heywhynot microsoft.com all tell me this hostname relates to that IP I may choose to trust them. I can also be a paranoïd freak and only trust pairs signed by my grandmother, which might limit my browsing experience - the point is I can choose. This is, in my opinion, the right approach to take. Trademark conflicts ? Typos spoofing ? All of this can be resolved by the suggested system. I may choose an authority which privileges hostname on a first-to-claim basis or I may choose an authority privileging a "saner" approach (granting trademarked hostnames to their owners and not to the smartass who registered it first and put pr0n instead).
    • Re:Free the DNS ! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Cerv (711134)
      (granting trademarked hostnames to their owners and not to the smartass who registered it first and put pr0n instead).

      What do you do when two or more different organisations share the trademark on the same word? E.g. Apple computers and the Apple music label; Frosties the breakfast cereal and Frosties the sugar coated sweets.
      • Re:Free the DNS ! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Arthur B. (806360)
        What do I do ? I give apple to the computers and frosties to the cereals because that's the one I know. Now you are free not to use my dns associations. You can use one from organization XYZ that has a specific policy for resolving this kind of issues, including - for example - redirecting you to disambiguation pages ala wikipedia on their servers OR, selecting the statistically most seeked site, OR preferring the apple candies because their policy is not to show anything related to cereals. (replace cereal
      • >What do you do when two or more different
        >organisations share the trademark on the same
        >word?

        It is not only an issue of the same word for different areas, but also between countries. Many trademarks are not global, but local to specific countries. If one want global domains not tied to countries, like .com that can also be a problem.
    • "a good rank in Google search results is already way more important than the proper domain name."

      Really? Then how do you propose people get to google.com?

  • It's a luxury (Score:3, Interesting)

    by therealking (223121) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:28AM (#13071712) Homepage
    16. Interconnection costs Uneven distribution of cost. Internet service providers (ISPs) based in countries remote from Internet backbones, particularly in the developing countries, must pay the full cost of the international circuits.
    05.41622 -6-
    Absence of an appropriate and effective global Internet governance mechanism to resolve the issue.


    When did the internet become a NESSESITY of life???
    Why must thier be a "even" distribution of costs?? If it costs more to get connectivity to your isp then it costs more for that isp to do buisness.
    • More and more information is only available on the internet. Third World countries have a lot to gain as information gives them the opportunity to access that information in a easy and cheaper way then normal.

      Having them to pony up the relatively high connection costs would only slow down the dissemination of this information to those who need it most.

      And yes, Third World countries do have a need for the internet even though you consider it a luxury. The information on it allows it to grow better and quic
    • Remember, most of the world is socialist/communist (whether they admit it or not). They want to make everyone (accept those making the rules) equally poor and miserable.

      On another note, ICANN has its faults (need stronger rules to govern bad registrars and legal recourse for domain "owners" for one), but I can only remember 2 times in the last 12 years when I could resolve a DNS name because the TLD domain servers were off line. BOTH of those were during massive DDOS attacks that saturated the backbones in
  • by tines (806906) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:29AM (#13071724)
    They are basically saying that their proposal should be usefull since
    • there is an unneven distribution of cost in developing countries -- why not offer development grants and support the infrastructure
    • they fix internet stabilty, spam -- each country should make their own laws
    • intelectual property protection -- figures.
    • they will help developing countries with a "forum" -- no way to do this now, is it ?
    Basically their proposal is ok as long as there won't be a single country in charge. But I do fear the expansion of this "governance" into other areas.
  • by taneem (873769) on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:36AM (#13071771) Homepage
    From the summary of the report 4 options were generated as a way of moving forward.

    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...

    • I agree with the above poster, and wish I had moderation points.

      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 pol
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:44AM (#13071822)
    I doubt the US will ever cede control over the internet, and frankly it makes me very uncomfortable that Bush is ultimately in charge. Personally, I think the UN should set up it's own DNS servers which every other country in the world can use, and if the US wants to sit in the corner and scream about how it should be in charge because God has given the US the right to impose it's view on the rest of the world, then let's just ignore them, and get on with it.
  • Merely step 1.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tominva1045 (587712)

    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
  • Given the honesty and competence demonstrated by the U.N. in its management of the Iraq "Oil for Food" program, what kind of job can we expect them to do with the Internet?

    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.

    • "Given the honesty and competence of the USA in it's management of the Iraqi "liberation" and destruction of Iraqi "WMD" what kind of job can we expect them to do with the Internet?"

      Similar sentence with as much thruth to it as yours.

      The UN has alot of good things as well, Unicef, Unesco, several peace missions etc. Yet for some reason you dismiss all this for a single issue?

      The UN has as much interest in the Internet working well as the the USA does. Or for that matter, most of the developed world has.
  • by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao@hotmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday July 15, 2005 @07:56AM (#13071903) Homepage
    "The U.N. is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard!" - Alfred E. Neuman
  • Oh thats going to go over real well.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2005 @08:16AM (#13072083)
    Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.

    WICANN? It's a conspiracy. The witches are always trying to push their sway into the international realm, and now the Internet! This must be stopped!!
  • Wow. Yet another report from yet another government agency without any real answers. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they danced around the real issues. Lets be serious, and consider, in english, what's going on. #1 The "World" (every country that has politicians in the UN) sees an opportunity for power and money by claiming a stake in internet ownership. #2 The "World" realizes that because the US created, invested, and built the majority of the internet, the US isn't going to voluntarily h
  • UN reforms (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dfjghsk (850954)
    1. US tells UN there need to be reforms
    2. UN still expects US to hand over control of the internet
    3. US refuses (duh)
    4. UN has a hissy fit.

    If the US thinks the UN is corrupt.. why would we turn over control of a critical piece of infrastructure to them?!
  • This is progress? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by caudron (466327) on Friday July 15, 2005 @08:57AM (#13072470) Homepage
    We went from one dude:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel [wikipedia.org]

    To a committee:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_ for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbers [wikipedia.org]

    And now we need the whole fscking world collaborating on this?

    Seriously. It's a fscking database of IP>Hostname mappings. This is NOT rocket science. Jon Postel, why did you have to leave us to these asshats? We miss you.
    • by rs79 (71822) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Friday July 15, 2005 @10:02AM (#13073132) Homepage
      "Jon Postel, why did you have to leave us to these asshats? "

      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.
  • The UN is like a tiny mosquito to the United States. Sometimes a minor annoyance but usually not even noticed. Let me look at CNN news - not a word. Let me look at Google News - not a word at the front page. Let me check The New York Times - not a single word. Just as I thought, this is not a much anticipated report and the only ones who have much anticipated this nonsense are the folks who like to nip at the heels of the big dog. The US will not give up the ICANN and all the yipping and yapping won't chang
  • by satch89450 (186046) on Friday July 15, 2005 @09:09AM (#13072583) Homepage

    I read the entire 24 page report, with I hope some thought and consideration. What I found very, very interesting is this "fact-finding" body did nothing to examine the current structure of "Internet Control" and the role of the Internet Society and its divisions. They mention the IETF *once*, and neglect to mention that IETF RFCs are now accepted in the Standards community as Standards. International standards -- the ITU says so. Instead, the report concentrates exclusively on the role of the United States Department of Commerce and *one* US corporation, ICANN.

    What about the role of the technical committees that have kept the Tier One routers running all these years without too many hiccups? How would they fit into a UN-based "oversight"? Either the routers work, or they don't. Does Grand Fenwick have anything to contribute to that process? Oh, let's not forget that NANOG is not a US-centric organization now...

    A previous contributor showed the country breakdown of the participants. For my part, I looked through all the names of the people on this commission and didn't recognize a single name as part of the original Internet Construction Crew (ICC).

    The report, if I were grading it on completeness, would get a D+. The report concentrates on those few things that bring certain peoples to a slow boil. I'm sure that one of the most important questions will be how to handle right-to-left writing systems in the current structure. It completely neglects those portions of oversight and control that mean the life and death of the Internet, either as we know it or as people have envisioned it in the future.

    My great fear? "Regulation." As in putting together a list of conflicting requirements on users of the Internet that will spawn a whole new industry that generates not one cent of revenue. Oh, and someone has to pay for all this work and effort to make my life as an admin miserable. Can you say "Internet Tax"? I knew you could!

    As a system administrator, I will continue to run my network. my routers, and my servers as I see fit. If the UN wants to play power games and screw it all up, then I as an operator and administrator will do everything technically possible to be sure that UN screwups don't affect my customers.

    My network, my rules.

    • "As a system administrator, I will continue to run my network. my routers, and my servers as I see fit. If the UN wants to play power games and screw it all up, then I as an operator and administrator will do everything technically possible to be sure that UN screwups don't affect my customers. My network, my rules."

      ...my own DNS root server. There, now you don't care what the asshats do. Atta boy.

  • Ok, so here's a 'tin foil hat' suggestion to the whole problem: declare CyberSpace as represented by the Internet as a sovereign nation.

    Root servers will now be considered diplomatic territory, no matter what country they exist in.

    Allow peoples around the world the opportunity to be considered dual citizens (their home country an the CyperSpace) and allow them to vote for representation to manage the space and then provide a representative to the UN.

    This would take some doing as some nations (i.e. the Un
    • Wooo thats clever... an utter nightmare to implement diplomatically but think about it, who needs a data haven when everyone's machine is one? I like it.

    • "Ok, so it's totaly crazy"

      There was a paper that came out of Georgetown Universtity several year back that advocated a jurisdiction of cyberspace, to say nothing of Barlow's famous "We are children of cyberspace: screen.

      Remember Shaw's quote about "unreasonable men"?
  • by jonwil (467024) on Friday July 15, 2005 @09:49AM (#13073009)
    Its control of the key parts of it.

    Basicly, the internet consists of the following core elements:
    1.The core Protocols that underly it (that are drawn up as RFCs and put out by the IETF). The IETF seems to be doing a good job of this (although its slow to get a RFC out, there is no reason you cant go and use without one plusd RFCs need to be very well thought out in order to work)

    2.IP address allocation.
    Right now various agencies (I know the IANA used to do this but they dont do it anymore, someone else does) hand out IP address blocks. That function seems to be running right (other than the physical lack of usable addresses that is)
    If IPV6 was more widely deployed, you wouldnt have any address problems since IPV6 provides so many addersses that even a home user could have an IPV6 block where the upper 120 bits were fixed and then they would get 8 bits of address to allocate to devices (IANA IPV6 guru so 8 bits for a normal home user might be too much but even 6 bits would give them 64 or so addresses to use)
    You could give different countries a block of IP addresses which could then give ISPs and hosts etc parts of that block and so on down to the users.

    Also IPV6 adoption would mean a greater adoption of encryption (via IPSecV6 or something similar) and multicasting.

    3.DNS. Right now, this is controled by those who run the root servers. And by ICANN and DOC who ultimatly control the root zone file (which points to the ccTLD and gTLD nameservers run by verisign and others). Then, verisign and others control the ccTLDs and gTLDs. What is needed here is for control of the root zone file as well as control over the key gTLDs (like .com, .net, .org etc) be given to one organization who is specifically set up as a non-profit (i.e. is not allowed to make any money or charge more for addresses in the TLDs than it costs them to run things). This organization would be prohibited from doing anything not connected with running the DNS (e.g. setting up sitefinder type ads) and would be controled and managed in a way that looks after the interests of ALL the stakeholders in the global Internet (i.e. governments, ISPs, big net companies like google etc). No one government, country or organization would have control over DNS and the root zone file (which would go back to the central idea of the Internet being a network of networks with those who run the individual networks having collective power over those parts of the internet where their networks link up).
    Special gTLDs like .edu, .mil or .gov would be run by the relavent organization (e.g. .mil would be run by the US militay).
    ccTLDs would be run by whatever agency the governments of those countries decides should run them (e.g. .uk, .co.uk etc would be run by whoever the UK government decides should run it)

    and 4.the cables, routers and systems that actually make the core of the Internet work. The problem right now (IMO) is that too much of this infrastructure is held by too few companies (a lot of it is held by phone companies/large ISPs)
    There is not enough redundancy (and this isnt just to do with a lack of physical cables, its also to do with the fact that the large ISPs and phone cos that own the backbone wont allow/dont want/charge to much for their systems to talk to each other and route data over the other guys links when theirs is down.
    In addition to this, the consolodation of data links (including the fact that there are not as many possible ways for data to get from A to B as their should be) makes it easier for governments, police forces, spy agencies (friendly and otherwise), corperations (MPAA/RIAA/etc for one) and others to "Spy on" and "Monitor" and "Censor/control/block" internet traffic.

    So, the question is, exactly which of the 4 key parts that make up the Internet as we know it is the part that people seem to think could be run better by an agency other than ICANN or the US Goverment?
  • I am not an American citizen or do not have any vested interest in keeping domain registry business in US but I do not want the internet governance run by likes of North Korea, Tunissia, Algiers, China et-al one day due to rotational chiefdom of UN entities like many others.

Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys

Working...