ICANN and the Future of the internet. (No Spam)

[Xandax]

ICANN - no this is not a self-assurance thread at all.

I've been following this for a while, and actually find it strange that I've seen no reference to it on SYM yet (perhaps I just didn't notice it )

ICANN is the company which controls the root-servers of the internet, that is the servers which ultimately translate all the little numbers into readable adresses, and the creation of top-level domains (.com, .gov, .org etc)

However - many countries are now against the fact that one company, and thus ultimately one country, control these things, seeing as the internet fast became a global entity, and not a national initiative.
However, the US naturally doesn't like to give up control with the internet - as it ultimately is when you control the root-servers.

Many countries would like control of these rootservers to go to a global organisation such as the UN or perhaps another entity set up to control it.
The US main argument against this is that a global organisation would hinder the development of the internet, wheras many other countries are against the US having control - because, well then they practically control it, and where people go when they type the urls. Horror scenarios could be that US governments could exercise a form of control and censurship of the web.
One example of this is the delaying of the toplevel domain .xxx which (obviously) were ment to be a place to group the pornography on the web together making it easier to filter, but which found strong opponents in the Bush administration and backers, and thus have been delayed futher.

The ultimate consequence of this would/could (easily) be that other countries start to set up their own rootservers, which would in essences fragment the internet into smaller networks.

I know that I for one will look towards the UN meeting in the middle of november, because this is by no way a small issue.

a few links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4296646.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4165920.stm
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArtic ... TERNET.xml
http://www.icann.org/

and many more.

Now personally - I would not mind seeing this control of root-servers going to a globally controlled entity/organisation - possible managed by the UN at the top, as long as it doesn't get to bueracratic. I feel the inevital influence from the US government(s) as to what is being accepted on the internet, is a hinderance to its development.
Futhermore - the internet can not afford to become fragmented, in the manner which easily could happen if these negotiations falls into a deadlock.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Kipi]

Interesting topic

As myself, I'm also against that US is controlling it.
I can point one very horrific scenario right away:
Lets pretend that US gots to war with other country/countries. Right now, with the current system, US could basically shut down the whole internet if it needs fit, and others can't stop it. Also, US could select which contents are harmfull to it, as you already pointed out.

But, where do we actually need so many top-level domains (.org, .com, .fi....)?
Ofcourse, one for every country, and maybe the one .xxx for the purpose mentioned in Xandax post, but why do we actually have to have all those .info and such?

Also, IMO it could be arranged so that every country is responsible and controlling it own (Sweden .se, Finland .fi, US .com and so on) and those few that aren't linked to any country itself are controlled by UN for example.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Kipi]<snip>
But, where do we actually need so many top-level domains (.org, .com, .fi....)?
Ofcourse, one for every country, and maybe the one .xxx for the purpose mentioned in Xandax post, but why do we actually have to have all those .info and such?

Also, IMO it could be arranged so that every country is responsible and controlling it own (Sweden .se, Finland .fi, US .com and so on) and those few that aren't linked to any country itself are controlled by UN for example.
[/QUOTE]

(simplified)

Top level domains are a good thing because they speed up "travelling" across the network.
The "extension" if you will, the top level domain, is the first thing which gets interpretated when you type in an url.
.com go to a specific server, .eu to another and so on for the remainder. However, you can't just create such domains, because anarchy would ensure when "nobody" knew where to go when typing a domain into the browser.

Each name server for specific countries are also controlled in that country - for instance the .uk name servers are located within the uk-network backbone. However the adresses for these servers are located within the toplevel domain servers (if my memory serves me correct).
So each time you type in an url, the root servers tells your browser which domain server to go to, which then interpreates the name of the url you have entered and returns an IP.
This means that it is "easy" to cut the connection to any top level domain, by simply removing the address to servers from the top-level domain server.

Edit: alterations and additions.

[Kipi]

[QUOTE=Xandax](simplified)

Top level domains are a good thing because they speed up "travelling" across the network.
The "extension" if you will, the top level domain, is the first thing which gets interpretated when you type in an url.
.com go to a specific server, .eu to another and so on for the remainder. However, you can't just create such domains, because anarchy would ensure when "nobody" knew where to go when typing a domain into the browser.
They also improve on the userfriendliness of the web.
As an experienced net user, I know that if I need to go to a UK company, the "extension"/toplevel domain is with 99% likelyhood .co.uk.
Government in the US is .gov, most organisations are .org and so on. Naturally - one can question for instance .info which is also why it takes so long time to actually aprove new top level domains, but many have a most valid purpose.

Each name server for specific countries are also controled in that country - for instance the .uk name servers are located within the uk-network backbone. However the adresses for this are located within the toplevel domain servers (if my memory serves me correct). Which means that it is "easy" to cut the connection to any top level domain, but simply removing the address from the top-level domain server.[/QUOTE]

Thanx for info, but I think I stated my question badly...
What I meant was that more like where do we need so many .***s?
Maybe it was a bit out of the original idea, but I decided to throw that question also, it is after all very close to the whole subject.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Kipi]Thanx for info, but I think I stated my question badly...
What I meant was that more like where do we need so many .***s?
Maybe it was a bit out of the original idea, but I decided to throw that question also, it is after all very close to the whole subject.[/QUOTE]

I answered that as well - but I'll try to expand a little.
It speeds up travelling across the web, because you can increase the number of domain servers. If you have fewer domains, you must have more addresses within this domain. For instance -simplified - if there was no .gov or .org, but only .com - that would mean all .gov and .org urls would have to be included into the .com.
Thus the servers (there are more per domain naturally) which handles .com queries needs to have a bigger table to look up in, making them slower. They'd also be harder and slower to update due to more information, and thus more prone to synchronization errors and what not.

(I'm sure others can expand further, with me only being a software guy, I didn't pay all that much attention in tech.classes back in school )

[Kipi]

[QUOTE=Xandax]I answered that as well - but I'll try to expand a little.
It speeds up travelling across the web, because you can increase the number of domain servers. If you have fewer domains, you must have more addresses within this domain. For instance -simplified - if there was no .gov or .org, but only .com - that would mean all .gov and .org urls would have to be included into the .com.
Thus the servers (there are more per domain naturally) which handles .com queries needs to have a bigger table to look up in, making them slower. They'd also be harder and slower to update due to more information, and thus more prone to synchronization errors and what not.

(I'm sure others can expand further, with me only being a software guy, I didn't pay all that much attention in tech.classes back in school )[/QUOTE]
You are right, it did, as I read it again. My mistake

I'm not also as interesting technics, just programming.

But still, it doesn't change my opinion about shared controlling.

[Lestat]

[QUOTE=Xandax]Now personally - I would not mind seeing this control of root-servers going to a globally controlled entity/organisation - possible managed by the UN at the top, as long as it doesn't get to bueracratic.[/QUOTE]
But that will probably the problem. If someone can name me one nimble, efficient permanent UN organisation, I'll eat my hat.

[QUOTE=Xandax]I feel the inevital influence from the US government(s) as to what is being accepted on the internet, is a hinderance to its development[/QUOTE]
And what about the influence that would be exerted by autocratic regimes which are much keener on censorship than the US? Through a UN agency these would inevitably play a much bigger role, and might hinder the development of the internet even more.
Except for the .xxx - case, I don't see any mention of political meddling by the US government. If more cases could be cited, I might be inclined to have the authority taken away from the US government, but as it is, it seems there is a fairly hands off policy.

If there would be a way to avoid both these problems (bureaucracy and undue influence of liberticidal regimes), then I'm all for it, but I fear that's impossible in current circumstances.

[dragon wench]

I'd probably be in favour of the Internet being controlled by a centralised UN type of body. But, as has already been mentioned here, that in itself could be fraught with its own problems.

I do know, however, that I would not like to see a fragmented Internet. A strong part of its appeal, for me anyway, is its international flavour.

For example, I very much like that I can easily go to newspapers such as Le Monde, The Observer/Guardian, and the New York Times all in the space of a few minutes.

[FireLighter]

If the United states started this company so to speak, why shouldn't they keep it? If someone over in, oh say, England started a new kind of software company that eventually merged throughtout the planet, why should they give up control just because some is complaining? I don't understand this. Personally I believe all the countries should just mind their own business (including the U.S.A.)


Edit: looks like me and Lestat are the only ones arguing for the side of the U.S.

[Aegis]

The big issue being addressed here is not US control, but is US control of an international commodity. When the internet was first brought into creation, it was solely a federal and military use tool. Since then, however, it has been not only public, but public to the point where everyone in the world has it.

Add to the fact that the source of the Internet servers are not the ones that directly profit from the internet, it is the indivdual ISP's, as well as the hosts of many webdomains. This central database is simply where it is all stored.

With that being said, I don't think the UN could screw up simple maintenance of a server database. I also don't see the pressing need to keep it in control of a single country, especially one that has shown strong indications of media control. Controlling the source can easily regulate and influence what everyone else sees.

Lastly, as I have mentioned, the internet is public to the global community. It is no longer just the US's toy, and that has been the case for sometime now. Imagine the outcry if one country took control of the Olympics, dictating it's every decision. This is, for the most, a very similar issue, because of the roots of public interest and international interest.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=FireLighter]If the United states started this company so to speak, why shouldn't they keep it? If someone over in, oh say, England started a new kind of software company that eventually merged throughtout the planet, why should they give up control just because some is complaining? I don't understand this. Personally I believe all the countries should just mind their own business (including the U.S.A.)


Edit: looks like me and Lestat are the only ones arguing for the side of the U.S.[/QUOTE]

So the alternative of a fragmented internet is something which would the best alternative?
If all countries where to mind their own buisness, it would mean that all countries - unless grouped together in variorus organisations - would manage their own regional top level domain servers, meaning that networking from the US to the EU or Asia could practically be hindered due to restrictions on the backbone.
Think of the trade issues of today just amongst the US and the EU with taxation, and image the same aspect placed on digital information.

I fail to see why it should fall upon one country to control where I go when I type http://www.gamebanshee.com in my browser as compared to a central organisation. Like it is with most other internet standard organisations.

[Lestat]

[QUOTE=Aegis]With that being said, I don't think the UN could screw up simple maintenance of a server database[/QUOTE]Oh, they are fully capable of that.

[QUOTE=Aegis]I also don't see the pressing need to keep it in control of a single country, especially one that has shown strong indications of media control.[/QUOTE]And what about countries as China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and Saudi-Arabia, to name a few. I think you overestimate the level of media control in the US, especially as compared to the majority of the countries in the world (who would be regulating the internet).

[QUOTE=Aegis]Lastly, as I have mentioned, the internet is public to the global community. It is no longer just the US's toy, and that has been the case for sometime now. Imagine the outcry if one country took control of the Olympics, dictating it's every decision. This is, for the most, a very similar issue, because of the roots of public interest and international interest.[/QUOTE]Agreed, but as far as I know the US gov is not dictating the ICANN's every decision. And if the IOC is your model for the governing of the internet, I fear for the future of the internet.
And moreover: public interest is not only governments. At the moment there are a lot of firms, groups, organisations present on the internet, often in opposition to those governments that very much would like to have a say in the running of the internet. And where democratic regimes have learned to live with opposition, this is hardly the case in important parts of the world.

[Aegis]

[QUOTE=Lestat]Oh, they are fully capable of that.

And what about countries as China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and Saudi-Arabia, to name a few. I think you overestimate the level of media control in the US, especially as compared to the majority of the countries in the world (who would be regulating the internet).[/QUOTE]I think you just backed up my very point about having the governing body of the internet located in a single country, and why it should be under the jurisdiction of an international organization. The UN, for all it's bungling of conflict resolution, still maintains a good track record for dealing with other matters of international concern. Before cutting into it so viciously, you should at least hold an understanding everything it does, not just conflict resolution. Also, understand that the good things are rarely reported in Western newscasts, because tragedy sells better.

[QUOTE=Lestat]Agreed, but as far as I know the US gov is not dictating the ICANN's every decision. And if the IOC is your model for the governing of the internet, I fear for the future of the internet.
And moreover: public interest is not only governments. At the moment there are a lot of firms, groups, organisations present on the internet, often in opposition to those governments that very much would like to have a say in the running of the internet. And where democratic regimes have learned to live with opposition, this is hardly the case in important parts of the world.[/QUOTE]
This is another valid point, but it is also one that is not the truth in the US. The US government, more so today than ever before, is heavily influenced by corporations. Part of this is because of the man in charge, another part is because of the political set up of the nation itself. The US is made up of a series of companies and business', all of which dictate the flow and direction of the nation itself. If it were not the case, Halliburton would be a far poorer company right now.

While there are companies that don't adhere to this particalur instance, they are in the minority. This is another reason why the source of the internet, the backbone as Xandax accurately called it, should be in international control.

This boasts advantages as well, which are going underlooked by everyone but Xan and DW. Basically, having it in international control keeps any one nation from direct control of what is considered suitable and unsuitable content, as well as keeping everything in a uniform manner which allows for easier, and quicker browsing of the internet.

I just feel I should add this, too. I am not bashing the US in this instance. The fact that I say international and not a different nation should be evidence of that. I've had my ass bitten too many times, though, in these matters to not add this disclaimer.

[Lestat]

[QUOTE=Aegis]The UN, for all it's bungling of conflict resolution, still maintains a good track record for dealing with other matters of international concern. Before cutting into it so viciously, you should at least hold an understanding everything it does, not just conflict resolution. Also, understand that the good things are rarely reported in Western newscasts, because tragedy sells better.[/QUOTE]
Then please name UN organisations that could serve as a model for an organisation that would take over from ICANN. Edit: This sounds a bit harsher than I meant, but I would be genuinely interested which current UN organisations you'd see as a model.

[QUOTE=Aegis]This boasts advantages as well, which are going underlooked by everyone but Xan and DW. Basically, having it in international control keeps any one nation from direct control of what is considered suitable and unsuitable content, as well as keeping everything in a uniform manner which allows for easier, and quicker browsing of the internet.[/QUOTE]
If the organisation would be purely technical one, I'd agree. But with the internet technical & political issues are difficult to separate. And having an international body which has a majority of countries which are less democratic and less inclined to respect the right to free speech than the US, regulate the content on internet doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Edit: [url="http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554"]this list[/url]concering press freedom of Reporters without Borders can serve as an indication. The US comes 44th on 167 countries. As Denmark comes first, I'd suggest transplanting the whole thing there and put Xandax in command .

I'm not saying the current system is ideal or the best that can be conceived.

[Aegis]

[QUOTE=Lestat]Then please name UN organisations that could serve as a model for an organisation that would take over from ICANN.[/QUOTE]You're dodging my statement. If you want to talk, that's fine, but until you address what I've said, I feel confident in my statement. Give me reason to address it.

[QUOTE=Lestat]If the organisation would be purely technical one, I'd agree. But with the internet technical & political issues are difficult to separate. And having an international body which has a majority of countries which are less democratic and less inclined to respect the right to free speech than the US, regulate the content on internet doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

I'm not saying the current system is ideal or the best that can be conceived.[/QUOTE]
It's interesting you think that the US has such strong ideals of freedom of speech, especially considering the amount of icons that were removed from positions to allow free speech (most notable amongst them, Bill Maher, not to mention various artisic talent) after the 9/11 incident. If it becomes a matter of free speech, no nation is truly clean enough in that regard to host the Internet, because the very basis of free speech is freedom until it steps on someone else's same freedom. A limited idea of free speech, wouldn't you agree?

But, turning it over to international control (and I really must stress this, because you keep returning to the notion that one country will retain some form of dominance over all the others) helps to avoid this problem, or at least dilute any potential problem that may arise.

Anyway, I'm on my way to classes for now. Probably won't be back until late this evening. I'll respond to whatever is posted when I return. Just don't make me read a novel when I get back I have enough of that for school

[dragon wench]

[QUOTE=Aegis]This boasts advantages as well, which are going underlooked by everyone but Xan and DW. Basically, having it in international control keeps any one nation from direct control of what is considered suitable and unsuitable content, as well as keeping everything in a uniform manner which allows for easier, and quicker browsing of the internet.
[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify I do think there would be real advantages to placing the net under some form of International Jurisdiction, and the UN seems like a probable choice. I do not like the fact that the US is able to exert its present levels of control and influence upon international cyberspace.

However, I also have some concerns. It is highly likely that the participating nations would have considerable trouble reaching a consensus on the various issues at stake. Add this to muliple layers of bureaocracy, and it could well become a veritable quagmire.
I also am unsure about certain autocratic nations having the ability to control the Internet any more than they already do. China is the first country that springs to mind, but as has been stated, there are many more.

So, in sum, I am of two minds

[Lestat]

@ Aegis, I edited my post while you were typing yours. So I wasn't trying to preempt any comments on your side. Sorry-O.

Concerning International organisations & bodies: all depends on the set-up. Can you imagine the countries I mentioned agreeing to setting up an international body to regulate the internet in which they would have no or little say, i.e. truly independent such as say the International Criminal Court? If that would be the case, I'd go for it, but I think it's highly unlikely.

Edit: this extract of a 2004 report of Reporters Without Borders on the internet might be interesting:
Pro-American Internet management

The debate increased in 2003 about the role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which manages all Internet addresses and domain names throughout the world. ICANN assigns Internet Protocol (IP) address space, the series of numbers that can be replaced by the more user-friendly series of letters that make up domain names (such as .com and .info). It also assigns the management of national domain names (such as .fr and .uk) in close cooperation with governments. It is a private American company which was originally created under the auspices of the US government and which is now the manager of the Internet worldwide.

Many countries have criticised this private, pro-American management of the Internet. China and Brazil said a UN agency should run the Internet. The criticism crystallised at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in December 2003 but a clear decision was impossible because the Unites States strongly opposed letting domain names be managed by an inter-governmental agency. So the member countries approved a vague and ambiguous statement : "Global Internet management should be carried out in a multilateral, transparent and democratic fashion, with full participation by states, private sector, civil society and international organisations."

ICANN’s prerogatives are significant. The fact that this organisation is American just emphasizes the United States’ obvious domination of Internet development. ICANN’s limitations have also become apparent, especially as regards transparency in its decision-making. Nonetheless, transferring ICANN’s functions to a UN agency could also prove dangerous. Firstly, because the agency would have to react quickly to complex technical problems and this is hard to imagine given the traditional sluggishness of the UN system. Secondly, because countries such as China and Cuba which put drastic curbs on domestic Internet use would acquire a sizeable say over worldwide Internet management. A third way must be found between the US position of maintaining its supremacy and the position of authoritarians regimes that just want more control over the media.

I think I can agree with the conclusion of the article. But I fear it will be difficult to find such a third way (maybe ask Blair ).

Edit 2: from the same site/organisation, on Tunisia. This goes some way to explain my reluctance to entrust the regulation of the internet to the UN.
President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, whose family has a monopoly on Internet operations in Tunisia, has set up a very effective system to censor online activity. Access to all opposition websites is banned and users also can’t see quite a few news sites, such as the French daily paper Libération. The regime also tries to dissuade people from using webmail, which is harder to spy on than standard e-mail systems such as Outlook Express. Getting on to Yahoo ! mail in a Tunisian cybercafé can take 20 minutes, often ending before then with a “timed out” or “page not found” message. The Reporters Without Borders website can’t be read from inside the country.

Yet the international community seems to approve how Tunisia locally runs the Internet, since the UN-affiliated International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has chosen the country to host the November 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The idea that Tunisia is a model of Internet development is a chilling one.

[Hill-Shatar]

To take a middle road (although heavily leaning towartds the favour of a UN controlled system), although the UN is slow, it is much better than the current way that the US does things. If you type in PubMed on the search funtions, all that will pop up is a series of porn sites, or crap social sites, rather than what I am looking for. When what I am looking for finally pops up, it is near the end of the 2nd or thrid page. Why? The Americans allow people to pay money to website operators to get there website placed first.

Although some consider it unstable, some councils, like the council of security and WHO, arfe very sturdy.

The best way, IMO, is to have a more gobal based control of the system, perhaps with some seperate root servers set out in some of the more accessible countries. Areas could have a root server of their own, linked u7p to one internet, connected accross the world, however, mianly based in the UN. Of that, I would recommend a group of people who are knowledgeable to keep an eye on the servers, ect, with direct control, and the UN can only interfere with a good reason.

Originally, the internet was made by a group of scientists based gloabally to trade ideas. The US is using a product made by many and making a profit off it, since they are the only one with an internet company.

Another problem could be the conflict of "rights". Although countries like Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark are neutral and always will be, some other countries are deeply engrossed in conflict. All of a sudden, and middle eastern country sauddenly cuts instelf off, since both parties are equally covered on the internet. Or, they could say they do not have enough control, and that the rest of the world is being racist. Of course, some of you thinkm, oh, how far fetched, but you would be surprised hopw many people of ethnic origin in the lab are being complained about, and they claim it is all racism. When you do a really crappy job or are an ass, you are removed. Your racial and religious standings have no mention anywhere. They are hiding behind a sterotype and using a good thing to their advantage.

Personally, I think a broadly based UN controlled system, would be the best.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Hill-Shatar]<snip>
Another problem could be the conflict of "rights". Although countries like Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark are neutral and always will be<snip>[/QUOTE]


Just FYI, but Denmark is not neutral. Our currently government have supported the US government in most of its recent endevors, to the degree that we even are participating with troops in Iraq and Afganistan.


Secondly - when people say a UN controlled body, it doesn't have to be an organisation controlled directly by the UN. A number of the suggestions are that it will be an independant inter-government taskforce, set up with members from various countries, however - organisatonwise, it would be located under the UN. This doesn't mean that China will get control over it anymore then the US would.
I find it fun that one of the arguments against the US giving up control, is that control will go to countries of "ill-repute", now granted China has a bad trackrecord online and offline, and Brazil doesn't strike me as the country with the best online trackrecord either (with their very liberal IT laws basically allowing hacking in some forms).
However the fact that the US has control and wants to keep it, suggests that it can't be a good thing for any one country to have it, because it is potentially to much power of the information superhighway aka the backbone of the internet.

Also - again - considering the fact that if one country holds it, others would be more likely beging to start up their own. And China, Brazil and Iran (the most often mentioned in the threads) would just be the beginning. perhaps the US and the EU would form an agreement, but when we look at the disagreements between the two entities, then I'm not optimistic of that either.

And as had been said in aother post (Aegis I think) - this isn't because it is the US, but because it is a singular country holding an international commodity. My opinions would be the same - as a person who works with the web constantly both private and professional - if it were Denmark whom controlled it.

[dragon wench]

In complete seriousness,
I can't help but wonder if control over the Internet shouldn't be given over to Canada, or a similar nation.

*We are generally viewed as a peacekeeping nation
*Socially and politically we are something of a midway point between the US and Europe
*We are a mosaic of many different ethnic groups and nationalities

Just a random thought anyway