GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=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 [/QUOTE]
I would disagree with you here, DW (wow... Don't find myself saying that very often ). Canada has a poor track record of handling things like this. The fact that our current governing party has stagnated to the point where they are elected out of apathy, rather than because they are a good choice is a prime example. Not to mention the slow degradation of our health care system, in which Alberta is spearheading the notion of two tier health care, and Ontario, being Klien's lap dog, is following suit.

No, I think Canada would be a poor choice for control of such an organization.

@Aegis,
well I did say it was a random thought

I think you are right regarding the present political landscape. But I'm thinking more in the larger picture I guess.

Though it's late, and I'm going to stop posting here for the night, for fear of adding spam

Oh well.

Let me clarify: I do not think that the current system is the best system, or even a good system. But what lies on the table might only make it worse.

It is for me a mystery that people would have so much more confidence in a body that would be dominated by a majority of governments that have an interest in limiting the freedom of the internet than in a country that has a fair though patchy record on the protection of freedoms. I'm not saying the US is a good "keeper" (I'd say its fair to middling), I'm saying there's far worse out there, and that the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.

Ah, you say, but this body will be totally independent from any government. And no single government will be able to dominate it.
But what I'm afraid of is not a single government dominating, but a coalition of governments with an interest of limiting the freedom of the internet: add most of the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, more than half of Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, Belarussia, China, North Korea, some South East Asian countries, some Latin American countries and even India (and others) on an ad hoc basis and you easily get a majority of governments which would be more heavy-handed than the US is. And frankly speaking, I don't think these countries will agree to a body in which they have no say.

And yes, Aegis, the record of the UN does not consist of failures alone, the UN can point to quite some successes, even in conflict resolution (as I'm witnessing every day, it's a bit hard to miss the white painted armoured vehicles in the streetscape). But in my professional life I've been in contact with quite a few of the agencies in different countries, and talked with other people who also had personal experiences, and it does not exactly inspire confidence.

When it comes to guidelines, studies etc., I think they do a fair to good job (WHO springs to mind as an example, their guidelines are more or less universally accepted). And also in fields which are more or less politically neutral (e.g. regulation of international air traffic through ICAO).

But when the political stakes are high, either individual countries end up taking the upper hand or the issues get mired in endless discussions. And the internet is an issue were the political stakes are high. But if anyone can cite me an example of a UN organisation that stood up against one of the bigger geopolitical players and won the day concerning a political sensitive issue, and prove me wrong, please feel free to do so.

And my question remains: which UN organisation(s) do you see as a model for a body to replace ICANN?

In theory it would be nice if there could be an agreement that would allow the creation of a body that would be truly independent and recognised by all countries. In practice, it won't happen, because ultimately the UN represents the interests of governments, and there are too many authoritarian governments out there, who have an interest in meddling.

[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 having a large number of other governments, with much more restrictive views having a say, would not hinder the development of the internet? Not to mention the possibility of a stiffling and/or unresponsive UN bureaucracy.

[QUOTE=Lestat]<snip>
And having a large number of other governments, with much more restrictive views having a say, would not hinder the development of the internet? Not to mention the possibility of a stiffling and/or unresponsive UN bureaucracy.[/QUOTE]

I'm at work now so don't have much time to write a lengty piece, but I'd just say that restrivive is in a sense subjective. I personally, based on opinions here and from various internaional and local medias find the US government and press rather restrictive in their views as well - especially compared to what I'm used to in Scandinavian and even UK medias. However, that is not really where I was going with this debate.

Also - the scenario that for instance Iran and China would be able to exersise a form of censurship over the internet if an government independant whereas the US would not when it controls it singular, withouth supervision or restrictions is in my view a rather biased opinion.
China restricts its user by denying access via its own domain servers (amongst others). I fail to see how they'd have reason or success with doing the same, in a body where they don't hold control.
It is not like "they'd" achive anything with blocking the creation of TLDs compared to what the US government would achive with blocking creation of TLDs.

Overall my past staements tend to agree with Xandax's... I was a little surprised to hear that Denmark is not neutral. Oh, well, very few countries are these days.

Personally, I would not mind if the UN got together and drafted a series of guidelines to explore the possibility of maintaining the internet themselves, or rather, a group forged by them to keep an eye over it. Until then, I think it would be a good idea to move some of the root servers to other countries, such as Sweden and Switzerland, or other countries that are more or less neutral.

Of course, another problem would be the overlay with other countries. The security council and the permanent five members may think that something may be leaked out which is a security risk, and begin to ask for more control over the system. Whether or notthey get it, it will be viewed by many as a plausible choice, to have countries such as America and China watching over the net, which makes it a serious pain in the butt. Any problems that was caused by the US would be caused even more by China, as it is somewhat media and government contolled as well... so censorship would go up. Also, what about the other 3 countries that have permanenet seats on that council?

There are problems, either way.

[QUOTE=Xandax]I personally, based on opinions here and from various internaional and local medias find the US government and press rather restrictive in their views as well - especially compared to what I'm used to in Scandinavian and even UK medias. However, that is not really where I was going with this debate.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lestat]this list concering press freedom of Reporters without Borders can serve as an indication. The US comes 44th on 167 countries.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that the US is the best when it concerns press freedom, I'm saying the majority of governments/countries is worse. You compare with Scandinavian countries: these are 5 out of 200+ countries. I quote figures of a reputable organisation that cites quite a larger sample. The fact is that there are a fair bit of governments out there which are much nastier than the US.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Also - the scenario that for instance Iran and China would be able to exersise a form of censurship over the internet if an government independant whereas the US would not when it controls it singular, withouth supervision or restrictions is in my view a rather biased opinion.[/QUOTE] It is not on their own but by acting in concert, that these countries can exert an influence. I do not deny that the US will exert an influence. But until now they have had a fairly hands off approach. Please, cite examples if you think I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=Lestat]I'm not saying that the US is the best when it concerns press freedom, I'm saying the majority of governments/countries is worse. You compare with Scandinavian countries: these are 5 out of 200+ countries. I quote figures of a reputable organisation that cites quite a larger sample. The fact is that there are a fair bit of governments out there which are much nastier than the US.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Which is excatly one of the reason why I don't like any singular country having control of other people in this manner. Then rather a larger bulky organisation such as the UN, but preferable an independant organisation set up and funded/backed by the UN. Then the chances of any one country using its powers to effect is less so.

And with a fragmented internet in the perspective, then many countries exersising power over others is much closer to reality, very much symbolised by for instance tradedisagreements between countries. And knowlegde is indeed power and a comodity.

[quote="Xandax]Futhermore - the internet can not afford to become fragmented"]

...aaand it might be too late.

Nice article, Vicsun. Just a few quotes from this article from the Guardian

Since Icann was created, the US commerce department has not once interfered with its decisions.

This seems to confirm what I said about the US government having a rather hands off approach.

At present Icann decides what new top-level domain names to create and who should run the existing domains, in consultation with a panel called the Governmental Advisory Committee. In practice the GAC exerts more pressure on Icann than the US department of commerce ever has. It was at the GAC's urging that a recent request to create more top-level domain names was reviewed. The commerce department does have the power to clear Icann's decisions.

And apparently there is already quite a bit of government involvement. Though only advisory, there is influence.

But designing new structures is exactly what the international community seems intent on doing. At one end of the spectrum are Iran, Pakistan and other so-called control-oriented states that want to create a new governing council for the web to which Icann would be accountable. The remit of this council seems broad enough to include questions of content, a worry for advocates of free speech on the web.

And this is what I'm afraid of.

So let's resume:
- ICANN is doing relatively OK in its management of internet protocols, domain names, etc.
- The US government doesn't seem to be meddling with its operation, but is ultimately its paymaster.
- A group of governments is demanding more oversight.
- These governments have not exactly a shining record where freedom of speech is concerned, and some are actively involved in cutting of their citizens from part of the internet (often with technology provided by US firms).
- And the proposals of some might include questions of content.

I'm not one to trust the US government implicitly in all they do, but I distrust the majority of governments even more. So this kind of manoevring raises my
suspicion.
And I have a problem with creating yet another UN body, especially as UN bodies are at most as effective as the member countries allow them to be.

1. I see no reason to replace ICANN, though gradual reforms might be needed. Why start from scratch?
2. Apparently there is already input from governments through the GAC.
3. Though there is apparently no record of meddling with ICANN by the US government, the possibility exists.

Then a proposal could be to have ICANN be contracted directly by the Office of the Secretary General of the UN, and maybe an annual report to the General Assembly, or the Security Council. But I think a maximum effort should go into keeping government at arm's length.

[QUOTE=Lestat]Nice article, Vicsun. Just a few quotes from this article from the Guardian

Since Icann was created, the US commerce department has not once interfered with its decisions.

This seems to confirm what I said about the US government having a rather hands off approach.

At present Icann decides what new top-level domain names to create and who should run the existing domains, in consultation with a panel called the Governmental Advisory Committee. In practice the GAC exerts more pressure on Icann than the US department of commerce ever has. It was at the GAC's urging that a recent request to create more top-level domain names was reviewed. The commerce department does have the power to clear Icann's decisions.

And apparently there is already quite a bit of government involvement. Though only advisory, there is influence.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Just because the Department of Commerence doesn't influence icann (in that article), it doesn't mean the US Government isn't.
Although in the .xxx case there is significant indicators of the oppersite, with an 11/08 letter from DoC/Michael Gallagher to ICANN
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gal ... 5aug05.pdf
A funny mindgame would have been if it was another domain (non .xxx) and another government (France) had asked it being further under investigation because they had 6.000 letters from concerned internet users.

The DoC department isn't the government, so I do find your conclusion rather flawed, especially when looking at the timeline for for instance the .xxx domain including the above linked letter:

[QUOTE=2 June, 2005]A proposal to create net domains ending .xxx has been approved by the body that oversees the net's addressing system.[/QUOTE]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4602449.stm

(enter the 11/08 letter from DoC as linked above)

[QUOTE=16 August 2005]Last week, a letter from Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi, chairman of Icann's Government Advisory Committee, reiterated the concern that several countries had over the decision.

It requested that Icann "allow time for additional governmental and public policy concerns to be expressed before reaching a final decision" on the registration of the domain name. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=16 August 2005]An official from President George Bush's administration has asked for the brakes be put on the planned domain name until its impact is studied more.

The domain was given the go-ahead by Icann (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in June. [/QUOTE]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4155568.stm


This is also quite interested (bit long-ish though)
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/ps1.10xxx.html

[QUOTE=Lestat]Nice article, Vicsun. Just a few quotes from this article from the Guardian

Since Icann was created, the US commerce department has not once interfered with its decisions.

This seems to confirm what I said about the US government having a rather hands off approach.[/quote]
The article I linked to is actually mistaken on that particular point. To quote another article I read on the Wall Street Journal today:
The matter intensified in August, when the U.S. government asked Icann to table an initiative to add a new domain name for pornography Web sites. Icann had tentatively approved the new domain name, called .xxx, several months earlier, but at the last moment the Department of Commerce removed its support, after it said it received thousands of letters of complaint from conservative Christian groups and others.
This is to my knowledge the only time the US government has interfered, but it poses an important question nevertheless. I'd wager the majority of internet users aren't Christian. Why should American Christians make a decision directly affecting (possibly adversely) a group of people severely out-numbering them? Suppose tomorrow they gained more power - things are already heading that way. Instant censorship, just add water.

That's not the only incident either. Last I checked, ICANN still hadn't returned the .iq Top Level Domain to Iraq citing instability, even though Iraq has been a soverign nation for a while now.

My point is that by now the Internet has become an integral piece of infrastructure for many countries, so it's quite understandible they'd feel uneasy about it being controlled by a superpower that's not exactly hesitant in taking unilateral action. How would the USA feel if Germany could shut down all its rail ways?

It's not that I don't understand your concern. I personally percieve any form of internet censorship as a bad thing, I just feel as if there's more chance of that happening in the US than under a non-governmental body.

[QUOTE=Xandax]This is also quite interested (bit long-ish though)
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/ps1.10xxx.html[/QUOTE]
And this does not argue for setting up a new UN body, but rather for full privatisation.

Secondly I think the .xxx rootname would have caused as much controversy and reaction from a supervising UN body (at several places in the articles "other countries" or "several countries" are mentioned) and in the GAC representatives of governments from over the world are involved.

Apart from the .xxx-controversy are there many signs of meddling by the US government? The last link you posted seems to suggest that's not the case, on the contrary, that it's the first time. And I did nowhere suggest there is no influence (there is of course, but of a far more subtle kind if only by being the one contracting Icann), only a "hands-off" approach.

And we keep on returning to the current system and the dangers of the US dominance, while apparently the worries I've voiced over a UN alternative, deserve scant attention. So from hereon I refrain on commenting on anything that has to do with the current system, unless at least the possible alternatives are given at least as much attention.

EDIT sorry vicsun: you must have been posting at the same time. For the .xxx domain, apparently American Christians were not the only ones protesting. Is the .iq the consequence of government meddling?
UN reunites many governments and thus is NOT non-governmental, there is a clear distinction. As I said earlier UN entities are as effective as the members allow them to be.

Lestat wrote:<snip>

And we keep on returning to the current system and the dangers of the US dominance, while apparently the worries I've voiced over a UN alternative, deserve scant attention. So from hereon I refrain on commenting on anything that has to do with the current system, unless at least the possible alternatives are given at least as much attention.
<snip>

And you keep returning to the notion that UN is the only possible alternative and thus, nobody should touch the ICANN because "the UN is worse".

Other alternatives exists and have been mentioned in the ICANN-talks in the UN - the UN was simply the EU Comissions compromise, so that the US fears of China and Iran and other "scoundrel states" didn't get control of the internet, which I've already mentioned in other posts.
So far at least 4 versions (public) of restructuring have been suggested, trying to find a solution to these issues, but all have been shot down by US Government:

Option One - create a UN body known as the Global Internet Council that draws its members from governments and "other stakeholders" and takes over the US oversight role of Icann.

Option Two - no changes apart from strengthening Icann's Governmental Advisory Committee to become a forum for official debate on net issues.

Option Three - relegate Icann to a narrow technical role and set up an International Internet Council that sits outside the UN. US loses oversight of Icann

Option Four - create three new bodies. One to take over from Icann and look after the net's addressing system. One to be a debating chamber for governments, businesses and the public; and one to co-ordinate work on "internet-related public policy issues".

[QUOTE=Xandax]And you keep returning to the notion that UN is the only possible alternative and thus, nobody should touch the ICANN because "the UN is worse".[/QUOTE]
I did no such thing, the UN alternative was brought up by you in your initial post:[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]
So I find it no more than normal to point out the problems with an UN-type of oversight. I have seen as yet no answers to the questions I've raised. So yes I keep returning to the UN since I get no anwers, but nowhere I suggested it is the only alternative.

So: you suggest the possibility of an alternative. I raise questions about that alternative and present the case that it might be worse than the current system. These questions go unanswered, and now you say there are other alternatives. So if I understand well, I have to give my opinion on all the alternatives, before I get answers to the questions I raised about one of the alternatives, one that you suggested in the first place. Sorry, I don't play that game.

[QUOTE=Lestat]I did no such thing, the UN alternative was brought up by you in your initial post:
So I find it no more than normal to point out the problems with an UN-type of oversight. I have seen as yet no answers to the questions I've raised. So yes I keep returning to the UN since I get no anwers, but nowhere I suggested it is the only alternative.

So: you suggest the possibility of an alternative. I raise questions about that alternative and present the case that it might be worse than the current system. These questions go unanswered, and now you say there are other alternatives. So if I understand well, I have to give my opinion on all the alternatives, before I get answers to the questions I raised about one of the alternatives, one that you suggested in the first place. Sorry, I don't play that game.[/QUOTE]

Well, if you wish to play with semantics then as you quote yourself, my excat wording to begin with was a globally controled organisation, possible managed by the UN.
And throughout the debate I have mentioned that other alternatives existed, which are listed in the very first one of the links I linked to in my initial post.

It was then you - in your quote of my post who started with focusing on the UN, where all I had said was possible managed by the UN. My emphasisme has constantly been on the fact that I'd like the organisation to be outside any singular government to control or influence.
UN control was thus just one of the suggestions which I based my first post on.
And then it spun off from there. So you might not want to play the game, but you cetainly played a significant part in starting said game (discussion), and if you read back the majority of UN mentions comes from you.

Anyways, this is not really that relevant, as it doesn't adress the issue of the US Government not wanting to give up control in light of *any* of the proposed suggestions, where only the UN control is one. This is yet another thing which to me suggest that it infact isn't the UN control issue which is the larger of the issues, but moreso actually haveing the control themselves or not.
And I'd still rather see a global inter-government organisation then one singular government controlling what is a "valurable" world-wide commodity.

Xandax, semantics are important.
[QUOTE=Xandax]And you keep returning to the notion that UN is the only possible alternative and thus, nobody should touch the ICANN because "the UN is worse".[/QUOTE]

A. I never said that the UN is the only possible alternative. I singled it out because of the four possibilities you now quote in full, it is the one you mentioned explicitely, as a possibility. But from several of my posts, it is easy to deduce that I do not consider the UN as the only possibility.
B. the quotation marks around "the UN is worse" seems to suggest that I said this. I didn't. I used conditional tense (could be, might be) rather than is, or qualifiers as probably, I think, I fear, etc. Thus including the possibility that I might be wrong. And I invited people to prove me wrong, if they thought I was. And I never said the UN as such is worse. The only two instances were I was affirmative on the UN were when I said that the UN is capable of screwing up the simple maintenance of a server database and I maintain that position, I've witnessed some of the things that the UN is capable of screwing up; and second, that the UN entities are at most only as effective as the member states allow them to be.

Now back to the topic at hand:
Option 1 means stengthening the roles of governments from over the world. I've made my opinion about that clear. It could be balanced by involving the so called "other stakeholders", but it is not clear how they will be selected. And the fact that some countries demanded that the representatives of these stakeholders would not be involved in the drafting of the proposals, do not bode well.
Option 2, if I understand well, is getting the worst of both worlds: still ultimate control by US, but higher involvement of other governments.
Option 3 is utterly unclear: nothing is mentioned about the composition of such an International Internet Council. If it would be similar to the UN body suggested in option 1, similar problems could crop up.
Option 4 would mean overhauling the whole system, thus possibly creating a disruption in the technical management. I see no need to replace the ICANN when the main problem seems to be exclusive US oversight. What is meant by a debating chamber and will it have any decision making power? And nothing is said about the composition of the last body. Again, if this would be similar to the body suggested in option 1, similar problems could crop up.

[QUOTE=Xandax]And I'd still rather see a global inter-government organisation then one singular government controlling what is a "valurable" world-wide commodity[/QUOTE]
For any intergovernmental body the same comments I made as for the UN could be applied (but maybe less in terms of bureaucracy). Intergovernmental sounds nice in theory, until you start looking at the practical detail. As far as I can see, whatever type of decision making (unanimity, majority of countries or qualified majorities), authoritarian governments and other governments with an interest in imposing limits on the internet will get too much influence (because they are a majority). It seems to me that there is this ghost of an idea hanging around that if something is "international" or "intergovernmental" it is better, nicer or whatever. But for me, both, but especially "international", are such vague terms when speaking of institutions & organisations that I do not attribute these words any intrinsic value. The devil is the detail.

A quick post before i head out to work. I know nothing on the subject but from what i know of the UN, all UN bodies must report to the 191 country membership. Maybe that is what the EU wants? Secondly the New York Office set up th ICT Task Force in conjunction with the private sector. They are called PPP. Public Private Partnerships. Its the big thing in the UN these days with companies like Ford, La Roche and GE actively wanting to participate. Maybe a PPP would be a suitable idea.

As for efficient UN agencies, there are so few. Lestat is very much correct on that. If you want a red tape ridden organization to run ICANN that is your choice. But there are a few that are extremely efficient. WHO and WIPO are two examples. WIPO controls all IP polices and laws in the world. Heck their income is based on IP returns. They get all their money from the "rent" paid for Intellectual Property. WHO is extremely efficient. I guess it has to be because very few countries pay for their services. But those are the only two i can think off. But the UN replacing ICANN would mean inefficiency, alot of red tape and a lot of political haggling and bickering.

The [url="http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf"]report[/url] of the Working Group on Internet Governance. Details of the 4 options from page 13 on.
Though no details of how the different bodies would be composed exactly, a leading role of Governments is mentioned in each one except option 2. Other stakeholders would only be involved in an advisory role. And the details of what would be the jurisdiction of these bodies doesn't make for joyful reading, unless your a fan of heavy government involvement in the internet.

Lestat wrote:<snip>And the details of what would be the jurisdiction of these bodies doesn't make for joyful reading, unless your a fan of heavy government involvement in the internet.

That is a matter of subjective opinions.

I wouldn't mind seeing global initiatives to fight spam, cybercrime (hacking, scamming, and what not) and a global intiviative to set up uniform policies to handle the disagreements online, set up in connection or relation with an internationalisation of ICANN, as is literally included in some of these suggestions.

The Internet is a global ressource so it makes little sense that each country on its own has to deal with localized problems and has to make local (possible conflicting) policies.
Also - the sum of all the govermental influence in each localized region is large as well, when it comes to these issues, so heavy government involvement already currently exsist in the Internet. It is just done on a national level, where the US makes policies for Spam, Cybercrimes, various disbutes etc, but so does every other country. If these policies could be created from a set of uniform guidelines I fail to see why that would be bad.

Take spam for instance:

Businesses around the world will lose up to $50 billion in combating spam this year(2005), according to a new report issued by consultancy Ferris Research. Firms in the US will lose $17 billion, while spam will cost UK firms almost $2.5 billion (£1.3 billion).

Now the accuracy of these numbers I do n-ot know of - I'm not familiar with Ferris Research - but it is a huge problem for everybody.

A set of uniform guidelines in the combatting of spam, without having to introduce "postalstamps" would only be a step up in my view.

[QUOTE=Xandax]I wouldn't mind seeing global initiatives to fight spam, cybercrime (hacking, scamming, and what not) and a global intiviative to set up uniform policies to handle the disagreements online, set up in connection or relation with an internationalisation of ICANN, as is literally included in some of these suggestions.
<snip>
If these policies could be created from a set of uniform guidelines I fail to see why that would be bad.[/QUOTE]
Just a quick reaction.

This would not be a bad thing, but this could be arranged through a (or multiple) multilateral treatie(s). I do not see a need to set up an extra body or organisation or whatever to do this. The problem of any body/institution/organisation/... is that it invariably suffers from Mission Creep. They seldom give up authority without being pressured to do so and rather have a tendency to increase their jurisdiction/mandate/field of operations/... little by little. Or at least, that is my experience.

On the specifics of some of the points raised by the WGIG document I linked, I'd like to post later, as on the question you raised about the fragmentation of the internet, but several things cropped up IRL.