Friday, September 30, 2005

U.S. insists on keeping control of Web

U.S. insists on keeping control of Web

Hmm..I wonder if this is acceptable or not. I do agree that it was a concept built by the US military but it has grown beyond that. The US is being greedy. And like the article says, who is to say that US policy won't suddenly change and our access to the internet severed..


It's really weird that EU needs the US for getting greater control of the internet. It's a worldwide phenomenon now and they should be able to get more access control themselves.. I guess I don't know enough about the situation to understand the problem.

Look at the comments for further discussion on this topic.

8 comments:

Dan Kauffman said...

The operative word is control

at present there is more organization than control.

I for one do not wish my access to the Internet decided in Beijing and Brussels,

Sorry if that happens to offend the EU, the PRC or the UN.

Imagine the Internet new and streamlined brought to you by the Same folks who gave you

Rwanda
The Oil for Food Scandle
Tiananmen square
and all those other examples of
Excellance in management and Freedom.

Then of course there is the nice potential for tax revenue, how much do you want to pay to EU and PRC politicians to go online.

To be succinct I don't trust the UN nor the EU to wash dogs.

Dan Kauffman said...

PS they have my permission to start their own internet.

We have Boeing they have AirBus,

PPS btw did you know wwwdot domains are not even the only ones out there?

See what you find by going to

XXX.lanl.gov LOL

Don't worry its not a porn website most of it is links to advanced Science and Mathematics,

The point is it is not ON the worldwide web.

indoloony said...

I know the issue is control, but it's a global user resource. And it being in control of a single nation whose foreign policy is self centered. I know that every national's foreign policy is self centered but US's policies affect the whole world.

However if EU and other nations want to take control, they can bypass US's DNS service.

Although an independent entity would n't be under any nation's control.

I wonder if Akamai is part of the debate..

indoloony said...

another thing is the brand new Internet2 that is being developed. Although the EU and rest of the world could build somethign to interface with the original net entity.

But it does suck the all the .com domains are taken. they could however rename us domans to com.us or something of that nature just as there are site like co.uk or co.au for other nations.

Dan Kauffman said...

Joy there are already dot us

.us domains

com .net .org .biz .info .us
educational .edu
military .mil governmental .gov


then there are national domains

.uk .nl .de .sa .au .nz .pl

But the real crux depends on the slant of the article you read.


You read

"U.S. insists on keeping control of Web"

Now contrast that with
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050926-094916-3102r.htm

"U.S. tells nations hands off Internet"

GENEVA -- The United States said at the outset of global talks on information technology yesterday that it will fight attempts to put the United Nations or any international group in charge of the Internet.
"We want to make sure the private sector leads and the Internet continues to be a reservoir of great innovation, and that governments continue to focus on enabling the growth of the Internet, and not of controlling its use," Ambassador David A. Gross told The Washington Times in an interview.

Major developing nations spearheaded by China, Brazil, South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a number of industrialized countries including Norway, Switzerland and Russia would like to see the United States relinquish its historic control of the Internet.
"This situation is very undemocratic, unfair and unreasonable," said Sha Zukang, the ambassador from China, which this week imposed new rules that allow only "healthy and civilized" news to be read by the mainland's 100 million Web users.
China's government will determine which news is healthy and which news is not.

The question of Internet governance is the most politically charged issue in preparatory talks here for the second World Information Society Summit to be held in Tunis, Tunisia, in November.
Mr. Gross, U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy, said the role of the U.S. government is "to ensure stability and reliability of the Internet.
"We will take no action that would undermine that stability," he said.
The U.S.-based ICANN -- or Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers -- is a nonprofit corporation that administers the Internet's domain name system.
Massod Khan, Pakistan's ambassador and chairman of the Internet governance segment of the talks, said the issues are difficult and added "there is a will to engage, but we have to wait for the outcome."
Paul Twomey, president of ICANN, said his organization does not want to see "the Internet's technological future politicized."
Britain, which speaks at the talks on behalf of the European Union, also said that governments "should not seek involvement in day-to-day operational issues, nor should they interfere in technical decision making processes."

Now that casts a different light does it not.

BTW I consider us having a "dialog" of ideas and an exchange of information, rather than an argument or debate where there is a winner and loser.

indoloony said...

Dan, I do believe that we are having a dialog and not an argument. I see conflicting things about the control over the internet. It talks about a private entity having control and then it talks about the US having control. Now, if it's a private entity separate from the US government, then it's ok. but if it is affliated with the US government, it's already political.

Dan Kauffman said...

Here's the website of for the general information




http://www.icann.org/general/

What is ICANN?

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. These services were originally performed under U.S. Government contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and other entities. ICANN now performs the IANA function.

As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes.


What is ICANN's Role?

ICANN is responsible for coordinating the management of the technical elements of the DNS to ensure universal resolvability so that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses. It does this by overseeing the distribution of unique technical identifiers used in the Internet's operations, and delegation of Top-Level Domain names (such as .com, .info, etc.).

Other issues of concern to Internet users, such as the rules for financial transactions, Internet content control, unsolicited commercial email (spam), and data protection are outside the range of ICANN's mission of technical coordination.

Ensuring predictable results from any place on the Internet is called "universal resolvability." It is a critical design feature of the Domain Name System, one that makes the Internet the helpful, global resource that it is today. Without it, the same domain name might map to different Internet locations under different circumstances, which would only cause confusion.

How does ICANN work?

Within ICANN's structure, governments and international treaty organizations work in partnership with businesses, organizations, and skilled individuals involved in building and sustaining the global Internet. Innovation and continuing growth of the Internet bring forth new challenges for maintaining stability. Working collectively, ICANN's participants address those issues that directly concern ICANN's mission of technical coordination. Consistent with the principle of maximum self-regulation in the high-tech economy, ICANN is perhaps the foremost example of collaboration by the various constituents of the Internet community.

ICANN is governed by an internationally diverse Board of Directors overseeing the policy development process. ICANN's President directs an international staff, working from three continents, who ensure that ICANN meets its operational commitment to the Internet community.

Designed to respond to the demands of rapidly changing technologies and economies, the flexible, readily implemented policy development process originates in the three Supporting Organizations. Advisory Committees from individual user organizations, and technical communities work with the Supporting Organizations to create appropriate and effective policies. Over eighty governments closely advise the Board of Directors via the Governmental Advisory Committee.

There is a lot more, my perception is there is a NGO doing a good job but there are forces which want to put it under political control and the UN has a terrible reputation at present for corruption.

Let me remind you of one other dangerous sign

""This situation is very undemocratic, unfair and unreasonable," said Sha Zukang, the ambassador from China, which this week imposed new rules that allow only "healthy and civilized" news to be read by the mainland's 100 million Web users.
China's government will determine which news is healthy and which news is not."

Dan Kauffman said...

Hi Joy found an interesting article on this subject, Well worth a comlete read.

Dan
http://free2innovate.net/archives/000960.html
The Internet: Brought to You By Iran, Syria and China

"Perhaps only the French could come up with a plan for Internet governance that is so absurd that we look to ICANN as the voice of reason.

At this week�s WSIS meetings in Geneva, France pushed the European Union to propose a new Internet Governance plan. If adopted, the EU's proposal - which calls for a government-run body to control the Internet - would mean the end of ICANN and business-led Internet
policies, and hand over the future of the Internet to countries such as Iran, Syria and China.

Why? Because the Internet has been too successful operating on its own for the last decade. A billion users, over a trillion dollars in commerce and communications. It�s time for the United Nations to take control because they can run it better.

And they have already telegraphed at the Geneva meetings how they would operate:


Business groups were expelled at the insistence of the Chinese delegation from cyber security meetings.

Business groups were expelled at the insistence of the Egyptian delegation from a drafting group on the "enabling environment."

Business groups were expelled at the insistence of the Iranian delegation from a drafting group on privacy and consumer protection.

Keep in mind that just last week that China tightened its restrictions on Internet news.

Make no mistake, this bid is about control of the Internet, its operations and its content - and it's horrible news for anyone who wants to see the Internet flourish as an engine of technological innovation, economic growth and the free exchange of ideas and information.

The U.S. Government has signaled it will stand by the current system of a business-government partnership to determine the best policies for the Internet."

Check out the rest, I do believe the real attraction is the possibilities of TAX control after POLITICAL control is a acheived but then CONTENT control goes without saying.

In contrast by creating ICANN the US unilaterly and without any outside influenced took a step AWAY from political control.

The UN and EU diplobureaucrats have not seen such a target of potential largess and backsheesh since the Food For Oil Program,

They could skim off FAR more than the tens of billions they did with the help of Saddam