|
News
Stories Used in "Internet
Take Over?"
Word from Commentary
Below is the text of the
news stories used in this Word from on the question, "Internet
Take Over?" We are posting
the text
here as some news sources take down stories after a few days.
Click on the headline to see the story.
United Nations calls
for US net pull out
By Nick Farrell
THE UNITED Nations has said that the US must hand over control of the
Interweb to an international body.
The US initially said it would go along with the plan, but recently said
that it wanted to keep control of the Interweb. According to the Sydney
Morning Herald, the UN Working Group on Internet Governance, which was
created to recommend how the Internet should be run in the future,
agreed that no single country should dominate.
In a report, the UN panel outlined four possible options for the future
of Internet governance for world leaders to consider at a November
"Information Society" summit.
One of the options includes keeping the current system intact, with a
US-based non-profit organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers, continuing to handle basic policies over Internet
addresses.
Another option is for the United Nations will take over. The report
stresses that it was not meant as an attack on the United States or a
direct response to the US Department of Commerce statement that it
intends to keep ultimate authority for authorizing changes to the list
of Internet suffixes, such as ".com."
"The group as a whole recognizes that it is clear the US has played a
beneficial role," the report said.
But some committee members have expressed concerns that ICANN remains
too close to the US government. Developing countries have been
frustrated that Western countries got most of the available addresses
required for computers to connect, leaving them with a limited supply.
Others want domain names in non-English characters.
Sydney Morning Herald
Source
back to top
Will the United
Nations run the Internet?
Declan McCullagh, Special to ZDNet
An international political spat is brewing over whether the United
Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet.
U.N. bureaucrats and telecommunications ministers from many
less-developed nations claim the U.S. government has undue influence
over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge.
While the formal proposal from a U.N. working group will be released
July 18, it's already clear what it will contain. A preliminary summary
of governmental views claims there's a "convergence of views" supporting
a new organization to oversee crucial Internet functions, most likely
under the aegis of the U.N. or the International Telecommunications
Union.
At issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains,
assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root
servers that keep the Net humming. Other suggested responsibilities for
this new organization include Internet surveillance, "consumer
protection," and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for
"universal access."
This development represents a grave political challenge to the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which was birthed by
the U.S. government to handle some of those topics.
A recent closed-door meeting in Geneva convened by the U.N.'s Working
Group on Internet Governance offers clues about the plot to dethrone
ICANN. As these excerpts from a transcript show, dissatisfaction and
general-purpose griping is rampant:
Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims?
Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious
intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the
spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy
equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with
spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that
are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr.
Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go
very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil,
we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where
they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain
names."
China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be
solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For
instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an
appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent
body."
Ghana: "There was unanimity for the need for an additional body...This
body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within
the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the
U.N."
The "nuclear option"
Those proclamations served to flush out the Bush administration, which
recently announced that it will not hand over control of Internet domain
names and addresses to anyone else.
That high-profile snub of the U.N. could presage an international
showdown. The possibility of a political flap over what has long been an
abstruse Net-governance issue casts a shadow over ICANN's meeting this
week in Luxembourg, and will be the topic of a July 28 symposium in
Washington, D.C., called "Regime Change on the Internet."
Beyond the usual levers of diplomatic pressure and public complaining,
Brazil and China could choose what amounts to the nuclear option: a
fragmented root. That means a new top-level domain would not be approved
by ICANN--but would be recognized and used by large portions of the rest
of the world. The downside, of course, is that the nuclear option could
create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find different Web
sites at the same address.
"It wasn't until now" that a fragmented root was being talked about,
says Milton Mueller, a professor at Syracuse University and participant
in the Internet Governance Project. "China and other countries might be
pursuing responses that lead to fragmentation."
Such an outcome remains remote, but it could happen. That possibility
means an obscure debate about Internet governance has suddenly become
surprisingly important.
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent.
Source
back to top
A World Wide Web of Oppression
by Steven J. DuBord
Any plan for an Internet effectively controlled by the United Nations
will serve only to blanket the globe in a world wide web of oppression.
A United Nations-appointed panel has done it again. Or not done it
again, depending on your perspective. What did they do? They convened
purportedly on behalf of the best interests of every man, woman, and
child on the face of the Earth — this time regarding the fate of the
Internet — though they were not elected to this task by any of the
billions they supposedly represent. What didn't they do? Agree, thank
goodness.
There are few things worse than unelected, unaccountable
"representatives" actually agreeing on what they think is best for the
world and leaving the world no say in the matter. Come to think of it,
these people do represent someone; they were nominated by the UN
secretary-general. The fact that he is knee-deep in the UN's
oil-for-food scandal — one of the biggest humanitarian aid swindles in
history — just might shake our confidence in his hand-picked team.
Reuters reported on July 14 that this panel, the Working Group on
Internet Governance, was unable to reach an agreement on who should
manage the Internet and how the job should be done. They did, though,
come up with four models for overseeing the Internet that ranged from
maintaining the status quo of U.S. management with private sector
involvement to putting the assignment of all Internet domains under the
auspices of the UN. Reuters stated: "At issue for the world body is who
runs the Internet and how it can better serve the world."
To "better serve the world" … hmm, shades of the old Twilight Zone
episode in which aliens visited Earth and brought with them a book
reassuringly titled To Serve Man. It turned out that the aliens were
taking humans back to their home planet on a one-way trip because …
(spoiler alert) To Serve Man was a cookbook. As this publication has
previously noted ("Make Way for the UNternet?" on January 26, 2004, and
"UN to Make Internet a Global 'Common Heritage'?" on March 21, 2005),
the United Nations has long desired to "serve" the world by running the
Internet.
Yet the UN's real stake in the issue is not how the Internet can better
serve the world, but how it can better serve world government. For an
Internet effectively controlled by the UN is an Internet effectively
controlled by government. That the UN-appointed panel was called the
Working Group on Internet Governance gives this away. To see what an
Internet effectively controlled by government looks like, one need look
no further than to a permanent member in good standing of the UN
Security Council, Communist China.
Through both technology and regulation, Communist China has severely
limited access to the Internet from within its borders, creating what
has been called the Great Fire Wall of China. Yet the building of this
Great Fire Wall has not disqualified China from membership in the
highest ranks of the United Nations. How will it serve the world to turn
over the Internet to a body that tolerates such tyranny?
Communist China's totalitarian Internet policies are the most repressive
in the world. The Open Net Initiative, a joint effort by the University
of Toronto, Harvard University, and the University of Cambridge,
recognized this in their 2004-2005 study on Internet filtering in China.
Beijing "operates the most extensive, technologically sophisticated, and
broad-reaching system of Internet filtering in the world." Anyone who
opens an Internet account in China must register it with the police.
Chinese Internet Service Providers are required to track their
customers' usage and websites visited. Cyber cafés offering public
Internet access "must keep detailed logs linking users to the pages they
visited." The Open Net Initiative study points out that "China's
intricate technical filtering regime is buttressed by an equally complex
series of laws and regulations that control the access to and
publication of material online."
U.S. firms desiring to do business in Communist China must bow to these
repressive regulations and to Beijing's lust for absolute control over
its subjects. French news agency AFP reported on June 13 that Microsoft,
Yahoo!, and Google have all agreed to cooperate in censoring the
Internet from their China-based sites by filtering out content that the
Chinese government finds objectionable. The list of forbidden words
includes "democracy," "freedom," "human rights," and "Taiwan
independence." AFP also noted that any China-based websites not formally
registered with the government by the end of June 2005 would be shut
down by the government's Internet police.
Article 29 of the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that
"in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject
only to such limitations as are determined by law.... These rights and
freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations." Since the UN views rights as being
given by government, not granted by God, there is apparently no
incompatibility between the Communist Chinese policies — which are,
after all, "determined by law" — and the "principles of the United
Nations."
Any plan for an Internet effectively controlled by the United Nations
will serve only to blanket the globe in a world wide web of oppression.
Source [link
now dead]
back to top
U.N. panel to U.S.: Let
go of Internet
Science Daily
GENEVA, Switzerland-- A U.N. panel says the United States should give up
control of the core functions of the Internet -- a position the United
States has already rejected.
The United Nations' Working Group on Internet Governance -- WGIG --
released a report this week that says U.S. control of the Internet's
technical underpinnings should end.
However, the panel failed to agree on a future governance structure and
put forward four alternatives, the BBC reported.
The alternatives will be discussed Nov. 16-18 at the U.N. World Summit
on the Information Society in Tunis, Tunisia.
The United States beat the WGIG panel to the punch with its late June
announcement that it intends to "maintain its historic role in
authorizing changes or modifications" to the master file of domain names
controlled by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
The U.S. Commerce Department has veto power over more than 250 top-level
domains, such as ".com "and ".net," even though the Internet's 13 root
servers are private.
Source
back to top
Whose
Internet?
By Robert MacMillan
They say you can't have it both ways, but what about four ways?
That's how many options a United Nations group came up with for how the
Internet should be run.
Here's a quick rundown that we cribbed from the BBC :
Create a Global Internet Council with representatives from several
countries and "other stakeholders" who replace the United States in its
oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), the Marina Del Rey, Calif.-based nonprofit group that runs the
online address system.
Turn ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee into a forum for official
debate on Internet issues.
Wrench control of the system away from the United States and set up an
International Internet Council.
Create three new groups: one for the address system, one for debate and
one for "Internet-related public policy issues."
And they wonder why the U.S. government decided to hang on to the thing.
Now that I've zinged the Working Group on Internet Governance , let me
be a little more fair. The group isn't required to come up with a real
solution. That's the job of the U.N.'s World Summit on the Information
Society , which is expected to adopt one of the recommendations when it
meets in Tunis this November.
The world's been getting along with U.S. control of the Internet since
before Al Gore invented it, so why is this happening now?
The BBC explained: "The one common aspect of all four proposals is the
creation of some sort of talking shop that will give governments and
others a say in how the Net develops. ... Many of those attending the
2003 WSIS meeting in Geneva were happy with the current system. ...
Others, particularly delegates from developing nations, resent ICANN's
role and the fact that the U.S. has kept control of it."
Not only has the U.S. kept control, Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael
Gallagher late last month announced that the government is reversing its
policy to internationalize oversight of the system that routes our
e-mails and other Internet communications.
Source
back to top
European Commission mulls who should govern the Internet
OUT-LAW News
The European Commission yesterday set out its priorities for a
forthcoming international summit on developing the information society.
Top of the agenda is the question of Internet governance, currently in
the control of US-based ICANN.
This will be the second World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
The first one took place in Geneva in December 2003, with the aim of
finding ways of using ICT to improve the global economy and tackle
worldwide problems such as poverty.
It was hailed a success, resulting in a Declaration of Principles for
governing the information society and an Action Plan for implementing
them. But agreement was only reached by leaving the toughest issues to
future discussion. Most controversial among these was the question of
who should govern the Internet.
At present, ICANN, the US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers, 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. It is a non-profit corporation that
derives its authority from a 1998 agreement with the US Government.
Several developing countries argue that control of the Internet should
be in the hands of an international body such as the UN. But many
developed countries disagree, looking to increase the role of national
governments in the regulation of the Internet.
In the end, delegates in Geneva reached a compromise agreement, setting
up a working group to consider questions of Internet management. This
committee is due to report at the second WSIS in November.
In anticipation of the second WSIS, in Tunisia, the European Commission
has published a paper that, among other things, addresses Internet
governance – albeit rather vague on the powers and limitations it would
apply to ICANN.
The Commission says a new cooperation model is needed – comprising
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations. Its 13-page Communication states: "Existing Internet
governance mechanisms should be founded on a more solid democratic,
transparent and multilateral basis, with a stronger emphasis on the
public policy interest of all governments."
It suggests that this new model should not replace "existing mechanisms
or institutions," but should build on the existing structures of
Internet governance. It does not elaborate on the nature of the new
model or ICANN's position within it.
EU Telecommunications Ministers will discuss the Communication on 27th
June.
Source
back to top
UN: US Should Not Control
Internet
By Ed Oswald, BetaNews
A United Nations panel tasked with how to govern the Internet in the
future came up with four different plans, although the panel did agree
that the United States could not continue holding complete control. The
U.S. government, however, said it had no plans to give up control of the
computers that handle Internet traffic.
World leaders will consider the options put forth by the panel at an
"Information Society" summit in November. One of the proposals does keep
the current method as is for the most part, with ICANN maintaining
control of how Internet address are used.
The other plans to varying degrees turn over the power to the United
Nations; however, the head of the 40-member panel Markus Kummer said,
"in the end it will be up to governments, if at all, to decide if there
will be any change."
At the last Information Society meeting in December 2003, leaders failed
to agree on a plan to revamp the way the Internet is controlled.
The U.S. funded much of the early development of the Internet and has
mostly controlled it since its inception. But some want a more
international role in the governance of the Internet, especially
developing nations.
Countries would like faster approval of non-English domain names, as
ICANN has resisted those requests saying they could be used in phishing
scams because of the way a computer translates the domain name into
English characters.
"In some of the early tests ... it became clear we had opened up the
opportunity for registering very misleading names," head of ICANN Vint
Cerf said in a recent conference call. "This kind of potential confusion
leads to parties going to what they think are valid Web sites."
China last year even threatened to split from the Internet so it could
offer its citizens Chinese-language domain names.
Source
back to top
Politics of Internet
Governance
Remmy Nweke - Lagos
FOLLOWING the June 30, 2005 announcement by the United States Department
of Commerce (DOC) with intent to retain authority on Internet root
servers, the global Internet community has been thrown into confusion
once again.
Internet, defined as an interconnected system of networks that connects
computers around the world via the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
or Internet Protocol (IP) in line with the Internet Technology
Dictionary.com. The Internet root servers, on the hand, according to the
www.domainsarefree.com , is
a Domain Name System (DNS) servers that respond to requests for the root
name space domain, and redirect requests for a particular Top-Level
Domain (TLD) to the required name servers.
Hence, final dot is usually applied, although not all modern DNS
software do actually require that the final dot be included nowadays
when attempting to translate a domain name to an IP address. The final
dot is known as the root domain and all other domains, such as .com,
org, .net, .ng, .uk and so on, are contained within the root domain.
The root name servers have the duties for the domain's where- about and
which servers are responsible for the TLDs. Furthermore, each TLD such
as .com or .org, has its own set of servers which in turn delegate to
the name servers for individual domain request to be solved. In other
words, it would answer queries for IP address of sub-domains such as
www.ITRealms.blogspot.com.
Currently, there are 12 entities managing the 13 root name servers,
specifically: A - VeriSign Global Registry Services; B - Information
Sciences Institute; C - Cogent Communications; D - University of
Maryland; E - NASA Ames Research Center; F - Internet Systems
Consortium, Inc.; G - U.S. DOD Network Information Center; H - U.S. Army
Research Lab; I - Autonomica/NORDUnet; J - VeriSign Global Registry
Services; K - RIPE NCC; L - ICANN; and M - WIDE Project.
Out of these numbers, five servers namely the C, F, I, J and K, exist in
multiple locations on different continents of the world. Thus, most of
the physical, rather than nominal root servers are now outside the
United States.
Champion Infotel recalls that the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
based in Aberdeen Proving Ground, has a long history of leadership role
in the computing and networking field. Today, ARL has continued to
operate a root name server as a service to the Internet community.
However, in what has left the Internet community divided, the remarks at
the Wireless Communications Association (WCA) on June 30, 2005 by the
Assistant Secretary to the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), Mr. Michael D. Gallagher, announcing U.S.
principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System, jolted
the industry globally. It read in part thus:
"The United States Government intends to preserve the security and
stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS).
Given the Internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential
that the underlying DNS of the Internet remain stable and secure. As
such, the United States is committed to taking no action that would have
the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation
of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing
changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
"Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country
code top level domains (ccTLD). The United States recognizes that
governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with
respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is
committed to working with the international community to address these
concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and
security of the Internet's DNS.
"Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the
appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS. The United States
continues to support the ongoing work of ICANN as the technical manager
of the DNS and related technical operations and recognizes the progress
it has made to date. The United States will continue to provide
oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical
mission.
"Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in relevant
multiple fora. Given the breadth of topics potentially encompassed under
the rubric of Internet governance there is no one venue to appropriately
address the subject in its entirety. "While the United States recognizes
that the current Internet system is working, we encourage an ongoing
dialogue with all stakeholders around the world in the various fora as a
way to facilitate discussion and to advance our shared interest in the
ongoing robustness and dynamism of the Internet. In these fora, the
United States will continue to support market-based approaches and
private sector leadership in Internet development broadly."
It also follows that the first phase of the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS-2003) held in Geneva, Switzerland in December,
ended with a resolve that the United Nations' Secretary General, Mr.
Kofi Annan should set up a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
and as at July 14, the group's report which is due to be presented at
the forthcoming second phase of WSIS this November, has been released to
Mr. Annan. Even as its expected to wet the ground for negotiations among
the Internet community on modus operandi of governing the electronic
network of networks.
The WGIG mandate started from the Geneva summit, during which heads of
state and governments recognized the importance of the Internet, by way
of acknowledging that the Internet is a central element of
infrastructure of the emerging information society, whereas recognizing
that there are different views on the suitability of current
institutions and mechanisms for managing processes and developing
policies for the global Internet.
The WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action adopted in Geneva,
set the limitation for the WGIG according to its terms of reference,
which include to "investigate and make proposals for action, as
appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005".
This exercise was useful to identify guiding principles and factors that
have facilitated the successful development of Internet, including the
open, decentralized nature of its architecture and the underlying
technological development of its core standards, as well as the
management of names and numbers.
WGIG also recognized that while there is a common understanding of the
Internet, there is not yet a shared view of Internet governance, hence,
the mandate from the WSIS for the group to develop a working definition
of Internet governance.
The WGIG first considered five criteria, namely that the working
definition should be adequate, generalizable, descriptive, concise and
process-oriented. Secondly, the WGIG analyzed a wide range of
public-sector, private-sector and multi-stakeholder governance
mechanisms that currently exist with respect to different Internet
issues and functions. Finally, the WGIG assessed a number of alternative
definitions proposed by various parties in the course of the WSIS
process and related international discussions.
As at December 12, 2004, The Internet Society (ISOC) said there were 258
TLDs and 773 different authoritative servers for those TLDs listed.
However, reacting to the recent US resolve to retain its control over
the Internet despite the efforts of the UN to deregulate this or even
find a more democratic set up for Internet Governance, chief executive
of Internet Service Provider (ISP), Equinox Technologies, Mr. Mba
Nwakanma, said he was not surprised by the declaration.
"I doubt it if the U. S. would give up on their position. But why would
anyone think they (U. S.) would invest so much in technology and easily
toss its control over to other people?" he declared.
Stressing that like most other things in the world, be it international
politics and diplomacy, peace and security, US would continue to seek
leading roles in everything, including Internet governance.
"If it is controlled more democratically by the UN, it would be great.
But quite sincerely, I do not fault US for seeking to continue to
control Internet governance," he insisted.
Executive Director of another ISP firm, Nigeria Online Limited and
Treasurer, Nigeria Internet Group (NIG), Mr. Oleleye Alao, said that
what matters most is the security of the Internet and he doubts too if
another nation could put in so much security measures as US have done so
far, moreso in safe-guiding the Internet, even as he would love to see
the Internet Governance issues resolved for the greater good of the
Internet community.
"As you know the Internet itself began from the US and US, probably for
security reasons especially the aftermath of September 11 would want to
retain its control of the Internet. The main reason for the US control
is because of its concern for security and stability of the Internet,"
he asserted. Moreso, since US said it is committed and willing to
continuously preserve the security and stability of the Internet's
domain name and address system (DNS).
"Any decision that would have an adverse effect on the operation of DNS
will not be accepted such as relinquishing the authority to some other
body," he endorsed.
Also reacting, the Vice Chairman, African Internet Service Providers
Association (AfrISPA) and chief executive of a leading ISP in the
country, PiNet Limited, Mr. Lanre Ajayi, said the way the Internet is
being governed now could not be said to be controlled absolutely by the
US.
He cited an example of ICANN, which though is a US-based and registered
Non Profit Organization, but is made up of people from various parts of
the world and policies are formulated based on bottom up approach, so as
to ensure that various shades of opinion are reflected in final output
of their policies.
Emphasizing that, a number of arguments have been raised on the need for
a more properly constituted body like an agency of the UN, such as the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to take over this
responsibility.
Noting however, that there are merits and demerits of this, but he is of
the opinion that since the Internet was built to this great height
without the direct input of these bodies, maybe it would be nice to
allow US that developed it up to this stage to continue, at least, for
now.
In the main time, it seems the US policy has continued to shape the
globe as most worried were operators in the Least Developed Countries
(LDCs) and how this worry or fear to an extent, would be allayed, will
definitely influence on the thrust during the WSIS-05 and growth of
Internet after wards, mostly when the current Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) between US government and ICANN ends in September
2006.
Source
back to top
Controlling the
Internet: A U.N. virus
Pittsburgh Live
The Internet works because it has not been stymied by government's heavy
hand. Indeed, the light touch of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers has seen the worldwide Web thrive and
prosper.
Now the same folks mired in Iraq's oil-for-food scandal are challenging
U.S. control. That's right. The One World wonders of the United Nations
believe the Internet is far too important to be shepherded by a single
government.
Fortunately, the United States isn't about to roll over on this matter
anytime soon. That's not to say that a future administration -- one that
dismisses the U.N.'s record of failures and corruption -- wouldn't give
away the store.
What the U.N. detests is U.S. control. A U.N. study group, with
representatives from such high-tech countries as Cuba, Iran and Tunisia,
has listed various options for further discussion this fall. Among them,
creation of a world body to address public policy issues and a larger
role for "government arrangements."
In other words, the Internet would be managed by a hodgepodge of special
interests that have no affinity for free markets -- or free speech.
Freedom from bureaucrats, let alone those from the United Nations, is
the Internet's greatest strength.
As Investor's Business Daily opines, it would be like giving the U.N.
control over the future. And fertile cyberspace from which all nations
now reap would be reduced to a wasteland.
No thanks.
Source
back to top
United Nations Quest to Take Over The
Internet
Long Island Press
The Internet, in theory, is politically neutral. Lunatics of all
political types can post whatever they want online. Somehow, rather than
enjoying life, political bloggers sit in musty dens and living rooms
nationwide and spew viciously about the state of the nation. Politicians
have volunteer armies now; thousands of bloggers who defend them
vigorously, pitting red vs. blue, North vs. South, left vs. right. It's
absolutely comical that any voters trust politicians farther than they
can throw them, but the blind allegiance is staggering. Yet, as the
Internet becomes an infinite horizon of political spew, propaganda and
spam, it's easy to forget that this unregulated medium of free-flowing
ideas is one of the core components of a free society. And now, a few
societies that aren't free are looking to take over the Internet.
The situation involves an organization that people tend to have strong
feelings about; an argument is growing about whether the United Nations
should take over the regulatory body that controls the Internet. The
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) sets rules
for Internet domains and registration and controls the root servers that
keep the Internet going. According to journalist Declan McCullagh, U.N.
bureaucrats and telecommunications ministers from many less-developed
nations are claiming the U.S. government has undue influence over how
things are run online. ICANN, you see, was set up by the United States,
since we, gee, I don't know, invented the Internet. Syria, Brazil and
China are calling for the United Nations to take over ICANN so they can
make some changes. This free flow of information is upsetting to places
like China. The idea of countries that throw citizens in jail for
practicing the wrong religion taking over the Internet is one that has
many deeply concerned.
The Bush administration, to its credit, says ICANN will not be handed
over to the United Nations. ICANN's board of directors contains
tech-savvy representatives from many different countries. If it were
ever to be taken over by the United Nations, countries with
less-than-stellar records on human rights and democracy would have
massive influence. They could end up creating a situation where the
international standards of the Web are changed, and governments like
China decide who can view what websites. It's called a fragmented root.
As McCullagh recently said, "That means a new top-level domain would not
be approved by ICANN—but would be recognized and used by large portions
of the rest of the world. The downside, of course, is that the nuclear
option could create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find
different websites at the same address."
Controlling the Internet is tough. Censoring and blocking out sites to
an entire country is a difficult task for regimes like China, which is
precisely why the idea of controlling ICANN and root-level access is so
enticing for them. Politicians worldwide have made attempts to control
and censor the Internet, but it's a pointless crusade. When the Internet
was invented, the United States unleashed a global form of electronic
democracy, and once you've had a taste of electronic freedom, you don't
want to go back.
Source
back to top
|