Governing the Internet Report Released

An anonymous reader writes "After the speculation on earlier this week, the Working Group of Internet Governance (aka the United Nations attempt to govern the Internet) has just released their much anticipated report. News coverage and a helpful summary point to the four options on the table and the likely outcome in the months leading up to a final conference in Tunisia in November."

Comments

Already prepared to take over?

[hkmwbz]

I'm not very informed about this, but have they set up a group to take over, even before the US has agreed to giving up control?

Re:Already prepared to take over?

[Smidge204]

To be perfectly honest, having the internet run by a group where most of the members don't have much of a technology infastructure isn't very comforting either.

Shit, some don't even have running water for most of their population, let alone electricity.
=Smidge=

Re:Already prepared to take over?

[hcob$]

Ok, how bout a little analogy. The rich man and his wife were riding in a nice cart with 4 well bred horses. They were going along delivering goods, minding the horses, maintaining the wagon. The rest of the town sees this and thinks: "wow, thats nice. I like that." Then as time goes on, the city council likes the way the man and his wife are doing things, espescially since everyone is clammoring for their goods. So the City council says "Hey, why don't you let us drive the cart. Oh, and we'll tax everyone who uses it." The man replies that he wouldn't like that at all. So the City council meets and decideds on a course of action. One day they attack. The turn over the cart, burn it, kill the horses, rape the woman, and drown the man. Now they build a cart with about 25 people conversing on how to build it and it works. However, it takes 10 million to repair and if it fails once.... everyone in the town has to have a meeting to talk babout how to fix it.

The four options...

[Guppy06]

... from TF summary:

1. ICANN stays but the governmental role changes through the creation of a Governmental Internet Council. The GIC replaces the GAC and assumes the role currently held by the U.S. Department of Commerce in ICANN oversight. There are advisory roles envisioned for the private sector and civil society.
2. No need for oversight organization. Stronger GAC and creation of international forum for discussion of Internet issues.
3. Creation of International Internet Council that would assume responsibility for the Internet governance issues that arise on the national level. ICANN's mandate would need to be altered based on the development of the IIC.
4. Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.

Personally, I'm wary of the first option's reference to roles for "private sector" and "civil society." I have a hard time not reading "private sector" as "Microsoft" and "civil society" as "political lobbyists."

Re:The four options...

[saider]

This is NOT about the UN looking out for the best interests of the world population. This is NOT about liberating the internet from the evil Americans. This will NOT impact censorship or any freedoms that we enjoy on the internet.

This is about the UN trying to get control and power where they currently have none. They want this power so that they can be more like a government. The problem is, they are a treaty organization, not a government. They are not elected. They are not accountable to the people they want to govern.

Please stop trying to make the UN into a world government. It is nothing more than a forum for countries to discuss their issues and posture on the international stage. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:The four options...

[lovebyte]

The United States developed the internet, with many large investments (DARPA etc.), and now we are expected to just give it up?
Well, the scots created the TV, give up your cable network now!
The United States has perhaps the most to lose, economically, if the internet were to "go down(whatever that means)"
Every country has something to lose.
The universal access tax scares me. You don't need a tinfoil hat to see why a worldwide tax is a bad idea and an awful precedent.
Don't you pay now to get an internet address? What's the difference with a tax?
The internet has become a security issue- Aside from all the defense networks etc, we need to be able to keep tabs on extremist groups on the web, note that there is a widely circulating how to video about how to cause the most damage with a b#mb on a bus.
Somehow I expected the terrorist issue to be raised! It's irrelevent to the subject of ICANN
As popular as "America is an Imperialist" sentiment has become, we still believe in freedom of speech. What happens when China decides that no one should use the word democracy? What happens when France decides that the word Nazi can't be used
What has this got to do with domain names?
Just some thoughts.
You managed to mention terrorists AND nazis. Congratulations.

Re:The four options...

[SatanicPuppy]

A lot of countries invested a lot in the internet, and, at this point, the Master Domain Servers could be replicated by any country with a moderate amount of knowhow. That's a simple fact.

A lot of countries have a lot to lose. Putting control of something in the hands of the people who have the most to lose is a bad idea.

There is already a universal tax. It's called a "Registration Fee".

There is nothing stopping us from keeping the same tabs on extremists. It's like you think the internet is in a building somewhere. All we control are ten or so big domain servers. And, if you want to google "How to build a Nuclear Bomb" you'll find plenty of video on that. Not like Terrorists need the internet to figure out how to bomb a bus. They do have a bit of experience.

China != the UN. We may "believe" in free speech, but the surest way to make sure it stays free is to make sure that no one entity has complete control over it.

Just my opinion.

Re:The four options...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The United States developed the internet, with many large investments (DARPA etc.), and now we are expected to just give it up?

You may not even realise it, but the thinking exemplified by the above quote is exactly the reason the international community is so wary of leaving the US with any controlling interest in the Internet at all.

The US did not create the Internet. It may have played a larger part in some aspects than other countries, but it is neither responsible for all of the technological innovation, nor for even the majority of the investment, nor for keeping it running as it stands today. The fact that ICANN and its overlords are effectively US-government-controlled is an anomaly, not the norm.

The current US administration has demonstrated a great willingness to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations economically, legislatively and even militarily, essentially to further its own economic interests. This doesn't exactly engender trust on the part of those nationss' governments, and you can't really be surprised that they don't trust the US to "do the right thing" any more.

Re:The four options...

[QuickFox]

I recognize that the rest of the world makes a valuable contribution to the internet, however:
The United States developed the internet, with many large investments (DARPA etc.), and now we are expected to just give it up?

Europe invented and developed the wheel. Clearly your cars and roads belong to Europe.

Stop cooking right now, Africa invented the fire.

Clearly we need an international patent system, so that each country can hoard and control its own inventions.

What happens when China decides that no one should use the word democracy? What happens when France decides that the word Nazi can't be used?

International collaboration through organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union must be brought to an end immediately. What if China decides that no one should use the word democracy on the phone? What happens when France decides that the word Nazi can't be used on the phone?

Note that the names and numbers that would be assigned correspond to the international country codes for telephone. For China to censor your Internet usage they'd have to invade your country, just like they'd have to do for censoring your use of the telephone. It's the same thing.

One question. If the root servers and the assignment of TLDs and numbers were controlled by Europe, would you like it to stay that way? Or would you, maybe, perhaps, want the US to have some part in it?

-- The price of eternal vigilance is a dollar a day and half an hour of your time.
Carefully choose a responsible newspaper. Support it, read it, write to it.
Do your part.

Re:The four options...

[Gorath99]

I recognize that the colonists make a valuable contribution to the new world, however:
The British developed North America, with many large investments (buying New York from the Dutch etc.), and now we are expected to just give it up?
The British empire has perhaps the most to lose, economically, if the new world were to "go down(whatever that means)"
No taxation without representation scares me. You don't need a tinfoil hat to see why no taxation without representation is a bad idea and an awful precedent.
The new world has become a security issue- Aside from all the defense networks etc, we need to be able to keep tabs on extremist groups in the new world, note that there is a widely circulating how to pamphlet about how to cause the most damage with a b#mb on a coach.
As popular as "Britain is an Imperialist" sentiment has become, we still believe in freedom of speech. What happens when New York decides that no one should use the word teatime? What happens when Boston decides that the words Your Majesty can't be used?
Just some thoughts.

Re:The four options...

[tkrotchko]

"Don't you pay now to get an internet address? What's the difference with a tax?"

Lots of little things, but a few big things:

1) Nobody "taxes" me now to get on the internet. I think you're being to generous to the U.N. I think they're talking about taxing everybody on the internet.

2) That would be a huge precedent in the U.S. to allow an access tax for internet service. Its a bad precedent since I would have no way to advice my representative about the best use of the money.

For example, I can easily call my senators and representative on matters that I care about (and I have sent letters and called them). How do I go about complaining to my U.N. rep about an internet tax? In fact, how do I get to vote on them?

You do remember the Boston Tea Party and why those guys dumped the tea overboard right?

Re:The four options...

[badasscat]

Considering that the present United States is itself a colony of people from all over the world, your point is a bit moot. The internet transcends geographic boundaries and the control must be international.

The United States is not a "colony of people from all over the world". The vast majority of Americans were born here.

I realize what you were trying to say, but does it really have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion to know, for example, that one of the inventors of the internet has ancestors that came over on the Mayflower hundreds of years ago? Talk about moot.

The UN could make a fresh beginning and make the internet really secure.

And on what record do you base this assumption? The UN has not done a whole hell of a lot lately to keep the world secure.

The US hasn't either, but the difference is in 3 years George Bush will be gone, but the UN will still be around bickering amongst itself and just generally doing nothing. I'd put my bets on the US any day, for the long term.

Besides, it's worth remembering that the internet was created as a US defense department program to guard against a nuclear attack. Asking the US to give it up is really no different than asking us to hand over the plans to the B-2 bomber to the UN - it just ain't gonna happen. It is a national security issue.

If the rest of the world wants its own internet under the auspices of the UN, let them develop it. In the meantime, the US has never done anything to restrict the growth of the current US-controlled system, so why complain? I see no reason why we should have to give something up simply because other people want it - has the rest of the world just become the equivalent of a spoiled child?

Re:The four options...

[mckyj57]

The US did not create the Internet.

Presuming you have enough language skill to know that "create" is not equal to
"develop, nurture, and improve", which country did create it?

The US created the the Internet, and there is no question about
that. It has been at the core of it from the very beginning.

That being said, it doesn't mean it owns it. But considering the US's
20-year stewardship of the net which has provided an incredibly fertile
ground for growth, with plenty of opportunities for all countries, I think
they are a better choice than the UN for this.

The UN is a case of the inmates running the asylum. Any organization which can
put a Syrian delegate as the chair of its human rights commission has shown
what it is made of.

Option #4

[lord_paladine]

Option #4 - Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.

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

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

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't bother to read the report as I know it will never fly. After all, who's going to accept Tunisia as the center of the internet. LOL

In any case, IF the europeans where to branch off with their "own internet" it would only last until it became inconvenient for the USA. At that point the US would declare that the internet should be free and it would "liberate" it from the europeans.

Give control to the ISPs

[91degrees]

They have effective control anyway. If they all decided to point their DNS servers to a certain place, then that would be adefacto domain name registry. I'm sure the same applies to IP addresses.

Sort out some fair means of representation, and get them to select a root administrator. They all have the same ultimate goal - a stable internet - and they al understand the internet. The same cannot be said of the US government or the UN.

Nationalized, Fractured Internet?

[Jerle0]

3. Creation of International Internet Council that would assume responsibility for the Internet governance issues that arise on the national level. ICANN's mandate would need to be altered based on the development of the IIC.

All of the negatives aside, one thing I like about ICAAN is there is one point that everything leads back to. If control over the internet is split among various nations, it seems it would be too easy for the pieces of the internet to become segmented if the nations involved ever had a dispute over something. That might give countries like China, who already do strange thigns with the internet, the possibility of completely cutting themselves off from the rest of the world.

Option 5.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Option 5: Realize this entire discussion is about as pointful as the UN discussing how to run Steak and Shake, should they ever acquire it.

Free the DNS !

[Arthur B.]

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

Re:Hmmmm

[fuzzybunny]

Define "control".

It's not so simple as "US vs. rest of world"--it's a balance between "how much do you trust the US to be a fair custodian" vs. "how much do you trust an organization giving weight to what Libya and South Africa and Papua New Guinea want to be a fair custodian".

As far as I'm concerned, having an organization in the US, with some involvement by the US government, "running" things is not a great solution but a lot less worse than, say, whatever the ITU would come up with.

That said, remember that the Internet works on the principle of routing around failure. Neither the UN nor ICANN nor the US government are known as organizations which always work quickly, logically, unbureaucratically and in the best interests of both their constituents and the greater community at large.

The "US", aside from a few fun Internic fuckups in the 1990s, didn't ever "turn off the Internet" or come up with idiotic international requirements. Carnivore? Try enforcing that in France. Nobody's stopping me from using encryption between Ghana and Mongolia. I wouldn't, however, put it past some atechnical third world level 50 career bureaucrat to come up with something stupid wthich might try to do just that.

Not that it'll ever work, but it'll just create more work for everyone. Another thing I'd like to see pro-UN-control folks to ask themselves honestly would be "is this just a pure control question"? I hate to say it, but like Magellan, anyone can always build their own...

It's a luxury

[therealking]

16. Interconnection costs Uneven distribution of cost. Internet service providers (ISPs) based in countries remote from Internet backbones, particularly in the developing countries, must pay the full cost of the international circuits.
05.41622 -6-
Absence of an appropriate and effective global Internet governance mechanism to resolve the issue.

When did the internet become a NESSESITY of life???
Why must thier be a "even" distribution of costs?? If it costs more to get connectivity to your isp then it costs more for that isp to do buisness.

internet next generation

[tines]

They are basically saying that their proposal should be usefull since

• there is an unneven distribution of cost in developing countries -- why not offer development grants and support the infrastructure
• they fix internet stabilty, spam -- each country should make their own laws
• intelectual property protection -- figures.
• they will help developing countries with a "forum" -- no way to do this now, is it ?

Basically their proposal is ok as long as there won't be a single country in charge. But I do fear the expansion of this "governance" into other areas.

Thoughts on the synopsis...

[taneem]

From the summary of the report 4 options were generated as a way of moving forward.

However looking at all the options it essentially boils down to three things:

1. The U.S. cedes real control to the international community

2. The U.S. cedes token control to the international community (option #2 proposes creating an international forum to "discuss" internet issues - read: eventually inconsequential)

3. Start from scratch


While it's tempting to hate on the Americans for refusing to give up control of the Internet's foundations, any kind of sharing would lead to power sharing with nations including China and Russia.

Slashdot has posted numerous articles about the Chinese iron fist when it comes to dealing with anything on the internet. I find it frightening to even think about the prospect of having my internet access dictated in some part by the blatantly power hungry government of this nation. Yes, the Americans are no white knights either, but I'd rather have their faulty system of checks and balances than the outright corruption and byzantine system of governance that still controls much of the world today.

Think about the recent stories of "adopting a Chinese blog" to protect the bloggers from chinese government reprisals. What do you think the Chinese would demand first if they were given real control of our internet access? Control of any content that originates from China - which means these bloggers who almost got away, would be tracked down again. :(

Eventually the answer is going to come from somewhere in between. There isn't going to be a peaceful transition of the entire system from the americans to the international community. But rather different parts of the world will begin to develop their own networks with differing levels of compatibility, and software and hardware vendors are going to make a killing in providing systems that can handle these multiple formats and networks.

This diversity will arise not only from politics, but from new technology too and I can totally see the European Union developing a "new internet" that provides alternative control to what the americans have -- and then subsidizing the cost of this network so that it is taken up by major subsets such as India and the Pacific, until it eventually supercedes the now "legacy" american systems...

Re:Thoughts on the synopsis...

[Talonius]

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

I think he does underestimate the requests of the foreign powers. The foreign governments want the Internet to become a single entity ruled under single law - Germany wants no mention of the word Nazi, France wants no mention of white flags, China wants no mention of freedom or pornography, etc.

This is the truly scary part of what turning control over would entail. Sure, there's a difference between technical and political control - but political control eventually corrupts the technical. How long would it be before incredibly stupid mandates begin to filter down?

As for those who are decrying the United States as corrupt and no longer free - you may very well be right. I won't argue that we as a nation have some very serious issues to answer for, and that our current governmental body is severely lacking in many areas, including integrity and honesty. However, do not confuse the American people with the American government. Outright acts of hostility and control will still be met with outrage and political action - most of the problems with our government have been created through subterfuge on our government's part, leaving nothing for the people to focus on.

Honestly, I'd like to know if any United Nations governance body was prepared to handle the issues like spam, virii, identity theft, etc., and how so? What benefit does this transfer of "power" garner the world? Listing things like "connectivity is expensive and the cost should be borne by the rest of the world rather than the third world countries" -- no, I'm sorry, we paid for our connectivity when we needed it. If you want help paying for said connectivity, ask the United Nations for grants, or other companies or organizations for aid. Do not build it into the governing body of the Internet to be abused by all.

I especially like the claim that Internet virii and spam are problems created by the Internet's current governing bodies and the third world countries have to purchase "at great expense" methods of dealing with these issues.

There's an off switch, folks.

The remainder of their problems are similar, in my opinion. Someone thinks that having control will magically solve their problems because they can issue mandates about how people are supposed to behave. Whatever.

why bother with the US ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt the US will ever cede control over the internet, and frankly it makes me very uncomfortable that Bush is ultimately in charge. Personally, I think the UN should set up it's own DNS servers which every other country in the world can use, and if the US wants to sit in the corner and scream about how it should be in charge because God has given the US the right to impose it's view on the rest of the world, then let's just ignore them, and get on with it.

Re:Screw the UN

[Anonymous Coward]

To understand that, you have to get into the mind set of your average US citizen. Here's my simple three step plan for doing this:

1) Think of all the time you spent learning about the rest of the world outside your country of origin: geography lessons, watching or reading news coverage, research or even actually visiting the countries involved. Add all that time together.
2) Now imagine that instead of doing all those things, you spent that time in McDonald's stuffing your face with supersize portions of fat and sugar.
3) Success. You can now think like an American.

What Happened to Separation of Church and State?

[Anonymous Coward]

Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.

WICANN? It's a conspiracy. The witches are always trying to push their sway into the international realm, and now the Internet! This must be stopped!!

Re:What are we fixing?

[NullProg]

The only thing I see is that the US has the root servers, and Europeans don't want it like that any more. I still find myself asking why.

Your wrong. Only 5 root servers are here in the USA.

See here: Root Server Locations;

Enjoy,

What about the Internet Society?

[satch89450]

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

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

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

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

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

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

My network, my rules.

Re:What are we fixing?

[cagle_.25]

RTFA. Section III of the document lists the issues that the new entity is supposed to take on:

• Administration of root zones
• Interconnection costs (can you say "tax"?)
• Internet stability and cybercrime
• Spam
• "Meaningful participation in global development"
• Capacity building
• Allocation of domain names
• IP addressing (not to deliberately quote Bill G., but shouldn't IPv6 be enough for us all?)
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Freedom of Expression
• Data Protection and Privacy Rights
• Consumer Rights
• Multilingualism

There! That oughta keep us busy for a while!

Seriously, it's not anti-American sentiment. It's a somewhat back-door attempt for the UN to have a real governing ability over issues that they've never been able to address through resolutions. Some country isn't playing nice with regard to intellectual property? Hit 'em in the Internet. At least, that's my theory...

The UN Would Be An Atrocious Government!

[FreeUser]

This is NOT about the UN looking out for the best interests of the world population. This is NOT about liberating the internet from the evil Americans. This will NOT impact censorship or any freedoms that we enjoy on the internet.

This is about the UN trying to get control and power where they currently have none. They want this power so that they can be more like a government. The problem is, they are a treaty organization, not a government. They are not elected. They are not accountable to the people they want to govern.

Exactly right. I'm all for the world setting up an alternative set of more egalitarian root servers, but ICANN is hardly a democratically run organization, and has, quite frankly, demonstrated even more corruption than Verisign in this context (and that's saying a lot).

People forget that the UN's constituents aren't the people of the world, their constituents are the governments, most of whom are actively oppressing the people. Expecting liberation from a body that, by and large, represents oppressors, and certainly represents rulers, is a fool's bet.

Re:This is progress?

[rs79]

"Jon Postel, why did you have to leave us to these asshats? "

First, he died. Second, he's the guy that handed power to these asshats, through Darth Cerf.

I liked Jon, he was great, but all this DNS mess happened on his watch.

The origin of this problem dated back to when Steve Wolff privatized the NSF backbone thus creating the non-governemnt controlled internet.

The problem is he forgot to privatize the name and address spaces (and in retrospect says this was a big mistake - duh). So, administration of these remained under US contract, where it exists today. This is a natural choke point and acts like a magnet for power seekers.

But, once you understand the net is not centrally controlled, it's edge cotnrolled, and you can decide where you point your DNS then you really don't care what any government does.

So the US and ICANN have screwed up the root servers? Big deal, I havn't used them in a decade, nor have millions of others.

Primary the root for yourself; become your own root server, then what ICANN or the UN does is utterly irrelevant to you.