Slashdot Mirror
EU Claims Internet Could Fall Apart Next Month
freaktheclown writes "The battle for the control of the Internet could hit a climax next month, with the EU saying that it could 'fall apart.' From the article: 'The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the Internet will split apart. At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the Internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under contract to the US Department of Commerce.'"
While I don't agree with your "let them go try it and get burned" approach, I agree that it is a bad idea to have a country without a strong right to free speech to have control over root DNS servers. The United States has a stronger free speech than most of Europe (in that we allow racism and nazi speech) and certainly stronger than countries like Iran and China. Honestly I think that the right way to do it is to make the ICANN answerable to no one (not sure how you do that), or maybe Sweeden because I like those guys. The whole internet is based on voluntary agreement as everyone on slashdot already knows. If the ICANN is just some corporation on its own, and not responsible to the US government, why couldn't we just all agree to use its DNS servers, like we already do?
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Film at 11. USENET cliche by 1989. EU resolution in 2006... 2017? 2038?
FTA:
The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours.
"We really can't have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us."
As I've said before, I'll be happy if the issue of IP address allocation is handled by the ITU. DNS should not be under the control of a central organization.
Notice that in the U.S. you are permitted to use any DNS you may like? Sure the root DNS server is Icann moderated, but you can select anything?
Anyone believe Iran (I'm 1/2 Persian) will allow that? Or China?
Or that China will permit a Taiwanese TLD in the New, UN-moderated, EU-sponsored DNS governing association?
Places like S. Arabia, China, and Iran can't wait for DNS to be controlled by the UN, because all kinds of silly nonsense happens in UN politics. Although China may have its sights set on the RoC, as of know, its insane to posit that Taiwan isn't an independant nation.
Yet the UN does not recognize it as such.....
Just my 2 cents.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
> which no ISP in their right mind will direct their DNS servers at.
They will enact laws requiring it. Then the customers will start pointing their workstations and access points at open DNS servers in the Free portions of the Internet, the Great Firewall of Europe will be erected to block access to the Free DNS servers and finally people will be fined for pointing at the 'wrong' DNS servers. THEN the heads will start going up on pointy sticks. The big question is whether there remains enough of a spark of Freedom to make it the government officials heads the ones on the sticks or whether it will be the 'traitors' among the users who refuse to use the state sponsored servers.
Democrat delenda est
Or more likely:
1) Various govs. set up their own root servers. People in that country use their root servers.
2) The operators of the various root servers keep them synchronized with each other.
3) The internet continues to operate just fine.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
ICANN does not control IP allocation at all. IP blocks are allocated by IANA to regional internet registries (ARIN for the Americas, RIPE for Europe and APNIC for Asia to name a few). The regional registries then allocate smaller blocks to organizations in their area.
Routing is different still. No registry guarantees the IP blocks they allocate will be globally routable. Most network providers have their own criteria for determining which networks they will accept routes for.
So, as you can see, ICANN has no part in the allocation or routing of IP addresses.
They are trying to act as brokers between this position, which is not in the interest of the EU, and the maverick US position, which flatly disclaims any notion of international coordination on these issues. Repeat after me: the EU is not trying to split the internet, they are trying to maintain the current cohesion.
They are a broker between two arguments, and should be applauded as such, rather than vilified and slandered as 'splitters' or malcontents.
'The EU does not intend to scrap Icann. It would continue in its current technical role.
Instead Europe is suggesting a way of allowing countries to express their position on internet issues, though the details on how this would happen are vague.
"We have no intention to regulate the internet," said Commissioner Reding, reassuring the US that the EU was not proposing setting up a new global body.
Rather she talked of a "model of cooperation", of an international forum to discuss the internet.'
[Taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4327928.stm
It's defensive maneuvering, in anticipation of the US exerting greater control.
Cuo Bono? Who knows, for now. But as cyberwar becomes a reality, and access to the internet becomes evermore an economic necessity, the EU is not happy with one nation having too much control over teh internets.
Would any nation willing cede control of its highways to another nation? I think not.
So, to answer your question of who benefits:
Potentially, any nation that is not the US. Any company doing internet business within any country not in the US. The politicians, who gain a better public image by standing up to the unpopular US.
If you're looking for corporate profits, I'm sure there are some companies that stand to make some cash. Enough to create a diplomatic crisis? Doubt it.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Yep - half of the internet content is not in your language.
But don't be afraid - most of the internet content is not in mine anyway - so I adapted and learned to read and write in other languages.
Which obviously helped me a lot in getting a bigger view of the world.
Have you ever been to wikipedia? Look at the main page at http://www.wikipedia.org/ and note that there are some languages there. And some content. The German has half of the content of the English. If I sum up the other languagees that I can read I almost come to the number of English pages.
Just an example.
Mark
OCLC's breakout of webservers per country as of 2002
I'd love to see a more recent compilation like this, but if true, then the US is increasing their share of websites, while those in EU states are decreasing. If still trending this way, the EU will effectively lock themselves out of the majority of the Internet if this does occur and subsequently fails.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
The FBI considers the obsenity task force to be a high priority.
In my opinion this is a mistake, but please look up the difference between porn and obsenity. You can start here here
Obsenity by definition is neither porn nor protected speech.
"Or more likely:"
It is quite possible for the resultant scenario to be peachy, however, I'd like to throw a wrench into your "likely" conclusion.
Perhaps the EU and others are pushing for more control of the DNS root server administration simply out of spite for the US. Or they could have intentions which are contradictory to current DNS administration policies.
If it is the later and they do setup their own DNS servers then the synchronization will eventually become borked as they add their own flavor to the DNS results. If that happens then I predict an exodus from the borked EU system, or whoever's system, back to what already works being administered by ICANN.
If on the other hand they do intend to run the DNS as before but with shared control then I see no reason to argue over it and they SHOULD setup their own DNS system. There is nothing forcing anyone to use the system which is controlled by ICANN.
What would be nice is to hear some specifics from both sides as to the WHYS of their demands. So far it sounds like the EU and other nations are saying "give us more control of it because" and so far the only arguement out of the US is "we wont because you guys will use the control to censor". Both arguements are weak, but the just because arguement is definitely the weaker.
burnin
> Please provide one tiny shred of proof of that statement.
Because it is what governments DO. If they don't mandate something this stupid by law everyone will simply snicker at the foolish old men with their quaint nationalistic notions and continue using the perfectly functioning DNS system as it exists. But once they make it a matter of patriotic pride and national security that Europe have a DNS system it controls, the logic of government will require mandating it's usage. When people have the good sense to still ignore them by the millions the same logic will require enforcement action, i.e. the Great Firewall of Europe and fines for violators. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it consume your destiny.
Democrat delenda est
That's exactly the point. As obscenity is defined in the US, it depends on the local community where it is provided, how this works on the Internet isn't entirely clear. But I would say that on average, the threshold in Europe is a bit higher than in the US, especially since the TheoCons have gained more influence.
There is one example listed in the Wikipedia article, another one is of the guy who runs nowthatsfuckedup.com. He has just been arrested for obscenity. Interestingly, his site also shows images provided by soldiers in Iraq in exchange for free access, some of which put a somewhat unfavourable light on war.
The current US administration has a history of acting unilaterally, and that of course raises some doubts if it is sensible to let them be in control of what the world has become dependent on. I realise the US has a high standard for free-speech, but it isn't unlimited, either. There's also the issue with the US' weird obsession with patents and strange understanding of copyright, which could have unpredictable consequences.
So, instead of leaving one country in control, it would be good to give control to one international body that guarantees the Internet can not be affected by individual countries' decisions. That body doesn't have to be the UN, but could be something completely new. Maybe it would even be an opportunity to get a "no-censorship rule" into its charta, since the US is still in the position to make demands that have to be met in order for them to let go of control without making much fuzz about it. That would also act as a safeguard against future changes of the US' stand on this.
Is that so?
When it comes to speech on the internet: yes. I only know the situation in Germany:
But you're right, in the real world Europe typically has more freedoms than the US.