Slashdot Mirror
Behind the Fight to Control the Internet
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The battle over control of the Internet and ICann (previously slashdotted here and here) gets placed in broader context in the Wall Street Journal. The article explains the role of 'other nations' discomfort with the U.S. as the world's only superpower, unafraid of taking unilateral action,' a fear intensified by the U.S.'s move to halt the introduction of .xxx domains for pornography sites. In a related column, Frederick Kempe opens the floor for a debate between the diplomat leading talks for the U.S., and the former journalist from Luxembourg leading the effort to move the Internet away from U.S. control. 'Today, in a globalized world in which the Internet has become a global resource for freedom of expression and for economic exchange, this monopolistic oversight of the Internet by one government is no longer a politically tenable solution,' Viviane Reding says. Kempe also suggests ways the two sides can split the difference."
Splitting up would probably be a bad thing - I dream of the old days of one domain registrar - now you have to jump through 13 hoops to update dns servers, domains, etc... Imagine if you have to do the same for IP? no thanks...
I'm surprised this hasn't received more mainstream coverage in the U.S. I've heard nothing from CNN, Headline News, Fox News, or MSNBC about this. I don't get CBC or BBC News here, so I don't know if they've covered it. Something with such wide-sweeping effects really should be getting an appropriate amount of attention.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
FTA: "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."
.xxx domain? Hell, wouldn't it make it easier to block sites at work or home?
Why wouldn't these people be in favour of an
I mean, what's easier to spot as porn (domain names made up because I'm at work and cannot check for a good example):
searchmovies.com or searchmovies.xxx
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
So when's the invasion^Wliberation of Luxembourg due?
Here's a recap of the technical side of things as they are now:
.fr points to). The German DENIC for example operates 11 domain name servers which serve the .de domain from all over the world, including 2 in the USA. Only a few small countries have outsourced the task of serving their own CCTLD to an operator of their choice.
.de). Since almost two years there are more root DNS servers outside the USA than inside. These servers are paid for and administered by organizations outside the USA.
.com TLD server, then most likely an instance of the K-root-server (in Frankfurt, Germany) will (correctly) answer this question. Someone in the Netherlands gets the answer from another instance of the K-root-server in Amsterdam. People in the United Arab Emirates ask an instance of the F-root-server in Dubai. Nobody needs to be forced by law to use "other" root DNS servers. Everybody already does.
It is common for a country to host its own TLD servers (the servers which tell you what a particular domain under for example
In addition to the CCTLD servers, several countries around the world operate root DNS servers (the servers which for example tell you where to ask about
So far, the people who run these root DNS servers have agreed to serve a common "root zone file" as decided on by ICANN. You see, what many people on this forum propose, that "the rest of the world" should start running their own DNS servers and see how that goes, has been in effect for years. If someone in Germany asks for the
Absolutely the only thing which keeps the DNS from fracturing is the international agreement on a standard definition of the root zone. This agreement is crumbling and if no multilateral solution is found, DNS will become ambiguous.
When people say that users would have to be forced to use alternate servers to make changes take effect, then they clearly don't understand the situation. When they say that everybody uses the US-owned and thus US-controlled internet, then they clearly don't understand the situation. When they say that other countries lack the resources, then they clearly don't understand the situation. It is blatantly obvious that most people who "dare" the rest of the world to try the split have no idea how little stands in the way of that move, both politically and technically.
Other nations don't trust the US anymore. Including our "allies", who are taking the hits for our catastrophic invasion of Iraq - even cutting their losses by abandoning the "Coalition of the Billing" hasn't repaired the damage suffered by those who joined it at all. And the "monopoly" reference shows just how bad the US looks for letting Microsoft keep up business as usual admitting they're a huge monopoly.
--
make install -not war
From TFA: "Governments have not really understood the inner workings of the Internet," said Mr. McKnight. In the past two years, "they have gotten educated and now they want to get their hands on the levers."
This reminds me of a child just shown how to do something new. They see Dad riding a bike or working on the car and they want to try. How often are their attempts at emulating the actions of an experienced person successful? Would you really allow your child to poke around the engine compartment of your car? There is a reason why important jobs generally require years of experience...not just an education.
1. Why in many of these articles is there no consideration for the facts that:
.xxx, that the US has proven itself to be a capable caretaker of the internet and the root servers (several of which are outside of the US, albeit under ultimate control of the US)?
- The US, and the massive US military-industrial complex many despise, was essentially solely responsible for creating the internet (note: I am talking about the *internet*, not the world wide web, which itself would not have existed were it not for the internet)?
- Aside from the politics and issues surrounding
2. Why is there no consideration that other governments jockeying for position and control over DNS and the root servers could and probably will actually provide a greater chance for problems, mismanagement, miscommunication, and so on?
3. Why is there this concept floated in every one of these articles that makes it seem as if nations will have no choice but to create their "own" internets, disconnected from the "primary" internet, simply because of DNS? I'd say the stupidity and arrogance of disconnecting from the internet and making your own, whether out of principle or some perceived need to have a new top level domain, trumps any stupidity and arrogance of the internet's original creator and caretaker retaining control...
For a brief and concise summary of the issues, let's remind ourselves with this:
U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System
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.
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.
From the article, the real issue seems to be the US Commerce Dept dropping support for a new XXX domain. This is perceived as causing ICANN to drop support. Any insiders with info on what happened?
Look at all of the people on /. that don't seem to understand the precise technical details of what is going on, and reduce the argument to simplistic claims about "the US controlling the net"
/.-er doesn't really understand what is going on, can you really expect the average CNN viewer to understand?
If the average
What are they going to do? Mass packets at the border routers and run network simulations in an attempt to scare the US?
Fragment the internet? Yeah, right. Goverments cater to business interests and there's no way said business interests will sit idly while their governments screw with the business's bottom lines.
This is much ado about nothing.
Oh, and somebody needs to tell Zonk that the defintion of "slashdotted" does not mean 'previously appearing on slashdot'.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Stop referring to the root DNS servers as "control of the Internet!". Absolutely anyone can set up their own DNS-servers and call them root (in fact, I set up my own DNS and redirected all ".test"-domains to another computer in the network, just to show a friend it could be done). The only reason the current root servers are considered important is because everyone use them.
I'm selfish. But I suspect I could be representitive of a fair chunk of the population.
I live in New Zealand, live for computers, love my internet, games(many violent), and my credit card gets a workout on porn sites.
My concern for many of the world's events is orientated around how it might affect my internet.
However, in NZ, our tech infrastructure is near 3rd world, We rank 22 in OECD broadband surveys. We have a fibre optic cable that runs from our coast to the US west coast(Oh how I wish they'd run it to Taiwan).
All this stirring by the US worries me:
- The re-interpetation of the US 2257 porn laws, with examples of prosecutions now. - The
The only saving grace might be the fact the cable runs thru us from Australia, who are effectively, just another state of the US now. Thus they need us.
I fear the US's attitude to that uppity free thinking(anti-nuclear) nation, New Zealand. Where the Crazy frog ring tone videos play at prime-time with his attributes non-censored.
I can hear the sound of US scissors snipping my beloved fibre optic cable.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Who's going to tell China?
There is a lot of nonsense talked about "Control of The Internet". In reality it's not that simple. There is no one organisation that controls all of the net. Different functions are carried out by different groups.
.glue) - any internet user can select these.
:-)
Address allocation (to ISPs) is carried out by Regional Internet Registries, from their allocations. For Europe, it is RIPE. ARIN controls the Americas. APNIC controls the Asia and Pacific regions. AfriNIC is Africa. LACNIC does Latin America and the Caribbean. Allocation of addresses TO those organisations (from the scarce IPv4 address pool, and the much more abundant IP v6 pool) is a different question. ISPs allocate addresses in turn to their customers. IPv4 and IPv6 can interoperate (sort of) and IPv6 is quite widely deployed in Asia, where IPv4 addresses are in short supply.
Protocols are defined by groups like the Internet Engineering Task Force and working groups - any internet user can participate, if they know what they are talking about. They are adopted by consensus among internet users (and major ISPs and vendors). To a large degree, the protocols determine how much control there can be over any given internet application (like email, or the web, or internet telephony).
Top Level Domain Names are split into Country names (generally controlled by countries, or their nominees), and Generic ones (where control is awarded by ICANN).
This depends entirely on individual ISPs and Users taking their DNS information from the base name servers (and their descendents) controlled by ICANN. There are alternatives, like OpenNIC, which administer their own root servers and top level domains, like
It's more complicated than that even
But yes, the US Dept of Commerce controls the department that awards ICANN its power. The rest of the world COULD ignore ICANN if they wanted - but they probably won't. Mostly they don't need to.
It's not THAT bad yet. And the UN could be worse... more interfering... more clueless... more corrupt...
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
> Our (US) government is not perpetual, and any system can fall. If it did, the rest of
> the world wouldn't want the internet governed by whatever restriction could come about
> in such a case.
Don't worry about the root DNS servers if the US ever completes it's slide to socialism or lurches towards a police state. Just remember that the US of A is THE number one power on this planet and the implications of that. No, if we go over to the Dark Side I can personally promise everyone that they won't be worrying about what we order ICANN to do to the root name servers; no you guys will be far too busy cowering in terror from our war machine.
Which is why I prefer the root servers stay under the Dept of Commerce. Moving it to the UN has enormous downside potential and zero upside. So long as the US remains the lone force holding the line against the Darkness and defending Truth, Justice and Western Civilization there isn't a problem leaving ICANN in charge of DNS. Should we sucumb to the Darkness, lose the will to continue holding the line or be ultimately defeated by the barbarians, it just doesn't matter anymore because the whole world will slide into a new Dark Ages anyway.
Democrat delenda est
1) "solely responsible for creating the internet" well german more or less inveted the diesel motor. Why it is that the US do not consider that the german are sole inventor of the diesel motor ? Answer : Because once the genie is out of the bottle, and used by most economies as a "resource", you have no "special" or "natural" right anymore to control it. And german+diesel engine is not the sole example of inventsion coming from one country but then get its usage wide-spread.
.com search engine and ICANN, and the blow and settlement they got recently, and other small "incident", well it is not as clear cut.
As for your second arguement, seeing the stuff which hapenned with the
Additionally and most importantly. If the US has no intention of using its control/veto, why the hell its is so adamant into remaining in control ? I would wager that somewhere, someone in the US administration want to remain in control "just in case a switch has to be put on off".
2) as pointed by a +5 poster above , many country ALREADY have their alternate DNS server for their own domain name. Everybody asking for the control to be an international institution might just want to AVOID this problem of miscommunication. And before you serve again the old tired argument about the UN being bad, well, you know who handle the international phone communication standard ? I have a news for you : not the US neither the UK. And yet the telephone is one of such example cited in 1) above.
3) already happenned see 2).
As usual everyone keeps confusing the "Internet" with the DNS.
.EU domain. ICANN could have refused, as they did for .XXX. ICANN decides who in a country get delegated control of that TLD management function of a country.
/ 00990.html
Common Quote - We invented it, we want to keep it.
This of course is a stupid argument - the Internet is many things - WWW being the most obvious. And the Web was invented where?
Common misconception - repressive countries need to control DNS root servers to repress......not so.
Cisco and other vendors sell products that today succeed in blocking site not allowed. Most Arab countries filter the internet behind proxy servers and cisco firewalls.
The real issue at stake is that ICANN is an opaque organization that was handed control of the root file with no REAL input from ALL internet stakeholders. ICANN today holds the power to drop any country off the DNS system. The EU itself had to apply for permission to ICANN for the
The real issue is that prior to 1998, IANA had plans to open up hundreds of top level domains......which plans were then shelved with no open process by ICANN. http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive
The reality? Most Americans have no idea where ICANN came from or how it works or how it is not really beneficial for them, but they invoke this maddening knee jerk blind patriotism - it's ours and we run it. Sad that they have no idea who "we" is. ICANN is not "we". ICANN is undemocratic even for Americans, and is secretive. ICANN is in bed with WIPRO and seems to have a policy that supports big business. ICANN has no idea of trademark law. in short ICANN is NOT the answer for DNS governance.
Jeez, not this subject again.
Today, the 2000th American soldier died for his country in Iraq (of all rotten places, fgs).
Today, it also looks as if indictments are just about to be handed down on two of the President's key aides.
And this is the news that, allegedly, preoccupies us all.
Are politicians that desperate to distract attention from far more important matters? Let's forget about brave men dying like dogs and worry about whether we'll still be able to order groceries online next Tuesday! It's enough to make you despair. Besides, that one quote in the preamble sums it up well: "Today, in a globalized world in which the Internet has become a global resource for freedom of expression and for economic exchange, this monopolistic oversight of the Internet by one government is no longer a politically tenable solution."
It's hard to know what else to say.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
$500? Sure, it would go a long way toward getting rid of cybersquatters.
It would also make it harder for the average person to register a domain name. My sister and brother-in-law registered a domain for their baby girl who's now 19 months old. They upload photos and keep a log to share with family and friends. But I seriously doubt they would have registered if they had to pay $500.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Well, I'm very surprised to see that all this debate revolves about the control of the DNS, while it seems to me the real problem would be the distribution and control of IP address space.
In fact anyone can setup their own toplevel domains, with or without the consent of ICANN: it suffice that enough name servers accept to cache and relay your zone definitions, which already happens if I'm not wrong.
Now, it does not go so well for the IP address space: many universities and large corporations trust A and B class networks, leaving whole countries and regions having to share modest size C networks (256 IP adresses for 10M or more people !).
While I live in a country that has its fair share of the IP address space, I would be very ready to understand that other countries, particularly developing ones, ask for more control and a fairer redistribution of the dwindling IPv4 address space, even with the advent of IPv6 (which also will have its limitation, I'm told).
Someone knowledgeable has an answer (why is the focus on DNS control rather than IP addresses control) ? Google did not help.
More like the UN wants control so they can TAX people... Censor people.... etc
s /2005/10/17/dont_give_un_control_over_internet/?pa ge=1
More info here:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/article
That's from the Liberal "Boston Globe" newspaper. No choir boys there... They hate this administration, but it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the UN being inept at doing anything correct.
"imagine a UN member with a lot of clout, and a very low regard for freedom of speech -- China, say. ICANN accredits the companies that sell domain names to Internet users like you and me. Suppose a democracy activist wants to register domain names like downwithchina.com. If China had a say in ICANN affairs, it could push to have such domain names prohibited."
That article speaks volumes, and is a HELL of a lot better written then the parent post.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
So why don't we create a .KKK domain for the Klan. Using your logic, this would wipe out their ability to talk about hateful things on the internet, and it would keep anyone from accessing hateful material.
.KKK TLD.
But its such flawed logic even a baby can grasp the errors. First, you would be rewarding the klan by acknowledging their influence with a special
Second, it wouldn't work, because some people would purposely want to talk about hate in non-KKK TLDs (like slashdot.org). And then you are back to square one, except now, every browser in the world is set to specifically address ".KKK" and flag it and acknowledge it, and process it, and it becomes an even more "in your face" and ever-present cultural icon.
It's more like this:
.fr will now be known as .cheeseeatingsurrendermonkeys!"
The US cleared a patch of land and built a house and a road. Others came along, used the same idea to clear their own patches of land and build houses next to the road (and built other roads).
The US says, "We were here first so we get to name all the houses".
Everyone else says, "No thanks - we'd prefer to pick our own names".
The US says, "HaHa! Just for that,
As a person, I'm not that comfortable with the USA having veto power. Why? Because of .XXX. It frightens me that a small group of religous right in the USA could cause something the rest of the globe agrees upon to be almost halted.
I see many bad trends in your government, and hardly regard them as the beacon of truth and justice many americans seem to think they are. Additionally, I don't see why the USA deserves such veto power. The internet would not be an international network without the cooperation of all parties involved. Therefore, there is no reason for any one of those countries to have sole veto power over TLDs.
Dear me, I don't think it would be the US economy that suffers more. Remember the trade balance! On the world economic stage the United States is far more often a consumer than a producer.
The commercial part of the Internet is largely used for reaching customers, yes? And the largest and wealthiest concentration of customers, that every company with a website in the world would like to reach is in the United States. That is, it's way more important to Toyota, Inc. that Americans reach www.toyota.com correctly than it is important to Ford that Japanese reach www.ford.com correctly.
There's a good reason the US can throw its weight around with import tariffs. The market in the US is so large that access to it can make or break an international producer. The same is not true about a US producer, since he has direct access to the enormous domestic market. Same thing with 'net access, I'm afraid. In this silly game the US holds four aces. I'm not saying this makes their position right, just that in a real showdown the official UN-sponsored "international" DNS system seems likely to go the way of the official UN-sponsored "international" language (French), namely it would end up being used by UN bureaucrats and governments only.
Exactly. Emo-ize her while she's young, that way she'll never escape.
I can see it now. "Here's little Susie taking her first picture of herself in the bathroom. And here's Susie showing some cleavage just to get some friend invites. And here she is laying upside down on her bed, just wearing a bra. I'm so proud!"
I hate the UN. Why? Because it is trying to usurp national sovereignty.
You may support a world government but I do not. The UN has long been trying to
ban guns and create a world tax to support itself.
The UN was set up solely as a place where nations could discuss their problems.
It was not supposed to have "authority" to do anything. I have enough problems
with my elected officals, who supposedly represent the interests of american
citizens. I do not want another layer of unelected idiots deciding what is best
for me and my family, and taxing me for the privilege.
As much as I detest BUSH and Bolton, I am glad bolton is there. Hopefully he
will screw up the US presence there so much that the UN decides to find another
host country. (I doubt it but one can always hope)
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I think you should reconsider that statement - after all I think the EU nations run their parts well enough - it's not all run from the US you know?
The best coverage of the issue I've seen so far is from Foreign Affairs:
6 02/kenneth-neil-cukier/who-will-control-the-intern et.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84
They place it in perspective, but also point out the nations who are shouting the loudest are also the least free. Overall, a good read.
> ICANN had all but approved the .XXX domain but because a few Christian groups complained...
.xxx was THE most stupid idea to come down the pike in a decade. So I really don't care who finally managed to get it put on hold, so long as it NEVER, EVER goes live as a tld. It would literally be the end of the Internet as we have known it.
.xxx would be banned universally yet all objectionable (read as not fit for a five year old) content would be forced to .xxx to avoid lawsuits. No, let us instead create .kids and lock the kiddies browswer to only go there.
Good for them, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
In a single stroke it would transform the Internet from a free and open instuition into one that was mandated by law to be child safe.
Democrat delenda est
From a technical standpoint, the EU is at least the equal of the US - some would say better in some matters.
From a free speech standpoint, the EU was there first and has a much longer history of knowing what 'free' means and what the consequences are. Lessons learnt the hard way.
In that vein you might like to remember this little phrase about freedom from Europe of 2000 years ago, it would serve the present day US well - "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
If you want .XXX based solely on its POPULARITY then you must also accept a .GOD TLD, because sheer numbers say just as many people are into .GOD as into .XXX. And you must also accept a .NYC because, hey, New York is big, and lots of people would like a .NYC TLD. ad infinium[sic]
If there is enough interest in a .pee domain and enough traffic to that site to warrant it, I'm fine with it. The same goes for .kkk and .god. New York city already has a lower level domain and they seem to being doing just fine with it. Popularity is sort of like democracy no? If most people want it then it should be created, ala the will of the people, or have you come up with a better method of decision making? Perhaps a dictatorship where you make all the decisions for everyone else and decide which domains are too icky and which are acceptable? What the world is demanding is representation and a world body to make these decisions, rather than one country deciding for the whole world. Your religious and sexual hang-ups are no concern of mine, just don't try to enforce them on the majority who disagrees with you. You might want to talk to a shrink about them too.
I thought extraterritoriality only applied to embassies and consulates and such, not to Internet hosts. That is, if a server is in another country, isn't it entirely subject to the laws of that country? Which means, I hazard, that any "controlling" US business interest can exert only so much "control" as the host country feels like allowing? Am I missing something here?
I mean, there's this odd recurring question I've seen of: "What happens if the US government turns Evil?" Well, in that case, what's to stop the countries in which these servers are actually located from seizing the servers and operating them as they see fit? In fact, seeing as how the entire DNS system is just basically a large collection of text files appropriate distributed, I don't see why, if the US government turns Evil, the rest of the world can't just reprogram the whole DNS shebang in about 10-20 days, tops. Problem solved! Or am I missing something again?
You can't seriously suggest that the UN is doing a good job, can you? It's an undemocratic (every country, regardless of population, gets the same vote, and only certain countries on the security council?) monumental, expensive (how much does it cost and where are the benefits today?), indecisive (well, at least we're united in the fact that we hate Israel), grindingly slow moving organisation (ask the people of Rwanda - they'd agree).
Turn it around and take a closer look at what you're saying, that's all I'd argue.
So we should also take away Google's library of information and give it to the UN. In fact, I think it's only fair that any directory involving infrastructure in multiple countries should be UN-run.
Get your head out of your ass. The root list that the US maintains (as you put it) is the property of the US, and by extension, property of the citizens of the US. This list constitutes alot of work, information, and as a result, power. I can't think of a single reason we have for wanting to give it away.
I dare you to walk into the YellowPages office and suggest that they donate their database of clients, addresses, and phone-numbers to some independant consortium made up of representatives of the various companies that are listed within. They will laugh at you. They make alot of money off of this valuble asset, and building it from the ground up is a huge barrier to entry into the market.
Once again... my translation of the UN argument: "Gimme Gimme Gimme! I want one!!"
The appropriate US response: "Fuck you. Go sit in the corner."