A Monroe Doctrine for the Internet

InklingBooks writes "An article in Foreign Affairs suggests that in a tersely worded statement the United States has issued a 'Monroe Doctrine' for the Internet. The Monroe Doctrine was a unilateral declaration by the U.S. that it would not permit European powers to establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere." From the article: "Everyone understands that the Internet is crucial for the functioning of modern economies, societies, and even governments, and everyone has an interest in seeing that it is secure and reliable. But at the same time, many governments are bothered that such a vital resource exists outside their control and, even worse, that it is under the thumb of an already dominant United States. Washington's answer to these concerns -- the Commerce Department's four terse paragraphs, released at the end of June, announcing that the United States plans to retain control of the Internet indefinitely -- was intended as a sort of Monroe Doctrine for our times. It was received abroad with just the anger one would expect, setting the stage for further controversy."

Comments

a new internet

[ajdlinux]

There's still the possibility of an alternate internet. The US can't enforce rules online.

Re:a new internet

[l2718]

There's still the possibility of an alternate internet. The US can't enforce rules online.

The situation is more complicated than that. You can't have conflicting IP addresses without having completely separate networks, which is impractical (everyone will want to be able to connect to sites under the American Hegemony), and you don't want to have conflicting DNS records either. Indeed the rest of the world can set up their own DNS servers for a new TLD (say '.earth'), but they can't force anyone to contact the root server for that domain. The result will be chaos.

Now, the US stands to benefit from controlling a global resource (just like oil-producing countries benefit from controlling the oil supply). The article seems to hint that it's wrong. You can hardly fault a government from wielding its power to make the world better for its citizens (isn't that's their function, after all?). Of course the US government doens't always seem to have the benefit of all its citizens in mind most of the time, but that's a separate issue. If we don't like what the US government does, we can ask our governments to negotiate with them to change their behaviour. And naturally we will have to offer them something in return -- TANSTAAFL.

Re:a new internet

[Kadin2048]

You're probably going to get flamed for it, but that was pretty much the best five sentence summary of the situation and resulting U.S. position that I've heard in a while. Glad somebody said it.

The bottom-line issue is that the rest of the world wants the U.S. in their internet, a lot more than the U.S. -- generally speaking -- cares about being able to access the rest of the world. Think about the average user in the 'States (which is not the same as the average Slashdot user, so spare me your "but *I* access foreign content all the time" whining): if the rest of the world went black, there are quite a few people that wouldn't notice. They're using a U.S. ISP to access a U.S. backbone to get U.S.-created content off of a U.S.-based server. Although I've never seen a statistic, I'm willing to bet that a fairly high percentage of the packets transmitted over any part of the Internet in a day, both originate and end in the U.S.

The rest of the world and the U.N. can talk all they want about getting control of the internet and IP address allocation and everything else, but at the end of the day they are going to have to deal with the fact that if the United States Government and the people of the U.S. collectively say "from my cold, dead hands, Europe" they are clearly in the less advantageous negotiating position.

Re:a new internet

[Kjella]

The situation is more complicated than that. You can't have conflicting IP addresses without having completely separate networks, which is impractical (everyone will want to be able to connect to sites under the American Hegemony), and you don't want to have conflicting DNS records either. Indeed the rest of the world can set up their own DNS servers for a new TLD (say '.earth'), but they can't force anyone to contact the root server for that domain. The result will be chaos.

I haven't heard anyone speaking of splitting the IP space, only DNS. Conflicting DNS records is not as bad as it sounds. You could easily resolve this by having a "metalevel" of google.com.foo and google.com.bar which would query two different root servers for the lookup. And the government can force ISPs to point to their root servers. Things would be rather hairy, but it'd work out. I imagine every company that is eligible for a DNS entry in both trees would get both to avoid domain squatters, just one more burden. The US is really making a mess by making it seem that important. If they had played it cool, showed some nice bills "Ok you want to join us in paying for the world's DNS structure? Nice, we were looking for someone to share the costs with. It's really nothing but a management hassle." and the rest of the world would have dropped the ball like a dead rat.

Re:a new internet

[Kadin2048]

I have a strong feeling this is a troll, but whatever.

You do know that China decoupled from the dollar because of U.S. pressure to do so, right?

China's yuan was tied to the dollar so that the U.S. couldn't do exactly what it did -- devalue their currency (the USD) to make U.S. exports cheaper, while making imports more expensive. For example, a "weak" dollar relative to the Euro makes it more expensive for US citizens to buy French wine and travel to Europe, but makes Florida orange juice less expensive to Europeans, and makes the US a more attractive tourist destination. This is elementary macroeconomics.

The Chinese central bank and government, realizing that their economy is intimately dependent on exports TO the U.S., had their currency pegged to the dollar, so that if the dollar fell the yuan would fall along with it, so that Chinese imports would not become more expensive. So when the dollar fell, imports to the US from countries other than China (which had unpegged currencies) got more expensive, but Chinese ones didn't. Thus total Chinese marketshare of imports actually grew -- not what a lot of US lawmakers wanted to see.

As a result there was a lot of anti-Chinese rhetoric for a few months, and a few people started publicly bringing up the topic of a special tariff against Chinese imports (or particular goods of which a majority come from China or are important to China) until the Chinese announced that they would decouple the yuan from the Dollar. This allows China's trade balance with the U.S. to be more easily affected by American policy, and IMO was something of a political loss for the Chinese -- although some would say it was a crutch they didn't need anyway at this point.

But I think that you, like a lot of people, misunderstand (or take too literally) what a "weak" currency means -- it isn't necessarily bad, and especially for a country with a large current account deficit some weakening is acceptable if it reduces imports and increases exports.

The rest of your B.S. I will ignore.

Re:a new internet

[Kadin2048]

You have a good point, although I disagree with your conclusion. Let me play the devil's advocate for a minute:

Looking back just at some recent history, the U.S. has a tendency to come out pretty well out of these huge, global conflicts. Sure perhaps two isn't enough to make a pattern but it might be enough to cause people in the U.S. leadership, particularly neo-cons, to not back down if the rest of the world (or some other power) decided to play chicken.

You seem to assume that the U.S. would let the other guy win if push came to shove, and I'm not sure that's realistic. U.S. foreign policy -- and to be honest, American culture in general -- has never emphasized "live to fight another day." In fact one might argue that recently, it has been much the other way around. The United States is like a 900-pound gorilla, or a large bear: slow to respond, not particularly perceptive, but very destructive when it gets going.

Obvious example: The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 in a very public and spectacular -- but in the end numerically insignificant -- way, and responded by picking a couple countries that it wasn't particularly fond of and invading them, at enormous expense and very little gain. Why? Because a whole lot of Americans wanted to see somebody, somewhere, get the living shit bombed out of them on CNN, and there were marginal excuses for Afghanistan (supporting terrorism) and Iraq (WMDs). Really, they were just convenient: it is and was a Spanish-American War for the 21st Century.

By bringing up the war I am in no way implying that the U.S. would go so far as to bomb France (or anyplace else) over the Internet; just that there is very little evidence to suggest that America would fold in a contest of wills with some other nation, even if it appeared to everyone else that it would be the saner thing to do.

I'm not sure that if I were some other country, even one as big as China, and certainly not one as frankly insignificant as France, that I would go tweaking the U.S. Government and the American people by demanding that it turn over control of one of its crown jewels, the Internet.

Re:a new internet

[rbanffy]

You can hardly fault a government from wielding its power to make the world better for its citizens (isn't that's their function, after all?).

I really didn't want to say that, but spending too much effort on making the world a better place for its own citizens without much regard to others resulted in a lot of theocracies, kleptocracies and dictatorships, a couple planes being flown into buildings, lots of dead people, a few questionable wars, a bunch of kafkesque prisions with kafkesque prisioners and a quite questionable presidential re-election.

Most definitely, the world is far worse a place now. For just about everybody.

Damn it

[Turn-X Alphonse]

People need a clue of they're going to be given power.

The US has no control over the internet, they can mess with it and poke it a little but nothing more. The internet is an extreme communist network. You need to work together so everything works. If someone stops doing their share they get cut off and end up having to rejoin and work twice as hard or they die. It's that simple.

No one controls the Internet, no one ever will. Anyone who tries to will lose far more than I wish to even guess at.

How about we go halfsies?

[Anonymous Coward]

American can control the '1's and the rest of the world can control the '0's. France gets the occasional '2.'

I have to agree with the author

[greenguy]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that the governance of the Internet should remain in the hands of any one government, even the US. There are those who would say especially the US. Most of the counter-arguments go something like this: "What, you want Cuba running the Internet?" No, I don't. But I think it's really small-minded, not to mention willfully blind, to think that the US has a monopoly on goodness and freedom. The Internet is global, and no one nation should have a chokehold over a global system. If it were any other nation, the US government would be on the side of those calling for it to surrender control to an international body.

Politicians are dumb

[RobinH]

This shows how clueless politicians are when they talk about "control of the internet". The technology is available to everyone. Any country can setup a network based on TCP/IP technology, could setup their own root servers, and regulate ISPs in their country to use those root servers for their DNS's. Several countries could even get together and create a completely alternate network cut off from "the one true internet" as well. There exist all manners of segregating the current network, just look at the great firewall of China.

All this is about is who controls the main .com etc., domain names. I realize that some countries' domains are probably not under their control, and that seems unnecessary.

If we really wanted to fix the whole issue without trying to figure out whose dick is bigger, you go to something like this:

1) Make sure every country code is managed only by that country, and give them control of all root servers for that country.

2) Create a .com.nn domain in every country code (nn) - in many cases this is already done.

3) Give every .com domain holder the option to move their domain name under the country code of their choice. In cases where there are conflicting names, give it to the first of the two who registered it.

4) Blow away the .com domain, the same with other non-country code domains.

Then, every country has their own little "piece" of the internet, so to speak, and can regulate it into oblivion if they like.

Come to think of it, as long as countries have control of their country code root servers (if such a thing exists), then we're practically there. There's no reason why the US can't keep control of .com. I guess it just means that the root servers should be segregated by country. Would that be so bad?

Examples of problems

[FuryG3]

When other countries, IOs, or NGOs complain about the US 'stranglehold' on the Internet, I always see it as someone complaining about a problem that doesn't exist. First off, the Internet functions regardless of who controls the root servers, and if (for some strange reason) the US government did do something foolish, others are free to use different servers.

Regardless, I'm trying to see it from their point of view. Can someone provide specific previous actions which could be used in the argument against continued US 'control' of the registry?

Re:even as a european...

[aaronl]

Of course, you're right about the US not being some kind of perfection. It's a good system that has been twisted around. It barely resembles the original framework, at this point.

The problem you get with the way that the UN or the EU is talking about doing it, is that you would have an even *bigger* beauracracy in charge of it. You *would* have countries like China or Iran or Cuba that took up as chair of the DNS committee. You'd have a technical resource directly controlled by a "government" with no actual authority. It's one thing to set standards on an international level, but quite another to have things like this controlled by something like the UN.

The US shouldn't be running DNS, nor should the EU or the UN. Right now, the US doesn't really run it, but they have influence. If it was in the UN, then lots of people accountable to none of us would have influence, and quite a few of them are nearly diametrically opposed to free speech, or even freedom in general.

The "market" should decide this.

[khasim]

Why not advocate that each and every nation that wants to should setup its own TLD DNS servers?

If they want them to just forward requests to the ones in the US, that's fine.

If that nation wants to break those searches, that's fine too. The only people they'll be hurting are their own citizens. And the smarter ones will be able to re-direct the queries to other servers.

This is the biggest stupid fight about NOTHING.

The ONLY issue would be .com names and such and what organizations are allowed to register them. But that would also be solved in this fashion. If a Korean site gave "slashdot.org" to one of their friends, then Korea could not get to "slashdot.org" ... but everyone else could.

If they can't play nice, they're only hurting their own people.

"Control" the internet?

[EriktheGreen]

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at the "we invented it, therefore it's ours" posts here.

The Internet is nothing more than an agreement to interoperate between networks. The only centrally controllable resource, the DNS system, is only de facto controlled by the US government. The current DNS root servers could be abandoned by the rest of the world easily, if the US pisses them off enough.

The US can't control the Internet any more than it can control what "good music" is. It's not something that can be controlled. Any attempt to influence it simply reflects badly on the US as a country, and works against our global interests in the long term.

This doctrine being spoken of makes obvious the fact that most of the current US administration and lawmakers are still living in the (mid) 20th century.

Unfortunately, they've been holding back development of our country for years (since post world war 2, when a global war made them believe in their own moral superiority) in the name of what they believe is right. Fortunately, they'll start dying of old age in droves soon.

I just hope they don't irreconciliably damage international relations before then.

Erik

PS: Taco, for the love of all that's holy start using Kupu or FCKeditor, or something besides these damned textareas.

Re:even as a european...

[Rei]

A lot of people picture UN-run organizations as being something like congress directly running an aid organization. That's not how it works. In general, the UN as a whole or part appoints the leader of a UN-run organization, and that leader is in charge of the management. Few would claim that, say, UNICEF is some sort of organization in which the Chinese ambassador steps in to try and stop aid to Indian children, or whatnot (the sort of things that people here are picturing would happen in UN control of DNS). In reality, the UN would pick a department head, they manage the organization. The only influence that the UN itself would have would be on changing who heads the organization.

The UN is actually quite effective when it comes to global things that few people object to the presence of, only possibly the implementation of (for example, aid programs for children - or, in our case, domain name services). It's only when it comes to issues that people feel seriously infringe on their national sovereignty (such as peacemaking, arms reduction, etc) that the UN loses its bite.

Don't Be Hat'n Foo!

[geomon]

Throughout history there has always been a country leading their sphere of influence, dominating smaller countries with their policies. China and Japan in Asia, India, Persia, and Greeks, Romans in the SE Asia, the Mediterranean, and Persian Gulf, and all of the Houses of Europe have all been regional and global players who influenced the affairs of their neighbors and colonies. So why is the US treated so differently?

I don't doubt that the US is viewed by many as a bully who should just step back and let others control their own destiny. Okay, so then what? Are you going to tell me that the everyone around the world will just arbitrarily keep the global map static? You must be smoking something.

In every power vacuum throughout human history there has been a rush by next-tier players for the top spot. If the US declines to exert its power and influence, you can bet that China will. Russia will also step up and exert its power and authority over its smaller neighbors. Don't believe me? You don't read even recent history very well.

For over a century the US has represented the dreams and fears of every country in the world. Our impulse to export freedom and democracy may be misplaced and unwelcome, but consider the alternatives that history has served up. How many powerful nations have simply taken a pass when it comes to taking over a vanquished enemy? Are Germany and Japan the sole territory of the US? What about France?

I'm not saying that every policy that the US has exported overseas is great for the people we screw with. Our policies haven't always been real helpful to the US. But considering the alternatives, who would you rather were in our shoes?

And don't forget who catches the shit for the policies of our partners. France, Russia, and Germany were selling shit to Saddam as fast as they could, but which one of these countries is the primary target of Al Quaeda in Iraq? Do you think that the absence of the US would make these fuckers disappear? Do you think any piss-ant global jihadist movement that wants attention will blow up the government buildings in Sierra Leone? Local rebels might, but global terrorists don't gain their street cred by blowing up one of the smallest and poorest nations on the face of the planet.

The fact is that if a country like the US didn't exist the rest of the world would have to invent one. Criticize the US all you like. Just be glad you aren't the ones "on point".

Compromise

[shrapnull]

Mod Flaimbait.

As a lifelong American citizen, can I please ask my fellow compatriots: What the hell happened to compromising?

Why are we no longer the "Benevolent Superpower?" So the world wants to share in our responsiblities with the DNS system and naming conventions. Is it really so different to accomplish this with an international panel as opposed to our organizations (which even still contain many international members).

Don't tell them to build their own DNS servers and break the entire nature of freedom for the net, besides what good are they with IPv4 and the core DNS naming conventions. Adding DNS servers with gibberish for localized areas isn't going to do anything positive for the maturing of this medium.

If we divide the core DNS system using an international medium, can we not simply "cut out" any group that does not adhere to guidelines set forth by the panel? And if the "shit does hit the fan" and someone doesn't listen, we could build our own internet (we have it already) that's even better then the old one! Why not move into that realm in case of emergency?

I don't understand why we have to have total control. The US involvement in the creation of the internet led to this global phenomenon, now let's make it truly global. Besides, if it's part of the UN can you imagine the impact of an internet embargo against a nation (haven't quite worked out the details, but cool in theory)?

I'm not going to rant on GW, Iraq, Energy Conservation or anything like that, this isn't the place for it. But why is it we ask so much of the international community then crap over something like this when it comes to sharing?

Just shoot Monroe

[FishandChips]

Jeez, not this subject again. It's been done to death already, and puffing it up into a "Monroe Doctrine" is just so grandiose. BS. Much better to wait until after the Tunis internet governance meeting in a few weeks' time. All that putting it on Slashdot produces is a ding-dong with a whole lot of rednecks. If the subject shows anything, then it is the extent to which the present US Administration has angered even America's most moderate good friends around the world in too many ways. I guess many Americans might be surprised at this but it's happened and it's not good news.

ugh

[mkcmkc]

And as an American

As another American (not to mention North American and citizen of the USA), let me thank you for perpetuating the stereotype of Americans as ignorant and mean-spirited. If other countries decide, for whatever reason, that they'd like to use different root servers, there's nothing we can do about it. What we should do about it is to listen to their concerns and try to accommodate them, rather than allowing the Internet to fracture.

Re:even as a european...

[QBRADQ]

FYI: It's the Child Internet Protection Act, but that's not very relivant right now.

What is relivant is the fact that the US governing bodies have been in a trend of increased censorship and denial of liberties to it's citizens since the information boom began. Don't get me wrong, I am a US citizen, and I love my country, but my government has been placing a higher and higher value on the needs and wants of the few as opposed to the many. The liberties of the majority are now infringed upon and at times out-right denied in order to maintain the liberties of the minority. Let's think about some issues here:

Ok, without getting into a political argument, let's just all quitely reflect on some major issues in the US in recent times with regards to fair access and technology.

Affirmative Action (forcing companies to hire certain people based on ethnic background rather than employable skill or experiance)
Excerting influance on video game companies, example is Grand Thieft Auto: San Andreas (the game was pulled from shelves after comming under heavy fire because it was posible to hack the game to show sexualy explicit content)
Pressuring and even prosecuting P2P networks because thier service could be used for illegal activities. I'd like to point out that I can commit a felony crime with a telephone, but they're legal.
Prosecuted Microsoft for having a monopoly on the OS market (a market with very little competition outside of the Open Source world, BTW, TUX=ROX).
Forcing broadcasters to switch to digital signals (it's been passed already, it just won't come into effect for a few years).

And the list goes on and on and on. Our governemnt seems technologicaly ignorant at every turn. The conservatives cling to the dead and dieing, the liberals want Hippy Freedom which just doesn't work (that was proven in the 60's, sure it was fun, but the 80's really sucked because of it), and the moderates just don't care. Put that together with the foringe policy tendancies to be the global watch-dog, and see what happens:

1) Argentina calls for a boycott of US trade policy (this was on CNN THIS MORNING by the way).
2) The US responds by inacting a trade embargo of Argentina.
3) This embargo includes de-registering all Argentinian domains from the global DNS.
4) Well, you can see how this would be bad.

Think this would never happen? Think again. The US is famous for it's trade embargos. Cuba, Iran (I think), Iraq pre-war, North Korea at varous times, the USSR, and the list goes on. Does anyone honestly believe that a nation that has such policies would wave them for the most valuable resource on the planet (free exchange of information)? I think not.

Just think about it for a minute. Some of the US's chief threats now reside on the Internet. The terrorist groups, the US-hostile news agencies, and the governments of the world are all online. If the US is to control how it's enimies are addressed on the global intranet, you can be certain of the answer. "port.iran.ml could not be found. Please check the name and try again later".

But the rabit hole goes much deeper my friends. The US doesn't do anything piece-meal. Think about it: this country was started by a minority of people that didn't like thier current government, so they rebeled and won. Just a few short decades later and this country was "Manifestly predestined by God to expand over the whole of the continent". And once that was done, we started taking over yet more places, such as Hawiai and Alaska, and accquired yet more so-called "protectorites" such as Guam and Purto Rico. And now durring the 2000's, we're reshaping countries in our own image. We didn't like the Taliban, so we took over thier country. We didn't like Saddam, so we took over thier country.

What's the point in all of this? The US won't stop with DNS, oh no my friends. That may be what is at issue currently, but if the US is allowed control it won't be the issue tomo