Slashdot Mirror
Lessig on Internet Governance
tcd004 writes "Should the United Nations control the Internet? That's the subject of a heated debate slated to take place at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis later this month. The European Union is pressing for a U.N. role in governing the Internet, which is currently in the hands of a U.S. nonprofit. Lawrence Lessig breaks down the debate and offers his views. An interesting point: in order to participate in Summit-related events Lessig had to promise not to talk about intellectual property." From the article: "What people are afraid of is that there will be a split within the single hierarchical system which would result in two different populations of the dot-com domain name system existing out there. Then there would be a real conflict. My view is that if in fact there is a separation like that, there are a lot of incentives for these two separate roots to figure out a way to coexist. There would be lots of anger [when] you realize that you're not getting the IBM.com you expected. But there's no reason why you couldn't have multiple root systems."
Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet
Senator Wants to Keep U.N. Away From the Internet
EU Claims Internet Could Fall Apart Next Month
Internet Power Struggle Reaching Climax
EU, UN to Wrestle Internet Control From US
U.S. Insists On Keeping Control Of Internet
Why Talk About Internet Governance?
Behind the Fight to Control the Internet
And I wonder if we didn't discuss it enough ?
Why does it make a difference when a lot of websites are localised anyway?
.COM domains were resolved, they could point traffic to some other Google-looking destination totally under their control. Or worse, they could do that with messaging, banking, or other traffic. In a situation where something like the UN security council plays a role in these things, you might end up not getting your new .COM domain name registered until someone at the UN decides it's OK for you to have that domain name. And if, as they have now, China or another large presence doesn't like some aspect of new domain registrations, they might act to block them.
It's not about where the web sites themselves are (or are hosted). It's about what IP address you're pointed to when you type in "www.ibm.com" or any other address that depends on DNS to get you where you're going. Let's say that the Chinese government suddenly decides that they don't like how often Google comes up with information about human rights (well, they already have said that - but work with me here). If they controlled how
That's why.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
..avoid making tired, old, jokes, that turn them into mindless lackeys of political hacks.
This is over and done with. Can we please read this before making these jokes? Or maybe not make them at all? Or mod them down whenever they occur?
each country already has their own TLD and maintains control over it
.us, .ca, .cn, etc. servers are. The country code TLDs are not root servers.
Well, technically, ICANN controls it all because they have the root servers, which tell your computer (or the DNS system) where the
To get around it, you'd have to get rid of root servers, make the country code TLDs into root servers, and make each one maintain a manual list of the IP addresses of the other country code TLDs. Each would then have a list of 300 or more entries, but that's maintainable by a human. Then the ISPs in each country will point their DNS's to their country's TLD server.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
"Well - it is broke.
How would the US feel if China or the EU could turn off www.whitehouse.gov by passing a law ?"
What does that have to do with the internet? That's a broken government thing, not a broken internet thing.
And if you think that fixing the internet by involving MORE governments is a good idea, especially when those governments will keep the internet "broken" and be able to "shut off www.whatevertheywant.com" in EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS THE US CAN NOW, then I can't really see how it's been fixed.
And the best part? Censorship is codified into the standards for the UN's version of the internet. How come you never bother to bring that up?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
This is not about Internet Governance. It is about how the DNS root file and TLD's are managed. ICANN is not free and open. CAn you elect a member to the role of director? No.
.xxx refused? By what OPEN process?
When ICANN has SOME elected directors why did one of those elected directors have to sue to see finacial information regarding ICANN.?
Why was the TLD
Why would you or I have to pay ICANN 50K to only APPLY to run a Top Level Domain.
Why has ICANN released so few TLD's over the years since 1998 when before 1998 IANA was poised to allow hundreds of new TLD's.
Why do you think the UN is a monlitic organization, where in fact UN organization such as the ITU have functioned as PART of the UN and the international phone system and standards?
Has China via the ITU ever caused problems with phone numbers of political organization in the US?
Are you aware that it would be doubtful that CHina or any country would have veto over the ussuing of a TLD, even though today the US has de facto vetoed a new TLD (.xxx).
What has enforcement of human rights got to do with an open process to manage the TLD root file?
Have you any clue how ICANN actually works?
How is this insightful? The ITU existed BEFORE the UN was even an idea.
If the ITU is a success, it is in spite of the UN, not because of it.
For Christ's sake, it's hardly a secret that the ITU is the part of the UN that's seeking to extend its role to include the internet. When people talk about the UN in this context they mean the ITU.
The record of the ITU is precisely what's under discussion, whether "in spite of the UN" or not.
How you feel about U.N. control of the Internet usually falls in how you feel about government control of the Internet: Thos who want more censorship and control tend to favor U.N. control... those who want less censorship and control tend to be sceptical about the U.N.
But it's been the US govt that has been the spoiler for several developments so far (.xxx). There's going to be SOME control no matter what (the root servers have to live somewhere). The point is that the rest of the world... doesn't really trust the US.
"Other governments also have been applying pressure to ICANN in a last-minute bid to head off .xxx."
http://news.com.com/Bush+administration+objects+to +.xxx+domains/2100-1028_3-5833764.html
"Exactly. Having things the way they are keeps a lot of the international politics out of the picture."
Boy does it ever. The Bush adminstration just nixed the last tld that was supposed to go intot the legacy root.
So instead we get US federal politics. Whoo hoo!
Need Mercedes parts ?