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.
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?