How The U.S. Government Undermined the Internet

sakshale writes "The Register has an article about U.S. Government backed policy changes that have led ICANN to redelegate top level domains in such a way as to provide 'greater state-controlled censorship on the internet, reduce people's ability to use the internet to communicate freely, and leave expansion of the internet in the hands of the people least capable of doing the job'" More from the article: "At that meeting, consciously and for the first time, ICANN used a US government-provided reason to turn over Kazakhstan's internet ownership to a government owned and run association without requiring consent from the existing owners. The previous owners, KazNIC, had been created from the country's Internet community. ICANN then immediately used that 'precedent' to hand ownership of Iraq's internet over to another government-run body, without accounting for any objections that the existing owners might have."

Comments

Idea Report

[voice_of_all_reason]

Slashdot needs a "saw that coming from a mile away" category

Huh?

[skratchpad]

2005 will be forever seen as the year in which the US government managed to keep unilateral control of the internet...

Yea, never mind things like the Tsunami or Katrina or in the U.S. all of the controversies in government... I'm sure when I'm 85 years old this is exactly what I'll remember about 2005.

Lessons of history - Finland's access to internet

[UR30]

I remember how in the beginning of 1990 Finland had some issues in having faster connections to internet. Some people in the US thought that the Finns were only goint to download software, not contribute to the net. Then came Linux, which was first distributed from the Finnish server at nic.funet.fi, and there was more traffic to the US than to Finland. Afterwards we did have quite fast net connections overseas.

Read The Guidelines

[N8F8]

From CP-1: Internet Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (ccTLD Administration and Delegation)

(a) Delegation of a New Top Level Domain. Delegation of a new top level domain requires the completion of a number of procedures, including the identification of a TLD manager with the requisite skills and authority to operate the TLD appropriately. The desires of the government of a country with regard to delegation of a ccTLD are taken very seriously. The IANA will make them a major consideration in any TLD delegation/transfer discussions. Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the proposed TLD manager is the appropriate party. The key requirement is that for each domain there be a designated manager for supervising that domain's name space. In the case of ccTLDs, this means that there is a manager that supervises the domain names and operates the domain name system in that country. There must be Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity to the nameservers and electronic mail connectivity to the entire management, staff, and contacts of the manager. There must be an administrative contact and a technical contact for each domain. The administrative contact must reside in the country involved for ccTLDs. The IANA may choose to make partial delegations of a TLD when circumstances, such as those in a developing country, so dictate. It may also authorize a "proxy" DNS service outside of a developing country as a temporary form of assistance to the creation of Internet connectivity in new areas. [N.B. The IANA continues to receive inquiries about delegation of new gTLDs. This is a significant policy issue on which ICANN will conduct a careful study and review based on the established decision making procedures. Information about this study will be disseminated on the website at icann.org.]

Did I miss something?

[portwojc]

So the ICANN handed over control of a couple NICs to the government of those countries. Did I miss something else in the article?

Shouldn't the own governments handle the NICs in their own countries? I have to be missing something - otherwise all I can think is this is what the UN would probably have done anyway.

Who wants to eat crow?

[dada21]

I've said from the beginning that DNS is a government mechanism for censorship -- it was, it is and it will continue to be. The typical authoritarian response (from slashdotters no less) is that other countries can run their own DNS TLD's, but this will just lead to multiple censors, not real freedom.

Regulation does not help the needy or the poor. It does not help those who can not do something for themselves. Regulation does not make a safer or better product, and it does not create a cheaper marketplace.

Regulation gives those in power the ability to put friends, family and cronies into high paying monopolistic jobs, determine which companies can enter a market and prevent everyone else from competing or making a better product.

Those who know me (even if you don't like me) know I am anti-DNS. I don't have a free market solution YET, but I think about it every day. DNS will be the fall of the Internet, until there is a decentralized version, and I believe that Google or another major search company will find a way to replace the central authority version.

I know we need DNS today -- links, bookmarks, advertising, all that. I also know we needed coal burning stoves just 40 years ago in some parts of the U.S. Without government, society tries to find ways to become more free by competing with others. Everyone wants a profit, but we believe we'll earn more by underpricing our competition and offering a better product. With government, society tries to find ways around the bureaucracy, red tape and restrictions. We have markets that have an excessively high cost of entry, but it is not always because of the equipment needed -- many markets are expensive because of government regulations and restrictions.

In the end, our freedoms are destroyed, our hard work is overtaxed and our children are left with the burden of paying off our mistakes.

Re:Who wants to eat crow?

[Hiro Antagonist]

The FDA regulates more than just drugs, for starters; I'm sure you've read 'The Jungle', that famous book about conditions in meat-packing plants -- I think that it led, in part, to the creation of the FDA. I am very happy that there is a watchdog making sure that the meat I get at the supermarket isn't diseased, rotting, filled with heavy metals, and so on; sure, they do screw up from time to time, but overall, you've got a pretty good guarantee that the steak you buy at $GROCER is both edible and nourishing.

The FDA also does a great deal of good; sure, getting drugs to market takes forever, but the drugs that do get to market usually work. Look at a 1920s pharmacy, and you see 'guaranteed' cures for the common cold, measles, influenza, and every other ailment under the sun, and of course, none of them could back their claims scientifically; the idea of a 'prescription' didn't even exist, which didn't matter, because there was no market incentive to produce functional drugs. Repeat business for drug companies was encouraged, of course, but why go through the trouble of making drugs that work, when you can just add some cocaine or heroin to those Wonder Pills?

I never said the FDA was perfect; I'd love to see an 'opt-out' for patients that want to try the latest and greatest that modern medicine has to offer, but the pre-FDA America was not a happy place to live.

UL is also a regulatory body, but one missing a lot of authority -- I could easily sell non-UL tested goods, and consumers wouldn't care. I doubt most of the public even knows what UL *is*.

The minimum wage laws destroy the poor neighborhoods. If minimum wage was so great, why not make it $50 per hour?

If '$50/hour' was the definition of a minimum survivable salary, than it would be minimum wage. The point of minimum wage isn't to guarantee luxury; it exists to keep people from starving to death, which is what often happened before minimum-wage laws became, well, laws. People were forced into living in tenements, with little money for the basic necessities of life, because it didn't matter to the companies whether or not their employees survived to work another day or not -- after all, there's a lot more workers than employers, so if one dies, you can just replace them.

Furthermore, not everybody is cut out to be a rocket scientist, or a skilled laborer; some people are going to be stuck at the bottom for their entire lives, and I think it's utterly inhuman to ask the bottom rung of society to starve to death -- after all, they clean our hotels, serve our coffee, and, most importantly, they are also human beings.

Pre-FDA and pre-labor law US was a mercantilist society based on elite controlled by the party that didn't support these laws. The laws just switched the elite from one authoritarian channel to another.

Um, this isn't much of an argument -- laws exist to exercise authority; we call 'non-authoritative' laws 'suggestions'.

Furthermore, the US would still *be* a mercantilist society based on elite control if it wasn't for laws that pushed for the little guy; it didn't just happen that, one day, the elite decided to start treating all those assembly-line workers like human beings.

Business exist to make money; which is good, they should do that. Unfortunately, there's no inherent moral code as to how a business should go about that, and without government regulation, businesses do some pretty disgusting things.

I think our differences come from different viewpoints -- I hold the view that, in a just society, I should be willing to live an any socioeconomic strata. That is to say, while I might be unhappy doing so, I would be willing to be a member of the bottom rung of society. Which is why I believe in things like state-run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, libraries, public education, minimum wage, and a mixed public/private healthcare system -- cheap on the taxes, great for the masses, and even with room for the capitalists to play.

Basically, I try and think about walking in other peoples' shoes.

So...

[TrappedByMyself]

ICANN is making sure that TLDs for countries are controlled by the governments of those countries?
And what is wrong with this? Isn't this how it's supposed to be?

Nice use of the word nuclear, by the way. Its good to see that propaganda is alive and well.

When asked why...

[g0bshiTe]

They replied, "because ICANN"

Censorship

[thebdj]

Isn't calling it censorship a bit of a stretch. What we are talking about is who controls the domain rights within a country. Now in the example they give for Kazakhstan, they point to their removal of Sacha Baron Cohen's website borat.kz. Their excuse is actually laughable, but who is to deny anyone, government controlled, influenced or not the right to protect their perceived "integrity".

Now, is this right? This is debatable and surely will be debated over and over here. Is this censorship? Hardly. We are not talking about some Great Firewall preventing the people from visiting any site of Cohen's. This is the WWW afterall and he can easily have the site with a different domain avoiding the .kz all together and people will still be able to see it.

To say this is the beginning of state sponsored censorship is ridiculous, of course we are trusting on an article from The Register, so inflammatory language is a requirement, as is misinformation. Trust me, if a country was really wanting to censor anything they would do it one way or the other even if it meant "cutting the line". So let us all calm down and put the little tin foil hats away.

What policy changed?

[MightyYar]

Unless I'm missing something, it has been ICANN policy to give the country's government ultimate control over the TLD for that country. This policy is from 2000:

Principles for Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs Presented by Governmental Advisory Committee

The relevant section (I think) says:

7.1 Where a communication between the relevant government or public authority and the delegee is in place, when ICANN is notified by the relevant government or public authority that the delegee has contravened the terms of the communication, or the term of the designation has expired, ICANN should act with the utmost promptness to reassign the delegation in coordination with the relevant government or public authority.

And there is a lot more language like that. The way it reads to me, ICANN does what the local government says regarding the TLD, as soon as possible - and this has been policy since at least February 2000.

Re:I suppose they'd rather give it to

[kfg]

"Newflash people, "ownership" is a concept that _only_ exists within the context of a governmental legal system."

Nonsense. Cats recognize ownership.

Title is a concept that only exists within the context of a governmental legal system.

KFG

Re:Those bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

And on the flipside of that, if you even think of ever criticizing capitalism (even when Enron is dancing around naked in front of you), well then; YOU'RE A SOCIALIST!

How trite, condescending, and intellectually dishonest. Do you have anymore useless mudslinging rhetoric to spew?

You're exactly what's wrong with the world. Dismissive, close minded, and all-to-willing to disparage anyone who criticizes your source of pride.

Really, I could be wrong. If so, enlighten me, please. That is, if you have anything intelligent to say.

Yes, 2005 was a bad year.

[twitter]

Yea, never mind things like the Tsunami or Katrina or in the U.S. all of the controversies in government... I'm sure when I'm 85 years old this is exactly what I'll remember about 2005.

Freedom of speech is important. I'm from New Orleans and still live in Louisiana. That ICANN is handing portions of the Internet over to government censors bothers me, and I consider it a large problem. Is my perspective warped? No. Without free speech, everyday can be like Katrina because your government can do whatever it wants to you. Just ask people from the former Soviet states what government housing and shopping are like.

Other disturbing US trends include re-centralization of telco into less than friendly hands. The destruction of smaller ISP continues. Blatant anti-competitive behavior by the remainder is tollerated and even encouraged. 2005 was another bad year for the world of ends.