Slashdot Mirror
United States Cedes Control of the Internet
greenechidna writes "The Register is reporting that the U.S. is relinquishing control of ICANN. The story states:
'In a meeting that will go down in internet history, the United States government last night conceded that it can no longer expect to maintain its position as the ultimate authority over the internet.
Having been the internet's instigator and, since 1998, its voluntary taskmaster, the US government finally agreed to transition its control over not-for-profit internet overseeing organization ICANN, making the organization a more international body.'"
Even the original article is contradictory:
However, assistant commerce secretary John Kneuer, the US official in charge of such matters, also made clear that the US was still determined to keep control of the net's root zone file
Is this a time paradox?
The polls you cite indicate a dissatisfaction with the current haircut. Yes, Bush has an approval rating in the 30s, but those Americans who do not approve of him, approve of alternatives who would have had indistinguishable foreign policy since 2001 anyway. The rest of the world doesn't care about your domestic politics, only your international politics. And in that respect, America appears unanimously arrogant from the outside.
How does this apply to ICANN? The author of the article is expressing his skepticism that the American public would agree to the US giving up control of anything, least of all anything as important as the Internet. You guys aren't exactly known for playing well with other countries.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Even the original article is contradictory:
Not really -- it's more like the US's position is contradictory or more realistically, a facade:
So the US is more than happy turn over administrative control of the Internet domains to ICANN, but retains the right to control the root structure. In essence, ICANN becomes a semi-legitimized world front for the Internet. Other countries can't claim they don't have control over the process now, and the United States retains the true power. This will appease a few countries but on the whole nothing will change. In the end, the US hasn't given up a thing but a bloated and malformed beaureaucracy anyway.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The US, and not NATO, was the force pushing for intervention. Reading main-stream news, we all remember how frustrated the US were with hesitant European nations. The problem with intervention, which anybody with half-a-clue at the time knew though, was that everybody was killing each-other at pretty much the same speed. This was a well-known fact, although our media did their best skew it by making the serbs out to be the bad guys. It's also a well-known fact that the massive genosides started after NATO intervention (which incidentally actually made the serbs 'the bad(est) guys'). Reading up on the reports and the analysis after the war is scary reading though; make no mistake, the Yoguslavia-intervention was a massive blunder and seriously worsened the situation.
It took US balls to choose a random side to back and bomb the country back to the stone-age.
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
While I grimace when I hear "control of the Internet" equated with "control over the DNS root", it's not actually that much of a misnomer. You can "bypass" US control by either using IP addresses, or by pointing your name servers to an alternative root. The problems that the latter approach causes tend to completely outweigh the benefits. It is generally agreed that fragmenting the DNS root is a Bad Thing for a variety of reasons.
And since the Internet is relatively useless without a mechanism to locate hosts on it, and since nobody seems to be willing (or able) to consider alternatives to DNS (such as a proper directory service that could be immune to intellectual property disputes), the DNS root is the key to that.
Of course, ICANN encompasses more than just the DNS root, including most of the functions other organizations previously had, including the relatively mindless allocation of numbers for protocols, IP address blocks, etc.
Now, I'm not saying that other nations haven't failed Rwanda either, but considering the example given by the US in this matter, it's not a big surprise that the UN failed...
just a correction, the internet wasn't invented in the US. it was developed by Tim Berners-Lee
You're confusing the internet with the (world-wide) web. The internet grew out of Arpanet, which was funded by the US, in (IIRC) about 1970. It quickly grew beyond the borders of the US, and people from several countries contributed to its development, but in the early days, most contributors were American.
The Web is what Berners-Lee developed at CERN, much later. It's just one application of the internet, others being ftp, telnet, and email.
While censorship is bad, it is certainly not why people are concerned with ICANN.
.com/.net to Verisign, which have led to unnecessary monopoly situations, and resulting inflated prices. The decisions on gTLDs to add to the root were driven primarily by domestic politics, rather than legitimate technical and governance concerns. These policy decisions affect Internet users around the world. ICANN is answerable to none of these users. ICANN is only effectively answerable to the U.S. Department of Commerce. As such, it makes it decisions in the interests of the DoC, which are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the user community.
ICANN is making policy decisions (such as which gTLDs to add to the roots and resolution of disputes over domain names) when its authority to make these decisions is murky at best. It has made policy decisions, such as ceding control of
when somenoe on slashdot doesn't know the difference between the internet, and WWW.
The internet was created in the US, once called ARPANET.
When a government committee, headed by Al Gore, decided to let the public access ARPANET they renamed it 'Internet'.
Hence the reference to the often misquoted Al Gore quote.
Tim berners-Lee created the WWW.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Inquirer: A news site started by a group of people who left the Register several years ago including the founder. They are sometimes wrong but not by much e.g. last friday they had news from a reliable source on the AMD - ATI story and that the official annoucement would be on monday. They did however get some of the financials wrong.
The Enquirer: The best way to keep track of Elvis's current location.
Ars Technica put an article out circa 17:11 GMT today claiming that The Register is misleading. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060727-7366 .html
I know people who had relatives in Srebrenica, and I also know at least one person who was helping the Serbs rape/kill there. Wanna tell them again who's the idiot?
Who the hell modded you +5 informative?! You have absolutely NO clue about the conflicts in former Yugoslavia and the timeline of events!
Well-known fact? The Serbs skewed to be the bad guys? Stop talking out of your ass, you fucking moron. Maybe next time someone will slaughter your parents, like the Serbs slaughtered mine (along with my grandparents) in 1992.
The European root server network is already in place. Usually it's synchronized with the ICANN one, but it can go independent (and does so). I used the ORSN servers for a while but have switched back to my ISP's servers, as they respong faster (gee, whyever could that be).
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)