Plan Would Give Government Virtual Veto Over Internet Governance

An anonymous reader writes The debate over Internet governance for much of the past decade has often come down to a battle between ICANN and the United Nations. The reality has always been far more complicated. The U.S. still maintains contractual control over ICANN, while all governments exert considerable power within the ICANN model through the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Now governments are looking for even more power, seeking a near-complete veto power of ICANN decisions.

Comments

Does it matter?

[kruach aum]

It's not like I can exert influence over either governments or the ICANN in any way, shape or form.

Re:Does it matter?

[KermodeBear]

I don't know about you, but I would rather have the USA, despite all of its faults (and we have many), in control of these things instead of countries like Iran or North Korea.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's considered broken by people who do get involved, because we have a crappy two party system where the two parties are nearly identical on the one front that truly matters: Fundamental and constitutional liberties. Those of us who vote third party realize that voting for the lesser of the two evil scumbags does not solve anything, and yet we are few.

In a democracy, and especially a two party cesspool like ours, you get the government that other people deserve.

Re:Does it matter?

[Jesus_666]

Then again many people outside the USA aren't entirely comfortable with the USA having control over internet governance. Mind you, there are many other countries equally unsuited. The problem is that if one single country has control then one country might decide to use that control to further its own interests. And I don't think that it's a good trade to give all power to one country just to ensure that certain other countries get no power at all.

Of course this is about power shifting towards governments in general. This is to be expected - after all, we can't just have random people running the internet and governments happen to be the very things that represent their countries internationally. I expect ICANN to become something like the ITU: A UN agency that handles infrastructure governance. That does seem to be the safest and fairest option. Do Iran and North Korea get a voice? Yes, they do, just as they should. But that doesn't mean they run the show.

Re:So... Sorry, but no

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if I want some government who may not like my religion or race being able to stamp my website out of existence just because it doesn't jive with their dogma.

I'll take the current means. There is enough religious persecution without having countries knock you offline on the net.

Not packed enough?

[magarity]

It sounds like the governments bent on censorship have managed to pack the ICANN board enough to get this proposal seriously considered but not enough that the ICANN board can't still usually override them:

ICANN is now proposing that the threshold be increased so that 2/3 of eligible ICANN board members would be required to vote against GAC advice in order to reject it

Why else would ICANN's own board even be considering giving this power away?

Re:What power does the ICANN have

[Anonymous Coward]

There alternative DNS systems

That nobody but crazies and enthusiasts use.

Seriously, you're talking about a world where we haven't been able to get IPV6 up and running. Do you really think people are going to voluntarily switch roots, and put up with the catastrophic brokenness that would bring?