Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Transfer of Internet Governance Will Go Ahead On Oct. 1 (computerworld.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fierce-opposition dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Computerworld: The U.S. says it will proceed with its plan to hand over oversight of the internet's domain name system functions to a multistakeholder body on Oct. 1. Computerworld reports: "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), under contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce, operates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) which enables the operation of the internet domain name system (DNS). These include responsibility for the coordination of the DNS root, IP addressing and other internet protocol resources. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Commerce Department, said in March 2014 that it planned to let its contract with ICANN expire on Sept. 30, 2015, passing the oversight of the functions to a global governance model. NTIA made it clear that it would not accept a plan from internet stakeholders that would replace its role by that of a government-led or intergovernmental organization or would in any way compromise the openness of the internet. The transfer was delayed to September as the internet community needed more time to finalize the plan for the transition. The new stewardship plan submitted by ICANN was approved by the NTIA in June. NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling said Tuesday that the agency had informed ICANN that 'barring any significant impediment,' NTIA intends to allow the IANA functions contract it has with ICANN to expire as of Oct. 1, said Strickling, who is also assistant secretary for communications and information."

13 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Much rejoicing... by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, on October 2nd the countries, where it is Ok to block the entire populace from foreign Internet-resources, where "hate speech", "blasphemy", and mocking the president or king are criminal offences — they will all have more say in how the network is operated than before. Yay!

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Much rejoicing... by ITRambo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your sarcasm deserves many up-votes. because it's all too true.

    2. Re:Much rejoicing... by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, not really. If you read the article you would find out that control is transitioning to multinational private sector stakeholders, so in reality Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. will have more say.

    3. Re:Much rejoicing... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I absolutely agree. In theory, one would think that the internet, being a global phenomenon, should be treated as such with no one nation having control. In practice, we have other countries bending over backwards to justify their anti-freedom of speech actions, and that's not okay. I'm not going to say that America is perfect...far from it, and in many many ways...but when it comes to freedom of speech, there's really no one even close.

      I keep seeing these stories about how this or another person got fined or arrested for saying the wrong thing, a lot in Europe lately, and I see people defending this as completely acceptable, arguing that they still have freedom of speech, just that freedom of speech does not include unpopular sentiment that they disagree with. Saying unpopular, unsavory, or downright asshole-ish things is the exact definition of freedom of speech. The idea does not exist to defend popular ideas, it exists to ensure that everyone, even people who might be downright wrong or mean, get a voice. There are places where if I say the Holocaust did not happen (wrong and hateful), sing a song about how Erdoan is a scull fucking douchebag (honest and accurate), or reject the state's religion or political ideology (every individual's choice), among plenty of other things, I could face legal consequences.

      And regardless of how you feel about any of those things, you don't get to take away another person's voice. There are ideas that I consider to be extremely dangerous and actively harming people and the planet but that I argue against them; doesn't mean I get to censor them. Speech is a human right, and that's end of the goddamn story. Recent events continue to show that not everyone agrees, and now they get greater control over the worlds most important communication medium? I don't like that. They say they will not compromise openness on the internet, but this is in a world where censorship in the name of 'preserving dignity,' whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, is argued to be not a violation of the human right to free speech; I ask them to lay out clear guidelines for openness. Like I said, America isn't perfect, but on this issue I trust the US a hell of a lot more than I do any other country.

    4. Re:Much rejoicing... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Like I said, America isn't perfect, but on this issue I trust the US a hell of a lot more than I do any other country."

      But this in itself is just nationalist patriotism, the US has a long history of censorship on the internet via things like ICE domain seizures, which unlike, say, China's censorship, enforce censorship globally to every country, not just the country engaging in censorship (the US).

      If you believe in single country stewardship if that country would offer better protections than any other then it's nonsensical to favour the US over many others. If you're going for single country stewardship then why not go for a country that has a much better track record on political neutrality, political transparency, and freedom, such as Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand or similar?

      Personally I think single country stewardship is a bad idea though regardless, in Asia there is censorship over blasphemy, Europe it's holocaust denial, in South America it's criticising government, and in North America it's defying the copyright cartels. All-country stewardship where changes can only occur based on 100% consensus is the only way to really protect free speech on the internet because that way you get all the benefits of the US veto you have currently but with the added advantage of countries like Russia and China being willing to block US copyright censorship.

      Long story short though, there is no rational reason to prefer US single country stewardship if you believe in freedom and openness of the internet, and if you do so then it's because you're letting nationalism take priority over the things you're professing to want to protect. That is, when you say you trust the US more, what you're saying is "I want our guys to retain control, even if that means a bit of censorship" - you're arguing in favour of US control and NOT freedom from censorship, because the US already engages in that in a manner that effects everyone across the globe, not just those inside it's borders.

      Really, if the US were a good steward of internet freedom then rather than engaging in global censorship via domain seizures it would set up it's own Chinese style great firewall and just block it's own citizens from accessing those sites it finds offensive such that it's politics remains only a problem for it's own people, and not censorship for every single person on the planet, including the 7billion+ that live outside of it's borders.

    5. Re:Much rejoicing... by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did you actually read what was written in the post you responded to?

      Darinbob was talking about the record of the US as a whole in fair and impartial governance, not ICANN or IANA. ICANN has its issues, but for whatever reason, the Internet has been able to remain above politics in the US.

      It is the massive number of countries calling for censorship that are really asking the US to give up governance. The first thing I expect will be regulated will be porn. Russia would rule that all gay porn should be outlawed, while the Muslim countries all agree, meaning half the world would vote to outlaw gay porn. The Muslim countries will feel that is not enough, all porn should be banned, as it is all sinful in their eyes. Pretty soon, porn is not allowed on the public internet.

      This is what we have to look forward to. After all, the famous quote starts "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist." First it will be gay rights, which is a touchy subject in most of the world, but it won't stop there, who will speak out?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Doesn't change anything by npslider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The NSA still owns all the Internet's anyways. :)

  3. Queue the fracture by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I predict we'll see a split of the internet along international lines shortly thereafter. Under the laws of each nation certain content will be unacceptable and each domain will begin by censoring those that interfere with their personal political agenda's on how things should be represented. Within a year half the net will not 'see' the other half and business and commerce will stutter and survive in certain regions and fail in others.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Queue the fracture by ADRA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its always been the case that anyone with enough determination could make a new internet that does the exact same thing as the current one but maintained by themselves. If someone wants to jump the shark and break compatibility, companies and countries will decide on whom to follow.

      If you think the internet has lasted decades purely because of US based custodianship, then strap on your tin foil hat because every story about interruptions/censorship/shaping/etc.. will now be coloured by this rather non-story forever afterwards.

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a way, that has already happened.

      The Great Firewall of China.

      Large swaths of the middle east blocking social networking they disagree with.

      The USA going after online gambling sites and TPB.

      Countries in South America blocking online games.

      Countries in Europe clamping down on encryption.

      North Korea where only a few high ranking party members are permitted to use it at all.

      You're probably right that it will accelerate in the future, but we haven't had one internet for a long time. We had in our grasp the ability to bring all humanity together with freedom of communication, uncontrolled by governments or multinationals, and we dropped the ball. What could have been a tool for unprecedented freedom, is turning into a tool for unprecedented mass surveillance.

      We had one shot. It isn't often something like the printing press or the internet comes along. We had this one our hands, and one little step at a time, we said, "we don't care about freedom", until the weight of all those steps together became too great to overturn.

  4. So this is actually happening? by sdguero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just the other day I was talking with an older German lady at a community council meeting. We were discussing about all the global problems we are having right now and she was waxxing poetic about Chinese an Russian hacking activities on the web. I reassured her that as long as DNS is under US government control, we holds the keys as far as global internet abuse and censorship. Welp I guess that's over.

    Seriously, we should not have given this up.

    1. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, control is not really being "transferred" which you would know if you read any of the articles about this. ICANN is still doing the same job it was before, effectively controlled by the same people that controlled it before. It will just not have the US Government looking over it's shoulder the whole time. The power is in the hands of the board of directors, who are, surprise, industry IT people. Not the Shah of Iran. Executives from Time Warner Cable, Google, etc. Nothing will change. Aren't people here usually AGAINST the US Government controlling things it has no business controlling?

      Second, what kind of "stewardship" do you think they are actually doing? The internet was formed almost entirely by private corporations. The government had a hand in getting the ball rolling, but it is a long leap to say that without the US government we would not have the internet today.

    2. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Says you. There are 7 billion people on the planet and almost all of them don't live in the US. Besides, as I've written elsewhere, control is not going to other nations. Rather it is going to the board of directors of ICANN, which is made up of private industry executives. Control is going to TIme Warner Cable, Google, etc. Do you really thing ICANN is going to be run by Iran or North Korea or something?