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."

7 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.

  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 ?
  4. 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.