Slashdot Mirror


As ICANN Gains Full Oversight Of Domain Name System, Some Wonder If It Means the US Has Given Away The Internet (bbc.com)

The U.S. has given up its remaining control over the Internet. The formal handover, which took effect on Saturday, followed a last-ditch attempt by a group of Republicans to block the move. They had argued that the US concession would open the door for authoritarian governments get control of the network of networks, leading to greater censorship. From a BBC report:A judge in Texas has put the kibosh on a last-minute legal attempt to block the controversial decision for the US to give up control of one of the key systems that powers the internet. It's a move being breathlessly described by some as the US "giving up the internet" to the likes of China, Russia and the Middle East. For starters, while they can take the credit for inventing the underlying technology, the US never "had the internet" to begin with. Nobody did. It's a, duh, network. Decentralised. That's what makes it so powerful. But there are bits of internet infrastructure that some people and governments do have control over, and that's what this row is all about. One of them is the DNS - Domain Name System. This is the system for looking after web addresses. Thanks to the DNS, when you type bbc.com, you're taken to the correct servers for the BBC website. It saves you the grief of having to remember a string of numbers. That pairing of names and numbers is kept in one great big master file, the land registry of the web. The only organisation that can make changes is Icann, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. As of Saturday 1 October 2016, Icann will no longer be under US government oversight.

7 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Re: Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is that the same government that wanted to make it legal to seize and take down domains without any form of due process (SOPA)? Even foreign domains?

  2. Different ideas, indeed by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The concern is that in most respects, the US offers one of the wider definitions of freedom of speech. It's not perfect, but it really is better than most. Given US control, you can expect that to be reflected in management of the system.

    US control is gone. So we will see what that brings.

    Thinking about freedom of speech issues in Europe and the middle east, some countries have applied restrictions that far exceed those imposed by the US. Germany, Iran, etc. come to mind. So the question arises as to how much influence they will be able to exert upon the new management.

    Oh well. Brave new world, folks. Onward!

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Different ideas, indeed by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only change is what court ICANN answers to.

      Yes, that's precisely what I was saying. It's a huge change, one that could bring additional restrictions on speech.

      Thanks for putting such a fine point on it. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Different ideas, indeed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US has issues with copyright, trademarks and parents. Frankly some of its laws are crazy, obviously bought by corporations in a most undemocratic fashion.

      Its freedom of speech protections are very weak in some areas, particularly metadata. In parts of Europe metadata sites are protected, not so in the US.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. The US never "owned" the Internet. by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only thing critical contributed by the US was TCP/IP. Sure, for a time the US was custodian of the top-level part of the DNS system, but if they had misbehaved too badly, it would just have been taken away from them forcefully. That would have been rather easy, as the majority of the top-level DNS servers are not located in the US anyways. One level below, the US was never relevant except for some domains. Country-specific domains were always under control of that country. Even .com and the like would have been removed from US control if abused too badly.

    So, no, nothing was really given away, because the US never had real power over the Internet.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Re:It's the reporting by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had to explain the same thing to my mom, who was concerned about how we were "handing over control of the internet". I told her that this was sort of like handing control over the entity that assigns unique telephone numbers to people, but it doesn't control the phone lines themselves.

    Besides which, the internet is somewhat resistant to change of *any* sort, as evidenced by the extremely slow adoption of things like IPv6 and DNSSEC, both of which would be very useful, but simple mass inertial keeps adoption rates down. So, any radical changes by these bodies would likely just be ignored not only for ideological reasons, but for practical ones as well.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  5. Re:I predict this thread will be full of liberal s by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I predict this thread will be full of alt-right jackoffs who don't understand how the internet works and who for some reason hate the idea of privatizing ICANN, but have been hollering for the US Postal Service to be privatized for decades.

    What's next, confused alt-righters? You gonna argue for nationalizing the energy industry, phone companies and ISPs too? Make up your goddamn minds.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.