Will the U.N. run the Internet?

C|Net (News.com) ^ | July 11, 2005 | Declan McCullagh

[snarks_when_bored]

   http://www.news.com/

Will the U.N. run the Internet?

By Declan McCullagh

Story last modified Mon Jul 11 04:00:00 PDT 2005

An international political spat is brewing over whether the United Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet.

U.N. bureaucrats and telecommunications ministers from many less-developed nations claim the U.S. government has undue influence over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge.

While the formal proposal from a U.N. working group will be released July 18, it's already clear what it will contain. A preliminary summary of governmental views claims there's a "convergence of views" supporting a new organization to oversee crucial Internet functions, most likely under the aegis of the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union.

Beyond the usual levers of diplomatic pressure and public kvetching, Brazil and China could choose what amounts to the nuclear option: a fragmented root.

At issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming. Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, "consumer protection," and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access."

This development represents a grave political challenge to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which was birthed by the U.S. government to handle some of those topics.

A recent closed-door meeting in Geneva convened by the U.N.'s Working Group on Internet Governance offers clues about the plot to dethrone ICANN. As these excerpts from a transcript show, dissatisfaction and general-purpose griping is rampant:

• Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."

• Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."

• China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body."

• Ghana: "There was unanimity for the need for an additional body...This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N."

The "nuclear option"
Those proclamations served to flush out the Bush administration, which recently announced that it will not hand over control of Internet domain names and addresses to anyone else.

That high-profile snub of the United Nations could presage an international showdown. The possibility of a political flap over what has long been an abstruse Net-governance issue casts a shadow over ICANN's meeting this week in Luxembourg, and will be the topic of a July 28 symposium in Washington, D.C., called "Regime Change on the Internet."

The nuclear option could create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find different Web sites at the same address.

Beyond the usual levers of diplomatic pressure and public kvetching, Brazil and China could choose what amounts to the nuclear option: a fragmented root. That means a new top-level domain would not be approved by ICANN--but would be recognized and used by large portions of the rest of the world. The downside, of course, is that the nuclear option could create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find different Web sites at the same address.

"It wasn't until now" that a fragmented root was being talked about, says Milton Mueller, a professor at Syracuse University and participant in the Internet Governance Project. "China and other countries might be pursuing responses that lead to fragmentation."

Such an outcome remains remote, but it could happen. That possibility means an obscure debate about Internet governance has suddenly become surprisingly important.

Copyright ©1995-2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

[snarks_when_bored]

Syria, Brazil, China, Ghana and many other countries want supervisory control of the Internet to be taken away from the United States and given to the United Nations.

Sounds like a good plan, huh? I, for one, would sleep much better knowing that Syrian Baathists or Brazilian she-males or Chinese communists or Ghanian whatchamacallem's were deciding what I could and could not access on the Net.

[glock rocks]

Will the U.N. run the Internet?

Not for long.

[Sonar5]

Screw Them...

Let them create their own network, and call it un-net or some crap like that, and stay off ours. We Built it, go build your own. lol

[anniegetyourgun]

The U.N. can't even run the U.N.

[labette]

Look for Big Media and the Democrats to fall in line with this thinking. After all, it's only a matter of time before free speech is the source of their woes.

[glock rocks]

The wind's whippin up that old Kyoto smell all over these days...

[Mr. Mojo]

Does this mean I wouldn't be able to post that pic of a blue, bullet-ridden, UN helmet anymore?

[Martin Tell]

The matter is of course more complicated than this article makes out. The International Telecommunication (singular, not "Telecommunications" as in the article) has had authority over telephone numbers and routing for well over 100 years. As such they are well experienced and positioned to help with Internet addressing and routing matters. And while the ITU is nominally a UN agency, it predates the UN and UN politics have little influence on it.

I've been involved with two ITU working groups. Yes, the Syrian rep showed up and made anti-US points, but everyone ignored him. I found the ITU staff to be conscientious, technically savvy, and apolitical. All in all I trust the ITU more than ICANN.

[snarks_when_bored]

Does this mean I wouldn't be able to post that pic of a blue, bullet-ridden, UN helmet anymore?

Yes. And if you tried it, they'd make a note of it in your permanent record.

[newconhere]

lol....
Geez, why dont you just shoot me, I have had enough of this horrible news today. Im gonna have a heart attack. I need some good news, please.

[snarks_when_bored]

You may be correct in your assessment of the integrity of the ITU, but would it be able to resist the dictates of the many closed states of the U.N.? I wonder.

[hershey]

The UN would use the internet to not only strangle communication, but as a way to tax every living person on the planet.

[Martin Tell]

Good reply. The ITU's track record is very good, but if it took over something as sensitive as Internet addressing, the political pressures would doubtless increase.

Reading the article again, I noted that the ITU is just one proposal; the UN may try to take it directly. That would be a disaster.

BTW, both the USA (FCC ) and European Union have had regulatory disputes with the ITU in the past. Fascinating subject of international law and regulation.

[putupjob]

I'm not worried about the UN. There would be 0 talent there. It would just be a jobs program for everybody's cousins who spend all day in meetings, if they're at work at all.

[softwarecreator]

Will the U.N. run the Internet?

Only when they can pry my cold dead fingers from the keyboard.

[unixfox]

[snarks_when_bored]

The U.N. can't even run the U.N.

Yes, but why? Why? We must investigate root causes.

Okay, my investigation is done: it's because their budget is too small. So let's give 'em billions more in U.S. tax dollars. That'll fix everything.

[oldenuff2no]

There would be an alternative Internet in the works instantly. Americans will never be subjected to the UN authority in any way. That just isn't going to happen, it's a liberal socialist dream that the people of this country will not tolerate. We would just setup our own system and let the other one wither and die.

[LibertarianInExile]

Will the U.N. run the Internet?

Not for long.

WELL SAID BUMP.

[Maceman]

Why shouldn't the UN run the Internet?

I mean, look what they can accomplish when they put their minds to it.