Posted on 07/27/2006 7:36:40 AM PDT by atomic_dog
In a meeting that will go down in internet history, the United States government last night conceded that it can no longer expect to maintain its position as the ultimate authority over the internet.
Having been the internet's instigator and, since 1998, its voluntary taskmaster, the US government finally agreed to transition its control over not-for-profit internet overseeing organisation ICANN, making the organisation a more international body.
However, assistant commerce secretary John Kneuer, the US official in charge of such matters, also made clear that the US was still determined to keep control of the net's root zone file - at least in the medium-term.
"The historic role that we announced that we were going to preserve is fairly clearly articulated: the technical verification and authorisation of changes to the authoritative root," Kneuer explained following an afternoon of explicit statements from US-friendly organisations and individuals that it was no longer viable for one government to retain such power over the future of a global resource.
Despite the sentiments, however, it was apparent from the carefully selected panel and audience members that the internet - despite its global reach - remains an English-speaking possession. Not one of the 11 panel members, nor any of the 22 people that spoke during the meeting, had anything but English as their first language.
While talk centered on the future of the internet and its tremendous global influence, the people that sat there discussing it represented only a tiny minority of those that now use the internet every day. Reflections on the difficulty of expanding the current internet governance mechanisms to encompass the global audience inadvertently highlighted the very parochialism of those that currently form the ICANN in-crowd.
When historians come to review events in Washington on 26 July 2006, they will no doubt be reminded of discussions in previous centuries over why individual citizens should be given a vote. Or, perhaps, why landowners or the educated classes shouldn't be given more votes than the masses.
There was talk of voting rights, or what the point was of including more people in ICANN processes, and even how people could be educated sufficiently before they were allowed to interact with the existing processes.
Ironically, it was ICANN CEO Paul Twomey who most accurately put his finger on what had to be done. One of the most valuable realisations that ICANN has ever come to, he noted, was that when it revamped itself last time, it recognised it hadn't got it right. Even more importantly, Twomey noted, was the fact the organisation recognised that "it would never get it right. And so ICANN put a review mechanism into its bylaws".
The reason Twomey's observations are particularly noteworthy is that it is Paul Twomey himself who has consistently - and deliberately - failed to open ICANN up, keeping meetings secret, and refusing to release information about discussions either before a meeting and, in some cases, after the meeting.
A stark warning came from the Canadian government - the only government except for the US government invited to speak. Recent arrival, but highly knowledgeable representative, Bill Graham was extraordinarily clear. "It is time for ICANN to recognise that it is in many ways a quasi-judicial body and it must begin to behave that way," he said.
"The ICANN board needs to provide adequate minutes of all its meetings. There needs to be a notice of what issues will be considered, and the timeframe when a decision is made. A written document needs to be posted setting out the background and context of the issues. There needs to be an acknowledgment and a summary of the positions put forward by various interested parties; there needs to be an analysis of the issues; there needs to be an explanation of the decisions and the reasons for it; and ultimately there needs to be a mechanism for the board to be held accountable by its community."
Everyone recognised the meeting as an historic turning point in the future of the internet, causing a strange amount of one-upmanship among those taking part, most of it covering how long they had been involved with ICANN. Paul Twomey referred to the Berlin meeting (1999); an irregular ICANN contributor (on the panel thanks to US governmental influence) spoke of "being there before ICANN was even created". The swagger got so bad that several well-informed contributors were forced to apologise because they had only been to three ICANN meetings.
Ultimately, what came out of a gathering of the (English-speaking) great and the good regarding the internet was two things:
1. That the US government recognises it has to transition its role if it wants to keep the internet in one piece (and it then has to sell that decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate)
2. That ICANN has to open up and allow more people to decide its course if it is going to be allowed to become the internet's main overseeing organisation
If you ignore the fact that the conversation only happened within a tiny subset of the people that actually use the internet, everyone can feel quite content in walking away feeling that at least people now understand their point of view.
As a rare non-US contributor, Emily Taylor, Nominet's lawyer, UK citizen, and a member of the IGF Advisory Group told us she felt that "the fact that the meeting took place was as valuable as anything that was discussed".
That much is certainly true. The US has recognised that it can no longer hope to control the internet. The next step is for everyone invited into the party this time to recognise that they too play only a small role in the global revolution that is this jumble of interconnected computer networks.
Seems like it. The interesting question to me is how bad it will have to get before the US reinvents it.
They were undoubtedly pulling strings behind the scenes. They knew they couldn't get it done from within.
I guess we're nearing the days when we can no longer gripe about CENSORED or CENSORED. It'll make us long for the time when we could advocate CENSORED or say nice things about CENSORED.
It's a bad idea indeed if China, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. get to decide what may or may not be allowed online.
Last year, the US IIRC agreed to allow an international or multinational body to have an "advisory" role re: names, etc, while retaining ultimate control over servers. In short, window dressing to placate midnless multilateralists while retaining real power. Hopefully thta's still true.
I do recall that at the time of the 2004 election, a UK media outlet-can't remember if it was the Guardian, the Times, or the Telegraph-announced that the Democratic party had added slavery reparations to its platform-not as an object of discussion, but as an actual fund to be paid out to those qualifying! I knew that was false, and I fired off an e mail to the article's author and to the site's editor, asking for more details. I never heard back from either, and of course the story was false.
What does Al Gore, the inventor of the internet, have to say about his invention being handed over to the rest of the world?
F*ck you too, Kieren.
And what would the other 'pieces' amount to if we bid them adieu?
Not much. Let them leave.
The Internet IS MILNet.
Hearings on ICANN Privatization Set
By Ed Oswald, BetaNews
July 25, 2006, 1:57 PM
The U.S. Commerce Department has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the progress toward privatization of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit organization it currently controls. While a transition is scheduled to take place on September 30, the U.S. government has the option to extend that deadline. Foreign governments have pushed for such a change, complaining that the United States has too much control.
It has become a worry among some Internet analysts that continued control by the U.S. could result in a fracture of the Internet, where countries break off and run their own domain name servers. However, some are cautioning against an independent ICANN. "ICANN has definitely made progress towards independence, but more needs to be accomplished before a complete transition is appropriate," Steve DelBianco, Executive Director for interest group NetChoice said.
Why not just turn it over to the Chinese, Russian, and Nigerian spammers.
>More globalist BS from this administration<
First our borders, then our sovereignty, next the Internet. So much accomplished in six short years! The Illuminati crowd must be gleefully slapping backs as the American people doze on.
Interim step to UN control, UN taxes, UR belong to UN
So the US government owns the Free Republic server? If you're connected to your ISP, the US government owns your computer for the duration?
How long until the internet DNS servers are required to support Chinese, Kanji, Arabic or Cyrillic domain names? Jesus, whata mess.
The author of the article doesn't know squat. IMO,all we gave up was naming the domains. Don't believe we gave up servers or anything.
IIRC from last year, it's the oversight of naming that we "sorta" ceded control over, but even then only to an advisory commitee, not to a commitee who can make and enforce their decisions. One hopes this hysterical and illmannered columnist will turn out to have exaggerated as badly as Will Hutton did when he declared that, if John Kerry won, blacks would start getting slavery reparations checks (pretty sure it was him , in the Guardian, who made that silly claim and then ran away when asked to verify).
That's my recollection of the 2005 articles on this-I think you're right ; the author is indulging in wishful thinking. (That, or she understands how computers work about as well as I do, and believes the naming of things magically gives control over the net!)
Yup. Less sure about the Domain Name System (which is what I think they're discussing here)...
What is this "control" bs? It simply put is not possible to control the internet. As it is made up of multitudes of individual privately owned networks and connections linked to other privately owned networks, what possible business does ANY government have dictating anything?
As an aside, if there is is some smattering of reality involved here, I say we sell control to ... whoever. We'll do it ebay style -- bids should start at... $100,000,000,000,000,000.
Any takers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.