US government relinquishes aministration of the internet

[6charlong]

This from the Washington Post today:

U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.

Story is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...rc=al_national

[xg4bx]

Oh it's so hard to respond without getting political but I would like to say to Mr. Gingrich that it isn't ''foreign dictatorships'' spying on and keylogging everyone under the sun, it's not NK or Iran stockpiling my internet activities and communications. The US has been defining what the internet is since the beginning and we've kinda abused the everloving bejeezus out of that privilege.

[Tom Swift]

I'm torn on this one. I am all in favour of the government getting out of the internet. I live in China where the government is constantly monitoring and filtering and censoring, resulting in a lousy internet. However, I am concerned that if it is in international hands, countries like China might have more of a say in how the Internet is run, which nobody wants (except the paranoid Chinese leaders).
If there was a way to not have to use ISPs, that would be ideal. I imagine people are working on that as we speak.

[Mike L]

This story has got nothing to do with spying or censorship. They are simply saying that the US government will no longer have a formal relationship with ICANN, and so will not be involved with the assignment of domain names:

The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.

Mike

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

Oh it's so hard to respond without getting political but I would like to say to Mr. Gingrich...

The very mention of that idiot's name makes my blood boil. But you're right about the political thing. I can't comment on this topic without getting political. So I'll leave it at that.

[Kumabjorn]

Why would anyone care about who is in charge of creating domain names?

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Why would anyone care about who is in charge of creating domain names?

Because domain names provide a uniform and human accessible means of referencing resources on the Internet.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Mike L

This story has got nothing to do with spying or censorship. They are simply saying that the US government will no longer have a formal relationship with ICANN, and so will not be involved with the assignment of domain names:

Are you sure about that? From the same article:

The practical consequences of the decision were harder to immediately discern, especially with the details of the transition not yet clear. Politically, the move could alleviate rising global concerns that the United States essentially controls the Web and takes advantage of its oversight position to help spy on the rest of the world.

I wouldn't presume to know the intricacies of domain name system root access, managing internet protocol numbers, how these might affect the variables of spying, commerce or fair treatment, or the ways in which ICANN might overreach (given any opportunities afforded by what it controls) beyond its stated purpose.

From Wiki:

In February 2007, ICANN began the steps to remove accreditation of one of their registrars, RegisterFly amid charges and lawsuits involving fraud, and criticism of ICANN's handling of the situation. ICANN has been the subject of criticism as a result of its handling of RegisterFly, and the harm caused to thousands of clients due to what has been called ICANN's "laissez faire attitude toward customer allegations of fraud. . . ."

On May 23, 2008, ICANN issued Enforcement Notices against 10 Accredited Registrars and announced this through a press release entitled: "Worst Spam Offenders" Notified by ICANN, Compliance system working to correct Whois and other issues. . . . The mention of the word spam in the title of the ICANN memo is somewhat misleading since ICANN does not address issues of spam or email abuse. Website content and usage are not within ICANN's mandate. However the KnujOn Report details how various registrars have not complied with their contractual obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The main point of the KnujOn research was to demonstrate the relationships between compliance failure, illicit product traffic, and spam. The report demonstrated that out of 900 ICANN accredited Registrars fewer than 20 held 90% of the web domains advertised in spam. These same Registrars were also most frequently cited by KnujOn as failing to resolve complaints made through the Whois Data Problem Reporting System (WDPRS).

It looks to me as though ICANN is yet another privatized organization that manages an (internet, in this case) resource once controlled by the U.S. government, and that, following the usual pattern, privatization is leading to globalization. See neoliberalism as outlined by the Chicago School of economics.

Originally Posted by Mike L

This story has got nothing to do with spying or censorship. They are simply saying that the US government will no longer have a formal relationship with ICANN, and so will not be involved with the assignment of domain names:



Mike

That's the reality. The perception may be that the US Government has done something to address complaints about its spying, when it has not.

[pastanley]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The very mention of that idiot's name makes my blood boil. But you're right about the political thing. I can't comment on this topic without getting political. So I'll leave it at that.

Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pastanley

Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich

[6charlong]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Why would anyone care about who is in charge of creating domain names?

I think this is an especially important issue. I’m certainly no expert on domain names but I am sure the outcome of this will affect me personally. I think most of us have heard complaints , whether they are justified or not, about the way the Internet names are managed. Control of domain names obviously requires a complex set of decisions with wide ranging political, social and economic impacts.

The granting authority ends up with the details about each applicant for a name attached to their assigned URL. That seems harmless enough but as Prestigititweeze points out, it gets complicated quickly. This function can deny domain names but also whoever does it is responsible for deciding who gets the name: a certain way to be accused of favoritism. It gets more complicated by the international nature of the Internet.

What one jurisdiction sees as an expression of freedom of speech another sees as sedition: a criminal act. What role should this function have at stopping and not promoting criminal behavior on the Internet? In fact, what is a criminal act on the Internet when it spans so many different jurisdictions?

ICANN was criticized for having a “laissez-faire” attitude because they assigned names without making commercial or political judgments. Whatever entity gets stuck with this important and sensitive task is bound to face a perception of favoritism, political meddling, and religious and ethical interference, yet without the assignment of domain names the Internet will stop working.

If ICANN isn’t trusted because it’s located in the US, maybe the task should be turned over to an international body. Or maybe governments should be required to establish protocols to define issues like what constitutes spying, what constitutes cyber crime, and how to separate censorship from legitimate extensions of copyright and legitimate concerns for protecting the different mores and the religious sensitivities of diverse nations.

I don’t know how these issues can be settled but having the US government back out of the picture means some other authority has to make a decision, even if all it does is act as the authority that signs a continuing contract with ICANN--or with a different company, or maybe it will create something new like a UN agency of some sort, or gives the job to some version of Interpol, or whatever. But whoever “they” are who are given the job, it seems that someone has to make a decision in the next year.

[wizwor]

This means nothing, really. What is a 'public internet' afterall? It's a bunch of interconnected private networks. The 'interconnectivity' is unnecessary and certainly short lived. Going forward, we will be on private, highly regulated, tolled networks. The public internet will be similar, smaller, and less interesting -- unless you want to do things you would not do on a private, highly regulated, tolled network.

[rkw]

Will control of "the" internet be the roots of One World Government? oops...never mind. Plus "they" are watching now...you know, the ESPN spy satellites!! I gotta go, never sed that either. Nope didn't even write it, my neighbor's cat wrote that question while walking across the keyboard.

[rkw]

Originally Posted by wizwor

This means nothing, really. What is a 'public internet' afterall? It's a bunch of interconnected private networks. The 'interconnectivity' is unnecessary and certainly short lived. Going forward, we will be on private, highly regulated, tolled networks. The public internet will be similar, smaller, and less interesting -- unless you want to do things you would not do on a private, highly regulated, tolled network.

you're not likely wrong. AOL is back and it's ticked off!