Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

United States Cedes Control of the Internet

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the learning-to-share dept.

508

greenechidna writes "The Register is reporting that the U.S. is relinquishing control of ICANN. The story states: '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 organization ICANN, making the organization a more international body.'"

cancel ×

508 comments

Has The Register become The Inquirer? (5, Interesting)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790648)

Here's what the LA Times has to say, which is quite different from the "day in history of the Internet" crap:

U.S. Unlikely to Yield Web Oversight Yet
Federal officials seem inclined to extend a deadline for privatizing control of the Internet's address system.
By Jim Puzzanghera, Times Staff Writer
July 27, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The federal government appeared unlikely to relinquish oversight of the system for assigning and managing website domain names after a Commerce Department hearing Wednesday raised broad concerns about giving an obscure Marina del Rey nonprofit unsupervised control.

read the rest [latimes.com]

Re:Has The Register become The Inquirer? (4, Informative)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790661)

Even the original article is contradictory:

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

Is this a time paradox?

Re:Has The Register become The Inquirer? (5, Informative)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790993)

Even the original article is contradictory:

Not really -- it's more like the US's position is contradictory or more realistically, a facade:

"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.

So the US is more than happy turn over administrative control of the Internet domains to ICANN, but retains the right to control the root structure. In essence, ICANN becomes a semi-legitimized world front for the Internet. Other countries can't claim they don't have control over the process now, and the United States retains the true power. This will appease a few countries but on the whole nothing will change. In the end, the US hasn't given up a thing but a bloated and malformed beaureaucracy anyway.

Re:Has The Register become The Inquirer? (5, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790997)

and Senator Ted Stevens was quoted as saying "Get away from my tubes, you damn fool kids!".

Re:Has The Register become The Inquirer? (5, Insightful)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790714)

Again it seems that the writeup got some things wrong. The United States has been doing an overall good job of running things. I do not mind the US being in control and I do not see major advantages to handing over control. I also disagree with some of the things that ICANN has proposed in the past.


In the status quo Internet traffic is not very censored or controlled by the US and things just plain work. I think this is a very good arrangement.

Re:Has The Register become The Inquirer? (1)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790803)

Wow, support the US government and get modded flamebait.


Anyway, I am eager to get to the bottom of these contrasting reports. The US has asserted in the past that it will not hand over control, so I was shocked when I read this writeup. What are the disadvantages of the current system?

Re:Has The Register become The Inquirer? (1)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790947)

Wow, support the US government and get modded flamebait.

Yeah, the same government that overwhelmingly supports the abolition of net neutrality...go figure.

Re:Has The Register become The Inquirer? (5, Insightful)

sirinek (41507) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790719)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Register is the Enquirer of the IT world. It posts all sorts of vague and misleading titles of stories. Try reading the articles and you'll see what I mean.

Re:Has The Register become The Inquirer? (1)

avasol (904335) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790979)

Then what does that tell you about Slashdot since they're sourcing the source.....

US Surrenders? (0, Troll)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790652)

(Imagine it was France:)

Re:US Surrenders? (0, Troll)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790741)

(Imagine it was France:)

France, 1940: bumbling, senile wreck of a once-great man (Phillipe "Ils ne passeront pas" Petain) makes a fool of himself trying to defend his country against a technologically superior force.

USA, 2006: bumbling, senile wreck of a once-great man (Ted "It's a series of tubes" Stevens) makes a fool of himself trying to defend his country against a technologically superior force.

The names change, the story remains the same.

Glad you said "story"... (3, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790856)

The names change, the story remains the same.

File your story under "fiction" because both analogies you gave are inaccurate. In fact, they're so contrived that it makes it obvious that any attempt to dissuade you from your partisan viewpoint will be futile.

Therefore, I won't try.

Re:US Surrenders? (4, Funny)

anjin-san 3 (983912) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790789)

But france has those 2.5 Gb/s conections now, remember? They could send us their surrender faster than we could even dream

Holy Shit (3, Funny)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790653)

We actually did something in the spirit of cooperation with other countries.

I think my head is going to explode.

Re:Holy Shit (2, Funny)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790693)

I thought I saw a pig that flew by my head.

Re:Holy Shit (5, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790720)

>We actually did something in the spirit of cooperation with other countries.
Don't worry, I'm sure it was a mistake and will be fixed in USA V2.1

Re:Holy Shit (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790747)

Aha! You foolish Americans have walked right into our trap! You see, this was all an elaborate RestOfTheWorld plot. We've been working on stealing the internet for years, but we needed someone on the inside to make this final blunder in order to set the rest of the plan in motion.

Unless you pay us 10 million billion dollars, soon, your lottery ball reserves will run dry, and the internets' main series of tubes will become clogged with streaming movies and poker chips. And then, with bandwidth reduced to a scarce commodity, we will launch our worldwide network of Free As In Evil WiMAX, saturating the market completely and killing thousands of innocent corporations.

Make your time, gentlemen. Make your time.

Re:Holy Shit (4, Funny)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790931)

"Unless you pay us 10 million billion dollars"

you went throught all that just to get what we already owe you?

Re:Holy Shit (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790792)

We actually did something in the spirit of cooperation with other countries.

I am not sure whether that is more amazing or the fact there is acceptance that there are nations beyond the frontiers of the USA ;)

Either way this is a good thing.

Re:Holy Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790811)

10 years from now, we'll look back on this day as the day everything went really wrong. I'd rather have rotating ownership between a core group of republics that support free speech and expression - say 10 years at a time. That would prevent France, USA, and China from gaining ownership of the core DNS servers and prevent all the dictators from having it too.

                                            Yah! Free Speech!

I should be able to say almost anything without fear of the "thought police" taking us away. Now performing any illegal actions or inciting riots through speech should be illegal, but calm discussions of any topic should never be illegal.

France, why is buying German WWII memorabilia illegal? We have to remember in order to prevent it from happening again.

USA, Why can't Islamic people worship together? Even extreme groups should be able to meet and discuss anything.

China, Is your leadership so concerned it is wrong that it cannot take any criticism from within? How bad our your ideas, Mr. Central Government that even a small idea from 10 people are a concern? If 1 billion think the idea is good, why not implement it as a trial (provided the little guys aren't killed as part of the idea).

Re:Holy Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790815)

Just more evidence of Dubya's disconnection with reality. We all know that these so-called "other countries" are imaginary lands made up as part of fairy tales.

Re:Holy Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790875)

We actually did something in the spirit of cooperation with other countries.

Not seeing the humor.

Your remark is about as balanced and historically informed as the US-charicature straw man you're kicking.

Yes, the US can always do better.

No, it's not the einbahnstrasse some prefer to portray.

Re:Holy Shit (2, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790951)

For example, (since I forgot to log in the first time on this thread), the US invented the Internet.

The US chose to make it free and open, and this is a Good Thing.

The attitude of the rest of the world that the US is somehow false for choosing to manage it carefully, rather than just hand it over to, say, Kofi Anan and his *cough* able *cough* UN team, smells of a full diaper to me.

No one has prevented the rest of the world from devising its own protocol and implementing it.

Go ahead!

If the energy wasted whining about "those guys are evil because they won't give us their toys" were usefully diverted to accomplishing something, then global warming, world hunger, and the inability of the mainstream media to report facts would have long since been solved.

OK, I'll admit the last problem cited is insoluable. Please do not blame me for dreaming.

Re:Holy Shit (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790973)

I had this vision in my head of a bunch of US senators looking at a recent report, and declaring 'this is all just too hard, let them have it, we've got a war to fight!'

Of course, the US haven't given anything up, and this is just sensational journalism at it worst (ok, not really worst, but you know!)

Holy shit (0, Redundant)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790654)

Legendary thread ahead.

legendary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790699)

Why don't you read the other (only 9 so far) comments and see why yours was stupid and unnecessary.

...net neutrality? (2, Interesting)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790659)

What will this do to the net neutrality issue? Is it up to the UN now?

Re:...net neutrality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790726)

The UN has no authority to regulate carriers/providers, that's still a USA issue. Your right to access sites without extra taxes/surcharges/etc (well, except for pay-per-wank pr0n sites) is still for sale to the highest bidder.

Re:...net neutrality? (1)

Kalinda (980204) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790929)

Yeah, but only in America. That is, I think Net Neutrality is only an issue in the states because your ISPs can only two tier the net in America, not the whole world. Of course, that probably ruins it for nyone hosting sites through American providers *runs to find new web host*

That's what I heard anyway. I'm not sure if America has market dominance on the net or not (sure seems like it), but without net neutrality, I'm sure you guys will lose that, too.. because who wants to be hosted in a country that doesn't really have a free internet market anymore?

So America is screwing itself over in the name of corporate greed...

Prioritized Citizenship? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790660)

For years man has divided earth into political boundaries. Many of these boundaries have sub boundaries. And even more divisions among them and more beyond them and so forth based on belonging to a gregarious portion of the human race.

Disclaimer: I am an American. One thing I find myself asking not only myself but other Americans is what is their primary citizenship. What I mean by that term is which political boundary (if any) supercedes all?

Are you a citizen of the United States first? A citizen of Texas? A citizen of Chicago? A citizen of the Bronx? A citizen of North America? A citizen of yourself? At what point do you consider yourself a member of a community that will look out for other members?

Occasionally, we catch ourselves engaging in activities that would indicate we are world citizens first and citizens of the United States second. I know it's a tough concept to comprehend but we do send aid to foreign countries, we do attempt to help other countries no matter how much we fsck it up or act in our best interest. So there's some amount of talk about the United States actually being a part of the world. This act of ceding internet control to an international organization is a step in that direction.

Is it a good step or bad step remains to be seen and can be easily debated. One thing is clear, it sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States government is conscious of the rights of other governments. And this isn't a case of we need to help their economy because if it tanks, so will ours. On the surface this actually appears to be a gift of some little amount of power. This is not a historically common occurrence for a country such as the United States. Are we becoming more aware of the world political climate? I certainly hope so.

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (5, Insightful)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790701)

One thing is clear, it sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States government is conscious of the rights of other governments.

If so, that would be the exact wrong message to send. We are conscious of the rights of people. Governments are simply organizations created by those people for the purpose of protecting and enhancing those rights, and to they extent they do that, we should respect them, and to the extent that they do not, we should not.

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790715)

"we becoming more aware of the world political climate? I certainly hope so."

You mean a world climate in which most countries have very strict media censorhip? Where you have a popular and influental leader on the global stage (Hugo Chavez) who has passed in his country that mandates a long prison sentence to say things "disrespectful" of the dictator?). Which is worse, applying US' puritanical porn restrictions to the Web, or allowing dissent-intolerant dictators to have say over political issues? (Say what you will about Bush's tendencies or wishes, but Michael Moore is not in jail and has a popular web site. This would not be allowed in so many countries).

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (3, Insightful)

linvir (970218) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790781)

You mean a world climate in which most countries have very strict media censorhip?
Translation:
The terror I feel when I think about the rest of the world blinds me to the exact same flaws existing in my own country

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (1)

SirCyn (694031) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790817)

Mod parent up!

True that the US has taken a few misteps in governing the Internet (mostly related to puritanical zealotry). But we have seen what happens when the world comes together to agree on something, take a look at the UN. What a worthless organization.

"If it aint broke don't fix it" applies here.

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790871)

Yes, damn those pesky dictators who keep getting reelected in the free and open elections we so like to extol when they elect people we like!! DAMN THEM!!!

Or how's about you get off your high horse and realize that just because you don't like how a leader is governing, doesn't mean he isn't governing with the mandate of the people.

And that's without wandering into the area that is your misconception of the state of American media. You're right, of course, to a large extent the American media isn't government-censored. They're far more dangerous: they censor themselves.

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790722)

I let someone yield in front of me at a merge point today. Can you write up a lengthy story about how that one simple act could change the world as well?

No doubt! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790801)

Is this 8th grade Sociology class?

Re:No doubt! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790833)

Sometimes people need to be reminded of concepts & ideas that were taught to them long ago.

I think there's a lot of evidence out there that shows many American adults could stand to go through remedial sociology studies. Hell, look at the President of the United States!

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (2, Insightful)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790829)

For years man has divided travel routes into highways. Many of these highways have lanes. And even more interchanges among them and more beyond them and so forth based on belonging to a gregarious system of paved travel.

Disclaimer: I am a driver. One thing I find myself asking not only myself but other drivers is what is their primary routes. What I mean by that term is which of these highways (if any) supercedes all?

Are you a driver of the United States Interstate Highway System first? A driver of Texas's I35? Do you drive in downtown Chicago? The Bronx? Do you drive all around North America? Do you just stay at home? At what point do you consider yourself a driver of an automobile that will look out for other drivers?

Occasionally, we catch ourselves engaging in activities that would indicate we are world travelers first and travelers of the United States second. I know it's a tough concept to comprehend but we do stop to help hot women change flat tires, we do attempt to allow others to merge in front of us no matter how much we fsck it up or act in our best interest. So there's some amount of talk about the United States actually being good drivers. This act of ceding control of the merge point today is a step in that direction.

Is it a good step or bad step remains to be seen and can be easily debated. One thing is clear, it sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States drivers are conscious of the rights of other drivers. And this isn't a case of we need to help their vehicle because if it stalls, we'll probably hit it. On the surface this actually appears to be a gift of some little amount of power. This is not a historically common occurrence for a driver such as Anonymous Coward. Are we becoming more aware of the other drivers around us? I certainly hope so.

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (2, Interesting)

og_sh0x (520297) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790749)

This phenonmenon is related to the fact that you feel closer to, and a stronger influence from, those that are nearest to you. This is the reason you have things like state's rights, so that the big bad, federal government doesn't tell you what to do. People half-jokingly poke fun at people from other states, as if they're from another planet. The lack of a higher power than a federal government implies that once the question of loyalty in a situation rises to the federal level, you have nobody else to answer to; that is, unless you count God, Mother Nature, or the UN. But people in other countries don't believe in "God." At least not "my God." So screw 'em, right? It sucks, but it's human nature.

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (2, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790827)

Are you a citizen of the United States first? A citizen of Texas? A citizen of Chicago? A citizen of the Bronx? A citizen of North America? A citizen of yourself?

Earth

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (1)

bioglaze (767105) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790985)

The Universe. After all, everyone is only a pile of protons, neutrons and electrons.

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (1)

mstahl (701501) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790935)

As much as I really do want to agree with you when you say that this really is a selfless act for the good of the world, I can't quite do that. It is in the best interests of the United States that the Internet continue to be one contiguous network, and it's become pretty clear over the past few months that if the US did not cede control of the Internet to some semblence of non-government international organization, their punishment would be their digital ostracization from the world community. While it might not come to that, considering that the rest of the world depends on having access to our public networks, too, even a restriction between networks or, say, a difference in regulations across US-World networks would be pretty bad for the US.

Mind you, I'm not at all saying that this isn't great. I'm just saying that before we go 'round patting ourselves on the back for being such great world citizens, it's important to realize that this is a pretty pragmatic measure for the States.

Re:Prioritized Citizenship? (4, Interesting)

Alexandra Erenhart (880036) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790969)

Occasionally, we catch ourselves engaging in activities that would indicate we are world citizens first and citizens of the United States second

Just think about online activities. Most of them aren't country-specific anymore (I'm thinking about things like online gaming, or even here in Slashdot). Everybody is connected, no matter where do you live. I feel the way you're describing. I'm a citizen of the world, and since I've been using Internet (when it became massive here around 1995), being Chilean is just one more tag I carry. Is the place where I was born and raised. But it doesn't mean I only think about my country and I don't care about any other place. I have the impression that many U.S. ppl are just too much into their own bubbles and don't realize there are more countries outside. Like when I met my fiancee's parents (Texan people). They had a very wrong idea of what a chilean woman would be or look like. And they were impressed when they met me:P (points for me lol).

What I'm trying to say is, when everybody starts opening to the rest of the world, political limits will become just that.

Headline is deceiving (5, Insightful)

Hulkster (722642) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790665)

If you RTFA, it's not clear what actually changed ... and in the text, it says "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."

Re:Headline is deceiving (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790698)

An inaccurate headline from "The Register"? Surely not ;)

Re:Headline is deceiving (5, Insightful)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790751)

They have to do something to make sure that the UN doesn't get control. The UN is so corrupt, incompetent, and inept that it make the U. S. Govt look brilliant! Think about Rwanda, Darfur and others where the UN might as well not have showed up for all the good that wasn't done. NATO had to deal with Yugoslavia because nobody in Europe trusted the UN not to screw it up worse.

Re:Headline is deceiving (2, Insightful)

hhghghghh (871641) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790876)

They have to do something to make sure that the UN doesn't get control. The UN is so corrupt, incompetent, and inept that it make the U. S. Govt look brilliant! Think about Rwanda, Darfur and others where the UN might as well not have showed up for all the good that wasn't done. NATO had to deal with Yugoslavia because nobody in Europe trusted the UN not to screw it up worse. Yeah, just look how badly the ITU [itu.int] has been at running the international dialling code system! Oh wait.. They're actually doing a pretty darn good job at that. Quite unlike ICANN to date, really.

Re:Headline is deceiving (1)

Asm-Coder (929671) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790984)

What has ICANN messed up. My Internet got delivered yesterday =) Seriously It's about time that the government quit trying to control ICANN. I just hope that other nations China, and other censoring countries don't take this as a sign to try controlling ICANN.
Maybe ICANN isn't prefect, but it's a heck of a lot better than most governments in the world.

Re:Headline is deceiving (1)

Znort (634569) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790921)

that the US was still determined to keep control of the net's root zone file
Haaa, the headline got me scared for a moment there. The us renouncing world domination would have smashed my values, really. Now that everything is safe, I can get back to work.

obligatory (5, Funny)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790679)

ICANN't believe the USA has done this!!!

Re:obligatory (2, Funny)

Corbets (169101) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790777)

ICANN't believe the USA has done this!!!

That's good, because, as others have pointed out, TFA would make it seem that we haven't. ;-)

Re:obligatory (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790816)

I can't quite understand it but I think that spelling implies a Scottish accent to me. I think the future of the internet is destined to be controlled by our kilt-wielding overlords.

The Wild (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790680)

Tried and tested method: First, remove teeth from animal. Second, set it free...

Re:The Wild (1)

955301 (209856) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790716)


Agreed, this is a ruse typical of other US maneuvers. Make the body impotent, then when others demand fairness, hand them the body instead of the power.

Internet as a Sovereign Nation (4, Interesting)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790687)

I've often said that the only way you can solve most of the issues revolving around the internet today is to make it a sovereign nation. That way one set of laws, one set of taxes, one set of decency can apply to all thus avoiding lawsuits in a million different countries due to your content.

Hopefully though, an international body can agree to some basic tenets so that we can establish so we can limit trivial laws and lawsuits due to localized laws.

Re:Internet as a Sovereign Nation (3, Funny)

uncanny (954868) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790733)

Yeah, but then somebody in this Internet Nation is going to make fun of Dubya's dad and he's just gonna declare ware on it and take it over again.

Re:Internet as a Sovereign Nation (3, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790828)

Interesting concept, but I'm not quite sure that's the right way to deal with the problem.
Despite a lot of "hype" and cyberpunk novels glorifying the Internet as somehow "more than the sum of its parts" - it really boils down to being a really big wide-area network.

The "value" of the Internet can shift from "incredibly useful" to "nothing but junk" or anyplace in between, and that has to do with the quality and amount of content people choose to hang off of the ends of the network.

I think sometimes, we get too caught up in treating the "Internet" as a single entity filled with information and shared by the whole world. In reality, it's just a "grid" that allows everyone's computer equipment to interconnect (or not, as they so desire).

Rather than making this network into a "soverign nation", I think what is best is letting nations make their own decisions as to the "good" and the "bad" of interconnecting their part of the "grid" with other countries. It would be (in my opinion) unfortunate if a country like China decided they simply weren't benefiting enough from allowing traffic to and from U.S. based systems - but it'd be their leaders' option to cut themselves off from us completely if they so desired.

Indeed, this may end up happening.... Certain nations decide to break off from the "global" Internet, and only connect with specific other countries. I think, if this does happen, it will only be temporary - as they learn how much they're missing through those policies.

Would China or Iran accept this? (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790909)

I love the idea of the Internet as Sovereign. However, I don't think it would be accepted by countries whose governments are highly dependent on limiting their citizens access to information and free expression. What would happen to the great firewall of China in this scenario? Could the average citizen in Iran download western tv shows without fear of the morals police?

...ruummmmble... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790690)

MINDQUAKE!!!

Quick... (0, Troll)

butterwise (862336) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790694)

Someone alert Al Gore!

concern (4, Interesting)

herbiesdad (909590) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790696)

i fear that internet regulation will devolve into internet bureaucracy and politicization, a la the united nations. simply having a diverse or shared governing board does not ensure that the product will remain diverse or shared. the u.s. has a significant interest in maintaining the network and its development, and i think the continued managment by the u.s. would leave the internet in safe hands.

Re:concern (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790782)

Excuse me? Is it the united nations that is politicized? Bureaucratic?

* Does the United Nations always act in their own interest?
* Does the United Nations have hidden agendas?
* Does the United Nations pressure poor countries to raise votes in favor of a specific country?
* Is the United Nations responsible for failures that occur when certain member nations does everything in it's power to slander, ridicule and disrupt?

What?

Or maybe they weren't such save hands after all (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790904)

i think the continued managment by the u.s. would leave the internet in safe hands.

Or maybe it will leave it in the hands of the next stupid slobbering village idiot which the americans chose to elect as their leader. And maybe then, he won't just kill a certain TLD because he doesn't happen to like nekkid women. Maybe then he'll cut a country or two off the Internets because they're "evil".

I don't trust the ICANN, but frankly, I trust the US government even less.

I must be missing something (2, Interesting)

denim (225087) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790710)

How could a meeting of ICANN be anything but among a small percentage of people who use the internet? It's not like ICANN consists of millions, or that it'd be useful if it did. Being a committee, as I understand it, the larger it gets, the stupider it gets, and the harder it gets to do anything useful.

I'm just glad to see that the obvious is being recognized.

Great... (4, Funny)

dfn5 (524972) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790731)

I suppose we will be at the mercy of the Film Actors Guild now.

Re:Great... (1)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790761)

Noooooo not Alec Baldwin and Kim Jong Ill!

Re:Great... (0)

RagingFuryBlack (956453) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790776)

Yes. We'll all be under control of the largest FAG in the world. What fun. Maybe now we'll get sexy parties at the ICANN meetings, and all tlds will come with a free feather boa and materials on Scientology.

Yeah, right. (3, Insightful)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790744)

Wake me when the backbone is no longer run through the NSA.

Let me be the first American to ... (4, Insightful)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790748)

give a loud fuck off to Kieren McCarthy for this little tid bit of editorializing, "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)"

It (he/she?) knows very little about American culture and hasn't seen recent polls [msn.com] about the dissatisfaction of the electorate with the present administration.

Re:Let me be the first American to ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790793)

It (he/she?) knows very little about American culture and hasn't seen recent polls [msn.com] about the dissatisfaction of the electorate with the present administration.

How is being dissatisfied with the present administration incompatible with being mindlessly patriotic? I'm not saying that he was right, just that you seem to have misunderstood one of the words he used.

Re:Let me be the first American to ... (1)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790874)

"Midlessly patriotic" implies agreeing and backing the actions of the government without critical throught or outspoken criticism. The "mindlessly" modifier does it. That is not true and is a pretty ignorant comment.

If all of the electorate in the US, or even a large majority were mindlessly patriotic, the administrations support would be much higher, ipso facto.

Re:Let me be the first American to ... (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790841)

It is true that Americans are, right now, dissatisfied with the current administration. It is also true that Americans, as a whole, react with mindless outrage to the idea of America, as a whole, giving up any of its power over anything. Every serious debate over Iraq, f'rinstance, centers around whether or not staying in Iraq is good for American power, not over whether we had any right to go to war in the first place with a nation that had not attacked us nor showed any indication of doing so. Certainly other countries also get touchy about their sovereignty, sometimes absurdly so, but it is the fate of Empire (the British were like this in their day, and the French, and the Spanish, and the Ottomans, and the Byzantines, and the Romans, and ...) to believe that its sovereignty extends over the globe, until it is forcefully proven wrong.

Re:Let me be the first American to ... (2, Informative)

damburger (981828) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790864)

The polls you cite indicate a dissatisfaction with the current haircut. Yes, Bush has an approval rating in the 30s, but those Americans who do not approve of him, approve of alternatives who would have had indistinguishable foreign policy since 2001 anyway. The rest of the world doesn't care about your domestic politics, only your international politics. And in that respect, America appears unanimously arrogant from the outside.

How does this apply to ICANN? The author of the article is expressing his skepticism that the American public would agree to the US giving up control of anything, least of all anything as important as the Internet. You guys aren't exactly known for playing well with other countries.

Re:Let me be the first American to ... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790888)

What's that you say? Bush has been impeached?

Let the UN control the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790763)

If the US doesnt run the internet, the UN will.

Is there anyone, other than drolling idiotlogues, that thinks that this is a *good* idea?

Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790862)

I think China and Saudi Arabia will do a fine job of keeping the Internet free, and Nigeria can be counted on to keep it free from spam and fraud.

Surely you must agree with that, don't you?

Re:Let the UN control the internet? (2, Insightful)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790938)

Is there anyone, other than drolling idiotlogues, that thinks that this is a *good* idea?

Not a good idea. But a better idea than leaving it to Bush's successor.

Domain suffix migration? (5, Interesting)

Eleazer (412458) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790785)

So does this mean we'll see a transition from .com to .co.us for US hosted domains?

Re:Domain suffix migration? (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790953)

Some people already have .us domains.

-uso.

Re:Domain suffix migration? (2, Insightful)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 7 years ago | (#15791001)

So does this mean we'll see a transition from .com to .co.us for US hosted domains?

Not any more than we'll see the US/Canadian telephone international code change from anything but 1. It's just not worth the hassle to change it.

In response to... (2, Funny)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790788)

In response to the old joke, "ICANN, and you can't"...

ICANN, and now you can too!

It does not matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790794)

If you control your own countries network esp the edge. so that you still control the DNS.

Neoconservative response. (2, Funny)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790798)

“It's like letting the terrorists win!”

Thank heavens (2, Funny)

eserteric (442678) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790806)

Oh thank goodness, now more sensible countries like China and India will have a say about internet policies.

Re:Thank heavens (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790897)

"It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahiri said. "We will attack everywhere."

I wonder what this guy has to say about this issue? Maybe we should turn over the control of ICANN to the middle east, then we will see crazy people fight over who was promised a class A network by the profit Mohammad.

Re:Thank heavens (1, Flamebait)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790959)

Oh thank goodness, now more sensible countries like China and India will have a say about internet policies.

Uhm... India is a democracy. Unlike the US.

Maybe you were thinking of Iran?

I know, it's hard. All those foreigh countries...

Uncle sam wants you ... (2, Interesting)

brunokummel (664267) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790830)

...to control this mess!

So what does that mean now?
It means two things, piggy:
first it means that the US government can now hold someone( ICANN in this case) responsible for what happens in the internet

and second the government can now concentrate their efforts on how to tax it!
Bombs away!!! ICANN you're next!

What great news! (1, Funny)

Syncerus (213609) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790834)

Soon the Internet can be run with the same efficiency and integrity as the United Nations!

Syncerus

Re:What great news! (1)

Azeron (797264) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790884)

ICANN is one of the few organizations on this planet that could learn a thing or 2 about ethics from the UN

Re:What great news! (1)

duranaki (776224) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790908)

I can't wait for the first UN Resolution denouncing bit torrent!

It's a step up. (2, Funny)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790976)

Soon the Internet can be run with the same efficiency and integrity as the United Nations!

Still a step up from being run with the efficiency and integrity of the US government.

Control of the Internet (4, Insightful)

El Cabri (13930) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790845)

The US doesn't have "control of the internet", so it cannot be relinquishing what it doesn't have. The ICANN being US-based doesn't give much real control over IP packets travelling on some fiber halfway around the world from DC. Even if ICANN was a government agency it wouldn't. It just allows to vaguely arbitrate over domain names and IP number disputes that have relatively faint commercial implications. And even then the US feds would have to use indirect influence on ICANN.

how... (1)

GmAz (916505) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790861)

How would this affect the tiered internet propositions from the leading telecom companies? Yes, I am asking a serious question that I would like an answer to please.

Neighborhood (4, Funny)

liam193 (571414) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790863)

So when do we get the press release from Microsoft saying there goes the "Network Neighborhood"?

two things... oh my (1)

LWolenczak (10527) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790872)

RE: the gov't being the taskmaster, I sure have never really heard much from them that would cause me to say "Yes Master!", but honestly, the internet does not need the UN, or any international body in control, infact it needs nobody in control, it has been operated just fine for years with very little control, except that over addressing so we can all get along and talk to each other.

Backbone? What backbone? (4, Funny)

singingjim (957822) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790880)

As in spine. I understand our "do it our way or die" mentality isn't very popular overseas right now but, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, this cannot be a good thing. We invented it, we've run it just fine so far,. Was it hurting anyone maintaining control of something as democratic as the internet by a the most staunchly democratic and freedom loving country in the world? We should just leave well enough alone.

This can only be good... (3, Insightful)

stlhawkeye (868951) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790906)

...because the "international community" has such a stellar track record for taking on difficult tasks and running them effectively and fairly without corruption. Snort.

Internet must be under UN control ! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15790907)

IMHO, all the internet gouvernance should go to a UN instance (something like "unesco" but dedicate to "internet long term handling").

Obviously having UN do the overall governance does not mean each countries (inc. USA) will be prohibited to push any laws to put stricter regulartion on the internet liberties.

But anyway, that is the choice of each country's citizens !

Be sure that if US do not release the full control they have on the internet, we (europe) are going to build our own sperate gouvernance (obviously incompatuble with US ones) and push this to an international body .... say UN ;-)

Let's see how is US able to handle multilateralism ... in the meanwhile, Lebanon and Israel citizens are dying because of stupidity of both camps stupidity (and massibe US support to Israel lebanon invasion).... Welcome in W.Bush "safe-o-world" !

Question about ICANN and net neutrality (1)

j1mc (912703) | more than 7 years ago | (#15790917)

If the U.S. were to cede control of ICANN, would this in any way affect any of the net-neutrality hullabaloo going on in the U.S., or would these be entirely unrelated?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...