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.
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."
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.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
See more CNET content tagged:
U.N.,
Brazil,
spam,
domain name,
China
most nations. Apparently Syria wants to isolate themselves from
the Internet - and maybe that's a good idea. Butg, Syria has no
rational claim to running the Internet except greed and jealousy.
? Brazil has a point about the degree of pornography on the
Internet. If pornogaphy could be limited to the xxx domain set,
then Brazil should be able to implement a national filter. Since
any First Amendment hogwash does not apply in Brazil, that
should be successful. And there still would be no reason for
Brazil to claim control over something they never developed and
probably couldn't run.
? China's hope for the UN has mostly been disproven by the UN's
abysmal performance in most of its other international
regulatory exercizes.
? Ghana is smoking the wrong tobacco - again trying to put the
UN up as a technically competent and unbiased opersation-
both clearly disporven qualities.
In general, the majority of nations which have had virtually
nothing to do with the development of the Internet or its
maintenance, now want to seize control of the Internet via the
UN. Next, I suppose that these same countries might want the
UN to take control of the economies of the major countries, or of
the military forces of the major countries, or of anything else
that the big boys have over the peanut galleriy cry babies.
Sorry folks, The UN loses. And it should lose. There is no
denying that the Internet must be run for the maximum benefit
of all users, no matter what country they reside in. But don't try
a power grab until you're big enough and smart enough to make
a serious claim.
most nations. Apparently Syria wants to isolate themselves from
the Internet - and maybe that's a good idea. Butg, Syria has no
rational claim to running the Internet except greed and jealousy.
? Brazil has a point about the degree of pornography on the
Internet. If pornogaphy could be limited to the xxx domain set,
then Brazil should be able to implement a national filter. Since
any First Amendment hogwash does not apply in Brazil, that
should be successful. And there still would be no reason for
Brazil to claim control over something they never developed and
probably couldn't run.
? China's hope for the UN has mostly been disproven by the UN's
abysmal performance in most of its other international
regulatory exercizes.
? Ghana is smoking the wrong tobacco - again trying to put the
UN up as a technically competent and unbiased opersation-
both clearly disporven qualities.
In general, the majority of nations which have had virtually
nothing to do with the development of the Internet or its
maintenance, now want to seize control of the Internet via the
UN. Next, I suppose that these same countries might want the
UN to take control of the economies of the major countries, or of
the military forces of the major countries, or of anything else
that the big boys have over the peanut galleriy cry babies.
Sorry folks, The UN loses. And it should lose. There is no
denying that the Internet must be run for the maximum benefit
of all users, no matter what country they reside in. But don't try
a power grab until you're big enough and smart enough to make
a serious claim.
Internet is so that it can control the future of commerce.
I'm to tired to go on.
Internet is so that it can control the future of commerce.
I'm to tired to go on.
How so? As far as I know, the only people who have seen the report are the members of the WGIG and the Secretary General's Office. Everyone else is guessing. Why not wait to see the report and see what is in it?
Plot to dethrone ICANN? LOL!!! The WGIG had 4 ICANN members in the group! Why would ICANN directors, At Large members etc participate in a PLOT?
Closed door meeting? That was an open consultation, advertised on the web, via email, via snail mail, press. If it was closed door, then why would the transcript be posted online? And why would it be webcast live? Many members of the Board of ICANN were there. There were over a hundred people there, and many more participated via webcast.
To me, this article is pushing an agenda to discredit the work of the WGIG before the report is released. This isn't news, it's propaganda.
How so? As far as I know, the only people who have seen the report are the members of the WGIG and the Secretary General's Office. Everyone else is guessing. Why not wait to see the report and see what is in it?
Plot to dethrone ICANN? LOL!!! The WGIG had 4 ICANN members in the group! Why would ICANN directors, At Large members etc participate in a PLOT?
Closed door meeting? That was an open consultation, advertised on the web, via email, via snail mail, press. If it was closed door, then why would the transcript be posted online? And why would it be webcast live? Many members of the Board of ICANN were there. There were over a hundred people there, and many more participated via webcast.
To me, this article is pushing an agenda to discredit the work of the WGIG before the report is released. This isn't news, it's propaganda.
internet must continue to grow as a universal body superseding the
U.S. and all those other Balkan-Byzantine regions. (Say, let's start
by stopping to use 'Balkanization' as a pejorative term. Sounds like
colonialist lingo to me.)
internet must continue to grow as a universal body superseding the
U.S. and all those other Balkan-Byzantine regions. (Say, let's start
by stopping to use 'Balkanization' as a pejorative term. Sounds like
colonialist lingo to me.)
"balkanization". For me that shows lack of education and
disrespect. So, please stop using it.
Thanks
"balkanization". For me that shows lack of education and
disrespect. So, please stop using it.
Thanks
Too much of the world's economy depends on the internet to let a single country decide it all and become a global censor.
On the issue of spam, and at a time where Europeans and Australia are taking some legal steps, Bush's double meaning CAN-SPAM act is all about legalizing it to please his DMA campaign contributors. Why should the world accept it ?
Too much of the world's economy depends on the internet to let a single country decide it all and become a global censor.
On the issue of spam, and at a time where Europeans and Australia are taking some legal steps, Bush's double meaning CAN-SPAM act is all about legalizing it to please his DMA campaign contributors. Why should the world accept it ?
Eg. if the US Government vehemently disagrees with the online content provided by a business (say gambling, sex, racism, drugs/alcohol), they could prevent that business from getting their website authorised by ICANN.
So while this is unlikely, the power exists and as we've seen to many times with the current administration, it's only a matter of time before that power gets abused.
Europeans, Africans, South Americans, Asians, etc all have very different views on what's culturally acceptable, what the internet should be used for, and how they want their sites ordered.
It makes more sense for an independent, multi-national organisation to control domain name s, extensions, etc, so that no one political extreme can censor another.
Allowing the 'net to fragment will ruin more than people understand. The communication that exists across continents between everyday people is just one example of something that could be at risk, purely from technical issues, if the 'net becomes a fragmented mess.
Eg. if the US Government vehemently disagrees with the online content provided by a business (say gambling, sex, racism, drugs/alcohol), they could prevent that business from getting their website authorised by ICANN.
So while this is unlikely, the power exists and as we've seen to many times with the current administration, it's only a matter of time before that power gets abused.
Europeans, Africans, South Americans, Asians, etc all have very different views on what's culturally acceptable, what the internet should be used for, and how they want their sites ordered.
It makes more sense for an independent, multi-national organisation to control domain name s, extensions, etc, so that no one political extreme can censor another.
Allowing the 'net to fragment will ruin more than people understand. The communication that exists across continents between everyday people is just one example of something that could be at risk, purely from technical issues, if the 'net becomes a fragmented mess.
The only way to allow the UN to participate in the management of the Internet is through an independent governing body that the US controls, or like the Security Council, wields a controlling Veto as necessary.
- UN control of Internet equals Internationalized Incompetency
-
by bdennis410
July 12, 2005 8:34 AM PDT
- There is no way we should allow the UN bureaucracy to obtain control over the Internet. Free Speech turns into controlled speech when the politics of the UN intrude on what should be a techical competency issue. We know that everybody dislikes the US, our ability to develop technology and the ability of the capitalist system to utilize what we develop. Now, the UN wants what we developed to be "internationalized," to become the property of countries that want to destroy the US. NO WAY!
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 202 Comments >>The only way to allow the UN to participate in the management of the Internet is through an independent governing body that the US controls, or like the Security Council, wields a controlling Veto as necessary.