US Forced to Give Up Control of Internet ???

[QueEx]

"... i cant believe the country that invented this shit cant figure out a way to counter the people taking advantage of the technology."

.

<font size="6"><center>Breaking America's grip on the Internet</font size></center>
<font size="4"><center>After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced
to relinquish control of the Internet to a coalition of governments</font size></center>

By Kieren Mccarthy
THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
Saturday, Oct 08, 2005,Page 9

You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of the Internet to be a grand affair -- a big stage, spotlights, media scrums and a charismatic frontman working the crowd.

But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox.

The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for generations to come.

Hendon is the UK's Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the British government and EU at the third and final preparatory meeting for Novenber's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the Internet.

Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the Internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium.

The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows.

For the vast majority of people who use the Internet, the only real concern is getting on it. But with the Internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure -- Brazil relies on it for 90 percent of its tax collection -- the question of who has control has become critical.

And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the government of the US. In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion of the Internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it.

But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the Internet's foundation -- its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for the whole Internet.

A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere," Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would ultimately decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.

Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the Internet.

But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.

But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies?"

No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on Internet governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the Internet. Standards are set by the users."

Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over the Internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."

But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so sure. An overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would stop it saying `when you're making this standard for data transfer you have to include some kind of surveillance for law enforcement?'"

Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering content from the net within its borders. Tunisia -- host of the World Summit -- has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human rights situation."

And what about business? Will a governmental body running the Internet add unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system? Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's not clear to me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from get in the way of things that other people do."

There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are pointing the same way: international governments deciding the Internet's future. The Internet will never be the same again.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/10/08/2003274965

 

[Greed]

the US has to do everything in its power to stop this or make it ineffective as possible.

the internet is easily one of the greatest inventions known and has the potential to bring all of humankind together, but only if the free market ideals of america are driving it. people may think any freedom will do but america's free market ideals are different than europe's. i would never trust any council with france on it to decide foward thinking standards on anything.

thankfully, this is one of those issues that wont divide repub and dems, and every year you can have faith that they will fight the incompent UN on this one.

 

[Greed]

this really annoys me how america is the home to all these groundbreaking inventions that benefit humankind and socialist europe always think they have an automatic right to it, even after we offer to share it with the rest of the world thats not good enough for them. they have to control it.

 

[Word]

I dont think this is a I hate the us thing. This might be the single most important subject to people like us(heavy computer users). So for example they split the root network up there are 13 root server give one to each of the bigger nations. The problem comes when I type chinahoe.com and i get dns info that has been "filtered" down from the china owned root server down to my isp the result will be this site can not be viewed. But if one non-governmental agency owns(runs) the root network i can be sure that me purchasing the domain georgebushdontlikeblackpeople.com that around the world someone can see it.

 

[QueEx]

I dont think this is a I hate the us thing. This might be the single most important subject to people like us(heavy computer users). So for example they split the root network up there are 13 root server give one to each of the bigger nations. The problem comes when I type chinahoe.com and i get dns info that has been "filtered" down from the china owned root server down to my isp the result will be this site can not be viewed. But if one non-governmental agency owns(runs) the root network i can be sure that me purchasing the domain georgebushdontlikeblackpeople.com that around the world someone can see it.

So, would it be better that someone other than the US control whether youcanreadwhateveryouwant.com ???

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="6"><center>EU says internet could fall apart</font size></center>
<font size="4"><center>· Developing countries demand share of control
· US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform </font size></center>

Richard Wray
Wednesday October 12, 2005
The Guardian


A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control.
The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart.

At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce.

A meeting of officials in Geneva last month was meant to formulate a way of sharing internet governance which politicians could unveil at the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis on November 16-18. A European Union plan that goes a long way to meeting the demands of developing countries to make the governance more open collapsed in the face of US opposition.
Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear.

"We have to have a platform where leaders of the world can express their thoughts about the internet," she said. "If they have the impression that the internet is dominated by one nation and it does not belong to all the nations then the result could be that the internet falls apart."

The US argues that many of the states demanding a more open internet are no fans of freedom of expression.

Michael Gallagher, President Bush's internet adviser and head of the national telecommunications and information administration, believes they are seizing on the only "central" part of the system in an effort to exert control. "They are looking for a handle, thinking that the DNS is the meaning of life. But the meaning of life lies within their own borders and the policies that they create there."

The US government, which funded the development of the internet in the 60s, said in June it intended to retain its role overseeing Icann, reneging on a pledge made during Bill Clinton's presidency. Since Icann was created, the US commerce department has not once interfered with its decisions.

David Gross, who headed the US delegation at the Geneva talks, said untested models of internet governance could disrupt the 250,000-plus networks, all using the same technical standards (TCP/IP), which allows over a billion people to get online for 27bn daily user sessions.

"The internet has been a remarkably reliable and stable network of networks and it has grown at a rate unprecedented in human history," he said. "What we are looking for is a continued evolution of the internet that is technically driven. We do not think the creation of new or use of existing multilateral institutions in the governance of essentially technical institutions is a way to promote technological change."

'Valuable dot'

According to Emily Taylor, director of legal and policy issues at Nominet, which oversees the address categories such as .co or .org - root zone files known as top-level domain names - bearing Britain's .uk suffix, the spat in Geneva was "all about the root - the valuable dot at the end of domain names".

At present Icann decides what new top-level domain names to create and who should run the existing domains, in consultation with a panel called the Governmental Advisory Committee. In practice the GAC exerts more pressure on Icann than the US department of commerce ever has. It was at the GAC's urging that a recent request to create more top-level domain names was reviewed. The commerce department does have the power to clear Icann's decisions.

Icann's president, Paul Twomey, shares many of the US government concerns. He is adamant that his organisation should be allowed to evolve rather than be brushed aside in favour of some untried model of state-led internet governance.

"We are firmly committed to a multi-stakeholder approach," he said. "We expect to evolve, we expect to keep changing. We are concerned about stability [of the internet] and we think it's best to evolve existing institutions. Our present corporate structure is a matter of history, not of any particular design."

But designing new structures is exactly what the international community seems intent on doing. At one end of the spectrum are Iran, Pakistan and other so-called control-oriented states that want to create a new governing council for the web to which Icann would be accountable. The remit of this council seems broad enough to include questions of content, a worry for advocates of free speech on the web.

Two week's ago the EU proposed its own structure, which consists of what it calls a "cooperation model" to deal with Icann and a forum which would allow governments, interested organisations and industry to discuss internet issues and swap best practice.

'Lightweight'

"What we are talking about is a governance structure that is extremely lightweight, where the government oversight of internet functions is limited just to the list of essential tasks," said one EU negotiator.

While the forum "does not decide anything, it is a place where people can come to a view and generally participate in thinking about the internet and the way it is governed".

The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours.

"We really can't have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us."

But EU negotiators are adamant that they reject calls for state control of the content of the internet. "None of this is about content and that is a big difference between the EU position and the position of China and Brazil," the negotiator said. "The proposals that came from Brazil and the others to amend our own proposal were not acceptable, they were trying to drag us closer to their position. We are very alive to that."

Calls from Argentina for a continuing debate while Icann is restructured are believed to have garnered support from countries such as Canada which do not like the perceived power that the US has over the internet but are wary of opening up the web to overall state control.

Just before the meeting in Tunis, there will be a three-day gathering of bureaucrats to try to thrash out a deal on internet governance. Getting the parties - especially the US - to agree to anything looks like a near impossible task but Mrs Reding believes it is crucial to find common ground or see the global communication network disintegrate.

The firm US stand makes that prospect of an end to ubiquity seem imminent. Although any decision from the Tunis summit would have no legal standing, the current deal between Icann and the US government is due to come to an end in September next year, by which time the organisation is supposed to be made independent under the deal made during the Clinton presidency.

Mr Gallagher said that after the Tunis meeting there will be further discussion with governments and the private sector about the future of the organisation. "But we are not going to bureaucratise, politicise and retard the management of the DNS. Period," he said. "That will not happen. We will not agree to it in November and we will not do it in September 2006."

Footnotes

Domain Name System

The DNS is the address book of the internet, matching numeric IP addresses to alphabetic addresses such as www.amazon.co.uk, which people find easier to remember. But instead of one central list of everyone's internet address, which would be massive, it splits addresses into their constituent parts - called domains - and gives each machine in the network enough information to know where to locate the next machine down the line. This is known as a distributed database.

Icann

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is a not-for-profit organisation that manages the DNS. It decides who gets to operate the most basic domains, the top-level domains such as .com and .org as well as all the world's country codes. It is responsible for allocating space on the internet. It was set up in California under contract to the department of commerce and as such it is subject to California state law and any disagreements have to be taken up with that state's courts.

TCP and IP

Internet Protocol (IP) is the technology that allows data to cross networks, using a destination address (IP address) to make sure it reaches the right place. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), meanwhile, ensures the correct delivery of that data or its re-transmission if it gets lost. Together they are the tarmac of the information superhighway.

Root zone file

Although the DNS is a distributed database it needs a starting point, a list of where to go for the first part of an internet address and start a search for a particular machine. This list of where to start is called the root zone file. It is a list of 248 country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) - such as .uk and .fr - as well as 14 generic top-level domains (gTLDs), which are subject-based such as .com and .net and .org. The list, held on 13 machines across the world, says who runs these domains and where to find them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1589902,00.html

 

[hoodedgoon]

No one except for the US wants to control the internet, like most other issues that affect the whole planet, this should be managed by an international body. I'm all for this.

 

[Spectrum]

this really annoys me how america is the home to all these groundbreaking inventions that benefit humankind and socialist europe always think they have an automatic right to it, even after we offer to share it with the rest of the world thats not good enough for them. they have to control it.

Greed,

Tim Bernens Lee actually invented the net and it was grown at CERN. Contrary to popular belief, the internet was invented in Europe, not the U.S. However, I don't agree with this new proposal.

 

[Greed]

no, he invented the world wide web. WWW and the internet are not the same thing.

the internet is the system where email, ftp, www, and so on travels.

darpa is responsible for the funding of the internet back in the late 60's.

 

[Spectrum]

no, he invented the world wide web. WWW and the internet are not the same thing.

the internet is the system where email, ftp, www, and so on travels.

darpa is responsible for the funding of the internet back in the late 60's.

In most cases that was is meant by the internet: WWW. In a more literal sense the internet are the networking protocols tcp/ip.

However if you are speaking of the networking protocols:Vint Cerf, Jon Postel, Steve Crocker etc pioneered that(those were UCLA guys):however,the Internet(as we currently know it) was still not a U.S. invention. If ever a thing was built by committee, with the protocols and packet switching it was the internet. And the Intenet was dreamed up well before Lawrence G. Roberts and Thomas Merrill created the first packet communication and THEN later joined Darpa.

 

[Greed]

what are you basing that on?

all of what i've seen says DARPA facilitated the creation of the internet for government use in the late 60's. it became popular with academia soon after.

in the early 1980's, thats when Tim Bernens-Lee developed he world wide web, which is mostly responsible for how popular it is today. giving enough credit to microsoft and apple for the browsers making it easy for the average person to navigate.

just because in layman speak WWW and internet is interchangable now doesnt affect reality. and just because a european made a better wheel doesnt take away from the original vision that created the wheel in the 1st place.

now, which part of that do you dsagree with.

 

[Greed]

since you edited your reply while i was typing mine:

there are tons of thinkers in the world and only a few doers.

i'm pretty sure throughout this thread i said DARPA is responsible for facilitation and funding. our whole system is based on rewarding the people that make ideas real. not just thinking it up. i give america overall credit and DARPA special mention for seeing its potential.

europe can kiss my ass and their "right to everything automatically" mentality.

 

[QueEx]

I thought he liked the french

 

[Spectrum]

what are you basing that on?

all of what i've seen says DARPA facilitated the creation of the internet for government use in the late 60's. it became popular with academia soon after.

in the early 1980's, thats when Tim Bernens-Lee developed he world wide web, which is mostly responsible for how popular it is today. giving enough credit to microsoft and apple for the browsers making it easy for the average person to navigate.

just because in layman speak WWW and internet is interchangable now doesnt affect reality. and just because a european made a better wheel doesnt take away from the original vision that created the wheel in the 1st place.

now, which part of that do you dsagree with.

Do a search for any of those names I mentioned on google and there are an endless supply of articles about them. This is pretty much common knowledge in the IT industry. The media has always pushed the DARPA story, however techies know the real story. Do a search on those names. The internet was theorized and created long before it ever reached doors of Darpa. an example article:http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/cerf.html

Microsoft and Apple didn't "INVENT" the browser. The first browser technology was created at XEROX, as alot of very powerful tech that other companies eventually popularized much to the dismay of Xerox's world reknown research center PARC. Microsoft and Apple didn't even release the first browsers. Maybe you are thinking of Windows..which MS copied from Apple, who again stole it from XEROX.

Actually, the real power of the "internet", the"semantic web" is still being pushed by Berners and is being slowly adopted.

 

[Spectrum]

since you edited your reply while i was typing mine:

there are tons of thinkers in the world and only a few doers.

i'm pretty sure throughout this thread i said DARPA is responsible for facilitation and funding. our whole system is based on rewarding the people that make ideas real. not just thinking it up. i give america overall credit and DARPA special mention for seeing its potential.

europe can kiss my ass and their "right to everything automatically" mentality.

Well, the system was thought up, created, and tested before it ever reached the doors of DARPA.

However, I agree with everything else in regards to this new proposition. It is just a proposition based on fear.

 

[Greed]

the french wants to take away lance armstrong's tour de france championships because he used 3 substances that are banned in france.

soap, deodorant, and toothpaste.

fuck france.

 

[Spectrum]

the french wants to take away lance armstrong's tour de france championships because he used 3 substances that are banned in france.

soap, deodorant, and toothpaste.

fuck france.

LOL. They waited until after he retired so he couldn't prove their claim to be wrong by competing again..on top of that..used samples from like 12 years ago or something like that?...bitch made move if i've ever seen one. That is the only country I've visited that I didn't really like. The Parisians are some real assholes..mofos get mad if you visit and don't speak French fluently.

 

[Greed]

we're splitting hairs and not providing enough nuuance in our post to understand each other.

without DARPA latching on and lending support and incentive to the idea of the internet it would not have developed far at all. especially, if it was just going to be a product for academics to share a database. i never said in this thread that DARPA created it, but like DARPA always does it gives breath to relatively small things and make them big things. just like their robot race across the desert. they didnt invent the robot cars but the shape that technology takes over the next 50 yrs will be dictated by and owed to america and especially DARPA.

and i know the 1st browser wasnt invented by those 2 but like i said they did invent browsers that made it easy for the average person to navigate the internet.

 

[Spectrum]

we're splitting hairs and not providing enough nuuance in our post to understand each other.

without DARPA latching on and lending support and incentive to the idea of the internet it would not have developed far at all. especially, if it was just going to be a product for academics to share a database. i never said in this thread that DARPA created it, but like DARPA always does it gives breath to relatively small things and make them big things. just like their robot race across the desert. they didnt invent the robot cars but the shape that technology takes over the next 50 yrs will be dictated and owed to america and especially DARPA.

and i know the 1st browser wasnt invented by those 2 but like i said they did invent browsers that made it easy for the average person to navigate the internet.

Agreed.

 

[QueEx]

... I bet he doesn't even eat french fries .... lmbao

 

[Greed]

United Nations Weighs U.S. Control of Internet Naming

United Nations Weighs U.S. Control of Internet Naming
by Larry Abramson

Morning Edition, November 15, 2005 · A U.N. meeting begins in Tunis Wednesday on whether the United States should continue to administer the Internet. Other countries are challenging U.S. control of the Domain Name System, which translates Internet names into numbers that computers understand. 4 min 9 sec

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5013117

 

[Greed]

Deal avoids global split over Internet control

Deal avoids global split over Internet control
2 hours, 12 minutes ago

TUNIS (AFP) - Negotiators avoided a potentially damaging split between the United States and the rest of the world over control of the Internet, saying they had agreed to work towards enhanced international cooperation.

Diplomats said a working group reached an agreement on key clauses on Internet governance for endorsement at the World Summit on the Internet Society beginning in Tunis on Wednesday.

A three-year deadlock in preliminary talks until the late hours of Tuesday had revolved around Washington's single-handed oversight of the private body that oversees the technical and administrative roots of the global network

The agreement set up two parallel tracks of talks, one an open-ended process "towards enhanced cooperation" by "relevant international organisations" on public policy issues, to be triggered by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan early next year, according to the final draft.

The other creates an Intergovernmental Forum (IGF) to hold talks on all Internet issues, including problems such as as spam, cyber crime or computer viruses.

Officials said the private non-profit Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers ( ICANN) was likely to exist even with its tender due for renewal by the US government next summer, since nothing in the final draft ruled it out.

"We did not change anything on the role of the US government with regard to the technical aspects that we were very concerned about," top US negotiator David Gross said after the agreement struck between 170 countries.

"We saw the world's countries recognising how very important the Internet is and how important the growth of the Internet is, and no one created a problem that could help retard that growth," Gross, the US coordinator for international communications and information policy, added.

Countries such as Iran and China had sought UN oversight of ICANN or the Internet governance, but the US firmly objected.

The agreement reached in the preparatory talks loosely followed a middle-of-the road formula proposed this week by the European Union.

"The worst has been avoided but we're not sure that the best is to come in the future. We have left a door open," a member of the French delegation, Bernard Benhamou, said.

"We did not close the door to the essential part, international cooperation," he added.

Officials warned that an ongoing split could have prompted the emergence of competing networks and torn apart the Internet.

Public policy issues include Internet resources, security of the network, and development issues, as well as ICANN's role in allocating domain names and addresses.

Washington's critics had warned that no single nation could maintain control over top level domain or country names (.cn, .fr, .uk,) without the threat of it being misused to block a foe's access to the Internet for political or economic reasons.

"It's as if the national telephone networks of all the countries in the world were run from Los Angeles," a European diplomat said.

The US had warned that regimes that do not allow freedom of speech might be in a position to have leverage over the Internet.

Business groups at the summit also objected to more sweeping changes, saying an intergovernmental body overseeing administration of the Internet would only "create uncertainty and hinder innovation".

The number of users of the worldwide web has grown from 106 million to more than one billion under the current seven year-old governance structure, the International Chamber of Commerce said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005111...neFOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Greed]

Nations Urge U.S. to Cede Internet Control

Nations Urge U.S. to Cede Internet Control
By MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago

TUNIS, Tunisia - Despite a late-night agreement averting a global showdown over continued U.S. control of the Internet's addressing system, many delegates to a U.N. technology summit did not believe the Americans emerged victorious.

Representatives of a number of countries remained adamant that U.S. control must be tempered if the Internet is to fully reach its potential. And even traditional allies of Washington considered it to have opened the door to the possibility of more shared governance.

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe spoke for the more radical opposition to U.S. control, saying Washington and its allies cannot continue to "insist on being world policemen on the management of the Internet."

"Why should our diverse world be beholden to an American company?," he told more than 10,000 government, business and other delegates as the three-day U.N. World Summit on the Information Society opened Wednesday.

A quasi-independent group, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, manages the worldwide network's main addressing computers on the U.S. government's behalf.

Mugabe's remarks signaled that, despite the U.S. success in winning over a broad group of nations including the European Union bloc, underlying complaints about American hegemony in Internet control still linger.

In an extreme case, complaints left unchecked could prompt dissatisfied countries to create their own addressing system, splintering the Internet such that two people typing in the same Web address may reach different sites, depending on where they live.

Questions about the Internet's plumbing have overshadowed the summit's original intent: to address ways to expand communications technologies to poorer parts of the world.

Delegates from more than 100 countries wrapped up nearly three days of heavy talks late Tuesday by agreeing to leave the United States with oversight of the computers that act as the Internet's master directories so Web browsers and e-mail programs can find other computers.

David Gross, the U.S. State Department's top official on Internet policy, said he was thrilled by the last-minute deal, saying it "reaffirmed the role of technology to the world and preserved the unique role of the U.S."

Publicly, officials were positive on the agreement, noting that it brought together government, business and civil leaders to work out issues surrounding Internet governance.

Privately, many delegates fumed, noting that the secretive talks, which had been expected, seemed to take away from the focus of the summit. Many complained that the United States was grandstanding.

Martin Selmayr, an EU spokesman, said the 25-nation European bloc was the one celebrating after the deal was reached.

The EU had stepped up pressure for more international participation after the United States declared in June that it would not cede control over the Internet, as many had been led to believe.

"What we see here is a clear indication that what they (the U.S.) said in June is not the last word and that we are back on track towards internationalization," he said. "We are back on track to what has been agreed with the Clinton administration already some years ago. We are back to cooperation."

Although Pakistan and other countries sought a takeover of that system by an international body such as the United Nations, negotiators ultimately agreed, as time ran out, to a create an open-ended international forum for raising important Internet issues. The forum, however, would have no binding authority.

"The U.S. has done a good job making the Internet safe for robust political discussion and commerce, but will gradually need to start recognizing international norms," said Frank Pasquale, a law school professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey.

Regardless of who claimed victory, delegates and officials involved in the talks said the new forum would give nations a stronger say in how the Internet works, including perhaps spurring the availability of domain suffixes in Chinese, Urdu and other languages.

"They want a seat at the table and they have a forum at which to have a seat," said Paul Kane, chairman of an organization for European country-code domain suffixes.

Currently, though names partially in another language are possible, the suffix — the ".com" part — remains in English.

The new group, the Internet Governance Forum, could also address any issue, such as spam or cybercrime, not currently covered by ICANN.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who would open the forum's first meeting perhaps early next year in Athens, denied the United Nations wanted to assume ICANN's day-to-day duties.

"Let me be absolutely clear: the United Nations does not want to take over, police or otherwise control the Internet," he said. "Day-to-day running of the Internet must be left to technical institutions, not least to shield it from the heat of day-to-day politics."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116...KtI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[JanktheFixer]

Re: Nations Urge U.S. to Cede Internet Control

I am a firm believer in the separation of powers. Where ever there is power, that power should be balanced among powers.

 

[QueEx]

Re: Nations Urge U.S. to Cede Internet Control

<font size="4"><center>An obscure scuffle between Intel and China's government
in 2004 over wi-fi may have been the opening shots in
an epic struggle with the ultimate control of the world's
electronics industry at stake. The main weapons in
this "war"? Technical electronics standards, which
developed countries now control - but won't for
much longer, if Beijing gets its way</font size></center>

[frame]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD13Cb05.html[/frame]

 

[darius_janus]

thats some crazy shit man. whats next...our phones being wire tapped. hehehe probalby is already happening..

 

[redux]

this really annoys me how america is the home to all these groundbreaking inventions that benefit humankind and socialist europe always think they have an automatic right to it, even after we offer to share it with the rest of the world thats not good enough for them. they have to control it.

get it straight - america developed the structure (as a DOD military application AARPANET ) that evolved into what is now known as the internet. sweden developed what is known as the world wide web - the graphics, sounds, and pictures that we come to associate with the internet that runs over the strucutre known as the internet and brings us content from the various servers - without sweden, the "internet" was nothing more than a bbs - would it have eventually evvolved? probably, but it didn't. as with most technology, no one person developed it - most things developed simultaneously, then became developed futher through collaboration (apple and milcrosoft, microsoft and ibm, etc....), the collaborations eventually breaking up.

bottom line? this country has allowed japan to level our first growth forests in the north west so that they can have chopsticks, has allowed china to own a third of our national debt (so we now beg on hands and knees for asian countries to buy our inferior goods in a desparate hope to lessen our debt), had allowed canada and arab states to purchase thousands, if not millions of acres of our country..... our history the last 30 years has been 'we will sell you the rope to hang us with for the immediate profit it will bring us..." if we couldn't manage the shit effectively, busy harrassing yahoo and google for search information, then let someone else step up to the plate...... we've already allowed this to happen with our cars and our electronics (anyone here old enough to even remember zenith?.....)

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>US government steps back from internet control</font size>
<font size="4"><font face=Arial>But very slowly</font size></font></center>

The Register
By Kieren McCarthy
Published Monday 2nd October 2006 10:40 GMT

The US government has taken a step back from control of the internet with a new contract between it and overseeing organisation ICANN that came into effect yesterday.

The three-year contract, with an apparently significant halfway review point, has been heralded by both ICANN and the Department of Commerce as a sign that the US government has listened to worldwide criticism of its continued oversight role and has responded by providing ICANN with a new degree of autonomy.

However, experts disagree, with one calling it "old wine in a new bottle", and another barely concealing his frustration with an administration that promised eight years ago it would end its role but now has decided "we will have to wait another three years, at a minimum".

There are some significant changes in the new contract, reflected in a new name for it: it is no longer a "memorandum of understanding" but a "joint project agreement". The US government has pulled out its prescribed list of actions that ICANN has to meet before it is given autonomy - something that has been continually refreshed since 1998 and was universally criticised as a compliance merry-go-round.

Instead, the requirements that ICANN needs to achieve before being granted freedom come in the form of an "Affirmation of Responsibilities" that was approved by the ICANN board. This list was produced by the US government and handed to the ICANN board for approval.

Most controversially, it includes the blinkered approach to "whois" data that US organisations have lobbied so hard in Washington for, but which the wider internet community disagrees with. But the shift in emphasis is nonetheless significant. ICANN says: "ICANN will no longer have its work prescribed for it. How it works and what it works on is up to ICANN and its community to devise."

Meeting people is easy
Another important change is the fact that ICANN will no longer be required to report direct to the US government every six months. Instead, it will produce an annual report for the internet community as a whole. ICANN is also upbeat about the fact that "there is no requirement to report regularly to the DoC. The DoC will simply meet with senior ICANN staff from time to time."

But as commentators have been quick to point out, it is precisely this frequent interaction with ICANN staff that enabled the Bush Administration to interfere with approval of the .xxx domain - something that led to rare public condemnation by the EU of a "clear case of political interference".

The JTA's exact wording is that "the Department [DoC] will hold regular meetings with ICANN senior management and leadership to assess progress".

As one expert, EC civil servant Patrick Vande Walle, has noted: "The DoC will be meeting ICANN staff, not the ICANN board. It is quite obvious it is easier for an American administration to put pressure on mostly American staff, rather than on a board made of mostly non-Americans."

US academic and internet governance expert Milton Mueller is equally damning: "The basic relationship between the US government and ICANN is fundamentally unchanged. ICANN still gets general policy guidance from the DoC, and still regularly reports to it."

Despite these words, however, there is a real sense within ICANN itself that the new contract represents a big chance and opportunity to finally become what its originators had envisaged.

ICANN CEO Paul Twomey said the deal was "a great achievement for the ICANN community. Our community is made up of very committed, highly skilled individuals most of whom are volunteers and take their responsibilities very seriously. This result is a tribute to their efforts".

More succinctly, he has argued that the DoC is now "walking the talk".

Likewise, ICANN corporate affairs head Paul Levins pointed out that commerce secretary John Kneuer said that the agreement was "putting ICANN on the path to autonomy". Levins sees the 18 month review as a real opportunity - if the ICANN community can come to agreement. That, he points out, is "the last hurdle".

The reality
Amid all the detail, claims, and small-print, however, it can be easy to lose the bigger picture. And that is: the US government has purposefully failed to offer anything but the wooliest assurance that it will step away from control of the internet.

Despite constant (and successful) efforts to paint the situation differently within its own borders, the reality is that the US government has faced a barrage of criticism from all sectors across the world for its continued control and occasional interference in the working of the internet's technical functions. Its response has been to give back the bare minimum it can get away with, with weak assurances that can be swiftly recalled at any point in the future with a simple speech by the commerce secretary.

Despite this, there are real signs that ICANN is making the most of its opportunity. The organisation recently published an independent report into one of its main decision-making constituents that was highly critical of the cliché that exists within it. It has also allowed its Ombudsman to start making public his reports to the board. It has embarked on a redesign of its website to make information more accessible. And board members themselves assure anyone that asks that they're are working toward a more open system.

But ICANN has spent so much time living in the shadow of the DoC that it has adopted the same approach of assurances without promises. ICANN board member Susan Crawford claims she has asked "many times" for a clarifying amendment to ICANN's bylaws that would state whether an ICANN board decision takes precedence over a DoC stance. She has never got that agreement because ICANN and the DoC prefer to keep the exact mechanics of their interaction as opaque as possible.

Accountability and transparency
Likewise, the universal criticism that ICANN is neither transparent nor accountable enough has led to "transparency" and "accountability" being the second and third items in its new "affirmation of responsibilities".

Yet, ICANN continues to insist that the issue is one of accessibility of information rather than any actual problems with transparency. When asked to provide examples of how precisely ICANN will tackle the problem, it continues to offer no more than vague notions of consultation with the internet community.

As with the DoC, ICANN has to be boxed in and repeatedly criticised on the same point before it will make any effort to change a system that benefits it.

The same is true for the appeals process within ICANN. The argument put forward by CEO Twomey is that the independent review process of ICANN decisions is there but has never been used. Instead, Twomey argues, organisations have chosen to go to the law courts.

While it is certainly correct that ICANN has had to face countless lawsuits where arbitration would have been more likely used in a country other than the US, ICANN's claim to have an open and simple review process is palpably untrue.

Freelance journalist Edward Hasbrouck has been fighting with ICANN for nearly two years to have his review request processed, and has been purposefully blocked, stymied, and ignored every step of the way. Hasbrouck reportedly dominated a press conference over the new DoC contract, asking for a response to his requests for further information on the independent review process. It is unclear whether he will receive it.

The uncomfortable truth
But amid the uncomfortable truths surrounding ICANN and the issue of internet governance there is one that goes unsaid but which will soon have the spotlight shone on it: the interaction of the internet community itself.

ICANN-bashing is a popular pasttime, but with even the most fervent critics accepting that the organisation is here to stay, an equally big change of heart by the net community is required in its interaction with ICANN. Weak promises and woolly assurances aside, the autonomy of the internet's overseeing organisation is now as much in the internet community's hands as it is the US government's.

As one United Nations official remarked at the recent World Summit in Tunisia, where ICANN won its future: "The solution is not to find a way of making people happy, it is to come up with a compromise that everyone dislikes in equal measure."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/02/icann_doc_jta/

 

[GET YOU HOT]

No one except for the US wants to control the internet, like most other issues that affect the whole planet, this should be managed by an international body. I'm all for this.

What ever happened to parental controls, passwords? What "children" need to be worried about...

China looking to stop Internet addiction
Fri Oct 27, 9:53 PM ET

BEIJING - China's government wants to develop technology to stop children from becoming addicted to the Internet, a news report said Friday.

Chinese officials encourage Internet use for education and business but express growing worry about its effect on children and the possibility that it could be addictive. Chinese psychologists are looking into the possibility that heavy Internet users suffer a form of addiction, and a handful of clinics have opened to wean patients off compulsive Web use.

Parliament is considering a measure to "encourage research and development of technologies to prevent minors from becoming Internet addicts," the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

It said the proposed measure — an amendment to a law on protection of minors — would encourage research into such things as software that stops online gaming at a fixed time.

The measure also would ban minors from Internet cafes, bars and commercial dance halls, Xinhua said.

China has the world's second-biggest population of Internet users after the United States, with 123 million people online. But the government tries to regulate what Web surfers can see, barring access to material deemed subversive or obscene.

 

[QueEx]

[frame]http://www.forbes.com/asap/2001/0910/044_print.html[/frame]

 

[QueEx]

[frame]http://www.stansberryonline.com/PRO/0612PSIMEM99/WPSIGC10/200612PSI-MEM-99.html[/frame]

 

[thismybgolname]

Good post

 

[cbm_redux]

the US has to do everything in its power to stop this or make it ineffective as possible.

the internet is easily one of the greatest inventions known and has the potential to bring all of humankind together, but only if the free market ideals of america are driving it.

This is, of course, bull shit, pure bull shit. The only hope for the Internet is if its fate doesn't rest solely in the hands of the U.S.. If the Internet remains a U.S. fiefdom, U.S. legislators will allow their major contributors in the telephone and cable industries to transform the Internet from an information superhighway to a multi-tiered toll road, where anything not originating from their companies or those of their partners is slowed to a creep.

Nothing in the U.S. is ever done for the common good. The Internet will be no different unless the International community asserts its authority over this global resource. I'm already paying $75/month for Internet access. I will be damned if I'll pay AT&T and Comcast an additional per bit charge.

 

[GET YOU HOT]

It is highly likely that the internet will be divided up somehow, allowing for privatization and pay per access for certain sectors/sites...

 

[QueEx]

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6293345.stm[/frame]