ICANN and the Future of the internet. (No Spam)

[Xandax]

ICANN - no this is not a self-assurance thread at all.

I've been following this for a while, and actually find it strange that I've seen no reference to it on SYM yet (perhaps I just didn't notice it )

ICANN is the company which controls the root-servers of the internet, that is the servers which ultimately translate all the little numbers into readable adresses, and the creation of top-level domains (.com, .gov, .org etc)

However - many countries are now against the fact that one company, and thus ultimately one country, control these things, seeing as the internet fast became a global entity, and not a national initiative.
However, the US naturally doesn't like to give up control with the internet - as it ultimately is when you control the root-servers.

Many countries would like control of these rootservers to go to a global organisation such as the UN or perhaps another entity set up to control it.
The US main argument against this is that a global organisation would hinder the development of the internet, wheras many other countries are against the US having control - because, well then they practically control it, and where people go when they type the urls. Horror scenarios could be that US governments could exercise a form of control and censurship of the web.
One example of this is the delaying of the toplevel domain .xxx which (obviously) were ment to be a place to group the pornography on the web together making it easier to filter, but which found strong opponents in the Bush administration and backers, and thus have been delayed futher.

The ultimate consequence of this would/could (easily) be that other countries start to set up their own rootservers, which would in essences fragment the internet into smaller networks.

I know that I for one will look towards the UN meeting in the middle of november, because this is by no way a small issue.

a few links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4296646.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4165920.stm
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsAr...S-INTERNET.xml
http://www.icann.org/

and many more.

Now personally - I would not mind seeing this control of root-servers going to a globally controlled entity/organisation - possible managed by the UN at the top, as long as it doesn't get to bueracratic. I feel the inevital influence from the US government(s) as to what is being accepted on the internet, is a hinderance to its development.
Futhermore - the internet can not afford to become fragmented, in the manner which easily could happen if these negotiations falls into a deadlock.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Kipi]

Interesting topic

As myself, I'm also against that US is controlling it.
I can point one very horrific scenario right away:
Lets pretend that US gots to war with other country/countries. Right now, with the current system, US could basically shut down the whole internet if it needs fit, and others can't stop it. Also, US could select which contents are harmfull to it, as you already pointed out.

But, where do we actually need so many top-level domains (.org, .com, .fi....)?
Ofcourse, one for every country, and maybe the one .xxx for the purpose mentioned in Xandax post, but why do we actually have to have all those .info and such?

Also, IMO it could be arranged so that every country is responsible and controlling it own (Sweden .se, Finland .fi, US .com and so on) and those few that aren't linked to any country itself are controlled by UN for example.

[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipi <snip> But, where do we actually need so many top-level domains (.org, .com, .fi....)? Ofcourse, one for every country, and maybe the one .xxx for the purpose mentioned in Xandax post, but why do we actually have to have all those .info and such? Also, IMO it could be arranged so that every country is responsible and controlling it own (Sweden .se, Finland .fi, US .com and so on) and those few that aren't linked to any country itself are controlled by UN for example.

(simplified)

Top level domains are a good thing because they speed up "travelling" across the network.
The "extension" if you will, the top level domain, is the first thing which gets interpretated when you type in an url.
.com go to a specific server, .eu to another and so on for the remainder. However, you can't just create such domains, because anarchy would ensure when "nobody" knew where to go when typing a domain into the browser.

Each name server for specific countries are also controlled in that country - for instance the .uk name servers are located within the uk-network backbone. However the adresses for these servers are located within the toplevel domain servers (if my memory serves me correct).
So each time you type in an url, the root servers tells your browser which domain server to go to, which then interpreates the name of the url you have entered and returns an IP.
This means that it is "easy" to cut the connection to any top level domain, by simply removing the address to servers from the top-level domain server.

Edit: alterations and additions.

[Kipi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax (simplified) Top level domains are a good thing because they speed up "travelling" across the network. The "extension" if you will, the top level domain, is the first thing which gets interpretated when you type in an url. .com go to a specific server, .eu to another and so on for the remainder. However, you can't just create such domains, because anarchy would ensure when "nobody" knew where to go when typing a domain into the browser. They also improve on the userfriendliness of the web. As an experienced net user, I know that if I need to go to a UK company, the "extension"/toplevel domain is with 99% likelyhood .co.uk. Government in the US is .gov, most organisations are .org and so on. Naturally - one can question for instance .info which is also why it takes so long time to actually aprove new top level domains, but many have a most valid purpose. Each name server for specific countries are also controled in that country - for instance the .uk name servers are located within the uk-network backbone. However the adresses for this are located within the toplevel domain servers (if my memory serves me correct). Which means that it is "easy" to cut the connection to any top level domain, but simply removing the address from the top-level domain server.

Thanx for info, but I think I stated my question badly...
What I meant was that more like where do we need so many .***s?
Maybe it was a bit out of the original idea, but I decided to throw that question also, it is after all very close to the whole subject.

[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipi Thanx for info, but I think I stated my question badly... What I meant was that more like where do we need so many .***s? Maybe it was a bit out of the original idea, but I decided to throw that question also, it is after all very close to the whole subject.

I answered that as well - but I'll try to expand a little.
It speeds up travelling across the web, because you can increase the number of domain servers. If you have fewer domains, you must have more addresses within this domain. For instance -simplified - if there was no .gov or .org, but only .com - that would mean all .gov and .org urls would have to be included into the .com.
Thus the servers (there are more per domain naturally) which handles .com queries needs to have a bigger table to look up in, making them slower. They'd also be harder and slower to update due to more information, and thus more prone to synchronization errors and what not.

(I'm sure others can expand further, with me only being a software guy, I didn't pay all that much attention in tech.classes back in school )

[Kipi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax I answered that as well - but I'll try to expand a little. It speeds up travelling across the web, because you can increase the number of domain servers. If you have fewer domains, you must have more addresses within this domain. For instance -simplified - if there was no .gov or .org, but only .com - that would mean all .gov and .org urls would have to be included into the .com. Thus the servers (there are more per domain naturally) which handles .com queries needs to have a bigger table to look up in, making them slower. They'd also be harder and slower to update due to more information, and thus more prone to synchronization errors and what not. (I'm sure others can expand further, with me only being a software guy, I didn't pay all that much attention in tech.classes back in school )

You are right, it did, as I read it again. My mistake

I'm not also as interesting technics, just programming.

But still, it doesn't change my opinion about shared controlling.

[Lestat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax Now personally - I would not mind seeing this control of root-servers going to a globally controlled entity/organisation - possible managed by the UN at the top, as long as it doesn't get to bueracratic.

But that will probably the problem. If someone can name me one nimble, efficient permanent UN organisation, I'll eat my hat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax I feel the inevital influence from the US government(s) as to what is being accepted on the internet, is a hinderance to its development

And what about the influence that would be exerted by autocratic regimes which are much keener on censorship than the US? Through a UN agency these would inevitably play a much bigger role, and might hinder the development of the internet even more.
Except for the .xxx - case, I don't see any mention of political meddling by the US government. If more cases could be cited, I might be inclined to have the authority taken away from the US government, but as it is, it seems there is a fairly hands off policy.

If there would be a way to avoid both these problems (bureaucracy and undue influence of liberticidal regimes), then I'm all for it, but I fear that's impossible in current circumstances.

[dragon wench]

I'd probably be in favour of the Internet being controlled by a centralised UN type of body. But, as has already been mentioned here, that in itself could be fraught with its own problems.

I do know, however, that I would not like to see a fragmented Internet. A strong part of its appeal, for me anyway, is its international flavour.

For example, I very much like that I can easily go to newspapers such as Le Monde, The Observer/Guardian, and the New York Times all in the space of a few minutes.

[FireLighter]

If the United states started this company so to speak, why shouldn't they keep it? If someone over in, oh say, England started a new kind of software company that eventually merged throughtout the planet, why should they give up control just because some is complaining? I don't understand this. Personally I believe all the countries should just mind their own business (including the U.S.A.)


Edit: looks like me and Lestat are the only ones arguing for the side of the U.S.

[Aegis]

The big issue being addressed here is not US control, but is US control of an international commodity. When the internet was first brought into creation, it was solely a federal and military use tool. Since then, however, it has been not only public, but public to the point where everyone in the world has it.

Add to the fact that the source of the Internet servers are not the ones that directly profit from the internet, it is the indivdual ISP's, as well as the hosts of many webdomains. This central database is simply where it is all stored.

With that being said, I don't think the UN could screw up simple maintenance of a server database. I also don't see the pressing need to keep it in control of a single country, especially one that has shown strong indications of media control. Controlling the source can easily regulate and influence what everyone else sees.

Lastly, as I have mentioned, the internet is public to the global community. It is no longer just the US's toy, and that has been the case for sometime now. Imagine the outcry if one country took control of the Olympics, dictating it's every decision. This is, for the most, a very similar issue, because of the roots of public interest and international interest.

[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireLighter If the United states started this company so to speak, why shouldn't they keep it? If someone over in, oh say, England started a new kind of software company that eventually merged throughtout the planet, why should they give up control just because some is complaining? I don't understand this. Personally I believe all the countries should just mind their own business (including the U.S.A.) Edit: looks like me and Lestat are the only ones arguing for the side of the U.S.

So the alternative of a fragmented internet is something which would the best alternative?
If all countries where to mind their own buisness, it would mean that all countries - unless grouped together in variorus organisations - would manage their own regional top level domain servers, meaning that networking from the US to the EU or Asia could practically be hindered due to restrictions on the backbone.
Think of the trade issues of today just amongst the US and the EU with taxation, and image the same aspect placed on digital information.

I fail to see why it should fall upon one country to control where I go when I type www.gamebanshee.com in my browser as compared to a central organisation. Like it is with most other internet standard organisations.

[Lestat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis With that being said, I don't think the UN could screw up simple maintenance of a server database

Oh, they are fully capable of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis I also don't see the pressing need to keep it in control of a single country, especially one that has shown strong indications of media control.

And what about countries as China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and Saudi-Arabia, to name a few. I think you overestimate the level of media control in the US, especially as compared to the majority of the countries in the world (who would be regulating the internet).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis Lastly, as I have mentioned, the internet is public to the global community. It is no longer just the US's toy, and that has been the case for sometime now. Imagine the outcry if one country took control of the Olympics, dictating it's every decision. This is, for the most, a very similar issue, because of the roots of public interest and international interest.

Agreed, but as far as I know the US gov is not dictating the ICANN's every decision. And if the IOC is your model for the governing of the internet, I fear for the future of the internet.
And moreover: public interest is not only governments. At the moment there are a lot of firms, groups, organisations present on the internet, often in opposition to those governments that very much would like to have a say in the running of the internet. And where democratic regimes have learned to live with opposition, this is hardly the case in important parts of the world.

[Aegis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Oh, they are fully capable of that. And what about countries as China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and Saudi-Arabia, to name a few. I think you overestimate the level of media control in the US, especially as compared to the majority of the countries in the world (who would be regulating the internet).

I think you just backed up my very point about having the governing body of the internet located in a single country, and why it should be under the jurisdiction of an international organization. The UN, for all it's bungling of conflict resolution, still maintains a good track record for dealing with other matters of international concern. Before cutting into it so viciously, you should at least hold an understanding everything it does, not just conflict resolution. Also, understand that the good things are rarely reported in Western newscasts, because tragedy sells better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Agreed, but as far as I know the US gov is not dictating the ICANN's every decision. And if the IOC is your model for the governing of the internet, I fear for the future of the internet. And moreover: public interest is not only governments. At the moment there are a lot of firms, groups, organisations present on the internet, often in opposition to those governments that very much would like to have a say in the running of the internet. And where democratic regimes have learned to live with opposition, this is hardly the case in important parts of the world.

This is another valid point, but it is also one that is not the truth in the US. The US government, more so today than ever before, is heavily influenced by corporations. Part of this is because of the man in charge, another part is because of the political set up of the nation itself. The US is made up of a series of companies and business', all of which dictate the flow and direction of the nation itself. If it were not the case, Halliburton would be a far poorer company right now.

While there are companies that don't adhere to this particalur instance, they are in the minority. This is another reason why the source of the internet, the backbone as Xandax accurately called it, should be in international control.

This boasts advantages as well, which are going underlooked by everyone but Xan and DW. Basically, having it in international control keeps any one nation from direct control of what is considered suitable and unsuitable content, as well as keeping everything in a uniform manner which allows for easier, and quicker browsing of the internet.

I just feel I should add this, too. I am not bashing the US in this instance. The fact that I say international and not a different nation should be evidence of that. I've had my ass bitten too many times, though, in these matters to not add this disclaimer.

[Lestat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis The UN, for all it's bungling of conflict resolution, still maintains a good track record for dealing with other matters of international concern. Before cutting into it so viciously, you should at least hold an understanding everything it does, not just conflict resolution. Also, understand that the good things are rarely reported in Western newscasts, because tragedy sells better.

Then please name UN organisations that could serve as a model for an organisation that would take over from ICANN. Edit: This sounds a bit harsher than I meant, but I would be genuinely interested which current UN organisations you'd see as a model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis This boasts advantages as well, which are going underlooked by everyone but Xan and DW. Basically, having it in international control keeps any one nation from direct control of what is considered suitable and unsuitable content, as well as keeping everything in a uniform manner which allows for easier, and quicker browsing of the internet.

If the organisation would be purely technical one, I'd agree. But with the internet technical & political issues are difficult to separate. And having an international body which has a majority of countries which are less democratic and less inclined to respect the right to free speech than the US, regulate the content on internet doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Edit: this list concering press freedom of Reporters without Borders can serve as an indication. The US comes 44th on 167 countries. As Denmark comes first, I'd suggest transplanting the whole thing there and put Xandax in command .

I'm not saying the current system is ideal or the best that can be conceived.

[Aegis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Then please name UN organisations that could serve as a model for an organisation that would take over from ICANN.

You're dodging my statement. If you want to talk, that's fine, but until you address what I've said, I feel confident in my statement. Give me reason to address it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat If the organisation would be purely technical one, I'd agree. But with the internet technical & political issues are difficult to separate. And having an international body which has a majority of countries which are less democratic and less inclined to respect the right to free speech than the US, regulate the content on internet doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I'm not saying the current system is ideal or the best that can be conceived.

It's interesting you think that the US has such strong ideals of freedom of speech, especially considering the amount of icons that were removed from positions to allow free speech (most notable amongst them, Bill Maher, not to mention various artisic talent) after the 9/11 incident. If it becomes a matter of free speech, no nation is truly clean enough in that regard to host the Internet, because the very basis of free speech is freedom until it steps on someone else's same freedom. A limited idea of free speech, wouldn't you agree?

But, turning it over to international control (and I really must stress this, because you keep returning to the notion that one country will retain some form of dominance over all the others) helps to avoid this problem, or at least dilute any potential problem that may arise.

Anyway, I'm on my way to classes for now. Probably won't be back until late this evening. I'll respond to whatever is posted when I return. Just don't make me read a novel when I get back I have enough of that for school