The U.S. Gives Up Its Control of the Free-Speech Internet

Next year The US will give up control of Internet Domain Name Registration to an international body. How will this effect us in the USA - or the rest of the world?

(Selected quotes from a long article)

Icann [Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers - the only entity that registers domain names] is a nonprofit with a complex, international governance structure of what it calls “stakeholders,” a group that includes governments, corporations, and civil society activists. But it has operated, ultimately, under a contract from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Although it never exercised this right or even threatened to do so, the U.S. could always still render a website nameless, making it hard to find—essentially kicking it off the Internet.

The Commerce Department said on March 14 that next year it would relinquish its last bit of control over domain names. The system will be replaced by a model of global Internet governance as yet to be determined by Icann.

Several times in the last decade, a group of countries has urged that control of domain names be transferred to the United Nations. All you need to know about this movement is that it is led by China and Russia.

The only stakeholders that matter, they are saying, are countries. Right now, China can prevent users inside its borders from viewing a website that promotes Tibetan separatism. But it can’t prevent that website from registering a domain name. It would very much like to, under the argument that the site threatens China’s domestic sovereignty.

This is the advantage of the current, single-domain-name system. No country (other than the U.S.) gets to decide what idea deserves a Web address, and while U.S. policies and practices in other cyber realms have been less than stellar, it has been an outstanding protector of free speech on the Internet. Power can exist even when it isn’t exercised or even visible.

www.businessweek.com...

I'm not sure what all the pros and cons are, and thats one reason for posting this.. perhaps some of you will know more details about this. The article writer seems to think Icann under the Department of Commerce and hence "The US" has done a great job - despite The NSA scandal Prism and other such problems we have to face. I wonder though if an international body took over the net would those who do not believe American (or other country) views will seek to refuse registration for a page they don't agree with. Perhaps a site like ATS would never have seen the light of day.

What do you think, is this good or bad, pros and cons?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


From your link:

All you need to know about this movement is that it is led by China and Russia.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

-Wikileaks has ties with chinese hackers

-Snowden met Wikileaks in Hong Kong, China

-Russia protects Snowden

-China shares its secret intelligence with Russia


It was just bound to happen.

S&F mate

So the internet becomes a tool of somebody elses tyranny next year?
Inevitable id say.....its too dangerous for the status quo.....
The UN is just a globalist tool so expect the worst IMHO......

Given the recent history of how the US government treats privacy and security of individuals I say "Thank the good Lord!"

It would be very difficult for any other organization to do worse.

Free speech? In the USA? LMAO

reply to post by swanne


Whereas the US is a bastion of free speech and openness when it comes to the internet?

I think it's a good thing making this issue going to become a global community thing. No single country should wield such control over the internet, especially given recent revelations.

reply to post by GetHyped


Amen. If multiple countries are running this, there's a bit - not much, given, but a bit - less likelihood of someone going full Orwell on it.

So some feel this is good and some bad. I wish we had more info. I'd like to know when they will be picking this intentional group of folks, who they will be, what their backgrounds are, how they feel about privacy and censorship.. if they have an agenda or not. We are gonna have to scrutinize these folks like we do when picking a politician for office. I hope we get more info soon because -

= This very likely will change many aspects of how we use the web forever.

Cyprian
reply to post by GetHyped

 

Amen. If multiple countries are running this, there's a bit - not much, given, but a bit - less likelihood of someone going full Orwell on it.

Um how do you figure that? The US is the only country required by law to allow free speech. Did you read the article? The part where it says, "China regulates what the people in its country can see"? Yeah. The US doesnt do this. At least, not to the extent that China does. If China and Russia and The US had joint control over the US, how in the world do you think they would abide by each others censorship? This is a conflict waiting to happen and the internet becoming a restricted access information oppressor waiting to happen. BAD IDEA.

reply to post by smithjustinb


I agree with this. All you have to do is watch the news from other countries and see how different many of these views are from our own. There is bound to be conflicts of interest within that international community all I'd suspect vying for pushing their own agenda across.

Heck i hope Not but look at the US politicians revolving door with the commercial sector alone. They will have conflicts with those countries that do not adhere to western practices such as GMO's, where as the flip side may champion Electronic cigarettes, which are publicly banned in many cities a few states and some countries.

JohnPhoenix
Next year The US will give up control of Internet Domain Name Registration to an international body. How will this effect us in the USA - or the rest of the world?

(Selected quotes from a long article)

Icann [Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers - the only entity that registers domain names] is a nonprofit with a complex, international governance structure of what it calls “stakeholders,” a group that includes governments, corporations, and civil society activists. But it has operated, ultimately, under a contract from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Although it never exercised this right or even threatened to do so, the U.S. could always still render a website nameless, making it hard to find—essentially kicking it off the Internet.

The Commerce Department said on March 14 that next year it would relinquish its last bit of control over domain names. The system will be replaced by a model of global Internet governance as yet to be determined by Icann.

Several times in the last decade, a group of countries has urged that control of domain names be transferred to the United Nations. All you need to know about this movement is that it is led by China and Russia.

The only stakeholders that matter, they are saying, are countries. Right now, China can prevent users inside its borders from viewing a website that promotes Tibetan separatism. But it can’t prevent that website from registering a domain name. It would very much like to, under the argument that the site threatens China’s domestic sovereignty.

This is the advantage of the current, single-domain-name system. No country (other than the U.S.) gets to decide what idea deserves a Web address, and while U.S. policies and practices in other cyber realms have been less than stellar, it has been an outstanding protector of free speech on the Internet. Power can exist even when it isn’t exercised or even visible.

www.businessweek.com...

I'm not sure what all the pros and cons are, and thats one reason for posting this.. perhaps some of you will know more details about this. The article writer seems to think Icann under the Department of Commerce and hence "The US" has done a great job - despite The NSA scandal Prism and other such problems we have to face. I wonder though if an international body took over the net would those who do not believe American (or other country) views will seek to refuse registration for a page they don't agree with. Perhaps a site like ATS would never have seen the light of day.

What do you think, is this good or bad, pros and cons?

I think it is too early to really form a good view on this. We won't know until following the transfer. I'm sort of divided on this because, like you said, notoriously unfree governments will have the greatest influence over what happens & they might try to exert influence over Americans. Then again, they might be classy & not play childish games. I think the UN has a greater reputation for fairness than the US but then again, giving up control of anything can't be seen as a good idea, even if the hotshots up there are total dip#s.