Who should control the Internet?

An interesting question has been posed by a number of governments to the US these nations want the US to hand over control of the internet to the UN. Here are the links.

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.foreignaffairs.org...

Personally I don't like the idea of the UN running the internet. I think us Yanks have done a pretty good job so far. Plus the UN is far to corrupt to ever be trusted with something like the internet. I'm sure their are plenty of third world despots are licking their chops at the thought of putting their hands in that cookie jar. I think the worlds obsession with American power has gone a little to far. I mean do you think we should we fix a thing that isn't broken just to satisfy the collective national egos of such nations like China and Iran

What was once a nobel institution is now nothing more then a currupt organisation. Various politicions have dragged the name of the U.N through the proverbial mud. They can't control the Internet, even if they want to. It's too big a thing to control. The mass of information is overwhelming, and it would burst any gigantic computer. Well, here's to them not gaining more control over our lives.

Who should control the internet? Nobody.

Or if somebody has to, then a think tank of ethics philosophers approved by the UN which represents the interests of all people in the world.

- Attero

what was once a noble institution is now nothing more than a corrupt organization

Couldn't agree more MacDonagh

Who should control the internet? Nobody.

Well to a certain extent I think control is necassary to ensure that it isn't completely overrun by hackers and other malicious people. It is also necassary because you have to coordinate how the internet operates. For example you can't give two website the same domain name now can you.

Here's another link on the proposals being made.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Good article danwild.

Thanks for the link.

I posted this article on ATS.

www.ntu.org...


I don't think anybody should control the internet, as in monitor discussion boards and remove, or force someone to remove "conspiracy hoaxes" or anything like that.

But of course I agree on that someone should be controling the "machinery" of the internet to some extent. But I don't trust the UN with that, in fact I wouldn't trust the UN with taking my garbage out. The whole thing is just so corrupt, like the EU too, and the US.

ICANN is good enough, haven't had any problems with them so far.

Yes it seems that Icann has been doing fine and the fact that Governments are complaining about lack of control is ominous. I vaguely recall that Vice Emperor Cheney said that the internet may need to be controled and or regulated. Future revolutions will be mobilized on the net, he who controls the net controls the State.

There are many parallels between the internet and the telegraph and this is no more apparent than in the infrastructure of these devices.

Back in the 19th century and early 20th century, telegraphs were a stable, quick and efficient (though obviously limited) means of transporting information across the world.

Although it was a very international system, the major wire networks were almost entirely under the domain of Britain (albeit mostly in the hands of British companies). With the outbreak of WWI, Britain could then cut Germany's undersea wires (especially with America). This control of telegraphic communications gave them a huge strategic edge (the cutting of telegraph wires was a common part of war also seen in the Spanish-American War).

It is no accident that Britain's antecedant in the late 20th/early 21st century is the US - another nation with military, economic, political and communications hegemony. The US effectively 'controls' the networks of the internet - both in terms of the physical hardware of many of the main routers and in terms of domain registration.

Most of the time this ownership is a non-issue - there is always ownership of communication mediums, with telephones, postal services, roads, newspapers are either state or privately owned.

However, the internet is one of the only (if not the only) communication device that is genuinely trans-national. The UN is perhaps the only international body who can legitimately claim ownership of the internet 'independent' from individual countries. This is not ideal but it strikes me as less worrying than the current situation - the internet is not 'owned' by the US, even if the infrastructure is in their hands.

Incidently, you might want to look at Tom Standage's book, The Victorian Internet which looks at a number of parallels between the internet and telegraph - it is not a particularly academic book but is quite a fun read.

Well from the looks of it the Americans have won the day.

www.atsnn.com...

And won it in a typical American way. That is hold out for a while then make a small insignificant sacrifice. From the looks of it ICANN's authority is completely intact. I wonder how much pull this international forum will have?

Originally posted by kedfr
Although it was a very international system, the major wire networks were almost entirely under the domain of Britain (albeit mostly in the hands of British companies). With the outbreak of WWI, Britain could then cut Germany's undersea wires (especially with America). This control of telegraphic communications gave them a huge strategic edge (the cutting of telegraph wires was a common part of war also seen in the Spanish-American War).

Probably why China and Iran are worried, however the US I believe has demonstrated that it doesn't have the same intentions in fact I can't find one instance were the US has used its power in a similar way.

Originally posted by kedrf
However, the internet is one of the only (if not the only) communication device that is genuinely trans-national. The UN is perhaps the only international body who can legitimately claim ownership of the internet 'independent' from individual countries. This is not ideal but it strikes me as less worrying than the current situation - the internet is not 'owned' by the US, even if the infrastructure is in their hands.

The internet maybe trans-national but that doesn't mean that everybody owns it. Question were does the UN get its legitimacy over the internet? If the infrastructure is in our hands then damn right we own it. We built it, we paid for it, we own it.

Originally posted by danwild6
Probably why China and Iran are worried, however the US I believe has demonstrated that it doesn't have the same intentions in fact I can't find one instance were the US has used its power in a similar way.

Actually the EU are also kicking up a stink about this, not just China.

The internet maybe trans-national but that doesn't mean that everybody owns it. Question were does the UN get its legitimacy over the internet? If the infrastructure is in our hands then damn right we own it. We built it, we paid for it, we own it.

Unfortunately, this argument doesn't hold water. Icann is supposed to be non-politicised. However, the recent debacle over the .xxx domain (which initially approved by Icann but was later vetoed unilaterally - this was because the Department of Commerce removed its support after they received complaints from Christian groups), indicates that it has far closer ties to the US government than the rhetoric would indicate.

It is no accident that US is dominant in its power over the world's military, economy, culture and communications. It is truly a hegemony and it is not surprising that other countries object to its power. The internet may have its roots in the US military but it is now something far different than was originally conceived.

To me it is disturbing that there is no universal agreement on the internet that mirrors the International Telecommunications Union (founded in 1865 with the International Telegraphy Union) - which is a global multilateral organisation that administers telecommunications. There is no similar treaty to the internet. Moreover, as Icann is a US based organisation, it is argued that it will always place US interests first. In effect, the basis of the internet is run on 'trust' that the US will play fair.

It is certainly disturbing that authoritarian nations want increased controls over the internet in their own country. however in truth governments can already restrict access to information (look at China for instance).

On a final point, the US military may have created the basis of the internet but the internet in its current format is not 'owned' by anyone. It is effectively a giant open-source project.

Guys, nothing should control the internet. If the U.S. tries to do it, it will just turn out like the Patriot Act. The way it is is perfectly fine. If the us starts doing it then they might start deleting anti-american website (for example from ummm France). Internet should just be unmoderated.

I agree that the U.N. is getting pretty corupt...

Well to be truly accurate nobody controls the internet the recent friacas has been over the US back internet group ICANN which assigns domain names. Which the US may have a certain amount of influence over. Depending on your point of view.

Originally posted by danwild6
Well to be truly accurate nobody controls the internet the recent friacas has been over the US back internet group ICANN which assigns domain names. Which the US may have a certain amount of influence over. Depending on your point of view.

Basically, the way it is; the way it stays. But the US cant just decide who will get domains and for what. (That will happen eventually. Maybe not now but someday if the US gets "internet control")

I don't think there is a way to get complete control over the internet. Now it would be possible for the US to block certain nations access to their own websits. We did it to Libya because they didn't pay their bill.