Guardian Unlimited Technology | Technology | Breaking America's grip on the net: "Breaking America's grip on the net
After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments
Kieren McCarthy
Thursday October 6, 2005
The Guardian
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 Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month'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% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.
And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. 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 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."
OMG is this infuriating. Are there any complaints in the way the US runs the internet? None listed. Just a feeling among dictotorial, totalitarian rogue states like China, Cuba, and Iran, that they want to sieze the internet and silence dissent. And the US is supposed to let this happen? How about this, make the internet soley American, and we run it, and if the rest of the world wants in, they can get in as long as they don't complain, or try to sieze control. Oh wait, that's the way it is now anyway. 90% of everything on the net right now is American anyway. If they want their own internet, let's call it the "despair and slavery net" (as in http://dsn.bbc.england.gov). Okay, I'm getting silly now. But don't these people realize that all ICANN does is assign domain names? And that you can buy a domain name on Yahoo for like 10 bucks? You'd think we'd cornered the palladium market or something. This is just anti-Americanism. You have freedom and prosperity. We don't. We hate you. Wah. I'll be damned if I'm writing a check to Iran or Cuba for a domain name. I'll live with an IP address. I'll bet someone could figure out a way for people to poole IP addresses into an ad-hoc network anyway, and make the thing run invisibly in the background. As long as you agreed to the system, it would work for you. Should be fairly easy, especially if you can hack Mozilla to do it anyway, and set up a referring site. Think about the Anonymizer, and proxy servers and stuff. I don't know the technical aspect, but it seems like it should be possible.
After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments
Kieren McCarthy
Thursday October 6, 2005
The Guardian
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 Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month'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% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.
And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. 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 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."
OMG is this infuriating. Are there any complaints in the way the US runs the internet? None listed. Just a feeling among dictotorial, totalitarian rogue states like China, Cuba, and Iran, that they want to sieze the internet and silence dissent. And the US is supposed to let this happen? How about this, make the internet soley American, and we run it, and if the rest of the world wants in, they can get in as long as they don't complain, or try to sieze control. Oh wait, that's the way it is now anyway. 90% of everything on the net right now is American anyway. If they want their own internet, let's call it the "despair and slavery net" (as in http://dsn.bbc.england.gov). Okay, I'm getting silly now. But don't these people realize that all ICANN does is assign domain names? And that you can buy a domain name on Yahoo for like 10 bucks? You'd think we'd cornered the palladium market or something. This is just anti-Americanism. You have freedom and prosperity. We don't. We hate you. Wah. I'll be damned if I'm writing a check to Iran or Cuba for a domain name. I'll live with an IP address. I'll bet someone could figure out a way for people to poole IP addresses into an ad-hoc network anyway, and make the thing run invisibly in the background. As long as you agreed to the system, it would work for you. Should be fairly easy, especially if you can hack Mozilla to do it anyway, and set up a referring site. Think about the Anonymizer, and proxy servers and stuff. I don't know the technical aspect, but it seems like it should be possible.
Comments