Interesting People mailing list archives

Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

more on Breaking America's grip on the net

From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:08:51 -0400


X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:12:01 +0200
From: Patrick Sinz <ps () ethiqa com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Breaking America's grip on the net
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Ip Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Robert's remark misses the point about "breaking America's grip on the net", the question is not: what should (for instance) the EU give the US to get them to share the management of the DNS (and other key network elements), but what would be the "right" way to manage the common world wide infrastructure.
Unless you think that "right is might" and while some "real politic" can influence the choices of nation, the common interest of all should be the driving force behind decisions.
And actually it is EXACTLY because of the prevailing feeling that the US sends to other countries is "Might is Right" (or Bolton's wish that the security council has only on member) that other countries want to remove the control of the common knowledge management tool from the class room bully.
Jean's remark is more or less on track but misses an important point, the Internet is not the Web. The "roots" within browsers are the roots for certificates (what you need to make secure SSL/Web transactions work). The keys "roots" are the DNS roots that are managed at the Operator level, and of course the IP allocation schemes.
ANYBODY can manage their own DNS root, but obviously if you filter out all interesting servers you crippled your tool. IP allocation is a little bit more tricky since it needs the cooperation of the central operators who are in most case not limited to a single country.
But a split between US, Some "interesting countries" (anybody that likes to run a country wide firewall) and the "Rest of the world", is very possible.
And it is doubtful that for instance GOOGLE or Microsoft will say, oh no we do not want to be seen in "Old Europe", even Verisign will have the choice between duplicating their Certification platform on a "non-US" route, or accept that some national authority is squatting on their "non-US IP address/DNS names". 
(With interesting impact on the contractual side of Certificate purchasing).
So the whole shebang is actually quite like a Zen Koan, The main reason you have to let go is because you feel you do not have to. 

Cheers
[ps]

David Farber wrote:




Begin forwarded message:

From: jean_camp <jean_camp () harvard edu>
Date: October 13, 2005 1:43:26 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Breaking America's grip on the net
China has its own roots that also reflect the US roots, but need not do so. It may be the case that every other country has their own network plus (the filtered) access US network. Getting a new network requires coordination. Governments are fairly well placed to create that coordination. Tell MS that the french language browser will have a specific default root, what will MS do? They have business interests and customers to serve.
Refusing to cooperate in a network based on cooperation may not be the optimal long term strategy. Of course, today the isolationists rule in all domains - digital and otherwise. 

thanks,
Jean

On Oct 9, 2005, at 7:42 AM, David Farber wrote:





Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53 () columbia edu>
Date: October 8, 2005 10:29:53 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Breaking America's grip on the net


Dave:
Could anyone on IP explain how the US could "be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments" as The Guardian might wish? What "force" could be applied and by whom?
I'm all for negotiation. Has the EU (or any others who propose some sort of internationalization of "control" of the Internet) offered anything concrete in return for the US giving up the control? What could the United States possibly want (and reasonably ask for) in return for giving up control (which is I presume is highly valuable or we wouldn't be talking about it)? Unless there is a reasonable quid pro quo, the only rational and reasonable response from the United States is "no" and the "hell no." If the US simply says "no", isn't that the end of it? What recourse do other countries really have? 

Thanks

Bob

David Farber wrote:




Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Date: October 6, 2005 2:50:23 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Breaking America's grip on the net
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com


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
<http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/ 0,16376,1585288,00.html>
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.
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." 

Human rights
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. 
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as rca53 () columbia edu
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/ interesting-people/ 

--
***************************************
Robert C. Atkinson
Director of Policy Research
Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI)
1A Uris Hall, Columbia Business School
3022 Broadway
New York, NY 10027-6902

212-854-7576
cell: 908-447-4201
***************************************

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as Jean_Camp () harvard edu
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/





-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as ps () ethiqa com
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Current thread: