U.N. report challenges Feds' control of Net

A United Nations working group has published a long-awaited report that effectively challenges U.S. supremacy over Internet domain names.

The report says that "no single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance"--which runs directly contrary to the Bush administration's position announced last month.

But the U.N. group couldn't decide what should be done about it. Instead of reaching a consensus, the nations participating in the discussions listed four possible options ranging from modest changes to creating an entirely new "Global Internet Council" under the auspices of the United Nations.

At issue for the group is who runs the Internet and how it can better serve the world. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has long pressed industry, government and private interest groups to ensure that people in poor nations have greater access to the Internet.

Among the governance options put forward by the group were a continuation of the current system, creation of a world body to address public policy issues stemming from the work of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and creation of a body to address a broader range of public policy issues. The fourth option is to create three bodies, one to address policy issues, one for oversight and one for global coordination.

The group also recommended a coordinated global effort to combat spam and urged that law enforcement authorities respect the right to freedom of expression when they crack down on Internet-related crimes.

Reuters contributed to this report.

[203129769353146603573853850462]

Last I heard...

The current administration had no plans to hand over the control of the internet to the UN. And the way this sounds (creating 3 different bodies to oversee different aspects of the net)pretty soon everyone in the US will be paying out the nose so poorer countries can have affordable and equal access (ie the kyoto treaty) why dont we just keep the UN out of the internet. sure, it has its problems, but they are certainly not going to solve any of them, and most likely make things worse.

[203129769353146603573853850462]

Last I heard...

The current administration had no plans to hand over the control of the internet to the UN. And the way this sounds (creating 3 different bodies to oversee different aspects of the net)pretty soon everyone in the US will be paying out the nose so poorer countries can have affordable and equal access (ie the kyoto treaty) why dont we just keep the UN out of the internet. sure, it has its problems, but they are certainly not going to solve any of them, and most likely make things worse.

[OneWithTech]

Governence is needed on a Global Level

The thing to remember in this situation is the fact that is is not
new. The telecoms when through a similar time way back when.

The internet as a whole is world wide, hence the term "World
Wide Web". Because of this nature of it being worldly, there
needs to be a worldly body to govern it.

Using the method of governence throught the United Telecom is
the most logical step in the process of bringing some form of
Internation Standards; much like the ones used by Telco's to this
day to make international phone calls.

One global governence with three standard and principle bodies
to run the Web sounds like the most promising and influential
decission to be made in this case.

"Currently the internet as a whole; is a freeway with no cops, or
reprocussions for any accident's, let alone speeding". This holds
true to the fact that there was enough money being tossed
around to get the .mobi nomenclature for the web, yet .sex
and .xxx still remain unseen.

Yet those to foremention domains would have chainged the
internet as we know it -- for the good too. Yet .sex and .xxx are
still not on the ballet. There obviously isn't enough money being
thrown in ICANN's pocket to pursuade these domains.

This is why a private party should not represent the World Wide
Web.

-Justin

[OneWithTech]

Governence is needed on a Global Level

The thing to remember in this situation is the fact that is is not
new. The telecoms when through a similar time way back when.

The internet as a whole is world wide, hence the term "World
Wide Web". Because of this nature of it being worldly, there
needs to be a worldly body to govern it.

Using the method of governence throught the United Telecom is
the most logical step in the process of bringing some form of
Internation Standards; much like the ones used by Telco's to this
day to make international phone calls.

One global governence with three standard and principle bodies
to run the Web sounds like the most promising and influential
decission to be made in this case.

"Currently the internet as a whole; is a freeway with no cops, or
reprocussions for any accident's, let alone speeding". This holds
true to the fact that there was enough money being tossed
around to get the .mobi nomenclature for the web, yet .sex
and .xxx still remain unseen.

Yet those to foremention domains would have chainged the
internet as we know it -- for the good too. Yet .sex and .xxx are
still not on the ballet. There obviously isn't enough money being
thrown in ICANN's pocket to pursuade these domains.

This is why a private party should not represent the World Wide
Web.

-Justin

[System Tyrant]

Decision making is a UN strong suite.

"But the U.N. group couldn't decide what should be done about it."

And they wonder why the US doesn't want to give it to them. I have to admit even I now can see why giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea. Those people can't even decide what to do about the internet they just don't want the US to control it.

That's great. Lets give it to the UN and wait the next ten years for them to decide that they still haven't come to a conclusion about how to make a decision on what to do with the internet.

[System Tyrant]

Decision making is a UN strong suite.

"But the U.N. group couldn't decide what should be done about it."

And they wonder why the US doesn't want to give it to them. I have to admit even I now can see why giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea. Those people can't even decide what to do about the internet they just don't want the US to control it.

That's great. Lets give it to the UN and wait the next ten years for them to decide that they still haven't come to a conclusion about how to make a decision on what to do with the internet.

[Earl]

Gov. the internet is bad all around

There should be no from of Gov. the internet. This is the one thing that no goverment should have control of. This is for the people not for a goverment. I say Yes whatch, but don't try to goveren.
If you want to look over my sholder, then you should have a warrent to do so,because it's the same coming into my house.

[Earl]

Gov. the internet is bad all around

There should be no from of Gov. the internet. This is the one thing that no goverment should have control of. This is for the people not for a goverment. I say Yes whatch, but don't try to goveren.
If you want to look over my sholder, then you should have a warrent to do so,because it's the same coming into my house.

[Razzl]

ICANN days are numbered

Though no power play has been made by any party yet, US domination of the internet through ICANN is a system that clearly can't continue. I've argued in the past that national interest demands that large and powerful countries seize control of internet activity that originates within their borders, principally through controlling all domain names issued under their country-level domain, if ICANN isn't opened up to international control in a timely manner.

This week's news contains one more example of why ICANN is facing rebellion--their decision not to issue domain names in non-Roman alphabets yet. An issue of this kind can push countries like Russia, China, Japan, Korea, and India, whose native languages are all conducted in non-Roman alphabets, (or without alphabet, in the case of China), into defiance of ICANN for reasons of national and cultural pride.

One variation of internet governance that could arise is regional interest groups issuing domain names after rebelling against ICANN and setting up domain name registration in defiance of the current arrangement. I can foresee from 2 to 5 large groupings, such as the EU, the Southeast Asian states, and some other combinations, taking control of domain names in their area after the ICANN monopoly is broken by rogue states willing to risk temporary technical chaos by issuing competing domain names for their country suffix.

[Razzl]

ICANN days are numbered

Though no power play has been made by any party yet, US domination of the internet through ICANN is a system that clearly can't continue. I've argued in the past that national interest demands that large and powerful countries seize control of internet activity that originates within their borders, principally through controlling all domain names issued under their country-level domain, if ICANN isn't opened up to international control in a timely manner.

This week's news contains one more example of why ICANN is facing rebellion--their decision not to issue domain names in non-Roman alphabets yet. An issue of this kind can push countries like Russia, China, Japan, Korea, and India, whose native languages are all conducted in non-Roman alphabets, (or without alphabet, in the case of China), into defiance of ICANN for reasons of national and cultural pride.

One variation of internet governance that could arise is regional interest groups issuing domain names after rebelling against ICANN and setting up domain name registration in defiance of the current arrangement. I can foresee from 2 to 5 large groupings, such as the EU, the Southeast Asian states, and some other combinations, taking control of domain names in their area after the ICANN monopoly is broken by rogue states willing to risk temporary technical chaos by issuing competing domain names for their country suffix.

[lwvirden]

No one nation...

Perhaps when all the other nations have provided the physical and financial resources equivalent to what has been spent in the US, as well as commit to the ongoing support and maintenance, it will be appropriate to consider some alternative arrangement...

[lwvirden]

No one nation...

Perhaps when all the other nations have provided the physical and financial resources equivalent to what has been spent in the US, as well as commit to the ongoing support and maintenance, it will be appropriate to consider some alternative arrangement...