Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Aims To Give Up Control Over Internet Administration

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the at-long-last dept.

The Internet 279

schwit1 writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post: "U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move likely to please international critics but alarm some business leaders and others who rely on smooth functioning of the Web.

Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance last year."
Reader Midnight_Falcon points out this press release on the move from Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmm.... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488605)

I don't have much love for the US government, but I don't trust US corporations not at all. And there are a lot of foreign governments I don't trust to act in the best interests of the Internet. I am not sure how to feel about this.

Re:Hmm.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489051)

I do. Very worried. If somebody could guarantee that control would remain in some sort of friendly consortium of western democracies, fine. But the reality is that there are a lot worse places control could end up than USA.

Re:Hmm.... (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 8 months ago | (#46489217)

The reason I prefer it remain under US control is because the internet is almost pure speech, and the US, in spite of all of its flaws, is perhaps THE biggest protector of free speech. I'm a bit concerned that some countries (even some traditionally free countries such as the UK) won't protect free speech as well as the US does. For example, it is already easy enough in Europe to simply label something as hate speech in order to have it censored. The UK already has filters for the pirate bay and pornography.

Presently in the US, there are no official filters for anything. Yes, Hollywood is trying its damnedest to change that, but so far they are failing quite spectacularly in the US (whereas they've succeeded elsewhere.) It might become easier for them to succeed with an international body.

Since IANA regulates IP address assignment, they could effectively establish filters that apply globally. The NSA is the "rest of the world"'s (by that I mean Europe, who tends to refer to themselves as "the rest of the world" quite often) best argument against the US having the keys to IANA, but the NSA has no need for that. Not a single thing they have ever done, or probably will ever do, has required IANA to change any of its rules in their favor. Even give IANA control to China if you'd like, and the NSA will still be able to do everything it does. Pleas against the NSA by foreign governments for non-US governance of IANA are just preying on those who have no fucking clue about how the internet actually works, but think they should have a say in how it is run anyways.

Re:Hmm.... (-1, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46489277)

the US ... is perhaps THE biggest protector of free speech.

How's the kool-aid taste?

Re:Hmm.... (4, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | about 8 months ago | (#46489295)

He didn't say it was doing a good job, he said he couldn't see a better alternative. And you didn't propose one either.

Re:Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489319)

He didn't say it was doing a good job, he said he couldn't see a better alternative. And you didn't propose one either.

EFF?

Re:Hmm.... (2)

Sinryc (834433) | about 8 months ago | (#46489407)

So a non-profit that is based in the US so they are protected and use US laws?

Re:Hmm.... (-1, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46489357)

It doesn't matter what you propose to a kool-aid drinker. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to break through the 'patriotism' that gets hammered into USians.

Re:Hmm.... (2, Informative)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#46489473)

I couldn't help but notice you *still* didn't propose a better alternative to the U.S.

Cat got your tongue?

Re: Hmm.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489543)

You are full of shit.
All you managed to do in two posts is a little name calling.
Just quit if it's too hard for you to make a post without being a huge baby.

Re:Hmm.... (2)

murdocj (543661) | about 8 months ago | (#46489309)

Well, let's see... Russia? China? India? Latin America? Africa? Most Euro countries? Just where do you think your speech is going to be more free than in the USA?

Re:Hmm.... (-1, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46489341)

Well, if I was talking bad about the USA, it would have to be any of those countries. Seriously though, I know your schooling and media suck ass in the US, but there are a lot more countries you know.

Re:Hmm.... (2)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 8 months ago | (#46489459)

Unfortunately, I wouldn't trust those countries to not put filters indiscriminately on content. The US has many, many faults...as do all nations, but the internet has been successful because of the government's relative lack of regulation. Once it's under international oversight, things could easily get out of hand.

Re:Hmm.... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489651)

You mean the same US that seizes domains without oversight?

Re:Hmm.... (5, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | about 8 months ago | (#46489461)

the US ... is perhaps THE biggest protector of free speech.

How's the kool-aid taste?

So, while I object strongly to government intrusion, and agree that the US is very big on IP-enforcement, I have to agree with the assertion that the US is one of the best jurisdictions from a free speech standpoint.

So, if you're trying to run The Pirate Bay or Wikileaks, US control isn't so good.

On the other hand, if you're just running a typical blog or news site that just posts opinions or journalism, and not movies or classified documents, then the US is about the best place to have your service hosted. You can post Hitler's Greatest Hits, Mohammed Is An Idiot, or McDonalds Makes You Fat to your heart's content. A few of those are likely to get you in trouble almost anywhere else, including in the EU. Some EU nations outright ban Nazi propaganda, and some have fairly strict libel laws.

In the US if you start your blog with "This is all my opinion, but..." there is basically nothing that anybody can do to take it down and make it stay down. There is the whole Streisand Effect, but there are laws to help prevent even that.

Actually, I'd consider the whole legal system probably the biggest problem with US control. Justice is for sale to a degree, but for fairly pure free-speech issues it is almost impossible to lose in a US court.

Re: Hmm.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489533)

Banning Nazi propaganda is wrong? Since when?

Not every opinion is equally worth of protection. Opinions promoting murderous hate and active violation of human rights do not deserve to be spread. End of.

Re: Hmm.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489571)

Banning Nazi propaganda is wrong? Since when?

Not every opinion is equally worth of protection. Opinions promoting murderous hate and active violation of human rights do not deserve to be spread. End of.

Says all the greatest dictators and oppressors in history.

"Free speech is great, as long as your opinion is the same as mine."

Right.

Re: Hmm.... (1)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#46489739)

Banning Nazi propaganda is wrong? Since when?

Well, the Nazis of Germany certainly put a high priority on banning other peoples' propaganda so there must be something to it.

Re: Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489549)

Unless you put a negative opinion about your judge.. Then you end up in jail and will be unemployed forever if you get ever out..

Re:Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489577)

US isn't good for pirate bay or wiki leaks? Since when? I can access both of thsoe websites and the US respects the laws of countries hosting their web-hosts. They may be trying to extradite Assange, but they still host his websites DNS record.

The most of the EU on the otherhand has all traffic to those sites blocked, what makes you think if they were given the reigns they wouldn't blot it out completely?

Re:Hmm.... (4, Insightful)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46489617)

So basically the right to free speech in the US is good as long as it's not against anything the US believes is important. How is that different than any other country? The kool-aid is just a different flavour, doesn't mean it's worse than what the US drinks.

Re:Hmm.... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#46489355)

"consortium of western democracies"

Yeah, I would trust something like the Five Eyes to oversee the internets.

Oh, wait - https://www.privacyinternation... [privacyinternational.org]

Re:Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489053)

I don't trust the US government but I trust my government (and the UN) even less. I don't know either.

Re:Hmm.... (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 8 months ago | (#46489061)

so when we don't want the govt. to monitor us (read : NSA abuses), they continue nonetheless, but when we do, they make some weak half-assed attempt to do something then give up(...FCC and net neutrality)

and doesn't this mean that the NSA can now freely spy without having to conform to feeble restrictions for privacy on normal means of communication ?

Re:Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489285)

THIS IS PURE OPINION:

You are totally correct. I would argue that the US (current defects included) is still the closest thing to democratic control out there. I make two arguments:

1) Who would the US cede "control" to? Bodies like the UN aren't even close to democratic ((1 country == 1 vote) != (1 person == 1 vote)).

2) There cannot be any possible interest for the US that is better served without control. ( Let's give away _____, it's better for us??!?!?? ) If there were countries demanded that the US give up the internet, why haven't we heard about it? What proposal do they give us? How is this new regulatory domain better serve the Internet?

SCANDALOUS REMARK: So far, I see only one oligarch that has called up the US President to tell him what to do. I say ignore him.

Re:Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489733)

Essentially, the problem with ceding control is that ICANN can then be trusted to pull the domain registration of a site based on the edict from one of the controlling govts. for whatever reason. Essentially, the web goes dark due to govt. speech regulations. Who's going to get control now? China, Russia, France? UN security council members? How does it work? The problem is in the details. We know how the Internet works when the US was in charge.

Re:Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489353)

You can't trust anyone with power. Power attracts the corrupt, and corrupts everyone else. There is no such thing as a true statesman.

Transparency and public accountability are the *only* means of keeping government corruption in check. Absolutely nothing else will do. The instant a man with power has a shred of privacy he will use it to do something that harms the masses. Count on it.

This does not mean anarchy would be better. It would not. It means eternal vigilance is the only defense against exploitation. There are no exceptions.

RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (4, Insightful)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about 8 months ago | (#46488617)

Sixteen years after Jon Postel attempted to bring DNS root zone control authority under IANA, finally, the dream of internationalization of the root DNS/internet infrastructure is becoming a reality. A moment of silence please, for Jon Postel, IANA.

This carries big implications in NSA's spying/QUANTUM program, which use U.S. control of the DNS system to exploit systems.

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 8 months ago | (#46488783)

They don't need to control DNS to do their dirty work.

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (0)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about 8 months ago | (#46488809)

True, but it helps.

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (3, Insightful)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about 8 months ago | (#46489119)

No, it really doesn't. The NSA used Man-in-the-middle attacks using DNS, meaning they slid in well BELOW the root servers, not using root themselves.

Moving the root servers to a neutral 3rd party does nothing to stop spying by any nation, much less the US.

But hopefully it will mean they will be less a target by hackers and national cyber-warfare campaigns.

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (4, Insightful)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 8 months ago | (#46488829)

Sixteen years after Jon Postel attempted to bring DNS root zone control authority under IANA, finally, the dream of internationalization of the root DNS/internet infrastructure is becoming a reality. A moment of silence please, for Jon Postel, IANA.

This carries big implications in NSA's spying/QUANTUM program, which use U.S. control of the DNS system to exploit systems.

Really? Tampering with the DNS root servers is something that everyone would notice. It's not something NSA would be likely to start tampering with. Manipulating DNS at local levels perhaps, but certainly not at the root.

I'm more concerned about US Govt manipulation of DNS at the behest of corporations for copyright enforcement by killing websites. We've already seen that happen

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#46488881)

US activities re confiscating domain names has been laughably ineffective because it's limited to US controlled TLDs.

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 months ago | (#46488841)

NSA's spying/QUANTUM program, which use U.S. control of the DNS system to exploit systems.

[Citation Needed]

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488981)

Citation [wikipedia.org]

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (1)

SeanDS (1039000) | about 8 months ago | (#46489165)

*Internationalisation

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#46489187)

No it doesn't. DNS has nothing to do with surveillance. Governments still think that they can censor sites by disabling name resolution. They are fools.

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 8 months ago | (#46489313)

"This carries big implications in NSA's spying/QUANTUM program"

Oh, I totally agree. When the US no longer controls it they can exhert pressure to those that do, and then poin the finger elsewhere since they can say "But we don't control it anymore! We can't be held responsible!" Anybody who thinks the US won't control what they want through black-ops activities is an utter fool if they have been paying attention to any of this.

Re:RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489421)

Sixteen years after Jon Postel attempted to bring DNS root zone control authority under IANA, finally, the dream of internationalization of the root DNS/internet infrastructure is becoming a reality. A moment of silence please, for Jon Postel, IANA.

Yes, now the international community of Russia and China will get to have their proper say.

This carries big implications in NSA's spying/QUANTUM program, which use U.S. control of the DNS system to exploit systems.

Yes, because the American control of .de, .ve, .eu, and and .za has been instrumental in intelligence gathering. [/sarcasm]

While US control may irk many, especially in light of the Snowden documents, there aren't many other countries that I'd trust. The Germans, the Swiss, the Scandinavians perhaps, Japan, and (as a Canadian) perhaps Canada (though we are part of the Five Eyes). Or perhaps make ICANN more technical and simply appoint people from the RIRs.

Re: RFC 2468 -- I remember IANA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489737)

I can guarantee that the NSA has never modified data directly in the root zone. The full zone is published and freely available to the world via. FTP twice a day and multiple people automatically dig every record against every root letter multiple times a day to monitor for errors.

Each zone refresh a report is generated on any changes, and all changes are accounted for. No changes are made that can't be traced back to the rightful owner of the data.

The NSA is perfectly capable of MITM attacking your DNS traffic (you are using DNSSEC aren't you?) and would be spotted almost instantly modifying the actual root zone.

Oh just feking wonderful... (5, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46488659)

As much as I dislike US policy, I'm betting that there will be a awesome push for the UN to take control and everyone will quickly be beating their heads against the wall over it. Well, I'm sure everyone is going to enjoy the new age of super-censorship in order to avoid offending *insert groups* feelings.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (1, Informative)

geek (5680) | about 8 months ago | (#46488681)

Yep. Dumped all my tech stocks today. This is going to be real ugly. It'll be 10 years before the dust settles.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 8 months ago | (#46488973)

lol.

I hope you were joking....otherwise that is one hell of a knee jerk reaction to nothing.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about 8 months ago | (#46488765)

The NTIA wasn't arbiter of all internet content, and the way the internet is designed, nobody can be.

NTIA administers the top level (.com, .uk, .tv) DNS.

Censorship would be imposed on the traffic itself, at the ISP/carrier level, not by the dns root servers.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (3, Interesting)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 8 months ago | (#46488859)

The notion that giving Saudi Arabia an equal footing here as the US, is bone chilling. Its sort of well known that a lot of countries out there have no concept whatsoever of free speech. They burn christian churches down in Saudi Arabia and so on. This is a really bad idea.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 8 months ago | (#46489045)

Saudi Arabia is nothing. Think Russia and China.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489257)

Last I seen Russia in't let a bunch of little girls burn to death because their being in public without their head scarves would have pissed off Allah.
 
You people who give Islam a pass when it comes to human rights violations are nothing more than pieces of shit.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (-1, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46489293)

Russia and China are nothing. Think of that police state that has no problem spying on, detaining, locking up, torturing and killing their citizens, the USA.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489139)

The notion that giving Saudi Arabia an equal footing here as the US, is bone chilling. Its sort of well known that a lot of countries out there have no concept whatsoever of free speech. They burn christian churches down in Saudi Arabia and so on. This is a really bad idea.

This is exactly why international phone calls are impossible and the telephony system is so broken... oh, wait.

The ITU is controlled by the UN and the phone system works just fine. Why do you think Saudi Arabia will be given unilateral control of the Internet? You may as well claim that negotiating trade agreements with China will force the US to become a communist state.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (1, Interesting)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#46489211)

You may as well claim that negotiating trade agreements with China will force the US to become a communist state.

Interesting that you say this.. We are dependent on china, and we are moving towards a heavily centralized state. Note this is not meant as correlation.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489297)

OH! you mean like the paragon of freedom that the US is.... Free speech you don't have it. They burn christian churches, mosques and synagogues in the US too, linking a couple of incidents doesn't mean every church is burned... I would trust Saudi over USA anyday, you have alot of trust to earn back.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 8 months ago | (#46489483)

The notion that giving Saudi Arabia an equal footing here as the US, is bone chilling. Its sort of well known that a lot of countries out there have no concept whatsoever of free speech. They burn christian churches down in Saudi Arabia and so on. This is a really bad idea.

I heard once about this thing called the crusades...

Maybe we oughta just burn down all the churches

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46489721)

I heard once about this thing called the crusades...

Maybe we oughta just burn down all the churches

You realize that the crusades were a *reaction* to 400 years of muslim aggression against christians right? And that was after the wholescale slaughter of entire cities near the end of those said 400 years which finally broke the camels back as it were. I know it's cool to be anti-christian these days, but at least learn your basic history.

Re:Oh just feking wonderful... (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 8 months ago | (#46489509)

They burn christian churches down in Saudi Arabia and so on.

We burn mosques and synagogues down in the USA.
It happens more often than you probably know, because it rarely makes national news.

The USA (as a whole) isn't a theocracy, but it's not for want of trying.
At the local level in particular, the line between church and state can be very fuzzy.

Welp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488723)

There goes the neighborhood.

It's coming (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488727)

A lot of faggots who like big government dicks in their ass will finally have their way as the UN pushes us to a groupthink that would have amazed even Orwell as far as scope and intensity.

Kill ICANN while you are at it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488731)

Please kill that awful shadow of a company for what they have done to the internet, well, more the web.
DNS is the worst possible thing, and worse yet, the broken URI system that went and done a complete 180 from the original ideas that was going to follow a similar hierarchical system like newsgroups.

And now we are suffering even more from their bullshit by them making the TLD system so generic that it has literally zero meaning now. Now any random tit can come in and sneakily steal customers from you, be it legit or not, by using your name on some random other TLD that you haven't bought yet because you are a small company.
Not only that, it makes stealing login data and such considerably easier.
I remember it used to be you'd only need to watch out for crap like slashdot-org.leethacker.com or stupid stuff like that. Now it can literally be something stupid like slashdot.snickers. How that fuck will anyone know 100% that it isn't real without checking the original websites? It is going to cause a monumental waste of time and security resources.
Fuck you ICANN. Fuck all of you. You have ruined the web.

Give Liberia, Kazaks & Brits Internet control? (2, Insightful)

noshellswill (598066) | about 8 months ago | (#46488735)

Fool.

Re:Give Liberia, Kazaks & Brits Internet contr (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488775)

If Obama has his way it'll be surrendered to China along with a slew of national treasures and an invite for the Chinese masses to join ObamaCare.

Internet should go where it should go (1)

deathcloset (626704) | about 8 months ago | (#46488771)

I'm fairly certain that in asking this question that I'm just being a biased Californian-based US citizen, but aside from being better able to allow internet users to hide from spies, what other benefit will this action bestow? And actually will this actually allow internet users to better hide from spies? I thought the US is doing an alright job, except for the peeping that is - they should have done a better job at that... Anyhow, now to read the friendly article.

Re:Internet should go where it should go (1)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about 8 months ago | (#46488801)

There's many, largely political issues this solves aside from the ease-of-exploitation for spying (simple DNS redirect to an attack IP for targeted computers) -- including the U.S's ability to use an internet "killswitch" disabling root DNS servers, and reducing the likelihood of a fragmentation of the DNS system as countries like Iran or Russia seek to create their own DNS system, giving them root control rather than the U.S. They could also arbitrarily decide to start blocking certain DNS entries etc and essentially take those sites "off the internet", or at least make getting to them a hassle.

Basically, no one owns the internet and it is designed to be resilient to any one nation or actor going offline. However, if one nation controls the DNS -- and most users depend on DNS to visit web sites -- one nation exercises greater control over the internet than others.

Re:Internet should go where it should go (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about 8 months ago | (#46488883)

Are they actually moving the root DNS servers? Cause otherwise nothing has really changed except the US is no longer regulating ICANN. ICANN is still physically located in the US. If the root servers are still in the US nothing prevents the NSA/FBI/whoever from walking in and turning them off.

Re:Internet should go where it should go (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#46488927)

Lots of countries have turned off the internet within their borders. You can't route around a national border.

This is a complete non-story.

Re:Internet should go where it should go (3, Insightful)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 8 months ago | (#46488977)

You sure can route through it. ;)

ICANN is a convention (5, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about 8 months ago | (#46488811)

The only thing that makes ICANN relevant is that they control the root zone that everybody uses. These days, if a few of the larger tech companies (Microsoft/Google/Mozilla/Apple) got together and decided to start their own DNS root zone, ICANN would become irrelevant rather quickly (since those companies control the browsers and mail clients everybody uses, and can do their own DNS lookups).

I'm not saying that would be a good thing, just that I find it interesting that ICANN is seen as being "in charge" as if they have regulatory authority when in reality they only have a say because people use their root zone by convention.

Re:ICANN is a convention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489143)

What is the chance of Microsoft, Google, and Apple getting together and agreeing on anything?

Re:ICANN is a convention (2)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about 8 months ago | (#46489185)

The root zone is one of the few things related to DNS administration that ICANN doesn't control. Root zone authority still sits with the US department of commerce

Re:ICANN is a convention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489431)

The only thing that makes ICANN relevant is that they control the root zone that everybody uses. These days, if a few of the larger tech companies (Microsoft/Google/Mozilla/Apple) got together and decided to start their own DNS root zone, ICANN would become irrelevant rather quickly (since those companies control the browsers and mail clients everybody uses, and can do their own DNS lookups).

Better to get the RIRs and ccTLD operators involved. Keep things as technical as possible.

Like giving away the Panama Canal (5, Insightful)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 8 months ago | (#46488863)

Developing the technologies and protocols of the internet was done at the expense of U.S. taxpayers by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Similarly, the Panama Canal was built at the expense of U.S. taxpayers for its great strategic value.

In 1977, President Carter signed a treaty giving up U.S. control, and today China has a great deal of control over this asset:
http://themengesproject.blogsp... [blogspot.com]

What strategic asset will the U.S. give up control over next... the Global Positioning System, perhaps?

Re:Like giving away the Panama Canal (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#46488911)

LOL. Like Panama has any ability to withstand a US military adventure. Nor does China have any ability to project force into Panama.

And no, the US is not giving up control over the internet. Fundamentally the internet infrastructure is controlled by the political bodies governing the countries it resides in. The US does not, and never did have control of the internet outside of the US.

Re:Like giving away the Panama Canal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489093)

Developing the technologies and protocols of the internet was done at the expense of U.S. taxpayers by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Similarly, the Panama Canal was built at the expense of U.S. taxpayers for its great strategic value.

In 1977, President Carter signed a treaty giving up U.S. control, and today China has a great deal of control over this asset:
http://themengesproject.blogsp... [blogspot.com]

What strategic asset will the U.S. give up control over next... the Global Positioning System, perhaps?

Yea, Clinton did that. May 1 2000. But I assume you knew that.

WASHINGTON -- President Clinton on Monday gave the go-ahead for letting boaters, motorists, and hikers use a satellite-navigation system with the same pinpoint accuracy as the military has long enjoyed. Clinton ordered that at 8 p.m., EDT on Monday night, the U.S. military stop intentionally scrambling the satellite signals used by civilians to improve the accuracy of Global Position System receivers tenfold

Re:Like giving away the Panama Canal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489161)

Twat:
You are posting a comment on the WWW, which was invented by a Briton whilst working at CERN - an EU funded org, whilst using a DARPA (US) funded protocol (I think)

Anyway, my point is that it's a bit rubbish to suggest that the US tax payer fronts the cost of development of t'internet as a whole.

It's as stupid as me claiming that you can't speak English because you are not a resident of England.

Cheers
Jon

Re:Like giving away the Panama Canal (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 8 months ago | (#46489321)

It seems you have no idea what the internet is, and have confused it with the web. Here's your sign ...

Re: Like giving away the Panama Canal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489583)

Right. So you US boys get the bare TCP net and will be condemned to use usenet, gopher and ftp )I'm generous), while the EU will replace TCP and continue to enjoy the www. Deal? Please say yes.

tactactactactac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488867)

37425 97702 97702
 
478 69590 69590 89984 89984 53760

How relevant will this be under IPv6? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 8 months ago | (#46488887)

Seriously - my background is mostly with v4. Doesn't v6 incorporate a better name resolution mechanism? I'd always assumed so, since it was going to vastly increase the amount of address space to be tabulated.

Never mind. (1)

mmell (832646) | about 8 months ago | (#46488905)

I don't need a link to LMGTFY, TYVM. Although after what I've learned in under thirty seconds, I do need a drink.

Halfway there (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | about 8 months ago | (#46488893)

Now let's find a way to replace DNS with a decentralized system.

America's loss is the enemies' gain (0, Flamebait)

mi (197448) | about 8 months ago | (#46488963)

Whatever wrong you can accuse US of, China and/or Russia have done worse both to their own citizens and to other countries.

Every modicum of control we give up, surrender, or otherwise lose, is a gain for the much less savory regimes. There is no escaping it...

Re:America's loss is the enemies' gain (2)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 8 months ago | (#46489181)

Why do you see enemies in one of our largest trading partner? Enemies everwhere... China will never attack us, for the simple reason that we buy a LOT of stuff from them. Why kill your largest customer? So..... calm down. sheesh. Oh, Russia? Yeah, that old cold war mentality isn't quite gone... sigh.

Re:America's loss is the enemies' gain (3, Interesting)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 8 months ago | (#46489245)

They may not be enemies of the US, but they certainly seem to be enemies of freedom of speech and the concept of the Internet in general. I can't say I'd like to see either of them given more power over it.

Re:America's loss is the enemies' gain (-1, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46489323)

Ever think that perhaps the media in the US doesn't allow you to see all the crap it does, exactly like the media in China? Watching the news in the US is like taking a heavy dose of LSD and then being spoon fed red herrings while nobody talks about the elephant in the middle of the room.

There's a reason why people inside the US seem to love it so much and why sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many people outside it think they're a narcissistic psychopathic meddling lying nation that starts wars everywhere, ironicly, in the name of 'freedom'.

The USA isn't synonymous with efficiency (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 8 months ago | (#46489005)

a move likely to please international critics but alarm some business leaders and others who rely on smooth functioning of the Web.

So, because something isn't US led, it becomes inefficient? Give me a break...Or are you kidding me?

Re:The USA isn't synonymous with efficiency (4, Insightful)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 8 months ago | (#46489065)

Imagine you have a website called "AllahIsFalse.com". Now, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and many other Muslim countries may very well block that domain; however, with a wonderful UN-controlled Internet, some international bureaucrats sitting in New York can now decide that your website is actually a hate-site, and thus turn you off around the entire world. Since, after all, some people in some other countries - who have bureaucrats sitting in New York - don't like what you have, and we want to all get along...

Re:The USA isn't synonymous with efficiency (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489359)

Imagine you have a website called "MegaUpload.com". With a wonderful US-controlled Internet, some businessman in Hollywood can now decide that your website is actually a copyright infringing site, and thus turn you off around the entire world. Since, after all, some people in the US - who have bureaucrats sitting in Washington - don't like what you have, and we want to all get along...

Oh, but under US control they also get dozens of heavily armed police to raid your house.

I'd rather have sites taken offline because they offended someone than because of pure greed.

Be careful (4, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 8 months ago | (#46489055)

While the US has been beating the internet like a redheaded stepchild it must not fall into the hands of an organization like the UN. Suddenly the internet will be whored out for every little pet project. Without a doubt suddenly the priorities of managing the internet will have nothing to do with the smooth flow of data from A to B but will reflect whatever whim or fancy that pops into the collective mind of the UN combined with whatever various countries can vote buy to get.

So if China wants to block something then they will buy a pile of votes from the Caribbean or Africa and suddenly 10,000 site vanish. Or if you criticize the UN you site will be taken down for 80 different reasons.

But the worst part is that the UN might be the most sclerotic organization running these days, (short of Sears) so any critical changes that need be done simply will end up in committee until it is way too late.

Plus the UN is a firm believer in "Real Politic" so they will cave in to every NSA type out there as opposed to fighting them tooth and nail. But don't worry they will publish papers as to how they are supporting internet freedom.

So if you want Russia, Bahrain, China, and even North Korea having a vote on the internet then putting it in a place where the UN will grab it is how that can happen.

A better idea would be to hand the internet over to a collation of countries that have a decades long history of good government, low corruption, low nationalism, and non-interference,: So I am thinking Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Austria, Canada, Austria, and of course Switzerland. You will notice that I am leaving out countries like France, Britain, Spain, Italy, the rest of Asia, all of Africa, and all of Eastern Europe. Quite simply it would be a disaster to give these countries any say in one of the most important technologies on earth. And if any of the left out countries wanted to leave the internet I doubt that anyone would notice.

Re:Be careful (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489223)

The issue here for many, is that nations can control within their own borders just fine. We don't want them to gain influence within our own.

As for a coalition of nations, there are only a few there I'd think of and research before I'd agree. Germany has its own problems with censorship. Japan is also going too far in a lot of things. They have a cultural problem in the older generations. Doesn't the PM there forbid any government employees with tattoos? That butterfly on the ankle must mean they are Yakuza obviously. Norway and Sweden and Switzerland I have no immediate opinion on. I think there was something about censorship in Switzerland recently in the news, but I don't remember off hand. Canada isn't more than a decade behind the US in political ideals. Australia and New Zealand are right out for their censorship problems. I might support adding the US and Poland to the list, along with Ireland and maybe Israel. Surely not India or China or Russia or South Korea.

How cute. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489083)

Don't you need control before you can give it up? Masturbate yourselves more furiously please.....

Obama aims to weaken U.S. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489209)

Fixed the headline for you.

Oh Shit, not the UN please!!! (0, Troll)

Virtucon (127420) | about 8 months ago | (#46489225)

Couldn't we like get some other organization in place instead of one headed by the UN? The unspeakable retards who wander the halls, the perpetual bureaucrats who have no one to hold them accountable will be in charge of this? The ones that gave us the IPCC? [abc.net.au] Fuck that, we need an alternate Internet, one without the UN and their interference. [jurist.org] Or how they are biased away from showing all sides of an issue instead favoring the most politically expedient ones. [thecommentator.com]

Re:Oh Shit, not the UN please!!! (1, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46489329)

You can always tell a USian by how much Kool-aid he's drunk about the UN.

Re:Oh Shit, not the UN please!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489441)

You can always tell a USian by how much Kool-aid he's drunk about the UN.

You can always tell an idiot by how much he trusts the UN and instead tries to deflect it to "uneducated" US citizens...

Re: Oh Shit, not the UN please!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489637)

You can always tell an idiot by how much he thinks the US citizens are educated ....

http://www.studentsfirst.org/pages/the-stats

http://www.lpfi.org/how-does-us-compare-other-countries-stem-education

Yes, there is a well educated elite in the US. Most aren't. As demonstrated by batshit crazy creationism, rampant religious extremists, etc.

Speaking of elitism.......(see parent) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489747)

see parent

Re:Oh Shit, not the UN please!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489693)

You can always tell a USian by how much Kool-aid he's drunk about the UN.

You can always tell an idiot by how much he trusts the UN and instead tries to deflect it to "uneducated" US citizens...

To be fair, as a person raised in the US, I've only heard opinions of the UN as if they are a joke and ineffectual. Aside from that accessibility law fiasco some time ago, then the UN was an all powerful organization that should be feared and burned. I know I've heard that it was created to protect prices of goods such as coal, so an older version of OPEC or something. I don't know what to think. I've heard that Russia and China are doing their best to mess with their ideological "enemy nations" by stopping measures in the UN, just making it more pointless.

If the UN acts like a House of Representatives, then perhaps it is time for them to get a Senate branch as well with equal representation for all members, instead of an old boys club mentality.

I'm not sure if I've heard anything good about the UN or really, any government since the falling of the Berlin Wall.

Re:Oh Shit, not the UN please!!! (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46489743)

Don't worry, I'm Canadian and in general most of us up here have 0 faith in the body working properly. This is also reflected by our governments official policy on the organization, especially with their election of dictators and despots to various human rights bodies, and arms control groups. Believe whatever you want to believe, but if you think allowing governments that rape, torture, and murder people on the street(as official policy) for voicing any opinion that rests against them is a great idea, not sure if insane or just crazy.

To whom? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46489581)

That's maybe the biggest question here. The US hands over control of the internet. Ok. Fine. Sounds good on paper. But who gets control? And please don't say "nobody". Like it or not, certain things need to be policied by some entity. The two things that immediately spring into the mind are domain name control and IP address assignation. Pretty much anything where "globally unique" is a key feature will have to have some kind of controlling entity.

And the very LAST thing I could possibly see as beneficial is if that control was handed to certain entities that would all too eagerly take control of it. Namely corporations with an interest in controlling those resources. Can you imagine what it would be like if a for-profit organization takes over certain aspects of the net? Especially the "globally unique" ones? If you thought domain name turf wars have been problematic, you ain't seen nothing yet.

I'm certainly not someone who thinks it's a perfect solution to hand the control of an important resource to a single country. Far from it. If anything, handing it to the EU sounds sensible, considering how much infighting is going on there and how much bickering, the chance that they could use it against the rest of the world is sufficiently small. Ok, I'm kidding. But I guess it is easy to understand how it's hard to find a good governing body for something like this. Who should take over?

The UN? Please. Take a look at how much success they had with world peace and world hunger and ponder how much more important those two things are compared to the internet. Then consider how much success they'd have policying and governing the internet.

A multi-national consortium? Where's the difference to the UN?

The EU? As I said, considering how much in-fighting and bickering is going on there, it probably carries the lowest risk of anything bad happening. But also the lowest chance of ANYTHING happening when something needs to be done. Plus the highest chance that it will eventually be sold off to the highest bidding corporation.

Decentralize it? Good idea on paper, that was essentially the basic idea behind the internet, but it has deviated from that a long while ago. It's very unlikely that this can still fly. Most likely we'll be running into severe problems before long. Especially when certain countries decide it's a good idea to do a few things differently so they can more easily avoid doubleplusungood ideas to reach the plebs.

Who should take control? I can't really think of many good alternatives, but I'm eager to hear suggestions.

A fake Internet for the UN... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489609)

So we can see what they do w/it!

Fools (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489691)

Blows my mind that people think the DNS root servers are like some "centeral internet brain", or that moving the DNS root out of the US will help hide you from the NSA. As if ICANN exerts any control whatsoever on the DNS servers at their local ISP beyond what that ISP/government allows. People with no knowlege of the subject shouldn't hold strong opinions the said subject.

As for the bit about Saudi Arabia being a better steward than the US... how the fuck am I supposed to get off on porn if all the women are wearing burkas?

where are all the /.ers who said Obama didn't want (0)

raymorris (2726007) | about 8 months ago | (#46489705)

I'm wondering what happened to all the ./ers who argued that Obama would NOT actively try to remove the US from its unique superpower position. All those who said "he doesn't dislike America, that's ridiculous. His wife misspoke when she said they've never been proud of their country."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?