Cookie Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) currently control the internet under the auspisous of the US department of Commerce (who are due to hand full and sole control over to the ICANN in september 2006). The EU and many developing countries around the world feel that this is wrong and would like to see a UN body in control. Wrangling over who should essentially be the net police, managing domain names and net traffic routing fairly, has been going on for some time. Who would you like to see in control of the internet? You can read more here: A European view http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4296646.stm and here: A USA view http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/...net.control.ap/ I know some people probably want a "nobody" option but realistically we're faced with one of the above only. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman2000 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Let USA keep control of the internet, like the saying goes "If it aint broke,dont't fix it"( or something along those lines) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted October 20, 2005 Veteran Share Posted October 20, 2005 ICANN should have sole control of it, they have been doing fine. But, the US should not have power over them, like the .xxx tld, ICANN brought it in, US just rejected it, they shouldnt be allowed to, they should have to go through proper channels like everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dud Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Who here has had problems with ICANN's control so far? Nobody? They've done a fine job so far. Control to the U.N. is ridiculous. Maybe let countries have their own little ICANNs, but the bureaucracy of the U.N. would kill it. The U.N. is NOT a country, and is definitely not known for it's efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 And what do people think of the developing countries gripes over the fact that they see ICANN as favouring the developed world? Take a read of this http://www.icannwatch.org/icann4beginners.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted October 20, 2005 Veteran Share Posted October 20, 2005 ICANN manage the TLD's, i dont see how they could be "favourable" towards developed countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 To say that "if it ain't broke dont fix it" is not a great arguement against change. Even if you dont feel the reasons against ICANN's control are correct (which i feel do deserve consideration) you have to agree there's always room for improvement but that with one single organisation controlling that process they dont really have to listen to anybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman2000 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 ICANN have done a good job so far, ofcourse there is room for improvemnet but I dont think there is need for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleck79 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 this topic will be an interesting read as time goes on and more non-US net users read, vote and post. I really would like to see, as I'm from the US, I never can see the opinion of the people outside of the US. Myself, I would rather see it in ICANN (US) control. I do not see anything wrong with it right now, and that other countries can still effectivley countrol their countries' internet. Look at China for example, they block everything that they don't want their citizens to view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Elі Subscriber² Posted October 21, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted October 21, 2005 ICANN has done a great job so far, let it continue to be so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman2000 Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 "Look at China for example, they block everything that they don't want their citizens to view. " Thats a good point you bring up, Im sure other countries would also want some information to be censored, so that is why Us should keep control everyone is able to access any info they want and post anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted October 21, 2005 Author Share Posted October 21, 2005 But is there a risk (as some people think already) that the US might bring to bare more control if their own interests were threatened. I'm thinking of something in the vein of the patriot act. Would it not be better that a world body would run it and thus requiring member nations aggrement before any major changes can happen. It is interesting to see who's voting for ICANN and who's not especially as the thread grows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottKin Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I would put good-money down on the fact that people are voting for UN control of what ICANN and IANA already does just to do it in spite of the US and are, mostly, Anti-US. The US invented the Internet, and has the best experience in managing the whole issue of the assignment of IP Addresses. Claims that the IANA and ICANN would not be impartial towards the US is a farce, because IANA and ICANN are Independent organizations and do not answer to the US Government in any way, shape or form. People that make such claims are just whiners who moan about the fact that the organizations that maintain the structure and integrity of the Internt is in the US. Mind you, IANA is not perfect; take, for example, the recent re-allocation of Class-A IP Address space to Google. Google now has control of the 74.0.0.0 Class-A Address Block, which was wrestled-away from other Tier 1 and Tier 2 Backbone providers. This does show that IANA can be heavy-handed if it wishes. ICANN has had a history of dragging their feet on issues - can you imagine the virtual log-jam that would happen if the work being done by ICANN and IANA were under the auspicies of the UN? Nothing would get done! Leave ICANN & IANA alone - it works. :yes: --ScottKin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 The Patriot act has nothing to do with ICANN. Your confusing access to the Internet with oversight of it's organization and control. This cry for the UN to control the Internet is nothing more than another USA bashing attempt. The Internet works and should stay the way it is. I read both articles and haven't seen one argument specifying why the US should lose control. Give specifics and show how 'other nations' are being harmed by the ICANN policies. I was very disappointed on how vague the reasons were for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted October 21, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted October 21, 2005 As it stands, I have no problem with it being under US control. However, the arguement that "The US invented the Internet" is not valid. The Internet is now bigger than anything that one country should have control over. Holding the control of the TLDs is a modern equivalent of owning shipping routes. Sure, for now all is fine, but that amount of power is 100% definately going to become contentious eventually. You can put money on that! However, this is not a US issue - any country that housed the ability would eventually use it to their advantage. But let's face it, whoever controls the TLDs has to be a body of some sorts - be it a company, a state, a faction or a coalition - and ther is not one entity in the world that doesn't have an agenda of some sort. Even the "oh-so-perfect" UN has agendas. They could easily slap access to TLDs within embargo rulings. And as it has been said before, the UN is certainly not known for being efficient (or even effective IMHO). Give it 100 years, we won't have a UN - we either won't need it any more, or we will need it so mcuh but it will have fallen apart, At the minute, it seems that the US are doing a fair job, and are geared-up for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted October 21, 2005 Author Share Posted October 21, 2005 (edited) First off I'm not anti american but i do give you the fact that some people voting against ICANN are doing so just to hop on the anti US band wagon. Raven: I never said the patriot act had anything at all to do with ICANN. I said in "the vein" in that the patriot act gave more power to the government in controlling and develling into people's lives and was brought in after the 2001 attacks. It is possible that if another disaster (god forbid) happened the US might fell it needs to produce an act to again gain more control over the internet for what ever reason and there would be no way of stopping that. Here for me is the main reason a global independant body might be better for ICANN: 1. Building trust among stakeholders - particularly governments around the world is extremely important yet lacking. The reality is that many governments play a big role in developing Internet in their countries (especially outside US) and not engaging them is silly. Transparency is important to build trust, not the other way round. ICANN been a US corporation is also not helpful to towards this end. This was taken from http://james.seng.sg/archives/2004/10/12/p...with_icann.html were he has other problems with ICANN which i can (no pun intended!) relate to. One more thing ScottKin: as i said you might be correct re voting but it also goes the other way in that some americans will vote for ICANN purely because they and it are american. Edited October 21, 2005 by gcooke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottKin Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 As it stands, I have no problem with it being under US control.However, the arguement that "The US invented the Internet" is not valid. The Internet is now bigger than anything that one country should have control over. Holding the control of the TLDs is a modern equivalent of owning shipping routes. Sure, for now all is fine, but that amount of power is 100% definately going to become contentious eventually. You can put money on that! However, this is not a US issue - any country that housed the ability would eventually use it to their advantage. But let's face it, whoever controls the TLDs has to be a body of some sorts - be it a company, a state, a faction or a coalition - and ther is not one entity in the world that doesn't have an agenda of some sort. Even the "oh-so-perfect" UN has agendas. They could easily slap access to TLDs within embargo rulings. And as it has been said before, the UN is certainly not known for being efficient (or even effective IMHO). Give it 100 years, we won't have a UN - we either won't need it any more, or we will need it so mcuh but it will have fallen apart, At the minute, it seems that the US are doing a fair job, and are geared-up for this. 586703231[/snapback] njlouch, May I remind you that the Internet was originally ARPANet, The Advanced Research Project Administration Network for The Department of Defense for The United States of America, and was developed by a company called BBN. I was actually a user on ARPANet back when I worked at the Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley Lab back in 1979, so I speak somewhat authoritatively, if not historically. History, my friend, is not invalid. It may not work within some people's current frame of thinking, but the fact that the US Government gave the world The Internet is an undeniable fact, and those that disagree are, quite frankly, delusional. Yes, it has grown vastly beyond the simple network that was built in 1969, but the point you are trying to raise is well-taken. Contentions always arise when one group or faction doesn't agree with another group or faction - such is life. If you'll read earlier, I actually took cause against IANA's blunder in re-assigning the entire 74.* Class-A block to Google, so I'm hardly a fan-boy of either IANA or ICANN. It's not a perfect system - but it works. --ScottKin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottKin Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 First off I'm not anti american but i do give you the fact that some people voting against ICANN are doing so just to hop on the anti US band wagon. Raven: I never said the patriot act had anything at all to do with ICANN. I said in "the vein" in that the patriot act gave more power to the government in controlling and develling into people's lives and was brought in after the 2001 attacks. It is possible that if another disaster (god forbid) happened the US might fell it needs to produce an act to again gain more control over the internet for what ever reason and there would be no way of stopping that. Here for me is the main reason a global independant body might be better for ICANN:1. Building trust among stakeholders - particularly governments around the world is extremely important yet lacking. The reality is that many governments play a big role in developing Internet in their countries (especially outside US) and not engaging them is silly. Transparency is important to build trust, not the other way round. ICANN been a US corporation is also not helpful to towards this end. This was taken from http://james.seng.sg/archives/2004/10/12/p...with_icann.html were he has other problems with ICANN which i can (no pun intended!) relate to. One more thing ScottKin: as i said you might be correct re voting but it also goes the other way in that some americans will vote for ICANN purely because they and it are american. 586703276[/snapback] Actually, ICANN Board Members are International. Please read the following, lifted from the ICANN Fact Sheet Page: "The International Nature of ICANN in Relation to the Global Internet Community - Participation in ICANN is open to all who have an interest in global Internet policy as it relates to ICANN's mission of technical coordination. ICANN holds public meetings throughout the year. Recent meetings have been held in Tunis, Bucharest, Montreal, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, and Accra. Future meetings will be held in Rome, Kuala Lumpur and Cape Town. - The ICANN Board and staff reflect the international nature of the organization. The staff hails from seven different countries (Australia, Denmark, France, The Netherlands, Niger, the United Kingdom, and the United States), exhibiting fluency in more than 14 languages. Similarly, the Board represents twelve nationalities and is fluent in many languages. ICANN is in the process of opening offices in France, Belgium and Australia. Immediate internationalization and outreach plans call for physical ICANN presence in African, Latin America and the Pacific Rim. - The Supporting Organizations and Committees that lead the bottom-up policy development process are internationally based and populated. See the international complement of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as indicative of the international nature of the effort supporting that process. - The formation of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) is further internationalizing participation in the ICANN policy development process and also improves the ccTLD's (Country Code Managers') voice on the ICANN Board of Directors since the ccNSO will directly elect two board members. - The Internet is marvelously robust, with thousands of independent networks operating together to move traffic around the globe. ICANN inherently supports regional network development through its mission. European, Asian, Latin American and the African Internet communities are working effectively to build regional interconnections, belying the notion that all Internet traffic flows through North America." Now, I'll agree that there may be some "sheep" out there who will vote for ICANN & IANA to remain in control of TLDs and Assigned Numbers just because the voters are American or Pro-US, but that's their right to vote that way, just as it is the right of people to vote against ICANN & IANA because they are not Americans or are Anti-US. --ScottKin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurë Veteran Posted October 22, 2005 Veteran Share Posted October 22, 2005 ICANN should have sole control of it, they have been doing fine.But, the US should not have power over them, like the .xxx tld, ICANN brought it in, US just rejected it, they shouldnt be allowed to, they should have to go through proper channels like everybody else. 586698756[/snapback] I think that as long as ICANN etc remain independent and free of any influence from the US government, they should be able to carry on. Once the US government starts to assert control over it (which it seems it already has ^ ) then it's time for a switch to a global body that will have no bias toward any country. I do not however think that it should be the UN. njlouch,May I remind you that the Internet was originally ARPANet, The Advanced Research Project Administration Network for The Department of Defense for The United States of America, and was developed by a company called BBN. I was actually a user on ARPANet back when I worked at the Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley Lab back in 1979, so I speak somewhat authoritatively, if not historically. History, my friend, is not invalid. It may not work within some people's current frame of thinking, but the fact that the US Government gave the world The Internet is an undeniable fact, and those that disagree are, quite frankly, delusional. Yes, it has grown vastly beyond the simple network that was built in 1969, but the point you are trying to raise is well-taken. Contentions always arise when one group or faction doesn't agree with another group or faction - such is life. If you'll read earlier, I actually took cause against IANA's blunder in re-assigning the entire 74.* Class-A block to Google, so I'm hardly a fan-boy of either IANA or ICANN. It's not a perfect system - but it works. --ScottKin 586707401[/snapback] He was not denying that the US created the internet. He was saying that it is now used by so many people in so many countries, that it is not necessarily fair to let the US retain control. If these US organisations did lose control over the 'whole' internet they would still be able to influence what goes on in America in much the same way as China does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted October 22, 2005 Veteran Share Posted October 22, 2005 Let USA keep control of the internet, like the saying goes "If it aint broke,dont't fix it"( or something along those lines) 586698745[/snapback] Exactly The UN in control would be a serious mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiBer Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 ExactlyThe UN in control would be a serious mistake 586708962[/snapback] Damn right. It's worked well under the ICANN... don't see the need for change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 Scottkin-Just because an agency employs foreign people does not mean it is an international organisation. The quote you have only states that the board represents 12 nationalaites this could mean that these people are from 12 different countries but that they take no guidence from their countries and only answer to the US department of commerce. In relation to the voting, it was you who said that some people voting here are just doing it because they hate america and now you're taking exception with me saying that so might some americans be voting one way because the organistaion is american and you say it's their right...thats confusing. W1ldcat- at present the organisation is not that independant since it is funded and must answer to the US department of commerce. I cant see the US dept. of commerce being a silent partner, can you? Adonai, FiBer-This was my original point in that many people and countries see that ICANN is not doing the best job it could be doing (see earlier posts). The UN I agree has many problems and by no means is it perfect but one thing I have to say in its favour is that it is able to admit its failings and is truely answerable to the global community and any problems it has had (be it the food for oil crisis or its role in peace keeping) have been fully and openly investigated and the culprits have been dealth with for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfunk4life Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 it should be US control, beacuse they cant just get read of some thing with freedom(constitution). supreme court wouldnt let it have to many laws. the major parties will fight over it and will never find a way to control it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 It's best that it remains where it is. They've done a great job so far, and if there's room for improvement, they'll improve....changes just take time. I suspect if the control was handed over to the UN, things would only move slower....and things might actually get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EduardValencia Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 leave the internet to the US, PERIOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts