| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Government showdown could break up Internet, experts warn |
| 2005-11-16 |
| Experts are warning so you'd better listen! A tense dispute over US control of the Internet in the run-up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) could eventually lead to the break-up of the global network and hamper seamless browsing, officials warned. The warning came as the United States told EU participants at negotiations on Internet governance that it was determined to maintain its oversight over the technical and administrative infrastructure at the root of the network. In a letter seen by AFP, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez called on the British presidency of the European Union to drop its proposal for an international alternative. "We ask the EU to reconsider its new position on Internet governance and work together with us to bring the benefits of the information society to all," the United States wrote. A European diplomat, who declined to be named, said the letter was tantamount to "an attempt at intimidation". Argh! They found us out! Can't fool them EUro diplodorks. Robert Shaw of the UN's International Telecommunication Union, said: "Since the positions are so polarised we may end up with a fractured Internet." Either the search for a "democratic" international solution prevails, or the Internet could fragment into a multitude of networks before an eventual international coordination mechanism sticks them back together, he added. Fractured? Huh? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Late Monday, the chairman of the negotiations, Janis Karklins of Finland, asked government negotiators to examine a new draft compromise to try to resolve their three-year deadlock before the summit, which begins on Wednesday. The outcome could determine who eventually controls the Internet's technical and administrative infrastructure, which allows the computer network to function worldwide. At the moment that role is played by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based independent body which is awarded the task by the US government on a renewable tender. ICANN was set up in California in 1998 when the Internet boom was largely focused on the United States. It is run by a group of free-spirited enthusiasts who were anxious to avoid regulation of the Internet. LOL! They're just "enthusiasts", not professional regulators like us! About 30 governments have a purely advisory role. However, the exponential growth of Internet connections worldwide, the web's growing economic and social importance and technological developments have prompted concern about the US monopoly on the tender. "The idea that the Internet is an unregulated haven, these days are finished," a source close to the talks said. ICANN also assigns top level domain names to countries worldwide. Karklins's new draft includes language to discourage countries from being involved in decisions on another's domain name. Critics of the United States fear that it could be in a position to disconnect another nation for political or economic reasons. Oh give me a break! The only countries that have interfered with the internet are totalitarian (like China, Tunisia...) Iran, backed by other major developing nations, wants a body "anchored" to the United Nations to have oversight over ICANN and other agencies, with an advisory role for industry. The European Union is proposing a formula that would replace US government oversight with a purely technical intergovernmental body -- though not necessarily the UN -- after a transition phase. Governments, industry and campaigners would also gather in a separate "forum" to discuss other related issues, including "public policy", under the EU proposal. British delegation chief Nicholas Thorne described the offer as "the middle ground". Washington's letter retorted that "burdensome, bureaucratic oversight is out of place in an Internet structure that has worked so well for so many around the globe". "We regret that recent positions on Internet governance offered by the EU seem to propose just that -- a new structure of intergovernmental control over the Internet." The US, backed by Australia, has also argued that regimes that do not value freedom of speech might exploit weaknesses in a UN-supervised system. Karklins's draft calls for an "evolutionary process" towards "multilateral" framework "building on existing structures", with a "non-binding" Internet Governance Forum to discuss a range of issues over five years. Stick with it Condi! |
| Posted by:Spot |
| #8 LR, lay off the Ludlum. |
| Posted by: Chetle Glater1707 2005-11-16 19:31 |
| #7 In idle moments, I have always wondered whether Intel, AMD, Cisco, and Microsoft had ever been "coopted" into the US National Cause - such that their products has built-in "something" that allows the US to - in a pinch - modify/access/turn off activity being run through those systems. It would be interesting to let the "second world" launch their own internet - but with all Inytel, AMD, Cisco, and Microsoft systems unable to operate with that alternate system. Let market forces drive the consumer decisions - if anyone wants to use US technology, they must play on our teerms. If not - hey, no problem. You just have to find compatible platforms to support your alternative system. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2005-11-16 19:23 |
| #6 Cutting China off from the internet is not an option. The entire export manufacturing business runs on email and MSN chat. They could beef up the Great Firewall, though, and make it not so painfully slow to go through. *sigh* |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-11-16 14:12 |
| #5 It seems like three main groups will be effected by this, academics, expats, and multinationals. Academics, FOAD. Expats, sorry, you're too small to matter. Multinationals, interesting question. If China decides to cut itself off from non-China internet or to create its own multinational internet that will not interface with the US internet, what will multinationals in China do? Set up their own satellite links to the internet? I'm still trying to figure out why I care if China and Saudi Arabia set up their own internet. It's not like Xinhua has the best cheesecake shots around. |
| Posted by: Thrinesh Elmeth2110 2005-11-16 12:36 |
| #4 I'm pretty sure a coalition of countries will create a seperate internet that they can censor. I'm pretty sure users of the regular internet will also be ablet o access this censornet but the censored nations will be unable to access the internet. I'm also pretty sure a few politicians will be thrown out and possible a government or two overthrown as they try to transition to the new censornet. Let it be. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-11-16 12:21 |
| #3 If a country or group of countries doesn't like the way the internet is being run, they can shut down access and/or set up their own competing network - don't they already do that? If enough people don't like the way the current network works, would they not switch over to a 'superior' UN-based network (carry an umbrella to protect yourself from excrement from flying pigs)? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2005-11-16 12:10 |
| #2 Just offer then some goats and starving children. That should keep them too busy to mess with non criminal matters. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-11-16 09:35 |
| #1 Mr. Shaw is a bureaucrat of the first order. If he is an internet expert, then I'm Bill Gates' personal piss bucket boy. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-11-16 09:32 |