Internet, Fuck Yeah!
It looks like the Internet's managerial body will remain under U.S. oversight, rather than that of the U.N. or any other international body, for the time being. That's good news, but I still stand by the two points I made a few weeks ago. First, as Tim Lee explains rather better than I did, this wasn't nearly as big a deal as some made it out to be. (Which is to say, it would not have been the equivalent of letting Hitler annex the Sudetenland.) Second, this is at best a delay, not a final resolution to the debate. The proportion of U.S. citizens on the Net is only going to keep shrinking, and sooner or later, we're bound to see a repeat of the .xxx bruhaha, where the government either overtly overturns an ICANN decision or (as in that case) makes a "suggestion" with the threat of veto looming implicit in the background. Opponents of international (and, more to the point, intergovernmental) Net oversight made much of the fact that the U.S. doesn't generally exercise that authority. Great. So cut the umbilical cord once and for all. So long as some government gets to oversee the Net, we're going to keep facing insistent questions about why the U.S. is uniquely qualified to fill that role.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I find the notion of yours that the internet should have no government, any government, oversite to be highly naive. I do not mean that in the sense that I think there "should" be but merely from the realistic sense that there will be. Having said that, if we come to realize this will be the long term case it is much, much better for the US if it remains in the US hands. Personally my opinion of the UN is so low that if they have a UN commission come out and say the sky was blue I wouldn't believe it.
A month or so ago, the Economist said that the US agreed to put the issue of internet governance before a committee. That committee will consider proposals for a process to move to a different model, and issue a report broadly accepted by the many member countries on the committee.
They seemed confident that change is a long, long, long way away.
Is that how this pretty much shook out?
The fear I have is that even partial movement toward a international committee will set a precident for acceptance of non US oversite, even if it is down the road. And in my mind that is a very bad idea.
I, for one, welcome our internet overlords.
JM-
Sometimes the best way to kill an idea is to send it to a committee.
It could be worse, the UN could have control.
Okay, let's see.. an international oversight of the Internet..
Would that mean China could push for banning discussions about capitalism and democracy?
Could France seek to ban American-specific terminology? Y'know.. Royale with cheese?
Fucking insane..
Nice Guy-
No, part of the point of my piece and Tim Lee's is that China couldn't actually do any of those things just through (something like) ICANN. Though you wouldn't know it to read some of the debate on this.
"So long as some government gets to oversee the Net, we're going to keep facing insistent questions about why the U.S. is uniquely qualified to fill that role."
Because the Internet was invented by the great American statesman/scientist/all-around-nice-guy Al Gore.
So long as some government gets to oversee the Net, we're going to keep facing insistent questions about why the U.S. is uniquely qualified to fill that role.
Well, because no one else is better qualified. Seriously, its not that we're perfect, its just that there is no one better in view. The UN? The one whose Commission on Human Rights has been captured by genocidaires? Don't make me laugh.
I'm ignorant of what exactly makes up the internet. If China doesn't like how the US sets up domain names, can't they just build a bunch of servers and set up their own internet, nodes and all?
I could see a problem with a small country not having the resources to do so, but why on earth is India, China, and the EU all forced to use US servers?
Any good links on this?
No, it wouldn't have been like letting Hitler annex the Sudetenland, it would have been more like letting Stalin annex the Sudetenland.
Thoreau:
Sometimes the best way to kill an idea is to send it to a committee.
You've never been to Seattle, where yes, the idea does get killed, but it costs hundreds of millions to do so. So you truly get nothing for something. The worst of all worlds.
Paul
I'm ignorant of what exactly makes up the internet. If China doesn't like how the US sets up domain names, can't they just build a bunch of servers and set up their own internet, nodes and all?
China could set up its own "ChinaNet" with its own Domain Name servers and other standards, but it could not interoperate with the outside world's Internet.
Someone more technically inclined can probably explain it better, but the Internet is like a club with very, very, easy membership requirements but it is very tough to change the rules of the club.
So then what's so cool about the US's internet? The software is all perfected, why not a eurasian net which would put the US net out of business?
Someone more technically inclined can probably explain it better
Someone already has:
World of Ends
What the Internet Is and
How to Stop Mistaking It
for Something Else.
The Nutshell
1. The Internet isn't complicated
2. The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement.
3. The Internet is stupid.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
5. All the Internet's value grows on its edges.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
8. The Internet's three virtues:
a. No one owns it
b. Everyone can use it
c. Anyone can improve it
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already
...
Curious:
The net isn't about 'software'... it's a network. It's a physical thing which simply moves data. The CONTENT of the internet IS about software- and you're free to start coding and 'beating' the u.s. right now. Go.
Disclaimer: *Yes, I know that 'software' is part of the functioning of routers and firewalls etc (I actually know about this just a wee bit)- but those are simply giving functionality to the standards.
Paul make a good point,
If you want to join our network, then all you have to do is buy hardware that meets certain requirements.
Once you are on, you are free to use the network with out interference from us.
More realistic is the threat of the slow accretion of minor rules, restrictions, and taxes. A bureaucracy can strangle by accident as effectively as many despotisms manage to do on purpose.
Isn't that a large problem, though? That seems a certainty if the UN has oversight. I understand that this would not be the doomsday scenario that some predict, but given the UN's desire to institute a world-tax, would this not be a perfect opportunity for such?
Opponents of international (and, more to the point, intergovernmental) Net oversight made much of the fact that the U.S. doesn't generally exercise that authority. Great. So cut the umbilical cord once and for all. So long as some government gets to oversee the Net, we're going to keep facing insistent questions about why the U.S. is uniquely qualified to fill that role.
The problem is that this wouldn't "cut the umbilical cord", it would just change to whom it's attached. I think the argument that the US doesn't exercise that authority is a good one. On the other hand the .xxx brouhaha is a point in favor of removing US oversight.
The point is, I trust the UN even less than I trust the US to remain aloof from the workings of the internet. At least I have proof that the US generally keeps its nose out of it. The arrangement we have now works pretty well. Unless this is purely a display of anti-Americanism by the UN (which wouldn't be surprising), then the UN must want to change something about the way America is handling their limited control.
What do they want to change and why do they want to change it? If everything will be exactly the same except that ICANN isn't located in the US, then fine, whatever. But I don't believe that for a second, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the change is to effect even less governmental oversight than we have now.
Or to boil it down, "If they don't want to do anything different, why do they want to run it?"
thoreau,
That's not how it happened with the Nazi Race Laws of 1935. Indeed, in general, I find such a claim dubious at best.