Interesting article I read on ICANN and the recent international talks regarding it...
Think of the Internet as a frontier; better yet, as a homestead. In order to get a plot, a prospective homesteader must register the "address" he wants and then indicate his continued interest in the plot by re-registering each year. As with physical homesteads, the plot is "free": the expense comes in getting to the territory (having the necessary hardware: computer, modem, etc.) and improving the territory (software: web design programs, graphics programs, etc.). The only expense for the plot itself is the registration fee, which ensures our homesteader that his address is unique ? when he gets to his territory, he won't find any competing claimants on it. Add in some general stores, some squatters, and some neighbors to trade with, and the landscape is complete.
The part of the Homestead Board is here played by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an American non-profit group. ICANN issues each unique address in two forms: one easier for computers to use (192.0.34.65); one easier for humans (icann.org). ICANN also administers the Top-Level Domains, like the .org above, or the ubiquitous .com ? and, more contentiously, the country codes, like .ca for Canada. Collectively, these tasks are known as Domain Name Service, or DNS.
The United States doesn't own the Internet. No one does. But the U.S. does have some amount of control over it, and the restraint our country has shown in its DNS administration is remarkable. We have not used it as a political weapon (deleting, say, North Korea's .kp country code). We have not tried to tax other countries for allowing them Internet access (though the UN has, as yet another way to finance corrupt dictators).
Now the UN, and model states like North Korea, want DNS out of American hands, preferring control by a UN Subcommittee of Something-or-Other. To show how serious they are, they're deploying their favorite slogans, speaking of "American online hegemony" and "the imperialistic Internet."
What would happen if the UN gained control of DNS? A look at French policy is instructive ? and bear in mind that I'm not using as my example a repressive regime. France has no First Amendment: speech is protected, except when it's not. Nazi paraphernalia falls in the "not" category; it can't be worn, displayed, or shown in France. A few months ago, the French government decided to ban from French webspace (any site hosted in France, or with the .fr country code) any websites selling or discussing Nazi gear, and also to ban any links to such sites. The homesteaders whose Internet plots were thus taken either closed down, or moved to U.S. webspace to take advantage of First Amendment guarantees. With DNS in American hands, that's the end of it. With DNS in UN hands, France could lobby the committee to vote that speech completely off the Internet, by cutting off any country that tolerated such websites. Once the Internet is turned into a political weapon ? and the first instance will be for a Good Cause, like banning Nazi propaganda ? it's not going to be used for surgical strikes. It'll be used as a blunt object, a stick to belabor those out of step with UN policy. So a country refuses to cough up foreign aid, or sign the Kyoto Treaty? No problem, cut their country off the Internet.
All this is set to explode at the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia (a country that has eagerly silenced online dissidents). The preparations for the summit have resembled a game of chicken, with various world reps threatening to "vote themselves power over the Internet," and the U.S. refusing to hear any proposal that would mean ceding DNS control. It is difficult to see how this will end, but easy to imagine the worst case: countries creating their own "Internets" and fragmenting the DNS, which would in effect boot millions of Internet homesteaders off their plots and turn them into refugees. And we all know how well the UN handles refugees. ? Andrew Ferguson
Think of the Internet as a frontier; better yet, as a homestead. In order to get a plot, a prospective homesteader must register the "address" he wants and then indicate his continued interest in the plot by re-registering each year. As with physical homesteads, the plot is "free": the expense comes in getting to the territory (having the necessary hardware: computer, modem, etc.) and improving the territory (software: web design programs, graphics programs, etc.). The only expense for the plot itself is the registration fee, which ensures our homesteader that his address is unique ? when he gets to his territory, he won't find any competing claimants on it. Add in some general stores, some squatters, and some neighbors to trade with, and the landscape is complete.
The part of the Homestead Board is here played by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an American non-profit group. ICANN issues each unique address in two forms: one easier for computers to use (192.0.34.65); one easier for humans (icann.org). ICANN also administers the Top-Level Domains, like the .org above, or the ubiquitous .com ? and, more contentiously, the country codes, like .ca for Canada. Collectively, these tasks are known as Domain Name Service, or DNS.
The United States doesn't own the Internet. No one does. But the U.S. does have some amount of control over it, and the restraint our country has shown in its DNS administration is remarkable. We have not used it as a political weapon (deleting, say, North Korea's .kp country code). We have not tried to tax other countries for allowing them Internet access (though the UN has, as yet another way to finance corrupt dictators).
Now the UN, and model states like North Korea, want DNS out of American hands, preferring control by a UN Subcommittee of Something-or-Other. To show how serious they are, they're deploying their favorite slogans, speaking of "American online hegemony" and "the imperialistic Internet."
What would happen if the UN gained control of DNS? A look at French policy is instructive ? and bear in mind that I'm not using as my example a repressive regime. France has no First Amendment: speech is protected, except when it's not. Nazi paraphernalia falls in the "not" category; it can't be worn, displayed, or shown in France. A few months ago, the French government decided to ban from French webspace (any site hosted in France, or with the .fr country code) any websites selling or discussing Nazi gear, and also to ban any links to such sites. The homesteaders whose Internet plots were thus taken either closed down, or moved to U.S. webspace to take advantage of First Amendment guarantees. With DNS in American hands, that's the end of it. With DNS in UN hands, France could lobby the committee to vote that speech completely off the Internet, by cutting off any country that tolerated such websites. Once the Internet is turned into a political weapon ? and the first instance will be for a Good Cause, like banning Nazi propaganda ? it's not going to be used for surgical strikes. It'll be used as a blunt object, a stick to belabor those out of step with UN policy. So a country refuses to cough up foreign aid, or sign the Kyoto Treaty? No problem, cut their country off the Internet.
All this is set to explode at the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia (a country that has eagerly silenced online dissidents). The preparations for the summit have resembled a game of chicken, with various world reps threatening to "vote themselves power over the Internet," and the U.S. refusing to hear any proposal that would mean ceding DNS control. It is difficult to see how this will end, but easy to imagine the worst case: countries creating their own "Internets" and fragmenting the DNS, which would in effect boot millions of Internet homesteaders off their plots and turn them into refugees. And we all know how well the UN handles refugees. ? Andrew Ferguson
if you disagree speak up.
