U.S. To Relinquish Remaining Control Of The Internet

so i just recently stumbled upon this news story on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/03/14/290260939/u-s-to-relinquish-remaining-control-of-the-internet

So basically the Company ICANN, will no longer be under U.S. oversight, and will switch to UN oversight. this was in reponse to The U.S. NSA spying scandel last year, in order to make the internet more inclussive with other countries.

I'm not really sure how to feel about this. some people seem to think that allowing the UN oversight of ICANN will hurt free speech because countries like Russia, China, and Iran will try to impose their will world wide, others think it'll only give them more power of censorship within their boarders. and some think this will not have any effect at all.

what do you guys think? Is this shift gonna effect the openness of the Internet? or is this simply overblown as usual.

Er, is ICANN all that important, in a political sense?

thaluikhain:
Er, is ICANN all that important, in a political sense?

They are super important in an "deciding how the internet actually works and running the thing" sense. They are the people who run the main DNS severs, for instance. They are also the people who allocate IP addresses, I believe. So yeah, they are fairly important...

BreakfastMan:

thaluikhain:
Er, is ICANN all that important, in a political sense?

They are super important in an "deciding how the internet actually works and running the thing" sense. They are the people who run the main DNS severs, for instance. They are also the people who allocate IP addresses, I believe. So yeah, they are fairly important...

The thing i want to know is, how is this going to Affect us? a couple years ago, everyone made a big deal about this, and the U.S. Ultimately declined. is it really that serious, or is it simply us freaking out over sharing something we made?

Felix the Human:

BreakfastMan:

thaluikhain:
Er, is ICANN all that important, in a political sense?

They are super important in an "deciding how the internet actually works and running the thing" sense. They are the people who run the main DNS severs, for instance. They are also the people who allocate IP addresses, I believe. So yeah, they are fairly important...

The thing i want to know is, how is this going to Affect us? a couple years ago, everyone made a big deal about this, and the U.S. Ultimately declined. is it really that serious, or is it simply us freaking out over sharing something we made?

It is hard to tell what will happen. It could result in some nations of the UN using political power to stop a country getting IP addresses. Or the UN could institute a censorship policy that countries have to agree to to use the main DNS servers. Or they could monitor all traffic going through the main DNS servers. Or nothing at all could happen because no one wants change. I don't think we have any way to tell for sure. But I doubt it will effect us, considering the clout the US and its allies have in the UN.

Felix the Human:
so i just recently stumbled upon this news story on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/03/14/290260939/u-s-to-relinquish-remaining-control-of-the-internet

So basically the Company ICANN, will no longer be under U.S. oversight, and will switch to UN oversight. this was in reponse to The U.S. NSA spying scandel last year, in order to make the internet more inclussive with other countries.

I'm not really sure how to feel about this. some people seem to think that allowing the UN oversight of ICANN will hurt free speech because countries like Russia, China, and Iran will try to impose their will world wide, others think it'll only give them more power of censorship within their boarders. and some think this will not have any effect at all.

what do you guys think? Is this shift gonna effect the openness of the Internet? or is this simply overblown as usual.

Great the UN, totally will respect free speech, and such. I mean it's not like it's members have propose any anti free speech actions right? Right?!

Good, this will mean getting it out of the hands of a country that's proven not to be trustworthy with it, and into an organization who I feel at least won't be doing anything drastic like SOPA. If only because they tend to try and stall on controversial decisions until at minimum three decades after the question becomes moot.

Any idea why the US would actually want to do this though? Giving up power seems like a bad idea unless they're getting something in return.

Xeorm:
Any idea why the US would actually want to do this though? Giving up power seems like a bad idea unless they're getting something in return.

It may be in response to the NSA Scandal. they weren't just spying on themselves, but on every major developed country around the world. I'm guessing people aren't falling for the whole "we're only looking for terrorists" excuse anymore.

Felix the Human:

Xeorm:
Any idea why the US would actually want to do this though? Giving up power seems like a bad idea unless they're getting something in return.

It may be in response to the NSA Scandal. they weren't just spying on themselves, but on every major developed country around the world. I'm guessing people aren't falling for the whole "we're only looking for terrorists" excuse anymore.

Improving general relations doesn't seem like it'd be a worthwhile trade though. Countries will still dislike us plenty even after we relinquish this.

I see it as two extremes:

{1} Nothing will happen to the internet overall because the UN won't be able to agree on any course of action.

{2} Something really stupid will try to hamfist its way onto the internet and we have to bat it down with a rolled-up newpaper again because politicians trying to govern the internet is stupid.

An issue of extremes, I would say.

I don't like it. The Americans might save the metadata, but that's about the only thing you risked with them. With this? I'd say the censorship risks are just too high. But for the trade-offs, someone's giving the US something big for this, that's for sure. This being done just for what we're being shown just seems to much of a one sided deal for the US to be on the side that's getting shafted.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked