Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>]

Thanks for posting this!!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:internetworkers-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Christian Stalberg
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 5:31 AM
> To: cpsr-rtp AT cpsr.org
> Subject: [internetworkers] Gee,when did we give away the Internet? (An
> analysis of news about WSIS)
> 
> Published on The O'Reilly Network (http://www.oreillynet.com/)
>  http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4053
> 
> Gee, when did we give away the Internet? (An analysis of news about
WSIS)
> by Andy Oram
> Dec. 10, 2003
> URL: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61527,00.html
> 
> 
> I've been following the recent news on the World Summit on the
Information
> Society, and it's getting really bizarre. The Wired article cited
above is
> one example of out of the out-of-this-world coverage on the World
Summit;
> I
> heard a similar spin yesterday on a radio show that often shares
material
> with the BBC (but I haven't seen a story about WSIS on the BBC Web
site
> yet).
> 
> What king or dictator or bureaucrat has signed the document giving
power
> over the Internet to one organization or another? Did I miss the
ceremony?
> 
> One laughable aspect of news reportage is that the founders and
leaders of
> ICANN always avowed, with the utmost unction, that they were not
trying to
> make policy decisions and were simply tinkering with technical
functions
> on
> the Internet. Of course, there is rarely such a thing as a merely
> technical
> function, and that truth has been borne out by the effects of ICANN's
> policies on "intellectual property" and on the allocation of domain
names
> in
> general. Perhaps it's good for people to be talking openly of ruling
the
> Internet.
> 
> But, in whatever ways ICANN has managed to wield its three-pronged
fork
> (domain names, addresses, and assigned numbers such as protocols), it
has
> never come close to being master of the Internet.
> 
> Now that the mainstream media have announced that the Internet is up
for
> grabs, they are presenting the debate falsely as a two-sided fight
between
> ICANN and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). That body
that
> has regulated telecommunications for over a century, eventually came
under
> the auspices of the United Nations, and has been searching for several
> years
> for a way to gain new relevancy in the Internet era. (I wrote an
article
> on
> one of their forays some time ago.) It has never gotten anywhere
close.
> 
> The WSIS meeting has generated the most news coverage of the ITU I've
ever
> seen, so it must already be a success for them. If they can bully the
U.S.
> government and ICANN enough to wrest some piece of the ICANN treasure
from
> its grasp, I suppose they will consider the summit even more of a
success.
> 
> So what is up for grabs? Certainly the right to define new top-level
> domain
> names (anybody visited a .museum site lately?) and to hand out to
various
> favored organizations the plum of domain name registration (which
really
> should be a nearly pure technical function, and has been turned into a
> heavy-weight, politicized activity by the "intellectual property"
> interests). But that's not really very much.
> 
> The fears that seem to be circulating around the domain name fight is
that
> governments or other organizations will use control over domain names
to
> censor the Internet. Ironically, the biggest threat to freedom in the
use
> of
> domain names has been from the private sector, specifically the
> "intellectual property" interests. But the danger is present that
> governments will catch on (China seems to be doing so) and
manipulating
> the
> system to restrict free speech. Still, with search engines becoming
more
> popular and more powerful all the time, domain names are not the prime
> prizes they seemed in the late 1990s.
> 
> IP addresses are also a potential source of control that Internet
users
> should be conscious about, if not worried about. Addressing can be
abused
> mainly in a context of scarcity, and there has been debate for years
over
> whether IP addresses are getting scarce. (They're certainly scarce
when
> you
> ask the average local ISP for more than one!) A vigorous campaign to
adopt
> IPv6 would remove most of the worry over this potential choke-hold.
> 
> And who ultimately is in charge of the Domain Name System? You are.
You
> determine what domains you view. Somewhere on your personal computer
is a
> configuration option that determines where you go to resolve top-level
> domains, and you can go far beyond what ICANN would like you to see.
Visit
> the Open Root Server Confederation.
> 
> Well, I don't really mean to say that the Domain Name System is
totally
> open
> and that nobody has control over it. ICANN is still enthroned. The
ORSC is
> mostly a form of protest, not a model for the future. (It doesn't
solve
> the
> problem of name collisions, for instance.)
> 
> My point is that the Internet is a subtle ecology that has always
rested
> on
> the cooperation of multiple parties. This cooperation spans a spectrum
> from
> the individual home user on his PC to the peering agreements between
major
> backbone owners. As these peering arrangements and the history of
ICANN
> show, systems have evolved historically in a rough, unsystematized
way,
> and
> some participants do not like the terms of cooperation.
> 
> For instance, underdeveloped countries complain about the
interconnection
> fees they have to pay to more powerful backbone operators in developed
> countries. Expanding interconnection points is a way to bring down
costs
> without trying to change the politics of peering, but a review of the
> politics would also be pertinent.
> 
> While ICANN has bumbled many tasks and exceeded its authority on
others,
> its
> leaders have a sense of the fragility of the Internet ecology. The
ITU, in
> contrast, is tromping all over the grounds just in the process of
mapping
> it. I find it amusing that, in their search for a boogie man, they
have
> ceded to ICANN far more authority than anyone else has.
> 
> (The U.S. government reviews its contract with ICANN every year or
two.
> It's
> generally unhappy with what it sees and gives ICANN a tongue-lashing
each
> time. But so far no one in the government has had the guts to propose
> something new. Given the problems of dealing with Internet ecology, I
can
> understand their reticence.)
> 
> There are so many people who have spent years fighting within and
outside
> ICANN to change the policies on domain names, that the view of
Internet
> policy as ICANN vs. ITU is truly insulting.
> 
> Anyway, it's time for some responsible journalists to untangle the
mess
> caused by the current spin.
> 
> Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly & Associates, specializing in books
on
> Linux and programming. Most recently, he edited Peer-to-Peer:
Harnessing
> the
> Power of Disruptive Technologies.
> 
> oreillynet.com Copyright C 2000 O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
> 
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers