This was going to be an update to the previous post on the UN and ICANN, but the subject matter is too important simply to be tacked-on as an after thought.
The Pedestrian Infidel, a blog devoted to the Axis of Islam, came over to leave a comment on the danger the UN represents to ICANN and to internet freedom. Following his comment back to the original post, here is his concern:
|For over a year now, the UN has been trying to take control of ICANN, the standards organization that oversees the Internet. Most important is the ‘root’ index of the Internet controlled by ICANN. That is where all those name addresses get resolved to an IP address. When you enter a URL, the root resolves the ‘.com’, ‘.org’, or any URL address ending in a country identifier.|
|You can look at the Google search for ‘UN ICANN control’ and just see how angry the UN and the Axis of Islam is that the US won’t relinquish control. It’s not that the US and the independent ICANN is doing a bad job. It’s about who controls ICANN during War! And money, as the UN wants to tax URL registrations, among other tax schemes that shithole is dreaming up for the West.|
Do what he suggests: hit that link above. You’ll get over 300,000 hits, some of them dating back a bit. Here’s what Ars Technica had to say (in July of this year):
|the US has declared it will retain “its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.” The “root zone file,” or Domain Name System (DNS), is composed of 13 computers containing the master lists of net suffixes, and is currently managed by private companies under the supervision of the US government. At the same time, the new policy also makes it clear that US will not interfere with country suffixes (ccTLD), as “governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD.” Finally, the principles state that while the US will maintain ultimate DNS control, the technical, or day to day, operations can continue to be run by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Of course until yesterday, it had been assumed that ICANN would eventually take over ultimate control of the DNS.|
Timing? The UN Report came out in June and Ars Technica is commenting on the Commerce Department’s response just a few days later. Commerce has a make-no-bones-about-it reply to the UN, the only kind they really understand. Ars Technica sums things up:
|While many will see this decision as another example of appalling US hegemony, the “principles” pretty much spell out what the real deal is.|
|Given the Internet’s importance to the world’s economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the Internet remain stable and secure.|
|As far as the US government is concerned, the Internet has become too important to the US economy to give up control. While this may be an unprincipled decision, does anyone really think that the Chinese, or the French, were the positions reversed, would act differently? As to whether countries like China or France will decide to create their own DNS, and thus fracture the Internet in to multiple competing networks, the costs and effort make it seem unlikely.|
|In short, all your DNS are belong to US.|
“Unprincipled decision”? Exactly how is it unprincipled? Because we did it first and now must yield a strategically important node in order to be “fair”? Is that what would be principled, giving into the whiners because they don’t like the playing field?
So just who should run things instead? Bureaucratically moribund Europe? Mendacious and paranoid China who wouldn’t recognize Liberty if she came up and starting talking to them? Corrupt and reeling Russia? Let’s face it: if we put it to a secret world-wide vote America would win anyway. Yeah, they hate us, but they distrust one another far more. As for ICANN, the rest of the world’s hatred does not well up from some belief that we are incompetent; they hate us because we are so mind-blowingly successful. It’s not fair.
As I said previously, when crucial push comes to essential shove, Bush shoves. At least he has so far. Witness Kyoto and the International Court. Not to mention the assignment of John Bolton to The Quagmire. As one commenter noted after looking at the list of worthies who signed onto that UN report, the pigs are lining up at the trough.
The United Nations is a landscape that can be understood only if you have fallen thru the trap door and arrived in Wonderland with Alice. One would prefer to think that these people are on large daily doses of heroin rather than consider that their baseline normal mode of operations is actually what they let us see.
As the Infidel Pedestrian warns, we’d better stay vigilant.
First the internet was developed by us and then the world wide web was developed here. So, naturally, international socialists and professors want us to let them control it and decide how it will be used.
As if letting the world tap into the net for free is just being unspeakably selfish of us.
And so are intellectual property rights –selfish, I mean. How dare we attempt to own what we create?
Spare me any more utopias where everything is free and all of it is worthless.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
Thanks, Dymphna, for the reminder–especially where the United Nutjobs are concerned.
Oh, and I hear that soon they’re going to take on Iran and make ’em give up their nukes…(hehe)
F*** the UN! I’m sick of these damn 3rd world beggars trying to cripple my nation and suck it dry.
Um, I take it you are displeased with the UN?
Yeah, they’re sucking us dry all right, but think of what they do to poor countries. See the UN troops coming and you hide the children.
It is such a degraded and corrupt and brutal machine but the problem remains: how to throw a spanner in the wheels of The Juggernaut of Evil.
As long as we keep the issue on the table and don’t grow jaded, maybe we can wear them down…Sisyphean task that it is.
So where do the hackers and computer freedom warriors stand? Could the computer science guys do something, umm creative, to let the UN and its committees know how we feel about their controlling desires?
For an amusing example of how the ITU doesn’t really understand the internet read this
post at my blog.