EU deal threatens end to US dominance of internet

[Aspman]

From El Reg:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/30/eu_deal_wsis/

A dramatic last-minute deal drawn up by the EU may mark the end of the US government's control of the internet.

The UK, acting as European representative, stunned delegates from around the world during a late-night session on Wednesday when it produced a series of paragraphs that effectively outlined the end of the US-created internet infrastructure.

It called for a "new co-operation model" that would not only oversee public policy matters but also create procedures for changing the internet's "root zone file", managers of country domains (such as .uk or .de), create a new arbitration service for the internet, and produce rules to cover the domain name system (DNS).

In essence, a new version of the current overseeing body ICANN and an end to the US government's overall control of the DNS.

Now I don't know too much about the internet at it root though I did know it had been a US controlled project/process?

As an end user its not perfect but things are not too bad.
The EU has a well deserved reputation for relentless bureaucracy and a pace of change which makes geological processes look fast (plus greed, corruption, nepotism etc). I don't know if it's involvement will be a good thing at all.
Coversely I don't think it's a particlarly good thing for the running of the internet to be overly dominated by a single country.

Thought this might be worth a bit of a debate.

<edit>The Inq also has a column: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26584
Easier reading but with a definite anti-US slant.

[Trevoke]

This sounds *very* good.
Maybe IPv6 will get rolled out soon.. 8-)
And I do think it's good to have something neutral running the Internet.
It's utopic, but who knows, a piece of land which belongs to no country, on which we set the computers; and all countries have their responsibility in keeping it up and running.
*sigh* It would never work.

[nihil]

Well, ICANN don't see themselves as a US organisation:

http://www.icann.org/general/

[Maestr0]

I've always found it interesting that the world feels like the US owes them the internet, just because everyone likes it and uses it. The truth is the US MADE the internet. They have control of it because they built it. Granted the scientific community is a internatiional one, and people from all over have contributed to that knowledge,but the orginal DARPA project: American. NSFnet: American. TCP/IP: American. DNS: American. Don't get me wrong, I would rather the internet wasnt controlled by ANY governments. My opinion aside I don't see why the world feels like they should get to have control just because they use it. Go tell AT&T that all their lines should be governed by an international body because everyone uses their fiber lines, see what they say.

-Maestr0

[rapier57]

"... the end of the US-created internet infrastructure."

Say what? I know there has been an effort to internationalize the management and oversight of the internet, and I applaud that. Why the Register wants to insult the American taxpayer over this issue is beyond me. Yeah, it is a US-created infrastucture. It ain't going away. It is being turned over, lock stock and barrel to the international community.

Geez, whaddaya want?

BTW, Maestr0, good points.

[yardbird420]

The companies that control the routing hardware will be the ones that control the internet, as China has tried to prove.

[Striek]

I'd rather see the Internet root zone files controlled by a single body. If control were broken up to more than organization, then google.com would give different sites, depending on whether you were in China or Germany. The greatest thing about the Internet, is that I can go anywhere in the worl with a browser, type www.antionline.com, and get this site. It would be a serious blow to the world if it returned different sites all over the place.

But as long as ICANN can manage to keep control over the root zone files, everything should be fine. Right now, the US government effectively has control over these files. They would have to relinquish that control to ICANN for this to work. And as we all know, the US government does not enjoy giving up power.

This has been discussed on and off for a year or two now, and I'd really like to see where it eventually goes. When the dust settles, I'm just hoping that there will still be One Internet,

[RoadClosed]

Now I don't know too much about the internet at it root though I did know it had been a US controlled project/process?

From the very beginning and through our very nice gesture of allowing the world public to connect to it's infrastructure. Along with GPS.

[IKnowNot]

I don't understand this at all.

"Nowadays our voting system in Brazil is based on ICTs [information and communication technologies], our tax collection system is based on ICTs, our public health system is based on ICTs. For us, the internet is much more than entertainment, it is vital for our constituencies, for our parliament in Brazil, for our society in Brazil." With such a vital resource, he asked, "how can one country control the Internet?"

The U.S. planned it, designed it, built it, expanded it ( and not just the government, but businesses as well ), then shared it to the point that allowed countries to build their own infrastructures such as described above. This so all may be connected to share ideas, knowledge, trade, etc., all at a rate and world-wide cooperation that is unprecedented in our planet's history.

Now, because some countries which are known for their restrictions on access and information flow have decided the U.S. should relinquish “control”,

The UK, acting as European representative, ... produced a series of paragraphs that effectively outlined the end of the US-created internet infrastructure.

So what exactly is the U.S. doing wrong?
How much did that UK representative get paid?

[Katja Bergman]

Their like the UN... the UN for example has nothing better to do other than tell countries how to do things. Once this is either provided or refused they sit there and scope out much larger things to 'supervise'. Say what you will about the US and Iraq... but you should see some of the insane things these people wanted the USA to fund.