EU deal threatens end to US dominance of internet

[Rolo]

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.

The US was scathing about the proposals, within minutes telling delegates that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that would prevent it from having overall control of the internet.

The next day, the US ambassador David Gross remained equally unimpressed. "It seems to me to be a potentially historic shift in policy by the European Union - to be a much more top-down, 'governments should control technical aspects of the Internet' approach," he told us. "Something that as you know is not the policy of the United States."

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

Looks like the .xxx tld might have been the last drop - now the EU is actively looking to remove power from the US and the current ICANN model...

[Trev]

Now this I fully support. I never thought it would be the UK heading it up though, France or Germany maybe but not the UK.

This will make for interesting times ahead.

[TheEnforcer]

I'm normally very open minded about foreign policy issues but in this case I'll happily say I could care less what the EU, or any other country, wants in this regard. With all due respect I have no desire to see the UN/multi-country control over the net. I have little doubt the growth of the net would be stifled. ICANN ain't perfect but I have little doubt that some bureaucratic and political UN board would make things 1000 times worse.

There is room to talk about ICANN and some of how it operates but I don't know of many, if any, here in the states that would like to see the UN running the net. Even supporters of the UN overall and it's possibilities in helping the world have no desire to see them in charge of the net.

[Trev]

I'm normally very open minded about foreign policy issues but in this case I'll happily say I could care less what the EU, or any other country, wants in this regard. With all due respect I have no desire to see the UN/multi-country control over the net. I have little doubt the growth of the net would be stifled. ICANN ain't perfect but I have little doubt that some bureaucratic and political UN board would make things 1000 times worse.

There is room to talk about ICANN and some of how it operates but I don't know of many, if any, here in the states that would like to see the UN running the net. Even supporters of the UN overall and it's possibilities in helping the world have no desire to see them in charge of the net.
Then the US could be sitting with it's own little internet while the rest of the world fucks you off...

[Rolo]

The problem is that ICANN have already moved from technical to political... ex. the whole .xxx tld. issue shows that. For years the EU have tolerated that the US have had final control of the cores of the internet, but ICANN have now successful destroyed that.

How to restore that goodwill without making any changes in power?

[Mike AI]

Wahhhh hope they have some nice cheese with their whine!

[Rolo]

I would suggest that the US started by removing the .xxx tld., and then met with the EU to have talks about the creation and operation of the .kid tld.

Next they should restructure ICANN - making sure that incompetence will stop from happening again.

That might show the world that the US is serious about its responsibility.

[Grump]

It will be interesting to see how this progresses and I don't know how much worse the UN could be over what we have now. We may well end up with 2 seperate Internets. Isolationists Arise!!! LOL

[TheEnforcer]

Then the US could be sitting with it's own little internet while the rest of the world fucks you off...


LOL

Ain't gonna happen my friend. This is one of those instances where MikeAi and I agree though I wouldn't have said it quite that way. :p

Ok.. lets say what you say there happens. Whose income do you think would suffere more? US webmasters being denied foreign customers or foreign webmasters being denied US customers?

[Trev]

LOL

Ain't gonna happen my friend. This is one of those instances where MikeAi and I agree though I wouldn't have said it quite that way. :p

Ok.. lets say what you say there happens. Whose income do you think would suffere more? US webmasters being denied foreign customers or foreign webmasters being denied US customers?
Lol, maybe the 2 internets was a grab at nothing. However the US isn't as all powerful as it believes itself to be.

Something's got to give...

[Inabon]

ERMn who says US has dominance now??

[Inabon]

I'm normally very open minded about foreign policy issues but in this case I'll happily say I could care less what the EU, or any other country, wants in this regard. With all due respect I have no desire to see the UN/multi-country control over the net. I have little doubt the growth of the net would be stifled. ICANN ain't perfect but I have little doubt that some bureaucratic and political UN board would make things 1000 times worse.

There is room to talk about ICANN and some of how it operates but I don't know of many, if any, here in the states that would like to see the UN running the net. Even supporters of the UN overall and it's possibilities in helping the world have no desire to see them in charge of the net.

i am still wondering who says US runs the internet??? you could have said this 7 years ago but right now it is kind of stupid to think so.

[TheEnforcer]

Lol, maybe the 2 internets was a grab at nothing. However the US isn't as all powerful as it believes itself to be.

Something's got to give...

I agree there needs to be some changes with ICANN but the wholesale changes that the EU is pushing for just won't fly. Of course we aren't all powerful but we do have significant power and know how to leverage it. :)

[Inabon]

LOL

Ain't gonna happen my friend. This is one of those instances where MikeAi and I agree though I wouldn't have said it quite that way. :p

Ok.. lets say what you say there happens. Whose income do you think would suffere more? US webmasters being denied foreign customers or foreign webmasters being denied US customers?

US webmasters that stay in Home Land buddy. Europe can and is becoming the place to host and not get fucked with.

and i predict 10 years from now central and south america will have killed the fucking bandwith pricing issues and be as competitive... the wave down here is starting but europe will win this round.

[Inabon]

I agree there needs to be some changes with ICANN but the wholesale changes that the EU is pushing for just won't fly. Of course we aren't all powerful but we do have significant power and know how to leverage it. :)

ok but what can you leverage ??

i mean you have not been able to leverage porn hard enough to erradicate it from USA...

and lets not talk about illegal porn that still goes round and round. not that i approve it but it is null to say you have the power.

shit even alqaeda or however the fuck you spell it was hosting in the USA come onnn!!!! what leverage.

[Rolo]

From the US goverment


U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System

The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS). 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 such, the United States is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.

Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet’s DNS.

ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS. The United States continues to support the ongoing work of ICANN as the technical manager of the DNS and related technical operations and recognizes the progress it has made to date. The United States will continue to provide oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical mission.

Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in relevant multiple fora. Given the breadth of topics potentially encompassed under the rubric of Internet governance there is no one venue to appropriately address the subject in its entirety. While the United States recognizes that the current Internet system is working, we encourage an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders around the world in the various fora as a way to facilitate discussion and to advance our shared interest in the ongoing robustness and dynamism of the Internet. In these fora, the United States will continue to support market-based approaches and private sector leadership in Internet development broadly.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm

Yet, ICANN on its own approved the .xxx tld. (clearly a hot political tld. - world wide) - still the US goverment thinks that ICANN is only a technical organization... I think that shows that ICANN in its current form does not work.

[Dravyk]

I laugh at you all! hahahaha I say!

The Japanese and Asian markets are already onto Internet version 2 or the 6 rather than 4 code thingy.

Europe has the market??? US? Asia beats everyone hands done for technical, yet no one has even thought of them!

I laugh at you! hahahaha

[Inabon]

I laugh at you all! hahahaha I say!

The Japanese and Asian markets are already onto Internet version 2 or the 6 rather than 4 code thingy.

Europe has the market??? US? Asia beats everyone hands done for technical, yet no one has even thought of them!

I laugh at you! hahahaha

i have to agree... but

the thing about asia is that you have a government that really controls internet or at least prosecutes whoever breaks their laws. be it wrong or good is besides the point

:)

[Dravyk]

i have to agree... but

the thing about asia is that you have a government that really controls internet or at least prosecutes whoever breaks their laws. be it wrong or good is besides the point

:)No graffiti on your website, or they'll cane you! :clubinhan

[leedsfan]

china has more or less constructed an internet hub 100 times faster than the current web. All Europe has to do is agree with china to use it, and the US is out the game. bye bye.

[SykkBoy]

2 internets = 2 income streams
;-))

[Dravyk]

china has more or less constructed an internet hub 100 times faster than the current web. All Europe has to do is agree with china to use it, and the US is out the game. bye bye.100X faster with 10,000 more potential users. Should go to a crawl fast once Chinese actually get on it. :)

[leedsfan]

sykk boy.

very true. be sure to hone your language software and geotargetting systems.

[leedsfan]

Dravyk. The way i read it is the web2 is capable of handling all chinese traffic comfortably, plus current www levels. That means no slow down.

[Dravyk]

Dravyk. The way i read it is the web2 is capable of handling all chinese traffic comfortably, plus current www levels. That means no slow down.Leeds, you might be right there. I know with going to the six instead of the four that IPs won't run out. Not sure what the new infrastructure has to do with pipe though. Again, having said that, you might be right.

[Rolo]

Asia and EU is already working on IPv6... last I heard the US is saying 5-10 years before its ready to move on IPv6, and by that time we might already have seen major ISPs located in Asia/EU instead of the US.

Its ironic that ICANN uses time on things like the .xxx tld., when there are tons of other issues, which is much more important + would secure the US position in the future... now the US got their ICANN technology "geeks" discussing .xxx tld. - should we also have university philosophers discussing IPv6?

The incompetence by the current ICANN is sickening...

[Inabon]

Asia and EU is already working on IPv6... last I heard the US is saying 5-10 years before its ready to move on IPv6, and by that time we might already have seen major ISPs located in Asia/EU instead of the US.

Its ironic that ICANN uses time on things like the .xxx tld., when there are tons of other issues, which is much more important + would secure the US position in the future... now the US got their ICANN technology "geeks" discussing .xxx tld. - should we also have university philosophers discussing IPv6?

The incompetence by the current ICANN is sickening...


OMG now this man has spoken some wisdom

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!

[Trev]

OMG now this man has spoken some wisdom

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!
When Rolo speaks of such things, I listen. He knows his stuff, that's for sure! :okthumb: