Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Core Internet Institutions Abandon US Government
Renegade:
Good? Bad?
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/
In Montevideo, Uruguay this week, the Directors of all the major Internet organizations – ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, all five of the regional Internet address registries – turned their back on the US government. With striking unanimity, the organizations that actually develop and administer Internet standards and resources initiated a break with 3 decades of U.S. dominance of Internet governance.
A statement released by this group called for “accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing.” That part of the statement constituted an explicit rejection of the US Commerce Department’s unilateral oversight of ICANN through the IANA contract. It also indirectly attacks the US unilateral approach to the Affirmation of Commitments, the pact between the US and ICANN which provides for periodic reviews of its activities by the GAC and other members of the ICANN community. (The Affirmation was conceived as an agreement between ICANN and the US exclusively – it would not have been difficult to allow other states to sign on as well.)
--- End quote ---
I can't see any government involvement being a good thing. We're talking about technical standards and the like, and governments are nothing but politics and bickering. How is politicizing the Internet a good thing?
From the frying pan into the fire...
(And that's ignoring other ICANN problems, etc.)
40hz:
Much of the governance of the web (and other things) defaulted to the United States because the general perception was that the United States was law abiding, rational, predictable and fair.
However, now that the most recent manifestation of the American government has demonstrated a marked tendency to ignore the rule of law, and behave in an arbitrary and capricious (i.e. irrational) manner, many nations (who often decided to take the easy way out and "allow" the USA to handle anything they'd rather not spend the time or money on dealing with) are now realizing they're going to need to become much more directly active in the administration of their global lives and institutions.
Probably not a bad thing to have happen for all parties involved - including the USA. 8)
IainB:
^^ Yes. What @40hz said. Spot-on. :up: (Not bad for a turtle!)
The country which is presently the de facto guardian and custodian of the web infrastructure standards would seem to have demonstrated - for whatever reason - a gross inability/incompetence to perform the role with trust, and with responsible, detached, objective, rational, and ethical policies.
The change to a new, trustworthy and international custodianship can't happen quickly enough for my liking, though I would suggest that the thing will probably still be at potential risk of being hijacked or skewed by self-interested parties in (say) the US economic/commercial hegemony, or a totalitarian new world order, or other religio-political ideology - for example, as in those other international bodies, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation, the UN, the IPCC, or the EU.
If you need evidence to support this suggested potential risk you could probably spot the usual suspects as being behind the issues discussed in the other DCF thread Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates
Whether the end result of all this will be a better form of freedom and security on the Internet than at present is probably a moot question.
x16wda:
a new, trustworthy and international custodianship...
-IainB (October 13, 2013, 08:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
... and of course we've never seen a trustworthy custodianship usurped...
Renegade:
Much of the governance of the web (and other things) defaulted to the United States because the general perception was that the United States was law abiding, rational, predictable and fair.
-40hz (October 13, 2013, 10:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
Hehehe! And how wrong we've been proven! ;D
However, now that the most recent manifestation of the American government has demonstrated a marked tendency to ignore the rule of law, and behave in an arbitrary and capricious (i.e. irrational) manner, many nations (who often decided to take the easy way out and "allow" the USA to handle anything they'd rather not spend the time or money on dealing with) are now realizing they're going to need to become much more directly active in the administration of their global lives and institutions.
-40hz (October 13, 2013, 10:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
With you so far...
Probably not a bad thing to have happen for all parties involved - including the USA. 8)
-40hz (October 13, 2013, 10:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
Who are "all"? The same kleptocrats that exist everywhere else?
The US is very far from being the only "bad guy".
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/12/porn-filter-canada_n_4086217.html
See! Douchewaddery exists even in Canada! ;)
I don't know what would be best, but I know that if you have governments involved, things ain't goin' ta werk out 2 good.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version