
US ready to 'hand over' the internet's naming system - dcminter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37114313
======
muninn_
I'm probably the minority here, but I'd rather it just stay in the hands of
the U.S. . Unless there is some sort of malice and ongoing misuse I don't
really see how this improves the system.

Open to any explanation about how this will improve the system aside from
"more involvement from other countries". Not that I'm discounting that as a
good or bad reason, but I'd just like to see more information about why this
would be good.

~~~
phicoh
Note that in the past the USG abused its power to seize domains belonging to
foreign companies. See for example
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homel...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-
security-seizes-spanish-domain-name-that-had-already-been-declared-
legal.shtml)

So they cannot be trusted.

Of course, in practice, what goes into the root zone is controlled by ICANN.
The whole oversight has been mostly theoretical for many years now.

~~~
astrodust
I wouldn't trust the stewardship of ICANN either. This group of muppets has
been turning the top-level into a wasteland of garbage ever since they got
control: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-
level_dom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-
level_domains#ICANN-era_generic_top-level_domains)

While reasonable gTLDs like .inc, .corp and .ltd get ignored, instead we have
.aerospace and .google for reasons that have never been properly explained.

They've also handed over .app to Google simply because Google was willing to
pay a stupid amount of money for the rights, and Google can't even figure out
how to sell these yet:
[https://www.registry.google](https://www.registry.google)

~~~
marvindanig
Exactly!

They gave away the .book TLD to Amazon too and now no one can publish their
own book using a .book domain name for their work.

~~~
eridius
They did? That sounds pretty awful, but I don't see .book listed at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-
level_dom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-
level_domains#ICANN-era_generic_top-level_domains)

~~~
kej
See [http://nic.book](http://nic.book)

------
smitherfield
> _Other countries, particularly China and Russia, had put pressure on the UN
> to call for the DNS to be controlled by the United Nations’ International
> Telecommunication Union._

I'm no diplomat, but I suspect any move that's primarily advocated by Russia
and China can't be good for [internet] freedom.

~~~
gnode
Might just be that China and Russia don't trust the US not to use this control
to harm them, e.g. seizing domains as part of sanctions.

~~~
twblalock
Don't be naive. That may be part of their motivation, but they would want
control for censorship purposes even if they didn't fear harm from the US.

~~~
zokier
That's just such ridiculous bullshit. Pray tell me, what any country could
have possibly imagined as the result that would have enabled them to have any
sort of power for censorship?

~~~
twblalock
Government controls which would enable censorship have been proposed at
meetings of the International Telecommunication Union, and have gained
significant support. Notably, the proposals are supported by countries known
for internet censorship, and opposed by the United States.

It is a pretty obvious fact that internationalized control of internet
governance will make censorship more likely, and acceptable, than US control
does.

Here is just one example: [https://rsf.org/en/news/new-treaty-signed-not-
all](https://rsf.org/en/news/new-treaty-signed-not-all)

> Reporters Without Borders reiterates its appeal to ITU member countries to
> preserve the Internet as a place of freedom, as a place for the free
> exchange of views and information. Concern also focused on article 5B of the
> treaty concerning spam, which says: “Member States should endeavour to take
> necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic
> communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication
> services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense.” The
> problem stems from the fact that, to block this kind of content, governments
> will first have to identify it and will therefore have to use Internet
> control tools. Some governments do this already, but such action has never
> been recognized in a UN treaty. So this article sets a precedent which
> governments that have little interest in freedom of information would be
> able to use to justify the deployment of filtering and blocking mechanisms.

Here is another: [https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/itu-wcit-
and...](https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/itu-wcit-and-internet-
freedom)

> A recently released ITU document summarizing various proposals to modify the
> existing ITU regulations (“ITRs”) confirms what folks have been saying and
> leaking for some time now. The Russian Federation, various Arab states, and
> others have submitted proposals that would expressly ratify the right of
> member states to disrupt communication in the name of national security, and
> to limit the ability of parties to route around censorship or communicate
> anonymously by providing members states the authority to determine routing
> paths and to prevent “misuse and misappropriation of numbering resources.”
> (See, for example, proposed MOD 30 & 31A – but there are numerous other
> proposals that could achieve the same end).

------
coroutines
The US is the best government to oversee DNS in a way that isn't corrupt and
awful. That said, the US has seized domains in the past without proper due
process - so it's really that "for the most part" we expect our freedoms to be
respected. I think the situation would be far worse if left to several
countries who don't share our progressive values. The Internet is only as
great as it is because it became a "thing" here first. It would be fucking
awful having Iran or China manage DNS - even as partners.

~~~
JohnStrange
Pardon me to be so polemic, but what kind of progressive values do you have in
mind? Political assassinations by drone strikes that kill hundreds of children
and women as bystanders?

~~~
freeone3000
There's no relation between the two. The progressive values are things like
freedom of expression and free journalism. These stand in contrast to nations
like Turkey and China, and their internet policy.

~~~
tombone12
What, which rights we foreigners have that the USA actually respect in
practice is not important for judging how relevant American values are to the
rest of the world?

------
messe
> "The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments
> over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators,
> including former Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz.

For those of us in foreign (to the US) countries, I don't quite see the issue
here.

~~~
mhurron
> I don't quite see the issue here.

Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of
Speech' codified into law.

In reality, any country can abuse it's position, but in regards the internet
it doesn't really appear that it has ever happened. This is very much change
for change sake without any real benefit to be seen.

~~~
wongarsu
>Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of
Speech' codified into law.

That statement is so absurd that this can only be Poe's law in effect. Freedom
of Speech is a requirement for a functioning democracy, and consequently
plenty of countries have freedom of speech codified into law.

Of course different countries limit this freedom differently. In a US cinema
you can't shout "Fire" if there is no fire, or "I just got a national security
letter" if there is a national security letter. In a German cinema you can't
shout "The holocaust never happened" or "Kill all muslims". But within
reasonable bounds both countries guarantee freedom of speech.

~~~
kalsk
Yeah and in North Korea I can't call Kim Jong Un a fat piece of shit, but I
guess that's just a reasonable limit to North Korea's freedom of speech.

> In a German cinema you can't shout "The holocaust never happened"

This is a legitimate example of why Germany does not have freedom of speech.
Regardless of how verifiable the Holocaust is or how offensive it is to deny
that it happened, disagreeing with the government's version of history should
not be a crime in a free society.

> In a US cinema you can't shout "Fire" if there is no fire

A fraudulent statement designed to disrupt society. You don't get arrested
because what you said is untrue, you get arrested because you're legitimately
trying to hurt people by causing a stampede and desensitizing them to fire
warnings.

>"Kill all muslims"

A specific incitement of violence.

> "I just got a national security letter"

I don't like that this is illegal either, but it's a far cry from making it
illegal to express certain opinions. And at least there's a fair amount of
disagreement within the US as to whether it should be illegal, different
jurisdictions have taken either side of this issue.

~~~
wahern
How is disagreeing with history any different than disagreeing with a fact,
like whether nor not a theater is on fire.

Setting aside other exceptions, like liable, the rule in AngloAmerican law
concerns inciting or otherwise causing imminent harm. What constitutes
imminent harm has varied widely over the course of U.S. history. Many people
were sentenced by courts under the Alien & Sedition Acts, the argument being
that seditious speech _might_ lead to imminent harm. The same things happened
over 120 years later when people handing out anarchist and communist leaflets
were regularly thrown in jail with even less pushback by society.

These days the interpretation and application of imminent harm is much
narrower than it has ever been, and indisputably ahistorical. The conception
of free speech that Americans enjoy today didn't exist for most of the history
of the country and likely most of the history of the world.

In the context of Germany's history, it's not obvious to me (and shouldn't be
obvious to anybody who gives it serious consideration) that their standard is
intrinsically, objectively inferior.

I happen to disagree with it, but I don't think it's unreasonable on its face.
And I'll be the first to admit that my preference for the modern, American
conception is largely a function of my being an American and having
internalized certain normative judgments unique to not just this country, but
unique to the post-WWII political and legal context and in many respects
unique to the past couple of generations.

------
TenOhms
Beyond country specific TLD's which every country already has, what exactly do
other countries want in terms of controlling the internet that they don't
already have? (edit: spelling)

~~~
digi_owl
Frankly ever since the issue first showed up on a news site, i have held that
legacy gTLDs should be moved under .us, and that new gTLDs should not be
issued.

Then it would be up to each nation to enact rules for their part of the net,
and nothing more.

Right now, if i happen to access a .com that is operated by a non-US entity,
am i subject to the rules of USA, the nation of origin of said entity, or
where they happen to have their servers housed?

~~~
dublinben
You might not be subject to US jurisdiction, but the US asserts that entities
using a TLD administered in the US, are subject to US jurisdiction.

------
astazangasta
Again, I worry that the battle between nations is a mask for the real battle
that is happening, and which we are losing, the ceding of power to large
corporations.

I'm not worried about ICANN, here, I'm worried about Google. Specifically, now
that ICANN is expanding top-level domains to include thousands of generics,
the big players are going to make lots of grabs and become first-class
citizens on the Internet. It is not better for the Internet if Google controls
the .dev TLD and if Amazon controls the .shop TLD.

At the end of the day a democratic system of any kind is vulnerable to
corruption from the influence of power and must actively defend against this
influence. If ICANN is supposed to be a more democratic means of controlling
the Internet than the US government, it has to be made invulnerable to the
influence of large players like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.

------
SnacksOnAPlane
If they screw it up, we can always just move to an alternate system of DNS
servers. We're all only on a single system by convention anyway.

------
davidu
ICANN, despite its imperfection, is infinitely better than having control of
the DNS by the UN or the ITU who are exceptionally self-serving and controlled
by corporate interests.

Thought of course I'd have preferred it stay with DoC under its benevolent and
almost entirely hands-off stewardship.

~~~
zokier
Then you must be glad that they are not handing ICANN to UN, ITU or any other
pre-existing organization.

------
dicho
> "The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments
> over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators,
> including former Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz.

This article raises a rather serious political (but also philosophical)
question mark over diffuse concepts like "government" and "foreign", in the
context of Internet. I honestly don't know what is the current status of
citizenship and territoriality nowadays in a "place" (is the Internet really a
place? ) as fluid, fuzzy and multi-layered as this one we are discussing.

------
mxuribe
It feels like this is a battle (maybe "battle" is too strong of a word) over
"who will control the single, traffic-coordinating bean". Where as we can
instead create - by convention not law/authority - a whole new set of
decentralized "beans", no? For example, can a competing, decentralized
equivalent to DNS be leveraged which right out of the gate leverages ipv6,
allows for easier-tom-implem,ent decentralized nodes, etc.? I'm not saying
this is easy...but surely it could assuage any concerns over control of
conventional DNS, no?

~~~
chendies
You can already create that.

The problem is getting everyone else to configure their systems to use it.

------
throwaway1974
Will domains still be taken offline for various "copyright" reasons?

------
gear54rus
I don't see how this changes anything since it will still be in US
jurisdiction. Rules will be bent when it matters.

~~~
Artoemius
At least it's better than to let a KGB-run dictatorship have any say in the
matter, especially considering their aggressive foreign policy.

~~~
gear54rus
Always a matter of perspective. I get the dictatorship part, but it's
certainly not US who can berate others for 'aggressive foreign policy'.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Yeah. "Aggressive foreign policy" is probably not the right issue to be
raising here for a variety of reasons.

I would think that the real pressing issue is Internet censorship. And on this
issue the U.S. really does have a very good track record compared to a lot of
the other countries who might want to control ICANN.
[http://map.opennet.net/](http://map.opennet.net/)

~~~
johansch
That good track record is because the US is so far ahead in pervasive large-
scale Internet eavesdropping and intelligence gathering. It's counter-
productive to block stuff when you want more data.

~~~
stephenhuey
As much as I dislike excessive surveillance, it's worth pointing out that
defenders of free speech far outweigh proponents of gathering data for
eavesdropping. Of course, the USA enjoyed free speech before the internet
existed. It's one of our strongest values. I partly grew up abroad and have
friends in numerous countries where people do not have the right to speak
their mind, and this should not be taken lightly. Again, I am not a fan of the
extensive surveillance, but the "good track record" does not have its
foundation in eavesdropping.

------
awqrre
The wall street journal had a similar article yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12306470](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12306470)

------
gsmethells
I wish the article would stop using "Icann" for ICANN. Who proof-read this
article?

~~~
forgottenpass
_Who proof-read this article?_

Someone who knows how to follow the BBC style guide.

ICANN is pronounced "I can" not "I. C. A. N. N." so they write Icann.

edit: See "Acronyms" section in
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art201307021...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133530)

~~~
TTPrograms
They include among their exceptions to that rule "looks like a typo".

~~~
taejo
Presumably if you're used to the BBC's style (and this style is much more
common generally in the UK than in the US - many of the major newspapers spell
acronyms similarly) it doesn't look like a typo.

------
tn13
US might be becoming less and less free every passing year but is likely to
remain far more freer than rest of world for years to come.

I think this is bad idea. The rest of the world consists of China, Saudi
Arabia, Iran, UK, Russia. I don't want them to have any say in the naming
system.

~~~
daenney
Right, lets just forget about Canada, or South America, Africa, Europe,
Oceania, the rest of the Middle and Far East, the other countries on the
Arabian peninsula and pretty much most of Asia. Lets just pretend the other
252 countries don't exist, are all equally terrible and for whatever reason
obviously don't deserve to have a say in any of this.

~~~
tn13
"Deserve" is a pretty big word to use here. No country deserves anything. And
also I am not sure why USA should give up anything because some other country
feel entitled. Congo or Myanmar will not have much of a say in how internet is
managed compared to China or Saudi Arabia. But it would affect all internet
users.

Once USA gives up this control it can not take it back and hence I think USA
should not give it up.

