4 ms·

Does anyone sincerely believe this obscure UN body stands a snowball's chance in hell of actually snatching authority from Icann? The only reason the US respon

by doktrin 14y ago

Does anyone sincerely believe this obscure UN body stands a snowball's chance in hell of actually snatching authority from Icann? The only reason the US response has been lackluster is because the threat is insignificant. It's also quite surprising to see Crovitz's WSJ editorial referred to as an "article". It's classic unsubstantiated fear mongering, typical of the editorial section of that paper.

trebuch3t 14y ago
The issue is less about the UN trying to take control of Internet authority, it is more about what seems to be growing discontent with the US having all of the control. See the Chinese RFC about "internal internets" mentioned yesterday. This seems to come up every few years ago, then there's buzz about it, and then everyone realizes that the Internet works just fine and everything goes back to normal.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Sorry to be pedantic; it was an Internet Draft, which anyone can submit, not an IETF RFC.
- grecy 14y ago
  > the Internet works just fine. From a technology standpoint, sure. From a jurisdiction, big brother, we hold all the power standpoint, the current setup of "the Internet" is dysfunctional at best.
- rmc 14y ago
  The USA has started throwing it's weight around w.r.t. .com namespace. People are starting to realise that's not right.
sageikosa 14y ago
Authoritarian regimes could attempt to use this idea to splinter themselves (perhaps in a coalition) into separate "Internet" blocs that use the same type of communication infrastructure, but different "information" infrastructure.
olefoo 14y ago
The ITU isn't that obscure, it is the main trans-national regulatory body for telecommunications. If you've ever made a phone call across a national border the ITU is the body that set the technical standards that made that call possible. Having the ITU be the responsible party for resolving cross-border disputes over internet policy isn't entirely crazy. However I wouldn't expect too much of it one way or the other; by their very nature trans-national governance entities are mostly advisory; and make a convenient stalking horse for multiple national agendas.

by doktrin 14y ago

trebuch3t 14y ago

The issue is less about the UN trying to take control of Internet authority, it is more about what seems to be growing discontent with the US having all of the control. See the Chinese RFC about "internal internets" mentioned yesterday. This seems to come up every few years ago, then there's buzz about it, and then everyone realizes that the Internet works just fine and everything goes back to normal.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Sorry to be pedantic; it was an Internet Draft, which anyone can submit, not an IETF RFC.
grecy 14y ago
> the Internet works just fine. From a technology standpoint, sure. From a jurisdiction, big brother, we hold all the power standpoint, the current setup of "the Internet" is dysfunctional at best.
rmc 14y ago
The USA has started throwing it's weight around w.r.t. .com namespace. People are starting to realise that's not right.

sageikosa 14y ago

Authoritarian regimes could attempt to use this idea to splinter themselves (perhaps in a coalition) into separate "Internet" blocs that use the same type of communication infrastructure, but different "information" infrastructure.

olefoo 14y ago

The ITU isn't that obscure, it is the main trans-national regulatory body for telecommunications. If you've ever made a phone call across a national border the ITU is the body that set the technical standards that made that call possible. Having the ITU be the responsible party for resolving cross-border disputes over internet policy isn't entirely crazy. However I wouldn't expect too much of it one way or the other; by their very nature trans-national governance entities are mostly advisory; and make a convenient stalking horse for multiple national agendas.