This post is as close to political content as I will (hopefully) ever post on this blog. Don’t worry, no commentary on the elections :-).
In a March 17, 2014, I posted an article titled Does the US Need to Give Everything Away?! That post outlined an early conversation about transferring the control of United States Government associated with the Internet over to a private entity. Well, over two years later, our Administration has executed the public policy decision.
So, without Congress’ approval or legislation,…
What Happened?
The decision was completed to transfer Internet’s domain name system (DNS). This system ultimately translates the Web addresses you type into your browser, for example “sousamis.com,” into the numerical language that net-connected computers use to communicate. Ultimately, the DNS system is analogous to you calling Information at 411 (gee, wonder how many of us do that anymore?). We then provide a name of which we would like the telephone number. The information agent queries the name and provides a numerical address (phone number) for the text-based name provide.
Several legislators tried to block the transfer on Friday by requesting an injunction. However, a Federal judge denied that request.
As my previous post discussed, this plan had been discussed for several years. The US Department of Commerce moved the control under its responsibility to the non-profit entity Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This entity’s governance includes several technical experts as well as government and business representatives.
What the Opponents Say?
The argument of opponents centers focuses that the governance transfer could lead to free speech issues … that are the backbone of the Internet. Ultimately, the opponents of this action believe that representatives of countries, other than the US, could attempt to change the rules associated with the distribution of ideas, thoughts and speech distributed through the Internet.
ICANN and Industry Thoughts?
ICANN representatives dispute that assertion. Saying in a statement …
“ICANN is a technical organization and does not have the remit or ability to regulate content on the internet,” the group said prior to the transfer. “That is true under the current contract with the US government and will remain true without the contract with the US government.“
ICANN believes that the transition, which occurred on October 1, would continue with an open Internet environment. ICANN’s Board Chair, Stephen D. Crocker said in a statement …
“This transition was envisioned 18 years ago, yet it was the tireless work of the global internet community, which drafted the final proposal, that made this a reality. This community validated the multistakeholder model of internet governance. It has shown that a governance model defined by the inclusion of all voices, including business, academics, technical experts, civil society, governments and many others is the best way to assure that the internet of tomorrow remains as free, open and accessible as the internet of today.“
Countries such as Russia and China, supported the idea of a body under the United Nations to govern the Internet’s duties (the so called ITU, International Telecommunications Union).
A member of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) called the transition “symbolic” and the new policy will preserve the independence of the Internet.
Final Thoughts
If it is so “symbolic” as the industry association asserts … then why change? Symbolic changes to public policy are usually more cosmetic in nature, than structural. Transferring governance control from one entity to another is not a zero-sum game! One entity’s power and authority is diminished as one is increased. Clearly, there is a substantive shift, which is not symbolic.
Do you believe it was symbolic that four states’ attorney generals also filed suit to block the transfer? And were denied. Is that symbolic?
As my previous post discussed … the United States created the Industrial Revolution, with the beginning of the automobile manufacturing industry. Then what happened? Now move the discussion so that we can further discuss the electronics, manufacturing, technology and aerospace industries … what happened with those markets?
So, as some people have called technology, “The New Industrial Revolution” that began in the US … with what DARPA and ARPANET started in the 1960s in the US Department of Defense … is now being eroded.
Let’s hope the speculation of this discussion, along with the others who oppose this transfer, does not gain a negative outcome.