Did The United States recently give away the Internet or has the Internet moved closer towards decentralization?
Who and what is ICANN?
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a non profit organization based in Los Angeles created on September 18th, 1998 in the state of California. One of ICANN's main jobs is to maintain data spaces related to the Internet and coordinate the Domain Name System (DNS) that matches individual web addresses with their actual computer address. For example steemit.com matches with the computer address 167.114.34.81. ICANN's task of matching web-names to web-numbers was originally recorded and kept on a clipboard by the highly revered computer scientist Jon Postel.
ICANN has an annual budget over $126,000,000.
Has the Internet moved closer towards decentralization?
The United States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) held a contract with ICANN for 18 years that gave the United States a large amount of 'oversight' over ICAAN's decisions and the Internet. On October 1st, 2016 this important contract between the U.S. and ICAAN officially expired. ICAAN has chosen not to renew the contract with the United States and transition into a fully autonomous organization that is accountable to an international community. ICAAN states in a press release on their website that,
"This historic moment marks the transition of the coordination and management of the Internet’s unique identifiers to the private-sector, a process that has been committed to and underway since 1998.“ and that "This transition was envisioned 18 years ago." - ICAAN.org (ICAAN press release)
USA Today reports "The U.S. contract with the non-profit organization in charge of all Internet domain names expires then, and the non-profit running the database will become autonomous and be accountable to international stakeholders in the Internet community. These include a governmental advisory committee, a technical committee, industry committee, internet users and telecommunications experts.".
Efforts to make ICANN a truly neutral global organization re surged in 2013, after National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden exposed the United States illegal and invasive tactics to conduct Internet Surveillance. This revelation pushed ICANN to work on a new transition proposal.
"The proposals reinforce ICANN’s existing multi-stakeholder model and are also aimed at enhancing ICANN’s accountability. The improvements include empowering the global Internet community to have direct recourse if they disagree with decisions made by ICANN the organization or the Board." - USAtoday.com
ICANN is now accountable to and will take advise from an international community and board. Stakeholder groups of this initiative includes nations in the Middle East, China and Russia which has many U.S. politicians saying ICANN's transition into becoming an autonomous organization is a bad thing for the Internet and will negatively effect the user experience of the Internet.
Milton Mueller, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and seasoned participant in ICANN's volunteer advisory groups says that Russia and China will not have more power than any other participating government. Mueller also says that all participating governments must agree to give advise to ICANN and is non binding. ICANN has the option to not follow the advise, especially if all of the other stakeholder groups/participating governments object to it.
Who owns the Internet?
The fact ICANN's origin is in the United States and the idea that the U.S. is founded on the principle of being 'the land of freedom' aides in creating a perception that the U.S. is the best body of government to maintain a contract that grants certain 'oversight' and 'power' pertaining to the Internet. However, a United States Government Accountability Office report issued on September 12th, 2016 concluded that the Internet "address book" is not U.S. government property. (U.S. Gov't Accountability Office Report)
Media coverage?
Although I personally did not witness much media coverage of this topic the BBC, CNET and USA Today all reported on this important contract on or around the day of expiration.
Political intervention?
USA Today reported that "On September 29th, 2016 the attorneys general of Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas and Nevada filed a lawsuit asking a Federal district court to block the transition, alleging that it amounts to giving up U.S. government property, among other complaints." (USA Today article)
C-net also reported that politician Ted Cruz and other Republicans attempted to block the transfer but was their request was denied by a Federal Judge. (C-net article)
The bottom line.
ICANN's decision to become an autonomous organization is not a transition of the Internet into a fully decentralized tool nor is the United States 'giving away' the Internet - however ICANN's decision does remove the United States as the sole influence behind key mechanics used within the Internet.
Important questions I have for ICANN are,
- Who and what is this new international community that ICANN is now accountable to?
- Who selected the individuals that represent each nation in this international community?
- How can the decisions made by this international community effect me as an end user of the Internet?
These questions are important because my current viewpoint is sort of inline with ICANN's decision being a 'slight of hand' to globalize and further control the Internet, instead of truly decentralizing the Internet. The task that ICANN performs and the role it plays in the Internet ecosystem is highly important but oversight of this organization should be decentralized and should not be controlled by any 1 individual, governments or any specific special interest groups, period. Depending on your ideology and beliefs this decision can be viewed as a good choice or bad choice - if you have a globalist mindset then ICANN's decision might be viewed as being great but if you are an 'American patriot' or anarchist the decision might be viewed as a nail in the Internet's coffin.
Steemers what do you think about ICANN's decision and internet decentralization? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Until next time,
- Ford Mogul
----
Thank you for reading! If you found value in this post and would like to support this blog please up-vote & resteem.
Follow for more great content! (steemit.com/@fordmogul)
Thank you for posting.
@dwinblood wrote an article 'Internet Vulnerability' that went about answering some of these queries..
Should we be asking more general queries? If the premise is that a country invented a thing...then does it stand to reason that they would mantain control of it. No names...No T-shirts. What are the queries at a higher level.?
Hey Bleujay, thanks for the comment.
The problem I have with the logic of "If the premise is that a country invented a thing...then does it stand to reason that they would maintain control of it." it ignores that "nations" are a man-made concept.
Nations/gov'ts are nothing more than man-made concepts that only exist in the human psyche. A gov't/nation cannot create or own anything - it is the individual humans who are a part of a nation that create and own "things". Humans have the choice to identify with a nation and this is why the term 'expatriate' exist
Every time a human is born on Earth, they are located on a geographical location that may or may not be a part of an ‘official’ nation/gov’t. This does not give the nation that an individual is born in, ownership rights and a stake in everything that the individual creates/produces.
The logic of a nation "owning" all creations that are created within its physical and political boundaries is a tyrannical idea in itself. President Obama has used that logic to tell the American public that the things they did create ARE NOT theirs and that they DID NOT create anything - actually the United States is the creator and should have ownership rights to everything, including this post. Of course I am being sarcastic but the president of the United States has actually used this rhetoric and logic on the American people.... Here the link to a YouTube video of President Obama saying "if you've got a business, you did not build that"
Moral of the story ...stay awake people and be careful of the beliefs and ideologies you buy into…
Thank you for your reply. We will have to agree to disagree.
Nations are entities, businesses are entities, humans are entities. If one applies the logic you have presented....then bleujay can be given anything Fordmogul has in his possession or has created, etc.
As far as The President of the United States of America is concerned...there is a lack of basic establishment principles in his governance. Respect for freedom, the right to privacy, the right to property, respect for volition, respect for life are non exisistant. To use what he has said twists the discussion from ...nations should have a right to protect what their nation creates..to a person does not have a right to keep what they have created.
The Bible says God created nations and bleujay believes God, the creator of the Universe and mankind rather than false notions conjured up by man.
One can agree with your last statement...Stay awake people and be careful of the beliefs and ideologies you buy into.
Principle. Man is weak, he needs a greater power than himself to be either good or evil. You are either in God's system or Default to Satan's system.
Hi Bleujay,
I am not one to debate or discuss religion. I respect everyone’s right to practice their faith and I am not against anyone who is a better person as a result of their faith. But – this is not a discussion about religion so I respectfully rather leave your God and everybody’s God out of this topic.
I am showing that you that same ideology and rhetoric in your premise is being used on the American public by the United States gov’t to take away creation in the private sector.
You presented the logic of “bleujay can be given anything Fordmogul has in his possession or has created, etc." in your first comment by saying that “If the premise is that a country invented a thing...then does it stand to reason that they would maintain control of it."
I do not believe nations are ‘entitled’ and have a stake in everything that an individual creates. I view that logic as socialism or communism because it removes individuality.
Yes, nations/gov’ts do have a right to protect the creators that are a part of the nation but they do not have ownership stakes in what an individual creates in their own ‘privacy’ in a ‘free country’.
A nation or individual cannot claim that they are using their ‘right to protect a creation that has origin in their nation’ to restrict a private and free individual who has created. You are correct, with that logic – you could be given anything Fordmogul has in their possession or has created.
^ that is what I am and the founding principles of the United States are against.
Nations/gov’ts only have a right to protect what is created in the PUBLIC sector and not what is created in the PRIVITE sector. Nations/gov’ts do not have an ownership stake in a creation simply because a creation becomes widely adopted and used by the masses. Only in instances where literally national security is at risk, should a private creation be restricted as if the creation was created in the public sector.
Dicintonary.com defines the word 'entity' as a “being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained.”
So by definition a nation is an entity because it is largely independent, distinct and 'self-contained'. However, nations/gov’ts do not create anything – the humans that are apart of nations/gov’ts are what create and produce for nations. It is simple, no people, no nation, no creation or production. You show me a nation that exist and is producing GDP, products, exporting and importing goods and performing basic human-society functions/tasks without humans.
Thank you for your reply.
Religion is man by man's efforts seeking the approbation of God.
Christianity is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
In general the forefathers of Americas Constitution believed in a Higher power and made declarations of it. There is no point in discussing establishment set up by God (by the way there was no mention of religion) if He is not recognized. We are dialoguing from two different premises, therefore two different conclusions will be reached.
We will have to agree to disagree, will we not?
Thank you for your reply as well!
I agree with you, in the context of our discussion and this post, there is no point to discuss the United States as an establishment. The questions I am asking in this post are pertaining to human rights. There is a point in discussing a free individual's right to ownership and privacy. The discussion of God's role in the United States can get complicated. Yes, the founding fathers/body of people of the United States believed in Christianity but many of these forefathers also were Free Masons.
I understand your premise but I believe to enable discussion an individual should be able to separate God, religious beliefs and spiritual beliefs from laws, rights, ethics and morality. I can’t say I disagree with you at heart but I guess we’ll disagree on this one.