USA vs. EU - Root DNS Control |
Article is yet to be rated |
|
| Author:
| comet
|
|
| Submitted: |
01-Jan-1970 01:00:00 |
| Imported From: |
zZine (original author: comet)
|
| The issue of Root DNS Control sparked a huge controversy on Slashdot when it was first, then second, and then a third time covered. I fiercely argued against the USA's position at the time, and I still hold to that opinion.
|
|
2. The Debate is about...?
Control. There are so called root DNS servers around the world which provide the top of the hierarchy for the world's DNS structure. Simply put, those servers tell which server to ask for the name server that resolves a domain's IP address in .com, or .uk, or .de, for example. The servers are quite evenly distributed across the globe, which means that they are not exclusively located in the USA. The servers are operated by ICANN, which is a private company, given control by the US government a few years back to operate those servers.
3. The pro-USA side's points:
1. The US invented the Internet, therefore the US should have control of it:
Nobody invented the Internet. ARPANet research wasn't aimed at creating a global network to interconnect multiple countries. It was pure military research to create a network which could survive a nuclear war. They created protocols and physical devices to do so, but they didn't create the Internet. The Internet is an organic makeup of physical cabling, connected computers, protocols, and content. The US didn't create all those, and while they had some part in all of it, it was neither exclusive nor major. Originally, the physical cabling was done by individual countries and more recently by individual ISPs.
The users are not mostly in the US. North America as a whole constitutes 23.4%, which includes Canada and Mexico, so I think it is mpre than fair to assume that the US has less than 20% of the total amount of Internet users.
Many of the protocols and standards used on the Internet were created in Europe, as was the World Wide Web Consortium. While it has members from many different countries, the US is only one of them.
Another problem is that there is no organized control of the Internet, just a non-binding agreement. The agreement states that we trust the root DNS servers to provide us with the data to be able to resolve some domains to IP addresses. There is nothing stopping anyone from setting up their own DNS servers and providing that mapping for whomever they desire. The only problem with this arrangement is that large scale implementation will lead to fragmentation. Someone using nameservergroup a. would see a different IP for a different domain than someone else using a different group. That is not good for many reasons, including standardization.
2. The US paid for the Internet, and thus owns it:
As we have established in 1 above, the US created (and therefore paid for) the creation of ARPANet and a set of protocols. Claiming ownership of protocols or devices would mean that the US wouldn't have anything available beyond basic protocols, since most newer protocols originated outside the US. Furthermore, the US government owns no backbones; they are owned mostly by large ISPs. ICANN pays for the maintenance of the root DNS servers, the cost of which is negligible compared to their importance. Even a small country would be happily financing those costs if it were given the responsibility to handle the servers. We can establish without much fuss that handling the root DNS servers is more of an authority question than a physical or technological one. Therefore, the authority over the servers should rest in the hands of those who use them, e.g. all of the Internet users. Since we live mostly in a representative democracy, it should be handled by an international entity responsible to the citizens using the Internet indirectly or directly.
3. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
It is broken. Refer to my answer to 4 for a more complete response.
4a. The UN is no better! Oil for food! Run!
Sadly, that is the image in the minds of people in the US about the UN, but it is very far from the truth, and while blaming the UN for things like the oil for food scandal is correct, it's hypocrisy when compared to the problems in the US government. Maintaining the DNS servers is a technical job, and politics should be completely left out of it.
Let's look at the achievments the UN has on technological grounds: they operate the WHO. They also operate the ITU, which for more than 50 years has made it possible to call someone in the US from another country. It has remained outside the scope of politics and does its job with a stellar track record. Why can't we assume that something like this could work for the root DNS servers too?
4b. Giving the UN control would mean that China would censor the whole Internet!
In the UN, everyone gets to have one vote. That is called democratic process. It means that every country has a say, but it doesn't mean that everything country X wants will occur. The US has a vote too, as do many other democratic countries, so no, China wouldn't be able to censor the Internet.
5. Reasons why the US should transfer control of the root DNS servers to an international body (not necessarily the UN):
a. The US has already agreed to do so previously: "[The US] was due to relinquish [its] control in September 2006, when its contract with overseeing body ICANN ended."
However, the US backed out from that agreement in July 2005, for "policy" reasons. The world is quite rightly worried about the unilateral approach the US government is taking, because by definition the Internet is a multilateral creation, and furthermore, the US track record on cooperating with other countries is not exactly the best.
The decision is especially questionable (and politically loaded), since various preparations were already being made to prepare for the switchover. "Despite an increasing number of newspaper articles - all from US media organisations - claiming that the Internet community is happy to let the US government continue its role, a recent meeting of registries from across Europe begs to differ."
Paul Kane, the head of CENTR - an organisation representing the majority of the world's top-level domains - noted that the US government's new "principles" state quite clearly that rather than "check" the function of the root - as it does now - it will "authorise" it.
b. ICANN is incompetent, politically driven and badly managed.
Some people are worried that if the UN gets control of the root DNS, it would start taxing the Internet. Little do they know that ICANN already does that. The list goes on and on, from this, through kicking certain ICANN board members who are saying things they don't want to hear, to allowing TLDs that only benefit ICANN into the increased domain registrations. (A company needs to buy another TLD to add it to its already existing company.com, company.net, etc.)
A great example of politically driven TLD approval, is the .xxx case. pressure was applied by various governments to stop the Bush administration from pushing through the .xxx domain, which was rationalized by complaints of "concerned citizens".
Another well-known case where ICANN failed to do its job properly was the Verisign wildcard case. Verisign decided to redirect all non-registered domains in the .com TLD to its own advertising site, creating a huge uproar amongst Internet users. ICANN did nothing against Verisign, and that wasn't the first time that Verisign used shady business tactics. Verisign eventually gave up its wildcarding practice as a result of the amount of pressure it came under.
c. Control should be given to those who use the Internet:
Let's look at the EU's position, voiced on PrepCom3:
"The UK/EU representative, David Hendon told us that a new co-operative model would build on the existing ICANN organisation but that 'its legal status has to change. It will need to be established under international law rather than US law'".
"'At the moment,' he continued, 'ICANN works to a contract from one government, and the governments advise it what to do. It's kind of strange for governments to be advising a public sector body and for that body to be doing things for the whole world under the instruction of one government.'"
He summarizes perfectly exactly what is wrong with the current US control. Governments cannot trust a vital part of their infrastructure to the good will of another government. Given the US government's fondness for unilateral decisions, they are rightly worried. However,, this applies to any other country as well. No single country should be trusted with managing the root DNS servers, which means it has to be an international cooperation.
The US has a bad track record when it comes to international cooperation - ignoring international law, the UN, and various treaties as it suits them is no way to gain respect. These types of events, when considered in light of the fast-growing importance of the Internet worldwide, should make people think very hard before trusting the US to handle the root DNS.
5. The Future:
The sad part is, while the US ignores these points, ignoring the issue will not work, as it will only increase the international isolation of the US. Therefore, the US, in reality, isn't in control of the situation and will eventually be forced to give up control of the servers.
Generally speaking, the behaviour the US exhibits is a sign of a much more serious underlying problem. In today's world, empires don't live long, because they are not as economically efficient as a system where countries work together. It seems the US favors the empire approach, which is the very thing it fought to gain its independence from almost 230 years ago. The US favors empire by choosing brute force over rational cooperation, unilaterism over multilaterism, ignoring over discussing, and bluntly stating instead of reaching a consensus. If this doesn't change, the US may find itself isolated when the rest of the world just stops dealing with them. While the US cannot ignore the world, the world can ignore the US.
This article was originally published by CyberArmy.net in the CyberArmy Library.
|
|
You must be logged in to vote on an article
|
About Us | Privacy Policy | Mission Statement | Help
|