Who goes the internet?

The US government has once again made clear the UN World Summit of the Information Society that the control of the Internet will remain in its hands, it is now committed by congressman

The US government is known to continue to adopt the control over the Internet or rather: on the domain name system and the root server ‘A’ and the ICANN commissioned with their administration, although the demand for an international solution Internet Governance has always become gross in particular as part of the preparation of the World Summit of the Information Society. The US government has now received a congress in congress. Some senators and MEPs of the Reprusant House have introduced a draft resolution to secure the US control over the Internet, other deputies have in one letter to the US representative David A state-of-the-art. Gross.

Most recently, the United States and the EU under the preparatory conference for the WSIS are consuming. The EU had introduced a proposal that provides for a transfer to an international committee of the UN. But that is a speck of the United States and a renewed trial of the unloved UN, the US together with the existing values such as market economy, democracy and freedom to be demonstrated.

The US government wants as you in the U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System in June explained and how their representative David Gross stressed again and again, keeping control of the Internet and withdrawing to no other international instance. Above all, she does not want to see the UN somehow in the responsibility for the management of the nuclear resources of the Internet (explosive final). The rejection of the UN and all international agreements sits deep in the soul of American conservatives. The UN is considered a LAME Burocracy and Hort of corruption, especially as an instance to dismantle the sovereign position of the USA. It can be sophisticated in the private market economy and thus privatization, but only as long as the United States can control this.

If the US government against the resistance of the international community wants to keep control of the Internet and defends the status quo, then this is supposed to do not deal with powerful attitude, but with the assertion that the Internet under the control of the US is so well was and the UN was only hindering innovation and creativity. The internet is managed by the ICANN, but the US government is as an instance that wakes up the free economy and freedom to make the last decision on the publication of Zone Files in the root. This has supposedly to do nothing with politicization, the internet is simply in the US government in the best, during international organizations, the decay and politicization are released. The sole representation idea and the superiority, which is granted to the US, is undoubtable. Only the supervision of the US government in the association with the private sector Konne Konne the stability and security of the Internet will continue to ensure in the future (Gray smoke over Chateau de Bossey, cold shoulder in Washington?To).

The motives become more clearly with the co-apply Republican MP. So the Senator Standard Coleman, generally an opponent of the UN, has the resolution with the maternal, but significant title "Expressing The Sense Of The Senate That The United Nations And Other International Organizations Shall Not Be Allowed to Exercise Control Over The Internet" (S. Residue. 273) Submitted. Again, it is said that for the future of the Internet only one "Market-based politics and the guided by the private sector" be blessing.

Of course you do not want to leave the internet completely. And that is not necessary after the resolution, there "The Internet was created in the US and is flourished under the supervision and control of the USA". The partial transmission of control to the private ICANN is, however, with the "The aim of full privatization" happen. That contributed to flexibility and economic success. Nevertheless, how Coleman progressed, US Prasident Bush explores that the US is the "historical role" the control over the root zone will be retained. This makes each entry of a zone file of a new TLD from the "National Telecommunication and Information Administration of the American Ministry of Commerce approved. Only then is it ensured that the data is reached by the 13 Root Servers, of which 10 in the USA, 2 in Europe and 1 in China, and communication over the TLDs is possible, as ultimately the implementation of domain and Host name takes place in the associated IP addresses.

Brisant on the control is that you have the possibility with it, theoretically a whole TLD, ie in principle a whole country, to decouple when all other root servers take the update (back to the internet roots: power or myth?To). If, however, on one of the Root Server, the Zone File continued, the requests were simply reached on this server to the destination and the blocking was undermined. Although the United States were in no way in any way, the continuation of the control will also be buried there. The transfer of control to an international organization or the UN, as this also provides for the European proposal, was not only directly in one "politicized burocritism" drove, but also streaming like "Iran, Cuba or China" a rough influence.

Of course, some of the countries, who wanted a change in the Internet Governance, have also been censored the Internet and use it as a means of monitoring. However, this has nothing to do with the control over the root zone. Almost as bad is that some of these states also have state-owned telecommunications monopolies or strongly regulated companies in this area. So it was transferred to the control of an institution associated with the UN or another international organization, so that the draft resolution warned, a government put this under prere to "to block access to information, maintain deviating political opinions on underprere and obsolete communication structures". In addition, the structure of internet governance and control over them have a significant impact on home protection, trade, democracy, the free community, privacy and the protection of intellectual property, which is why "Unilateral actions" could lead to a deterioration of the Internet, which implies that Colemen subordinate, the US government was not unilateral.

The resolution was finally strong to the US prasident, the historical role of the US in the control of the Internet and to oppose each attempt to oppose the "Check the Internet of the UN or another international organization". The EU, on the other hand, occurs to internationalize the control of the Internet, as it is a global infrastructure.

No One is Denying That The US Government Has Done An Excellent Job in Ensuring That The Administration of This System Has Been Fair and Efficient. But, Many Countries Are Questioning IF It Is ApproprIate for One Government Alone to Supervise Search for Important Part Of The Infrastructure.

The Problem Is That The US Government EffectiveLy Has The Right To Decide Who Can Run Each Country’s Top Level Domain Search as Dot.JP, Dot.kr.CN, While The Governments Of The Countries Concerned Are Only Indirectly Involved Through An Advisory Committee to Icann. It Is The US Government AS Well That Has The Sole Right To Decide Whhen A New Top Level Domain Can Be Introduced Into Cyberspace, Whether It Be A New Country Code OR A New So-Called "Generic" Top Level Domain Search as .Com Or .net.

EU commissioner for the information society Viviane Reding in a speech on 17. October

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: