The transfer of ICANN

More
7 years 5 months ago #259151 by MadHatter
This is something I truly hope gets stopped. I am not sure if it will but I really hope it gets blocked. Putting this body outside of US control creates the risk of internet censorship at the isp level from nations like China and various other nations that are not dedicated to a free exchange of ideas.
I frankly could care less about any promises the US made about the transfer. The risks are too great to risk turning control over to nations that have no care for allowing citizens freedom of expression and speech.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/30/ags-file-suit-in-last-ditch-bid-to-stop-hand-off-internet-control.html

Knight of the Order
Training Master: Jestor
Apprentices: Lama Su, Leah
Just a pop culture Jedi doing what I can
The following user(s) said Thank You: OB1Shinobi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 5 months ago - 7 years 5 months ago #259154 by
Replied by on topic The transfer of ICANN
Hey there!

So, this has been getting a lot of news recently, and sadly the press (Fox) and others have been putting a very negative spin on it. But, to cite a source I'll link below...

The IANA transition has no practical effect on the work and activities of the SSAC. Nor does the transition have any effect on the security and stability of website owners worldwide. The risk of compromise of a website owner does not increase as a result of the IANA transition, since ICANN and IANA do not control either the ownership of websites or the content on websites. Leading technical experts, industry associations, and civil society groups agree that allowing the IANA contract to expire is the best possible way to protect and promote the continued integrity of the Internet.


As someone who has worked in programming and tech for years, I agree with these views and know them to be true from a technical side of things. Plus, I can say that it's actually better for the US if the transfer happens for a multitude of reasons, but, I'll let the experts at Snopes explain below. :)


Also, here's the Myth and Fact counterpoints below if you'd like to see it embedded.

Warning: Spoiler!


In further addition, more sources:

https://newrepublic.com/article/117093/us-withdraws-icann-why-its-no-big-deal

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/297035-opposition-gets-facts-wrong-on-icanns-security-committee-and
Last edit: 7 years 5 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 5 months ago #259158 by Edan
Replied by Edan on topic The transfer of ICANN

MadHatter wrote: This is something I truly hope gets stopped. I am not sure if it will but I really hope it gets blocked. Putting this body outside of US control creates the risk of internet censorship at the isp level from nations like China and various other nations that are not dedicated to a free exchange of ideas.
I frankly could care less about any promises the US made about the transfer. The risks are too great to risk turning control over to nations that have no care for allowing citizens freedom of expression and speech.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/30/ags-file-suit-in-last-ditch-bid-to-stop-hand-off-internet-control.html


But why should one country have entire control over something that affects the whole world?

It won't let me have a blank signature ...

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 5 months ago #259159 by MadHatter
Replied by MadHatter on topic The transfer of ICANN

Cayce wrote: Hey there!

So, this has been getting a lot of news recently, and sadly the press (Fox) and others have been putting a very negative spin on it. But, to cite a source I'll link below...

The IANA transition has no practical effect on the work and activities of the SSAC. Nor does the transition have any effect on the security and stability of website owners worldwide. The risk of compromise of a website owner does not increase as a result of the IANA transition, since ICANN and IANA do not control either the ownership of websites or the content on websites. Leading technical experts, industry associations, and civil society groups agree that allowing the IANA contract to expire is the best possible way to protect and promote the continued integrity of the Internet.


As someone who has worked in programming and tech for years, I agree with these views and know them to be true from a technical side of things. Plus, I can say that it's actually better for the US if the transfer happens for a multitude of reasons, but, I'll let the experts at Snopes explain below. :)


Also, here's the Myth and Fact counterpoints below if you'd like to see it embedded.

Warning: Spoiler!


In further addition, more sources:

https://newrepublic.com/article/117093/us-withdraws-icann-why-its-no-big-deal

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/297035-opposition-gets-facts-wrong-on-icanns-security-committee-and


I read each of those articles and see nothing that allays my concern. The myths and facts is just full of we really really promise that it won't fall to governmental control which is a promise that could change in a day or in 2000 years. Further the concept that little will change is likely true for now. However, should less than free speech loving nations like china manage to get a say then domain names like the ones for free Tibet website could find themselves in real trouble. Control of who names what is control of the websites themselves as its simple to shut down domain names you dont like if you refuse to allow sites with particular names.

Knight of the Order
Training Master: Jestor
Apprentices: Lama Su, Leah
Just a pop culture Jedi doing what I can

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 5 months ago #259160 by MadHatter
Replied by MadHatter on topic The transfer of ICANN

Edan wrote:

MadHatter wrote: This is something I truly hope gets stopped. I am not sure if it will but I really hope it gets blocked. Putting this body outside of US control creates the risk of internet censorship at the isp level from nations like China and various other nations that are not dedicated to a free exchange of ideas.
I frankly could care less about any promises the US made about the transfer. The risks are too great to risk turning control over to nations that have no care for allowing citizens freedom of expression and speech.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/30/ags-file-suit-in-last-ditch-bid-to-stop-hand-off-internet-control.html


But why should one country have entire control over something that affects the whole world?


To be blunt? Because I don't trust any nation like China that would block website names like free Tibet. And as messed up as it may sound too many nations outside the U,S. could use "hate speech" laws to block site names deemed contriversial. In short, I do not trust other nations commitment to free speech enough. I barely trust my own nation's direction in that regard let alone others.

Knight of the Order
Training Master: Jestor
Apprentices: Lama Su, Leah
Just a pop culture Jedi doing what I can
The following user(s) said Thank You: Zenchi

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 5 months ago - 7 years 5 months ago #259165 by
Replied by on topic The transfer of ICANN

MadHatter wrote: I read each of those articles and see nothing that allays my concern. The myths and facts is just full of we really really promise that it won't fall to governmental control which is a promise that could change in a day or in 2000 years. Further the concept that little will change is likely true for now. However, should less than free speech loving nations like china manage to get a say then domain names like the ones for free Tibet website could find themselves in real trouble. Control of who names what is control of the websites themselves as its simple to shut down domain names you dont like if you refuse to allow sites with particular names.


Thank you for the reply! Allow me to direct you to the section I believe addresses your concerns.

Myth:

With the U.S. withdrawal from stewardship over the IANA functions, the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union will take over the Internet – making it easier for repressive regimes to censor speech online.

Fact:

The transition process that is underway will help prevent authoritarian countries from exerting too much influence over the Internet by putting control of key Internet domain name functions in the hands of the global community of Internet stakeholders — specifically industry, technical experts, and civil society — instead of an intergovernmental organization.


Simply put, China, or any other country cannot use this to 'block' anything. That's not how the Internet works at all.

This type of technology (DNS) has been around forever, and it's very well understood. There's no reason to be afraid of this, and I'd love to break it down in technical terms if you like.

I believe that as Jedi we should never rush towards a fearful response without hard facts, and this particular situation is well documented, and has a lot of hard facts pointing towards the opposite of what everyone is worried about.

Here is a VERY well put together breakdown of how DNS works, and it can be used to better understand this situation. :)

Last edit: 7 years 5 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 5 months ago - 7 years 5 months ago #259167 by MadHatter
Replied by MadHatter on topic The transfer of ICANN

Cayce wrote:

MadHatter wrote: I read each of those articles and see nothing that allays my concern. The myths and facts is just full of we really really promise that it won't fall to governmental control which is a promise that could change in a day or in 2000 years. Further the concept that little will change is likely true for now. However, should less than free speech loving nations like china manage to get a say then domain names like the ones for free Tibet website could find themselves in real trouble. Control of who names what is control of the websites themselves as its simple to shut down domain names you don't like if you refuse to allow sites with particular names.


Thank you for the reply! Allow me to direct you to the section I believe addresses your concerns.

Myth:

With the U.S. withdrawal from stewardship over the IANA functions, the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union will take over the Internet – making it easier for repressive regimes to censor speech online.

Fact:

The transition process that is underway will help prevent authoritarian countries from exerting too much influence over the Internet by putting control of key Internet domain name functions in the hands of the global community of Internet stakeholders — specifically industry, technical experts, and civil society — instead of an intergovernmental organization.


Simply put, China, or any other country cannot use this to 'block' anything. That's not how the Internet works at all.

This type of technology (DNS) has been around forever, and it's very well understood. There's no reason to be afraid of this, and I'd love to break it down in technical terms if you like.

I believe that as Jedi we should never rush towards a fearful response without hard facts, and this particular situation is well documented, and has a lot of hard facts pointing towards the opposite of what everyone is worried about.


You may well be right that my fears are rushed and overblown. And if so that is not a very proper response. However, that section CLAIMS that it will not allow for governmental control but that does not mean its true. Simply put a Chinese tech corporation is in effect beholden to their government. So should that corporation gain enough influence then yes they could indeed become an issue. So I would be interested to hear how if a nation or block of nations that are not for free speech gained control via corporations over ICANN how that would not in effect impact free speech. If I understand it correctly ICANN controls domain names and could stop names such as free Tibet or some site named deemed racist or hate speech. If I am wrong then I am responding out of ignorance and would be happy for correction.

Knight of the Order
Training Master: Jestor
Apprentices: Lama Su, Leah
Just a pop culture Jedi doing what I can
Last edit: 7 years 5 months ago by MadHatter.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 5 months ago #259168 by
Replied by on topic The transfer of ICANN

Cayce wrote: This type of technology (DNS) has been around forever, and it's very well understood. There's no reason to be afraid of this, and I'd love to break it down in technical terms if you like.


Could you? I'd really love to learn more about this.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
7 years 5 months ago - 7 years 5 months ago #259183 by
Replied by on topic The transfer of ICANN

MadHatter wrote: You may well be right that my fears are rushed and overblown. And if so that is not a very proper response. However, that section CLAIMS that it will not allow for governmental control but that does not mean its true. Simply put a Chinese tech corporation is in effect beholden to their government. So should that corporation gain enough influence then yes they could indeed become an issue. So I would be interested to hear how if a nation or block of nations that are not for free speech gained control via corporations over ICANN how that would not in effect impact free speech. If I understand it correctly ICANN controls domain names and could stop names such as free Tibet or some site named deemed racist or hate speech. If I am wrong then I am responding out of ignorance and would be happy for correction.


Parnerium wrote: Could you? I'd really love to learn more about this.


I'd love to tackle both of your responses in one, and hopefully I can help to shine some light on the technology side of all this. :)

First, for a downright amazing explanation of how DNS works, check out this little interactive website guide. It's SO COOL!


Now, after you go through all the 'episodes' in that and see the entire process of how a browser gets to a website address, let's delve into how the ICANN transfer will or will not affect this.

I originally had a HUGE reply typed up... but then I found this Reddit post which explains it far better in simple terms than I can. All credit to the author here.

Let's say you want to go to reddit.com. You type it into your browser and suddenly you're there. But this actually happens in a couple of hops. First, you need to find the .com server. Once you've found that, it will tell you where to find reddit.com. Once you're at reddit.com, it'll tell you how to find r/funny or wherever you want to go.
But hold on a minute - who tells you how to get to .com in the first place? That would be one of the 13 root servers run by different organisations around the world - some are run by the US Government, and others are run by private and/or foreign organisations.

The list of all of the top level domains, like .com, is maintained and published by ICANN in its root file. If you wanted to create a new TLD, like .explanation, you'd need to get ICANN's approval. Once you have that, it will be published in the root zone, and whoever controls .explanation can start selling/using websites under that domain.

But who is ICANN? It's not some faceless entity - it's like a big tent that everyone meets under to talk about the Internet. And they've got a really cool way of making decisions - consensus. Consensus is better than voting, because with voting you can have 60% of people screwing over the other 40%. With consensus, everyone has to agree. So everyone meets up at ICANN to make decisions about these kinds of things - which domains to let into the root (and other things). These people include private businesses, civil society, governments, academics, technical community, and others.
This group of people, called "the multistakeholder community" has been running the Internet for the past 20 years. They've done a pretty good job, that's why today it works so well.

When the US government created ICANN, they always planned to let the multistakeholder community take control of this. But because it was all new, they kept a special role for the government. They had a kind of "veto" power over ICANN - that they never really used - but the threat that they would use it kept ICANN honest. The US was like a benevolant steward, keeping an eye on ICANN and the community, and making sure it didn't screw things up. It was always the understanding that this was a temporary role, but because everything was fine, no one really pressured the US to step back and they were fine with the status quo.

Then Snowden happened and the world was really angry with the US. Some countries felt concerned that the US government had this special power. They started making noise and said that control of ICANN should move to the United Nations. This is a very bad idea - because when governments start making technical decisions for political reasons, you'll end up with crappy outcomes.

So the US Government annonced that it would step back from this role and transition oversight of ICANN to the multistakeholder community.

The Republicans have been making political hay out of this, because on the surface, it looks like out of nowhere, Obama's "giving away the Internet" and you can't explain why this isn't true in a soundbite. To believe this is to fundamentally misunderstand how the Internet works. This power that the US has isn't really a power at all. If the US had used it, say, to remove .ir from the root and knock Iran of the Internet, there's no way other countries would have tolerated this. They would have created a new ICANN and moved everything over. And there's no technical reason why they can't do this at any time. The only reason people stay with ICANN is because it works.

Now, you might say - "but now Iran and China will be able to knock .com off the Internet and harm/censor America's Internet!" But remember that consensus thing we were talking about? In the multistakeholder model, countries participate on the same level as all the other participants - academics, companies, technical people. So if China and Iran want .com to be taken off the root, then they'll need to convince the US, UK, France, Netherlands etc and also Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc. And if they can do that, then maybe they have a point!

What about censorship on a lower level? What if someone wants to censor reddit.com? That also won't work - because ICANN only operates at the root - so (conceivably) they could take down .com - but they couldn't take down specific domains under .com. Censorship happens on the country/ISP level - not at the ICANN level. Countries that censor their Internet will still do so after this transition, there is nothing that ICANN can do to stop that.

For the average Internet user, there is nothing to worry about. This is a minor, mostly symbolic change that the whole technical community supports - here you can see a long list of statements from various companies, industry bodies and civil society groups in support of this change - note the names of the companies/industry bodies that support this: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-support-statements-13sep16-en.pdf

Here's a brief video by the guy who invented the Internet explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk
Sorry for the long explanation, but that's about as simple as I can give it. If you look at my previous comments, you'll see I've been going across reddit trying to add some common sense into this issue, because some people are getting really bent out of shape about this, when they really shouldn't. I don't work for ICANN, but I do know a lot about this issue, because I've been involved (on a very, very low level).

TLDR: The world is not going crazy, the government is not about to censor your Internet.

Last edit: 7 years 5 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
7 years 5 months ago #259196 by MadHatter
Replied by MadHatter on topic The transfer of ICANN
Cayce if that is indeed the case and they have no ability to deal with particular site names then my fears were indeed over bloated. Networking is not something I will make any claim to have a grasp of so I will trust this to be accurate. Thank you for the explanation. I still am mistrustful of a UN like group as I distrust the UN but it appears like the UN this group would be largely powerless to do real damage. So it looks like I jumped the gun on this one as the understanding I was given via an Irish youtuber made it seem much riskier than I thought.

Knight of the Order
Training Master: Jestor
Apprentices: Lama Su, Leah
Just a pop culture Jedi doing what I can
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi