Has anyone heard about this? If so im very interested to know more. Here is the link.

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html

You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of the internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media scrums and a charismatic frontman working the crowd.

But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for generations to come.

Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet.

Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium.

The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows. For the vast majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is getting on it. But with the internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure - Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.

And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it.

But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's foundation - its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for the whole internet.

A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.

Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.

But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.

But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies"?

No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users."

Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."

Human rights

But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so sure. An overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would stop it saying 'when you're making this standard for data transfer you have to include some kind of surveillance for law enforcement'?"

Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World Summit - has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human rights situation."

And what about business? Will a governmental body running the internet add unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system? Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's not clear to me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from get in the way of things that other people do." There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are pointing the same way: international governments deciding the internet's future. The internet will never be the same again.

Interesting read.

What I'd like to know is, what's the point of giving control of the top level functions to a coalition of governments? Are they feeling left out? Do they think that the Internet needs tweaking? Is it just a power grab?

I'm gonna have to look into this further, I think.

Not sure what to make of this. i can understand other nation's not wanting the US to have total control over what is becoming a vital resource for the whole world.
And i can also think of reasons why we would want to keep it.
Legally speaking does having the Root server in the US mean that the right of free speech covers them and limits the ability of less freedom oriented nations exerting censorship over the web as whole much like the chinese do to thier sphere of control?

Ok, I've found some information that may help this topic along.

First is a four part statement by National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), describing the Bush administration's position on DNS administration. (This statement seems to have been released on or about July 11th, 2005)

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm


U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System
The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS). Given the Internet's importance to the world’s economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the Internet remain stable and secure. As such, the United States is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.

Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD).
The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet’s DNS.

ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS.
The United States continues to support the ongoing work of ICANN as the technical manager of the DNS and related technical operations and recognizes the progress it has made to date. The United States will continue to provide oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical mission.

Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in relevant multiple fora.
Given the breadth of topics potentially encompassed under the rubric of Internet governance there is no one venue to appropriately address the subject in its entirety. While the United States recognizes that the current Internet system is working, we encourage an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders around the world in the various fora as a way to facilitate discussion and to advance our shared interest in the ongoing robustness and dynamism of the Internet. In these fora, the United States will continue to support market-based approaches and private sector leadership in Internet development broadly.


I did a small search on NITA's Web site and found this nice chunk of information:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm

It's a very informative read if you have time. It breaks down the US Government's involvement/funding in the developement of the Internet from the very beginning.

As it seems, the Clinton Administration started the wheels turning:
On July 1, 1997, as part of the Clinton Administration's Framework for Global Electronic Commerce,(1) the President directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the domain name system (DNS) in a manner that increases competition and facilitates international participation in its management.

It also lists some reasons for the US to relenquish control of the root servers:
The Need for Change:
From its origins as a U.S.-based research vehicle, the Internet is rapidly becoming an international medium for commerce, education and communication. The traditional means of organizing its technical functions need to evolve as well. The pressures for change are coming from many different quarters:

_ There is widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of competition in domain name registration.

_ Conflicts between trademark holders and domain name holders are becoming more common. Mechanisms for resolving these conflicts are expensive and cumbersome.

_ Many commercial interests, staking their future on the successful growth of the Internet, are calling for a more formal and robust management structure.

_ An increasing percentage of Internet users reside outside of the U.S., and those stakeholders want to participate in Internet coordination.

_ As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the decision to add new top-level domains cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by entities or individuals that are not formally accountable to the Internet community.

_ As the Internet becomes commercial, it becomes less appropriate for U.S. research agencies to direct and fund these functions.

Simple answer to this: NO.

China, Brazil, Cuba, Iran and various African nations huh? The only legit one I see is Brazil. China censors its internet and abuses its people. Cuba has no real place in the modern world thanks to US sanctions. Iran...lucky we haven't bombed them yet while thumbing their noses at the UN Saddam style. And various African nations with probably no legitimate government.

We should say hell no to this. Then turn and ask the UN what are you gonna do about it? Talk us to death about it?

I say we just take our Internet and go home!

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. It's a little odd considering I have not seen anything about it anywhere. I'm guessing there's a bunch more to this that we aren't seeing/haven't heard.

I say we just take our Internet and go home!

Damn straight! You get the servers and ill get the ball and well go home!

/drool

I get the servers? Sweet!