Why Russia and China aren’t about to take over the internet.
The U.S. is “giving away the internet”? Hardly. On today’s show, journalist Kieren McCarthy explains what the U.S. government plans to do with its role in the internet at the end of this month, why it will not affect free speech, and why we need not worry about Russia or China taking over the internet as a result. Kieren, who writes for The Register, has been covering ICANN for many years and even worked there for a while, so he brings a unique perspective to the conversation. Also, a review of the latest news including GoDaddy, MMX, .NYC and more.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 32:03 — 25.7MB) | Embed
New: Listen to the podcast from any phone. Just call 701-719-9848.
Subscribe via iTunes to listen to the Domain Name Wire podcast on your iPhone or iPad, view on Google Play Music, or click play below or download to begin listening. (Listen to previous podcasts here.)
Interesting that before the transition is talked about Mr. McCarthy says ICANN has many problems with an emphasis on:
1. Accountability
2. Culture
Those two reasons are at the very heart of how corruption within the multistake governing model could manifest. This transition is a shift of power and with bad accountability and bad culture there is a recipe for disaster…….Further Mr. McCarthy seems to think Ted Cruz is critical of this transition for his own benefit and nothing else. He makes this a Democrat vs. Republican issue. That alone makes Mr. McCarthy’s opinion based on political bias…Let’s take the politics out of the issue and realize that this shift of power is empowering authoritarian regimes that go beyond just free speech, but commit grave human rights abuse.
> Further Mr. McCarthy seems to think Ted Cruz is critical of this transition for his own benefit and nothing else.
I don’t ‘seem to think’, I very clearly state I believe that is the reason.
> He makes this a Democrat vs. Republican issue.
I don’t. I make it a Ted Cruz being willfully ignorant issue.
The IANA transition is not going to have any impact one way or another on countries abusing human rights. They’re not going to change their behavior one jot whether this transition goes through or not.
We’re in agreement about the real issue though: ICANN’s accountability and culture.
Kieren
I would rather not debate the political arguments as that is completely besides the issue. You are making it a Cruz vs. Obama or Republican vs. Democrat debate and that just takes away and spins the facts from the real issues. You say:
“The IANA transition is not going to have any impact one way or another on countries abusing human rights. They’re not going to change their behavior one jot whether this transition goes through or not.”
I agree, they will not change. In that case, why is it necessary to appease the authoritarian regimes with this transition of power?…
Hoping we can engage in a respectful and thoughtful debate if you don’t mind, it is the season…
Aaron
It’s almost as if you didn’t read my response…
Clearly I read your response as I quoted you in advance of my question….Evidently you don’t want to answer a simple question so you are lowering yourself to imply ignorance on my part….It’s almost as if you didn’t read my response……Why am I not surprised you could not or would not answer the question or engage in a debate?…
So well put in every way, Aaron.
When the liberal Left cared about Net neutrality – which they were right about, and the Right was wrong about ironically and sadly – they did a good job of making sure the “whole world” heard the alarm and heard that it was an issue the importance of which transcends partisan politics and personal sqabbling like few others can. Now that the liberal Left, “progressive” globalists, and general resenters or haters of the great big evil USA have completely drunk the Kool-Aid on this “transition” or served it to other willing drinkers, they have also done a good job of spinning it in people’s minds as Republicans vs. Democrats, Ted Cruz vs. the world, etc. They don’t even recognize that not only are the same things fundamentally at stake as were with Net neutrality, but that fundamental freedom of speech and opportunity on both a national and global scale are as well. Those who do realize that censorship would be more possible and more likely by such a move are also comfortable in the delusion that it would tend to take the form of the very kinds of things they already seek to censor themselves anyway including here in the US, types of which already take place or are striven for through the world, so even if it happens it’s “okay.” Other worse forms can be relegated to the usual apathy as being too distant to be concerned about, such what happens within the borders of the worst offenders. And this time there is no John Oliver to publish a brilliant influential video either, and those whom you would expect to be most likely to oppose this transition have largely caved and dropped the ball.
“FCC Commissioner Hits Back at Internet ‘Handover’ Proponents”
http://www.insidesources.com/fcc-commissioner-hits-back-at-internet-handover-proponents/
“Recent Actions Cast Doubt on Whether ICANN Is Ready for Transition”
http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/16/recent-actions-cast-doubt-on-whether-icann-is-ready-for-transition/
Thanks John!….As you mention the Net Neutrality issue is a case study for this transition…. Regarding the transition, the kool aid must taste really good because they are gobbling it up like a camel at an oasis.
I thought Kieren McCarthy presents well the pros of the proposed Iana transition, for example how it would be preferable with the control of the Internet being in the hands of Icann, an American multistakeholder institution, as opposed to say a Geneva based Icann-copy controlled by various governments.
But i think he oversimplifies the cons, the most important of which is that whereas the US government is bound by The First Amendment, private entities such as Icann are not. Private companies can create narrow definitions of what is acceptable speech and forms of expressions. And domain names are certainly about expression.
Kieren mentions that the US will be able to block future Icann decisions. But a veto option, that in the grand scheme of international politics may or may not be excercised, is very different from constitutional protection of free speech.
Christian, I think the issue here is that the U.S. currently cannot push the First Amendment on the internet. That’s why Kieren says this has nothing to do with the first amendment.
I think we are speaking past each other Andrew.
As it currently stands, the US government involvement guarantees that there are no Iana policy or operational changes introduced that violate the First Amendment.
A multistakeholder private Icann would not provide a similar guarantee.
I don’t see how First Amendment could apply. Both IANA functions and ICANN have nothing to do with the content of websites.
It’s a bit ironic because the only example I can think of involving free speech and the IANA functions was the U.S. trying to stop the introduction of the .XXX domain name. In that way, the U.S. government actually quashed free speech using its role in the IANA contract.
Well, domain names in and of themselves can be a form of expression.
Also, domains can be used to organize public debates and protests.
I would be concerned that at some point in the future there could be political pressure to for example prohibit certain words or specific uses of domain names in a way that stifles free expression.
I agree with your observations on .XXX.
Don’t agree with the transition.
The way policy wonks and internet globalists are describing ICANN is far from the truth. It’s run by a bunch of bureaucracy humpers.
soros,nwo,agenda 51,caliphate,lowest common denominator of the internet, no problem!