Posted by Enerd Pani.
During the beginning of October, there was a vast change where control of the internet source code was transported from the United States, to what most likely will be the United Nations. The result is that countries not only in Europe, but all over the world can vie for control of the internet. Arguably unscrupulous countries such as Russia, China and Iran can cause issues with human rights violations and can censor areas of the internet in other countries, not only within their own home country. The second issue is that the President did not ask Congress for approval to give a piece of U.S property to overseas forces. The following action has been criticized as going against US interests, and mitigating any form of American supremacy.
Still, some people see this as a necessary step. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration believes the chance of government intrusion to be “extremely remote” (BBC). The issue arises when multiple shareholders with many different ideas on how the internet should be maintained all vie for control of singular entity. These “stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technological expertise” (BBC). One might wonder how such a important function can be put within the control of so many groups with different interests. There has even been calls by Russia and China for the Domain Naming Server to be put under the control “by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union” (BBC). The request put forward shows the desires countries with very shady human rights have towards getting control of such a important tool for free speech.
Many groups had argued that a delay on the acquisition should have been placed. The critics of the movement “argue that once the transition takes place it is irreversible, and that it would be prudent to temporarily maintain existing U.S. government authority” (fas 18). It would seem very controversial to transfer over such a valuable asset when there may not be any chance to change a decision. Also questions arise on how the “.mil” and “.gov” domains should be handled. These domains are sole property of the U.S Government, and cannot be used in any other way.
To conclude, the “giveaway” of ICANN is one shrouded in uncertainty. No one can be sure if the new stakeholders of the internet will continue to monitor it ethically. There has been major concern about some countries abusing the power of internet control, but many companies like the NTIA assure that they are looking to “protect U.S consumers, companies, and intellectual properties” (fas 12). It can be argued that ICANN was transferred unethically, though now the deed is done. The future will tell if this move will either effect, or mitigate personal freedoms on the internet.
Enerd is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313