Vint Cerf Calmly Explains Why You Should Stop Freaking Out About NTIA Handover Of ICANN
from the it-doesn't-mean-crap dept
Back in March, we wrote a story explaining why the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) decision to “relinquish” what little “power” it had over ICANN was no big deal. It’s sort of an accident of history that NTIA (a part of the US Commerce Department) even had any “mandate” over the IANA functions — which manages domain name allocations. The “control” over ICANN/IANA has always been mostly a paper thing. ICANN is really run by a large group of folks — the so-called “multistakeholders.” I think many of us can agree that ICANN policies are currently a mess, but that has nothing to do with the NTIA’s technical connection to it.
If anything, the NTIA’s paper link to ICANN only served to undermine the goals of good internet governance, because it allowed other countries to falsely imply that the US government “owned” or “controlled” the internet — opening up dangerous attempts for foreign governments to try to really take control of the internet, wiping out the multistakeholder process and replacing it entirely by governments. That would be dangerous.
Unfortunately, as we expected when we wrote our original “this means absolutely nothing” post, some people decided to freak out about it. They’ve insisted that NTIA’s move is the US handing over the internet, potentially to foreign governments. That those same individuals have previously insisted that things like “net neutrality” are the “government taking over the internet” — and the inherent contradiction therein — is never really mentioned. Unfortunately, some in Congress are trying to make a big deal out of this by totally misrepresenting what’s been going on.
In response, the NTIA has told everyone to calm down, but the absolute best response has to be from the “father of the internet,” Vint Cerf, the guy who set up ICANN in the first place, giving his best “knowing uncle storytime” explanation of why everyone should calm down about all of this, and how, if anything, it should lead to better oversight of the ICANN IANA process. Oh, and if you watch all the way through, you might just see Vint Cerf riding a grumpy cat under a double rainbow. Because this is the internet.
Filed Under: congress, department of commerce, iana, internet governance, ntia, vint cerf
Companies: icann
Comments on “Vint Cerf Calmly Explains Why You Should Stop Freaking Out About NTIA Handover Of ICANN”
– USA: They want to break our interwebz!!11
– Rest of the world: Finally, we have decentralization.
I thought Al Gore was the father of the internet.
So... who are stakeholders of the 9 organizations listed at 1:45?
Hm… who would be the stakeholders for the 9 organizations listed at 1:45 of the presentation?
ARIN
LACNIC
RIPE
NCC
APNIC
AFRINIC
ISOC
IETF
IAB
If we are going to honest about this, there should have been at least a weblink for all of these organizations listed at the end of the video or in the about section with the Youtube entry.
Re: So... who are stakeholders of the 9 organizations listed at 1:45?
Here is what I could find – please let me know if any of the nine sites listed is incorrect. Mind you, should have listed RIPE & NCC together, but I did see a reference on the websites for the first five organizations for the last organization listed.
ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) – https://www.arin.net/
LACNIC (Latin America and Caribbean Network Information Centre) – http://www.lacnic.net/
RIPE NCC (Reseaux IP Europeens Network Cooridination Centre) – http://www.ripe.net/
APNIC (Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre) – https://www.apnic.net/
AFRINIC (African Network Information Center) – http://www.afrinic.net/
ISOC (Internet Society) – http://www.internetsociety.org/
IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) – http://www.ietf.org/
IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) – http://www.iab.net/
IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) – https://www.iana.org/
Re: Re: So... who are stakeholders of the 9 organizations listed at 1:45?
Sometimes it is more interesting to see who does not comment on certain articles than who does.
Hate to say it but...
democratic does not equal “Free” and “Open”. Just because lots of people have a say in how something is run, does not mean those same people are considering the freedom of all users first.