This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/us-to-relinquish-remaining-control-over-the-internet/2014/03/14/0c7472d0-abb5-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
U.S. aims to give up control over Internet administration U.S. aims to give up control over Internet administration
(35 minutes later)
U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move likely to please international critics but alarm some business leaders and others who rely on smooth functioning of the Web. U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.
Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance last year.Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance last year.
“The timing is right to start the transition process,” said Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information. “We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.” The looming change — if successfully executed — would end the long-running contract between the U.S. Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California-based non-profit group that goes by the acronym ICANN. That contract is due to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.
The practical consequences of the decision were not immediately clear, but it could alleviate rising global complaints that the United States essentially controls the Web and takes advantage of its oversight role to help spy on the rest of the world. “We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.,” said Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, in a statement.
U.S. officials set strict conditions and an indeterminate timeline for the transition from federal government authority, saying that a new oversight body must be created and win the trust of crucial stakeholders around the world, officials said. An international meeting to discuss the future of Internet is scheduled for March 24, in Singapore. The announcement set off a passionate response, with some groups quickly embracing the change and others blasting it.
The announcement essentially ruled out the possibility that the United Nations would take over the U.S. role, something many nations have advocated and U.S. officials have long opposed. Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WVa.), chairman of the commerce community, called the move in a statement: “consistent with other efforts the U.S. and our allies are making to promote a free and open Internet, and to preserve and advance the current multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance.”
The looming change — if successfully executed — would end or at least dramatically alter the long-running contract between the U.S. Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California-based non-profit group that goes by the acronym ICANN. That contract is due to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete. But former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tweeted, “What is the global internet community that Obama wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.”
“I welcome the beginning of this transition process that you have outlined. The global community will be included in full,” said Fadi Chehade, president of ICANN. The practical consequences of the decision were harder to immediately discern, especially with the details of the transition not yet clear. Politically, the move could alleviate rising global concerns that the United States essentially controls the Web and takes advantage of its oversight role to help spy on the rest of the world.
Rumors that the U.S. government would step out of its oversight role sparked concerns among those who long have maintained that ICANN did not do enough to protect security online. U.S. officials set several conditions and an indeterminate timeline for the transition from federal government authority, saying that a new oversight system must be developed and win the trust of crucial stakeholders around the world. An international meeting to discuss the future of Internet is scheduled for March 24 in Singapore.
“To set ICANN so-called “free” is a very major step that should done with careful oversight,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers. “We would be very concerned about that step.” The move’s critics called the decision hasty and politically tinged, while voicing significant doubts about the fitness of ICANN to operate without U.S. oversight and beyond the bounds of U.S. law.
Yet other groups saw the move away from U.S. oversight as inevitable and expressed support for the process if it’s open and embraces the needs of people who use the Internet around the world. “This is a purely political bone that the U.S. is throwing,” said Garth Bruen, a security fellow at the Digital Citizens Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group that combats online crime. “ICANN has made a lot of mistakes, and ICANN has not really been good steward.”
“This is a step in the right direction to resolved important international disputes about how the Internet is governed,” said Gene Kimmelman, president of Public Knowledge, a group that promotes open access to the Internet. Business groups and some others have long complained that ICANN’s decision-making was dominated by the interests of the industry that sells domain names and whose fees provide the vast majority of ICANN’s revenues. The U.S. government contract was a modest check against such abuses, critics said.
“It’s inconceivable that ICANN can be accountable to the whole world. That’s the equivalent of being accountable to no one,” said Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a trade group representing major Internet commerce businesses.
U.S. officials said their decision had nothing to do with the NSA spying revelations and the worldwide controversy it sparked, saying there had been plans since ICANN’s creation in 1998 to eventually migrate it to international control.
“The timing is now right to start this transition both because ICANN as an organization has matured, and international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance,” Strickling said in a statement.
Though based in southern California, governments from all over the world already have a say in the group’s decisions through an oversight body.
Fadi Chehade, president of ICANN, disputed many of the complaints about the transition plan and promised an open, inclusive process to find a new international oversight structure for his group.
“Nothing will be done in any way to jeopardize the security and stability of the Internet,” Chehade said.
The U.S. has long maintained authority over elements of the Internet, which grew from a Defense Department program that started in the 1960s. The relationship between the U.S. and ICANN has drawn wider international criticism in recent years, in part because big American companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft also play such a central role in the Internet’s worldwide functioning. The NSA revelations exacerbated those concerns.
“This is a step in the right direction to resolve important international disputes about how the Internet is governed,” said Gene Kimmelman, president of Public Knowledge, a group that promotes open access to the Internet.
Verizon, one of the world’s biggest Internet providers, issued a statement saying, “A successful transition in the stewardship of these important functions to the global multi-stakeholder community would be a timely and positive step in the evolution of Internet governance.”Verizon, one of the world’s biggest Internet providers, issued a statement saying, “A successful transition in the stewardship of these important functions to the global multi-stakeholder community would be a timely and positive step in the evolution of Internet governance.”
ICANN’s most important function is to oversee the assigning of Internet domains — such as .com, .edu and .gov — and ensure that the various companies and universities involved in directing digital traffic do so safely. ICANN is midway through a massive and controversial expansion that is adding hundreds of new domains, such as .book, .gay and .army, to the Internet’s infrastructure. ICANN’s most important function is to oversee the assigning of Internet domains — such as .com, .edu and .gov — and ensure that the various companies and universities involved in directing digital traffic do so safely.
It long has faced complaints that the highly profitable domain name industry, which sells individual Web addresses for hefty markups, had established practical control over ICANN, to the detriment of other users. Rumors that the U.S. government would relinquish control were enough to alarm some business leaders on Friday. Concern about ICANN’s stewardship has spiked in recent years amid a massive and controversial expansion that is adding hundreds of new domains, such as .book, .gay and .sucks, to the Internet’s infrastructure. More 1,000 new domains are slated to be made available, pumping far more money into the coffers of ICANN, which relies on fees from the companies that sell domain names.
Chehade addressed such concerns, saying, “Nothing will be done in any way to jeopardize the security and stability of the Internet.” Major corporations have complained, however, that con artists already swarm the Internet with phony Web sites designed to look like the authentic offerings of respected brands.
“To set ICANN so-called “free” is a very major step that should done with careful oversight,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers. “We would be very concerned about that step.”
Follow The Post’s new tech blog, The Switch, where technology and policy connect.Follow The Post’s new tech blog, The Switch, where technology and policy connect.