EU Domain Registries & ICANN

rob_levine writes "Following on from the announcement a few weeks ago that the U.S. Department Of Commerce intends to retain control of the Internet's root domain servers (originally to be relinquished in 2006), several EU domain registries are preparing to build, test and install a system to prevent U.S. government meddling, according to this article in The Register. Could this be the beginning of the end of the centralised autocracy that is ICANN?"

Comments

How was this drivel moderated informative ?

[aepervius]

First they have to get a VECTOR to bring those nice nuclear bomb somewhere. If this is a missile vector I can guaranteee that CHINA will start acting before those vector can reach France or UK. If this is not a missile vector, then frankly every city is a target no matter the distance and no matter the military spending (think bomb hidden in a truck). As for military spending, here is the military spending per capita GDP : military expenditure per capita

Excuse me but European country does not seem too badly placed on the list. You will note that NK is not here. And since this is per capita , multiply by the milliom of person in those country and you get another picture far from your "EU is weak and is hoping that the US will shield them" drivel. Moderator before moderating something as informative, please check the fact !!!

Re:So basically.

[l3v1]

who can't be bothered to maintain a decent army

Yeah, right. Like having a huge army should be necessary. It wouldn't hurt realizing that there are plenty of other countries out there and that not everything the US has and does is desired to be followed by everyone on this planet. The goal would be a planet with less army and weapons, not more. Sure you can argue that a huge army and a wast spending on army is justified by terrorism. Thing is, what's its use if you can't defend yourself from kamikaze planes and/or tube bombings ? Such events have always been the reason behind sudden huge increase on military spending in some countries. There are times when I would say it's ok. But stating that the lack of huge armies and unreasonably large military spending means a country is less developed is just out of any reason. But generally huge investments on reducing general citizen freedom [which is just the result of the above] is not something I or many have as a future dream.

Re:Shit for shit

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It seems quite clear that the rest of the world wants alternatives to US technologies, even if they work, they're efficient and/or well managed. That should tell you something of the level of trust other countries have in future US foreign policies.

s/future/current/

Speaking as an outsider, George W Bush is the worst PR guy you guys have had for a very long time. The collective ego represented by Bush and the current Republican government is staggering: obviously there was the whole Iraq thing; we've got legislation and trade agreements driven by major US interests coming out of everywhere even where they're clearly not in the interests of the local little guys; and just last week Bush himself went home from the G8 summit after telling the rest of the world to get stuffed on the environment. You have a government that, by its own admission and demonstration, is prepared to wage war, force its will on foreign legal systems, and wreck the planet, all in the interest of its economic drivers. Is it really any wonder that the rest of the world is no longer willing to leave such important facilities at the Internet and the GPS network under so much US-centric control?

In case anyone's wondering, this isn't meant as a troll, BTW. That really is the way the US is currently perceived over here, according to just about every conversation I've had on the subject for a long time now.

Re:So basically.

[SillyNickName4me]

Maybe governments have other tasks besides spending too much money on defense? (like.. ensuring the population is having enough to eat, ensuring there is economic development, ensuring social issues get addressed etc)

I know it is somewhat hard to believe for fans of the current USA government, but the current militaristic tendencies in the USA don't make for a safer world. Sure, one evil dictator got removed from power, but don't forget he was helped into power by the same people who removed him. Also don't forget that the USA helped many more dictators to power then they removed.

The outcome of recent elections in Iran can be traced back in part to the attitude of the USA trying to put pressure on that country while ignoring the reason why that country might be striving for nuclear weapons (get yourself a president who can pronounce that correctly btw) and ignoring the fact that Iran has by now developed a level of democracy beyond virtually any USA friendly place in the middle east. All that resulted from pressure on that country, combined with past involvement of the USA in the rather oppressive regime of the Sjah, is a swing towards a more hardline government there.

Also, from the lack of weapons of mass distruction in Iraq, while we know they were there in the early 90s, one could come to the conclusion that the policies of the Clinton administration (use diplomacy, and if it really fails, keep to your word and use force where needed) were a lot more effective then anything that followed after it.

All of history shows that militarism leads to war, not to peace and prosperity.

Defense is important, and having a military force that can serve that goal is a good thing. The EU has some way to go there, but if you are arguing that you need a USA style and size army for that then you are seriously wrong. If you think Europe depends on the USA for that, well, keep in mind that the USA can only support its insane army due to outside investments in the USA, so much for your independence.

You do need a USA style and size army if your goal is to force your view onto others. One day I hope the USA and its people will learn that doing that is guaranteed to backfire in the end.

Just in case, I am extremely fond of the concepts the USA was founded on, and consider its constitution one of the most important documents in modern history. If you think I am "anti American" you are quite wrong. I do however object to the "American Empire" that it currently strives for.

Re:So basically.

[bheer]

If you think an 'Empire' sacrifices its own tax dollars and the blood of its own people to make sure democracy takes roots in a foreign land, then yeah -- I'm proud of this Empire.

Last I heard, the oldstyle European empires mainly used their colonies as income sources, leaving most of them (esp the third-world ones) as basket cases when they left.

This new American Empire sure looks good by comparison.