Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Insists On Keeping Control Of Internet
veggie boy writes "A U.S. official strongly objected to any notion of a U.N. body taking control of the domain servers that direct traffic on the Internet." From the article: "'We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet,' said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. 'Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable.' Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development."
don't fix it.
calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet
Which is Europes way of saying, "gimme, gimme, gimme, my turn to play with the toys!"
Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? What do developing countries have to do with jack? They're small and tend to have very poor Internet infrastructures. Does this mean that we're now supposed to turn over control to them so they can screw it up?
Cripes. The Internet works. If it's not broke, DON'T FIX IT.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Yes, we're going to put the UN in charge of the Internet.
The organization that put Libya in charge of human rights. Yes, Brilliant.
To hand the Internet over to the UN is to hand control to a body based on the interests of free and non-free countries alike. The UN has no principals placing individual rights above consensus and political expediency. And wherever the UN cannot find consensus, it defaults to inaction, even where inaction allows continuous decline.
This is not a critique of the UN. The above works fairly well for mobilizing to help small countries in crisis. It works well when trying to avoid provoking a war, which is usually appropriate. The above does not work however, for furthering the spread of free* access to - and dissemination of - information.
Speech, not beer.
Giving control of the internet to the UN would mean giving China a say in how it is run. Given their idea of free speech (it's a Constitution right for the Chinese), that's really not acceptable.
From the Constitution of the People's Republic of China:
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable.
This sort of attitude doesn't help create a warm fuzzy feeling about the US in the rest of the world. Someone in the Government should really take a step back and ask themselves why this would actually matter at all. The UN is the ideal place to run the internet rules at the moment, its got the largest reach and global membership and a stated goal of being independent.
That of course in unacceptable as co-operation with other countries is just plain wrong.
"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."
A matter of national policy that cannot be negotiated? I don't seem to recall the 132nd ammendment stating that internet domain ownership is the right of every american citizen.
He said the United States was "deeply disappointed" with the European Union's proposal Wednesday advocating a "new cooperation model," which would involve governments in questions of naming, numbering and addressing on the Internet.
Because co-operation is bad eh? Damn those pesky Europeans for wanting oversight on a random organisation like ICANN which has been so successful and caused no issues thanks to its openness and brilliant decision making.
The US Goverment does itself, or its citizens, no favours by continually persuing unilateral rather than multi-lateral approaches.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
And the U.S. is the bastion of the free? Remind again why the FBI needs to approve my encrypted VOIP software.
or you have never had any dealings with the UN. I work in international development. If you really do not want to make forward progress, you turn the activity over to a UN agency.
It's still possible for other countries to do their own TLDs...
They just have to have the will to do it.
Then all they gotta do is convince/coerce all of the Internet entities in their respective countries to use THEIR TLD servers, they become the de-facto TLDs for those countries...
There's nothing to stop them but their lack of will...
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
I am not American.
However, if I were, I'd feel like saying. You don't like it? Don't use it. Build your own. You're very welcome to.
For the next few years at least, I think the status quo is the sensible way forward.
Hmm... I suppose that did come off kind of flame-baity, didn't it?
Let me put it this way, I just stayed up most of the night documenting in my blog how the Chinese government abuses its people and ignores the very laws it put in place to protect its people. Now first thing in the morning, I hear that the UN wants to turn over full control of the DNS heirarchy to countries like China. Countries to whom "freedom" is just a word to be filtered. Countries where a constitution is just words on some expensive paper. Countries that care little for anything except maintaining their own power.
If we turn even the slightest control over to these people, it's a surefire guarantee that they will abuse it. They would use the technology to further oppress their people (illegally, I might add) and attempt to extend their influence to elsewhere in the world.
So I will repeat, the Internet is not broken. Don't fix it.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Like there is a big surprise here. The U.S. built the internet, so why should anybody else control it?
If the rest of the world doesn't like it, let them build their own internet with their own namespace and put their own DNS system on it. Since, AFAIK, the internet as we know it has grown by continual attachment to the U.S. developed core, nobody has a right to ask that the U.S. give up control.
My turn. Firstly i'm an Australian living in Europe. Im not anti-US in any way: i disagree with the current administration, but i value the anglo-european view of the world and the US is a big part of that.
.com, .net .org, and .us for sure but let the root servers be controled by the UN.
.iq (iraq) domain STILL hasnt been handed back to the government of Iraq.
Now: The anglo european view of the world is one of Freedom and Democracy. And no where is that espoused more than in the US. So what kind of hyprocracy is it to say: you can cant control your own countries identity on the internet. And you cant have a say in how its run.
Let the US keep control of
Case in point. The
Anyway, the US was founded on idealism and "self evident truths" and its breaking collective our hearts to see it fall before the alter of real-politik, pragmatism, and partisan politics.
Official GOD FAQ.
If a country wants to set up their own DNS that refers to the 'US' ones there is nothing stopping them. Introduce a law that requires people to use these non US servers.
Might be a problem for people in the US, but if it took off there would be nothing stopping integration.
It's a non issue.
'One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.
Gross dismissed it as unacceptable.
"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."'
The question is, why?
"Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy."
Could someone tell me why are they wrong? And if they are not wrong, what is this US opposition? If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade. Noone will miss them.
It seems to me the US is playing "i don't want to do this and i won't tell why not". Those dealings are the most suspicious to me, as they are not only arrogant, but they cannot be sustained for a long time.
The Internet is of a growing importance, it shouldn't be held hostage by one single country just as no single country should have total control of anything which is used globally. I guess the EU thinks so too, because they set up their own GPS system. If the USA's position won't change, i guess people can just ignore the states and set up an alternative dns servers/architecture.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
We'll be expecting your cheque/credit card number.
Thank you for your business.I gave up sigs almost a year ago.
I'm writing this in english so you can understand but are you aware that people speak french, spanish, portuguese etc... are you aware that the Internet is what it is becouse all those people can reach each other? It's a privilege for all of us, Americans included, that it is that way. Being the birth place of the Internet gives you no "right" upon it and even if it did the Net nowadays is nothing without its diversity. Want it for yourself? Okdokey then, let the rest of the world firewall the US out. New nameservices would arise, new backbones, new infraistructure. This things can be replaced. I wonder if you can replace the rest of the world and all the diversity it has.
And yes, I really don't give a damn if any "offended" American mod me troll, I'm saying the truth, you like it or not.
Is there a third alternative? Maybe decentralized governance? Self-governance? A meritocracy? Unpaid volunteership? Management by 1000 chimpanzees randomly pushing buttons?
The Internet is important to me. I'll feel troubled so long as I don't see an approach that works well and efficiently, is relatively bias and value neutral and allows reasonable freedom and privacy to the average user.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
Case in point. The .iq (iraq) domain STILL hasnt been handed back to the government of Iraq.
.iq domain?
That just goes to show you how little influence is exerted by the US government on the internet. Do you really think the administration wouldn't love to have a big ceremony "reopening" the
Like people have been saying. It is not broken. Don't fix it. And moreso please don't let the UN fix it. I wouldn't be worried about many of the European contries some crontrol, but letting China get anywhere close to even having any say on controlling the internet is incredibly stupid.
Antonio Porto (Brazil) "Nowadays our voting system in Brazil is based on ICTs, our tax collection system is based on ICTs, our public health system is based on ICTs. For us, the internet is much more than entertainment, it is vital for our constituencies, for our parliament in Brazil, for our society in Brazil. [With such a vital resource] how can one country control the Internet?"
Yang Xiaokun (China) "You cannot come to a meeting like this saying something is non-negotiable. You must show flexibility and compromise. [...] There must be change."
Even Great Britain isn't supporting the US on this. If even your staunchest suck-up^H^H^H^H^H ally isn't on your side
you're probably wrong.
Let's keep it with the US:
- The one nation in history using nuclear weapons on civilians.
- The nation that toppled the democratically elected government in Chile, to replace it with a dictatorship that killed thousands.
- The nation that did the same thing as above in many, many, other countries.
- The nation that sold Saddam WMDs and helped him to use them against Iran.
- The nation that is currently engaging in an illegal war in Iraq, started under false pretenses, that has already killed tensofthousands.
- The nation that doesn't grant the most basic human rights to it's POW.
Yes, Brilliant.
I'm sorry, "built the internet" - are you on something, or do you just have no working concept of what the physical structure of the internet involves? The US lay cables in its own borders, as did every other nation; we're talking about DNS management, not some tweaked out self-righteous neopatriotic dream you americans like to zone out to.
Maybe the U.N. should start it's own "internet" and make it IPv6 only. Then maybe the slow moving US would get off it's ass and actually start using the new addressing.
I read this and thought they were bitching about the root servers, ran around looking up information/sources to point out there's no real problem with the current root servers setup, then found out they're whining about goddamned ICANN.
.aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, and .pro. The ICANN community is currently exploring possibilities to add additional gTLDs." ... amazing. what will they* think of next?
Repeat after me:
DNS is *not* the web.
ICANN's not perfect, but if you look at how they operate, you'd be surprised to find out they weren't setup by the UN. They're clearly the product and brainchild of a bunch of bureaucrats. There are huge fees to apply and propose, and then they arbitrarily create new TLDs to sustain the new fees rolling in the following application period. They burn through their government contract cash when all they do is push paper around, and then ask for more like a fat kid with a food fetish.
If the UN really wants to take control, I say fine - fuck it, stop our government wasting some money on this albatross.
ICANN
"In 2000, ICANN introduced seven new gTLDs:
* (and by they, I mean the people who dropped the huge fee to apply for those gTLDs, as ICANN doesn't think them up only approve them)
All they ever did was introduce competition by having multiple registrars, and that's not exactly some amazing idea, it's something that was *long* overdue.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
Sure, but you can be Damn sure the government of Iraq (you know the new one.. the one we put in place (we being aus, uk, us etc) ) aren't happy with having to go to an American registar to update their government DNS entries. And there's more examples too.
.tw?.
What if Taiwan wanted to register http://republic.tw/ ? Right now they can because they control their own DNS, but what if the US was ardently against TW independence, and controlled
Part of being a good citizen of the world is allowing for countries to make their own decisions. Its like trusting your kids, they'll never grow up if you dont give them responsiblilty for their own affairs.
And believe it or not, this stuff matters A LOT. To people outside the US. When the US says "you must obay the Non-Prolifiration Treaty, but we're going to build bunker buster nukes", or "Democracy is best, and no taxation with out represention, but we're going to control the Top Level Domains", people get upset. Trust me, i see it every day here in europe and i imagine its much worse in countries which are not strong US allies.
Official GOD FAQ.
There is no good reason for DNS to remain US governed, even under the auspices of ICANN. If the US Gov needs a timeline to transistion national security related communications over to a second system of networking then that is understandable and should be fought for without reservation but to say that there is no timeframe wherein they could make that change happen in order to turn over control to an international body... I call BS.
On the other hand, each government should also have control of it's own DNS servers within it's own geography for maintaining it's commerce and communications sovereignty... but this is not contradictory to a Int Body governing the allocation of address blocks to each country or determining policy for TLDs.
The US Gov doesn't currently control the telephone number address space for other countries, why is the internet different?
On the negative side of things... I'm fairly certain that China is the biggest supporter of getting DNS out of US hands and into the control of a Gov they have influence over, namely the UN. China would probably love to have the ability to cut off their people from accessing anything outside of China without a dispensation for commercial communications from their gov.... this will happen if the UN gets control and it will be really sad, but the Chinese people need to confront their gov on this one and demand more rights... if the people do, then the international public shoud support them against their gov via sanctions to not communicate with China, nor to trade with them. It will be messy but in the end will be better than treating them like the spoiled teenager that they are acting like. ("sorry Li, you can't drive the car cause you're not responsible enough" except Li is 30 years old and needs to go to work... so it should be "Li, if you get a DUI you go to jail. If you get into an accident and kill someone, you're going to jail. Be responsible. We won't bail you out.)
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I may not be a computer scientist defining how the Internet works, or a double-E working on new signaling methods, or even a CEO dumping gobs of cash into other things. What I am, is one of the many minions who have helped this Internet along the way. I've dug trenches, strung wires, configured thousands of routes, thousands of DNS zones, and probably multi-hundreds of websites, database servers, mail servers, anti-spam measures, etc. I help the Internet function properly, even in my own small way.
When I think about our US government, companies like Verisign and Worldcom, UN, or any other random organization interested in monkeying with MY Internet, I get a little protective. You see, I want this wild-west frontierism -- that is where innovation comes from -- a need for something that did not exist before, and the lack of rules or laws which would prevent me from building those things. Again, the free exchange of ideas.
If China wants to censor themselves, it's all them -- their routers, firewalls, and filters should not apply to me here in the US. I don't like it, but what can I say? That's not my system. The eventuality, is that some Chinese people will figure out ways around this, 'cause that's how the Internet works, right? Route around the failures?
I realize that routers and bandwidth cost money, but when you think about it, if there weren't any people using/administrating/publishing-on it, it wouldn't exist. It is people like me, people like Cmdr Taco (and yes, you too, Zonk), and all you fucked-up readers of Slashdot (and countless others) that make this Internet happen -- all sharing ideas, flames, stories, pictures, porn, and filth. We're all exchanging information between ourselves. This is how it should be, and I'll be damned if I let some assholes (from wherever) interfere with My Internet. Rogue nameservers indeed.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
What does any country need with their domain name?
.be domain? Do you not think every country would rather have full control over it's domain zone files?
You seem to have a very peculiar view of the DNS system, most likely due to the fact you live in the US.
I live in Belgium, which has top-level domain name ".be". Any individual or business can register whatevertheylike.be. Do you not think that Belgium would rather control it's own domain rather than depending on another country to make sure root zone files point to a.ns.dns.be for the
As root files will always be necessary, I would rather have a central (neutral) authority guard over such systems that trust on a (not so neutral) country to allow me to use my domain.
Coca-Cola, sometimes War.
No branch of the government or any agency of it currently is in control of the root nameservers. They are controlled by private organizations.
That is why this whole discussion is absurd and I generally ignore any idiots I hear talking about it. They aren't currently controlled by any government, and they shouldn't be either ( the UN ).
"One [government] to rule them all and in the darkness, bind them."
I'm not too keen on turning something that was (for all intents and purposes) invented, nurtured, and developed here, on American soil, over to european interests. What, now that the internet has political value the euro's want it? As far as I'm concerned, if they want it, they can reimburse us for the last 30 years of upkeep. This really strikes me as a thinly veiled grab for power. I really don't understand the logic that goes into making a suggestion like this. Just becuase everyone needs something doesn't make it communal property.
You have to admit, those wacky euros have a great sense of humor asking something ridiculous like this!
The US funds the United Nations more than anyone else. It even gave the UN its headquarters. US taxpayers fund this Pentagon project that has exploded into the greatest vehicle for mass communication in history. The only thing that will change if the UN takes control would be more layers of bureaucracy and inefficiency in getting the same job done. Not to mention the potential^Winevitable corruption this will bring.
This will cost the US taxpayer even more... And prop up the most disgraceful bureaucracy of all - the UN - all the while continuing with their "hate Israel, hate America" rhetoric and their legitimizing of unjust, evil governments*. Umm, who's paying for this group-masturbation? You guessed it. The free people of the United States.
This hideous organization has no right to take control of root DNS from the US.
*Zimbabwe, Libya, SUDAN (!!) on the UN Human Rights Council.
*After allowing God's people to have their rightful homeland in 1948, the UN condemns Israel at every turn ever since. Check out this figure: In the United Nation's General Assembly, 429 anti-Israel resolutions were passed from 1967 to 1988. Israel was "condemned" 321 times. Arab nations? Not once.
*60th anniversary of liberation of Aushwitz, Kofi Annan: "evil only prevails when good men do nothing", the same fucking day as hundreds of thousands of Sudanese civilians are exterminated because they are black and "inferior" to the Muslims... oh, that's right, Kanye West says it's Bush who hates black people - he must be right...
*I could go on if you really want me to, you get the picture. Morality is universal. When it is charaded as selectively as it is by the UN, it isn't morality. It's politics.
not to belittle the work india has done towards creating successful/inexpensive outsourcing companies and the like -
for now, face it, India is not capable of handling something massive like that without interruptions and efficiency. Sure, India is growing, but it will take years before it reaches that level. So making such claims is much like hoping that Sani Mirza would win against Maria Shaparova - unsustainable if it happens for a long while.
While at it, what about the strike that paralysed India for a day yesterday? Oh,, sorry world, internet is down today, our leftist parties are calling for a strike today and some spirited employees have sabotaged the servers already. oops.
I can't help but see the parallel between the story of Chicken Little and this article. The US built this from the ground up, while the world watched and did nothing. Now that it's successful everyone wants a piece of it. So to paraphrase, the US slaved away and made the bread (aka internet), and everyone else now wants to eat it. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that the rest of the world can start making their own bread any time now.
I have heard of no credible evidence that the US is abusing their administration of the internet. Yet other countries want control of it. The only logical conclusion is that these same countries must also have ideas of how the system could be abused, and can't wait to implement them. Censorship is probably on the forefront of each of these countries minds. (Some are worried about it happening, some are salavating at the chance to abuse it.)
Countries know they can not build a corrupt system from the ground up, since no one will use it, so they are attempting to gain control of what people are currently using. I just see transferring control as the equivalent of giving a child a button with "Blow Up World" written on it.
OK.. usually I stay out of this sort of discussion.. but this is just idiocy. Firstly ... the title is sensationalistic and just wrong. They are talking about DNS not routing.. They are mutually exclusive. The US doesn't control ROUTING. The packets will still get to wherever they need to go even if we turned off the servers and went home. Now I know many systems are dependent on the root servers, but it doesn't have to be that way.. the root server lookup list can be modified by your ISP and you would be none the wiser. This is why the Internet is a "Distributed" infrustucture.
... If its not broke... don't fix it.
And to speak to the political nature.... It the old grizzled engineers that have built and maintained these servers for over 30 years. The internet wouldn't be here if not for them. You wouldn't be reading this if not for them. I'm sorry it has to be this way... but they all live in the US for the most part. And if you don't want to see it all fall apart, you might just want to leave the system be. I will echo an earlier post
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.
Dear other countries,
Did the US force you to connect to the Internet? Could you have instead banded together to make your own network? How the Internet works has long been public knowledge. Most of the people on the planet live outside the US, including many or most of the smartest engineers. In addition, most of the world's resources and assets (i.e. wealth) lie outside the US borders. Why not start the UNternet or EUternet or INDIAnet or NotUSnet and include the whole world except the US? I promise G. Bush will not invade your country with geeks carrying routers and spools of Cat5E cable.
The Internet is a global resource only because you voluntarily connected to it, knowing full well who controls it. You are welcome to our research and are free to improve upon what we've built, and you don't even have to invite us to be a part of it though it would be nice if you did. However, don't come to a picnic in my backyard and demand a say in how I landscape my yard.
Warmest regards,
A US Citizen
There are so many things wrong with this is is not even funny. First of all, almost all pentagon research is done by academics, so it's really silly to say that academics run things better than the pentagon.
Second of all, the WWW was NOT, repeat NOT, regardless of what you may have red in Dan Browns Angels and Demons, created by an academic working in switzerland. This is categorically not true, and the fact that it is not true is so well documented that I should not have to ever correct anyone about this. The invention of HTML has very little to do with the creation of the internet. First of all, hypertext was around long before HTML, and hypertext files could already be transmitted over the (existing) internet. This is merely another standard for turing text into page layouts, which happens to be in widespread use. It is a small part of the internet at best.
I'm not even going to address your last paragraph. You're so far out there that you probably have escape velocity.
Are you saying that the US is singlehandedly responsible for laying all the cable worldwide that serves as infrastructure to the internet? If not, then what the hell is with the "backyard" analogy? It's everyone's backyard, dumbass, and we only want a say on what goes on in OUR part. America can keep it's "landscape" just the way it wants it. That's the whole damn point - everyone gets a say, not just you guys.
Warmest regards,
The Rest of the World
Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body."
Ghana: "There was unanimity for the need for an additional body...This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N."
These are the people that want to control the internet. They don't want some hands off technical control, they have specific cultural, moral and economic ideals they wish to implement in relation to the Internet. Yes, spam is bad. But "stopping spam" by a macro control mechanism is a control on information. This is contrary to the legal and user technological controls we are implementing now. Do you trust the UN to actually handle specific information on the Internet via their multicultralism moral compass? I don't.
And I thought people here knew better, but no! Apparently even the "tech people" from the colonies are blindly patriotic fools. Jesus that makes me sad. All the more reason to handle the control to UN I say..
You are wrong. See also:
In the UK, it is a common occurance for an Act of Parliament (a law) to be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that it infringes those rights. This is much the same process as a US law being found unconstitutional.
I've no reason to believe the EU and US are alone in having constitutions which grant rights to their individual citizens. In the UK, the concept dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215 AD and I doubt that was the first example in the world, either (although most historical examples, including the original US constitution, had exemptions for various untermensch such as females, slaves etc.).
That said... IMHO the Internet is America's ball. It invented it. It owns it [1]. It can do with it as it pleases. I'm grateful that they let us foreigners on it. But that has nothing to do with any superiority of constitutions.
[1] Actually NATO invented it, but seeing as NATO funding was provided in the vast majority by the USA, as a fellow NATO-member Brit, I'm not complaining.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
We conceived it, designed it, built it and paid for it. You, who couldn't have done any of the four, are fortunate enough to benefit from our creation for almost none of the cost. Now you, who hate us and envy us, want to control what you couldn't create on your own.
Sounds reasonable to me. Not.
Syncerus
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
Mod parent funny!
Only on slashdot is sarcasm insightful.
You fail to realize that has nothing to do with the US running the Internet. You are using a US commercial website in which case even if YOUR country ran the Internet it would not change Ebay's policies.
After all, it is broadcast on radio frequencies all over the world. Don't worry, we will still let UK taxpayers pay for it, we just want China, Cuba, and North Korea to have a say in the content that is being broadcast into their territory. It just isn't fair that only the UK should control this wonderful resource that is enjoyed all over the world. If only that hateful greedy limey bastards would stop oppressing nations like the Sudan, Indonesia, Venezuala with this agressive imperialist act of not turning over the BBC to the U.N..
... as well as any national broadcast network in any country where the programs can be recieved by those outside that country. After all, the airwaves belong to all of us, and it just isn't fair that a radio station in German, paid for by German tax payers, should not be collectivly controlled by the world.
Also, the CBC should be put under control of the U.N.
After that, we need to get the U.N. to take over the Louvre. After all, the Louvre is considered an important part of our World Heritage, and so should be compelled by an international body to eliminate the clearly western bias of most of the artwork contained within. We just aren't going to accept the arrogant attitude that just because the French built the Louvre, paid for the Louvre, and nurtured the Louvre to be the preeminent art mueseum in the world, that they have the right to control it! Zambia, Bolivia, and North Korea have some wonderful ideas of what they are going to do with the place.
1) Because it helps the people who want to take the DNS system away from ICANN gain support. If you tell a non tech user the truth: That a US orginization has defacto control over the root name servers, but that those roots could at any time stop listening to them with no legal repercussions and that the DNS system is just the one everyone uses for now, another could be created, they won't care, even if they follow all that. I mean really, who gives a shit if the a US group has DNS control? To the average user, who's never been involved in a domain dispute, they do a fine job. If, however you say they are "controlling the Internet" that makes peopel nervous. They have visions of US imperalism extending over the Internet, the US telling them what they can and can't do, and they say ya, we should end that.
2) Because that's what the UN actually wants. They don't just want TLD control, they want to regulate the Internet's content. The current head of the UN telecommunications committee is China's former minister of telecommunications, in other words the guy responsable for censoring their citizens. Slashdot linked to an interview with him some time ago which I just can't find now unfortunately where he makes it clear that he sees the UN have a greater regulatory role over the net and getting to decide what content is acceptable and not.
they're left out in the cold :-)
Hmm. why is that?
Europeans just have to point somewhere else for their name resolution and ignore the US ones. It's that simple. The US has no say in the matter if someone decides to use their own. Sure they can pretend to manage it all they want
Rubbish. All countries put their own interests ahead of the UN's. Notice that China and India did not voluntarily adhere to the more stringent terms of the Kyoto protocol.
Do you think Russia has the resources to put the UN's interests ahead of its own?
Do you think China advances the UN agenda because they want the whole world to be a happy place?
It (the UN) is a great idea on paper, and it should be more relevant, but this idea that it would function better if the US started playing nice is absurd. All players try to maximize their positions, in almost all cases.
The US won't pay its bill! Boohoo! The US kicked in $6 Billion to African debt relief, dwarfing the amount kicked in by all other industrialized nations. Their commitment to 100% relief essentially guilted all of the other parties into doing so too. This notion that the US is somehow sabotaging the entire organization is foolish.
Of course our current administration is advancing its neo-evil world view, but please, nations like Iran want nuclear "power," Israel wants the right to defend itself from a variety of neighbors, and China wants a laundry list of things, both economic and social. Will the US playing nice change this? Not likely, but pressure might temper them in different directions.
As far as American hegemony being undermined by the rise of China, take two reality pills and step away from the edge. There has always been, and will always be, upending economic forces in the world. Economies respond in cycles accordingly.
Yes, there is cause for concern about the debt issue, but will it make America China's baggage-handler? Not likely. China will make stuff. America will buy it. America is not, and has not been, a manufacturing-based economy in many years, mostly we provide services and entertainment. Remember how Japan 'perfected' the manufacturing process in the 70's and 80's? How'd that turn out? Why didn't they put us out of business?
Ever heard of a body called the ITU - the body that sets international standards for telecommunications, spectrum usage, all of that? Been around since the 1850's, based in Geneva.
That is worked pretty well. You can pick up you phone in Bumfuck, Kansas, and call anywhere in the world. Even with the joke that is the US fragmented telecommunications system.
You can take an AM radio receiver from Asia, move to Europe, and listen to AM radio there. Or in the USA. International RF spectrum allocations are made to avoid one country from ruining spectrum use for everyone else.
Give technical control of internet standards to the ITU - they have the track record.
The following news story shows exactly why the UN should not be allowed to manage the Internet. They are holding their tech conference in Tunisia, a country that blocks access to Reporters without Borders. Say what you will about the US, but at least this isn't going on at the root level.
2 .html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050929/D8CTK2SO