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."

Comments

O noes!

[Jeian]

Because, you know, the UN is so effective at doing this sort of thing.

Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet

[11223]

The above works fairly well for mobilizing to help small countries in crisis.

Really? Where were the blue helmets in Darfur? And how many died in Rwanda while the world watched?

I'm not sure that the UN works fairly well for anything other than funneling Iraqi oil contracts to political cronies of Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, etc. "No war" for oil, indeed.

Re:UN control of something important?!

[Alarash]

A few things; in no particular order.

• The US invented ARPANET. Internet, even if it has got its roots in Arpanet, is something else. Many technologies used in Internet are not US-only though (think ATM). And thanks for the utterly insecure TCP/IP...
  
• I fail to undestand why creating something gives you the right to manage it 30 years later when that thing clearly went out of control (Internet is, clearly, out of control, refer to RIAA issues for more informations) and when it's got not much to do with the original. Or maybe only Austrians should be allowed to use E=MC^2 ?
  
• I don't see _arguments_ from the US reps. to keep this control. "We think that's unacceptable.". That's your right, dude. But, duh, why do you think that, just so we know? The US never liked the UN because it's a (feeble, granted) counter-power of their might. I can undestand that, but I, personnaly, think it's more demotractic to have an assembly of all the countries on earth to decide what to do than just one strong country. But that's just me. Unfortunately, many americans seem to believe that their own vision of freedom and democracy is the only one.
  
• Some people here say "UN is useless, kthxlala~". Well, if powerful countries refuse to give any use, power or anything to the UN, it will stay, indeed, pretty useless.
  
• My personnal opinion is that Internet should be managed by a, say, Bureau of the Internet in the UN, with representatives of several countries, elected or nominated for a few years. Their decisions would have to be approved by the UN assembly, and they'd work closely with the W3C and important actors of the industry.

Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet

[mcgroarty]

We're not the best democracy. We're not a democracy at all. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what's for dinner.

We're the best constitutional republic. Our republic comes with principles attached that will continue to make it superior to any democracy for as long as the individual remains the primary.

Re:Is this really a bad thing?

[Russ Nelson]

Before the inevitable US bashing starts,

You spelled "UN" wrong.
-russ

Re:UN control of something important?!

[Atzanteol]

Mmm. Unlike European nations. Those bastions of freedom and liberty...

I'm amazed at the stupidity and arrogance of Europeans sometimes. Look, the US ins't perfect. We know this. It never has been. It's *always* been partisan with two parties. It's always had infighting. There has always been corruption.

What's layed down in the constitution and the talk of Freedom are the *ideals* toward which we try to strive. Nobody I know from the US ever claimed that we met those ideals on all accounts. Christ, we had *slavery* up until the mid 1800's! But it's better to have an ideal to strive towards than a reality IMHO. Always set your goals beyond your reach. This is why the equal rights advocates had the *constitution* to hold up while marching. This is how the government can be pulled back into check when necessary. It's own charter demands it. Your nation may set down "realistic" goals and you may acheive them. We'll try to do better than that.

Things wax and wane in the US. Throughout our history there have been power-grabs and loss of power. Rapid change and conservative movements. Think of a pendulum. Europeans seem to think that "conflict" is by nature a bad thing. We see it as necessary and the natural order of life. If you don't have conflict, how can you expect change for the better?

Not that you'll listen. I'll probably get some remark about how "Bush is the anti-christ" or some such, and that I'm really not as Free as Europeans (tried selling your Nazi memorabilia in France lately?). We're taking an active part in the world now too (since WWII). We've seen how Europe runs things and we believe it's our turn and we can do better. Or would you rather we just sit and wait until Europe tries to destroy itself or conquor the world yet again?

NB. I won't reply to any responses to this. Just thought I'd rant a bit. I'm just sick of haughty Europeans calling *me* arrogant...