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.
Before this thread turns into yet another Anti-America/Anti-George Bush Slashdot flame war. . .
:)
America did in fact invent the thing so that's probably a good reason why America wants to keep control over it.
Besides shouldn't we ask Al Gore before we go making an important decision about this
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.
Lots have people have people have been trying to make big news out of this, but it's really nothing.
i) Control of DNS is not the same as control of the internet.
ii) If the US started to exercise internet control via DNS, alternative root servers would likely appear almost overnight. Remember that old saw about "routing round censorship"? This time it's actually true.
iii) As a Brit, I applaud the current essentially hands-off control the US has. We get all the benefits, US tax payers cover the actual cost.
iv) The UN couldn't find it's arse with both hands. Of course, neither can Congress, but at the moment the system is up and running and they'd have to actively intervene to screw it up. Migrating something as important as this to a new bureaucratic body doesn't bare thinking about.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I say let the UN have it. It is the Internet after all, to be handled internationally. The US can keep AOL in exchange...
I gave up sigs almost a year ago.
Oil for root, anyone?
--Saddam H.
And the U.S. is the bastion of the free? Remind again why the FBI needs to approve my encrypted VOIP software.
The Register has the same story, with a different spin.
To me, looks like the US might not have a whole lot of choice in the matter, in the end.
yes, we have no bananas
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'm glad that our State Department stood up to the call for us to relinquish control of the internet domain servers to the UN. Let's be honest, the UN taints and screws up nearly everything they touch (ie Oil for Food) and they have no experience in technological matters such as these and supporting such a massive operation. Meantime, for over 30 years the US has rightfully controlled the servers and networks they financed in the first place. I wouldn't trust our networks with any other country in the world... feel free to call me cocky or chauvinistic but we foot the bill, so we should have control.
www.bradgroux.com
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.
'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
You realise that the US funded and developed ARPAnet - it was only when it was linked to other networks (JANET, AARNet, etc) that it became the internet? That is, if the US was to cut off all links to other countries, the rest of the world would be bigger than the USA-net?
- Chuq
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.
What does the creator of the internet have to say about this...
Next week on Slashdot, we ask you to send in your questions to Al Gore, creator of the internet. We'll give Mr. Gore the 10 best questions. So send them in.
[disclaimer: This is a joke, I am a democrate, I can make fun of my own, and G.W.B because... well because thats easy]
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.
Fine. We'll build our own internet. With blackjack, and hookers! It'll . . . . . .
It'll be just like the old one!
The two complaints mentioned are 1) US and European companies snapped up all the good TLDs; 2) US and European companies have snapped up all the IP addresses, leaving only scraps.
.co.uk to look for UK business/media/whatever. The main people pissed off by this are prob. big Latin-American media companies that want a .com name taken by someone in Spain. They were late to the party & the good beer is gone. If they don't want to bring their own beer (country based URL), too bad.
my $.02:
1) All the TLDs are snapped up only in European languages. This should piss off basically no one. Why, every country has its' own TLD. To whit, American techies had to use www.theregister.co.uk for years before they decided to make a www.theregister.com version. Why, because everyone in the UK was used to typing
2) All the IP blocks are snapped up by Europeans & North-Americans. I'd say they are late to the party, too bad - but it's a legitimate complaint. Without IP addresses, they can't do what they want. However, what they really should do is mandate IPv6 so that there are more blocks to go around. The people who have blocks now don't want to pay for it, but if the rest of the world want's it - everyone will have to go along (or loose out on business if they don't interoperate well). I mean, really, how many addresses are lost by using a class A (127.x.y.z) block for loopback?
Hey, look - shiny toy: I want it!!! If they really wanted, they could use new.net and IPv6. Waaaaaaah!
I think the US government fails to grasp that they don't have a choice in the matter. The root DNS servers are the roots because most DNS servers point to them in the root hints configuration. Any DNS server operator can point their servers to a different set of root servers by just changing that's in the root hints configuration. The question isn't whether the US government will allow a different set of roots but whether the alternate roots can convince the majority of DNS servers to re-point to them instead of the current roots.
And the above doesn't really matter directly anyway. The critical servers aren't the roots, really, but the TLD servers the roots delegate to, particularly the ones for the .com domain where it seems most of the biggest domain names are. That's where the real hands-on control is. The roots only affect things in a major way in that they determine what the TLD servers are for a given TLD. The only way alternate root servers can really affect things is if, in addition to getting a lot of people to use them, their operators can also convince people that using alternate, non-official TLD servers for the big domains is also a good idea. For practical reasons I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The French are a vital part of our foreign policy. They have specailized surrender training that the US has never successfully developed.
And moreso please don't let the UN fix it.
It might be worth dropping the silly jingoism and having a look at how the world actually works. International telecommunications are already being coordinated (very successfully) by a UN agency, and have been since 1947. http://www.itu.int/home/
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
A. the U.S. stopped underhanded tactics such as witholding money owed to the U.N.
B. the U.S. stopped vetoing resolutions against the proliferation of WMD re. Israel
C. the U.S. stopped vetoing resolutions against genocide
And that's just for starters! Please be in no doubt - WRT the U.N. America has a track record of putting its own interests way ahead of those of the rest of the world community, and until that changes there's not much hope of the U.N. getting any better.
Still, you can be sure that when American hegemony is undermined by the rise of China the U.S. will use every means at their disposal - including the U.N. - to try and cling on a little longer...
Iraq doesn't have to go anywhere. They have their domain under their control. The REASON why ICANN was reluctant was because the domain was previously part of an elaborate terrorist funding affair. You'd be reluctant to turn it back too, if you previously had to sieze it because of terrorist funding.
.Iq domains. Great freedom that is, eh?
Besides, so the Iraqis had to register through a foreign company. Big whoop. At least they could. Under current Iraqi regulations, private citizens are NOT allowed to have
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
How is this insightful at all. It's pure America bashing. I understand that the rest of the world has some issues with this country, but this post has no insight whatsoever.
This sort of attitude doesn't help create a warm fuzzy feeling about the US in the rest of the world.
I didn't know that was the goal of our government. I thought it was to look out for American interests. Not be "warm and fuzzy." Maybe we should have been warm and fuzzy with Hitler. (sorry for the Godwin)
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.
You're crazy. You think somehow it wouldn't actually matter if the US relinquished control of pretty much the most valuable information and communication infrastructure in the world? That we should just hand it over? I can see where perhaps your opinion comes from, especially if you aren't an American, but to say that somehow it just wouldn't matter and not be detrimental to US interests, which is the primary role of the US government in an international context, is just silly.
Cooperating with other countries is fine. We're cooperating with other countries already. Thats why people in other countries are..ON THE INTERNET. Cooperation shouldn't mean we have to relinquish control to an undemocratic body, filled with unelected members, such as the United Nations.
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.
WTF are you talking about. 132nd amendment? Right to internet domain ownership? What? I mean the internet was created essentially by the US government. I don't see why you think it is somehow unreasonable that the US won't negotiate handing over control to another entity.
Because co-operation is bad eh? No. We are already cooperating as I mentioned earlier. But giving other countries that kind of control is simply not good US policy. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
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.
Right. Because the UN has been so successful and caused no issues thanks to its openness and brilliant decision making. Get a freakin clue.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
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.
"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.
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
And they do a terrible job: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/29/itu_ip_loc k/
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.
Exactly what I was thinking. Nothing against India, but they are not very politically stable at the moment. If the US has one thing going for it, we have a very stable government. What advantage would there be for us to give up a critical service like maintaining domain servers and give that management to other, less stable countries.
On top of that, no one has to use the US's domain servers, or for that matter ICANN's domain names. A country like India or China could run all of their own domain servers and just proxy out to any sites in the rest of the world that they wanted their people to see.
Finally, what advantage would there be to other countries if they managed the domain servers. I thought all of the names and IP addresses were allocated through ICANN. The only possible reason that I can see to do this is so they could force IP6 and make the US update, of course they wouldn't have the money to make this work either, so we would still be in a mess.
Find coupons in Greeley
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.
Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.
Sort of takes the edge off Article 35, doesn't it?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
I think this US control of the Internet is what's been holding it back. Maybe with international bureaucracy and UN regulation, this "Internet" thing will finally take off...
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.
If only we'd kept control of television transmission by the UK when Logie Baird invented it. Just think of the power we'd have over the citizens of the United States...!
~Pev
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
The UN is hardly a neutral body, in my opinion. Unless neutrality is defined as making resolutions and threats of enforcement and never following through on them.
I'd sooner hand control over to the Swiss, who have a much better track record of real neutrality.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
The DNS system works right now. There's exactly no reason to move the infrastructure except for matters of national pride and possibly national security. And the fact is that there is nothing stopping any of these countries from developing an alternate DNS plan of their own.
I don't think it's impossible that the UN could do this right, but it's a change that doesn't need to be made. And I don't want to simply play up "Oil for Food" or "Libya as Human Rights Chair" to counter people's "Iraq" and "Guantanamo Bay" cries, but it does illustrate that the UN has it's own issues which make it likely that the effort in moving the control is probably not worth the effort of doing it. There's no perceptible benefit in making this move in terms of human rights or bureaucracy and those cases illustrate that the UN is not a slam dunk as an improvement over the US by a long shot.
It tends to be a feel good thing to say that the "World" should run a global infrastructure, but the fact is that most of the world is either technically unsophisticated, impoverished and/or run by people who make George Bush look like Eleanor Roosevelt. Even the parts of the world that are none of the above have had their own issues in the past with genocide, human rights abuses and other unsavory trends. The fact that Europe currently looks like more or a "white hat" to some than the US is simply a confluence of situations which could easily change come next election in either of those places. Europe has been fascist before, and can be again. The US has had witch hunts in the past and can have them again.
If Europe or India or China want some control, then they should build out their own extension to the system and then integrate it. China and Europe didn't insist on internationalizing NASA to get to space, they built their own rockets and shot them off. A DNS infrastructure is nowhere near the same investment and they will not be breaking what is working now.
The US created the system and it continues to work. That is enough reason for it to keep it where it is. It sucks that it was promised that it would be distributed and that was retracted, but that's a diplomatic embarassment, not a technical consideration.
Exactly. If the UN wants control over the internet, they can setup their own UN internet. They can fund a UN DNS system, they can pay for the upkeep, the bandwidth, and trying to promote other people to use it.
I'm quite fine with the current internet how it is. I don't see the US really doing much evil with the internet, and the current 'internet' DNS system IS the US' baby. Look at China, they basically already have their own 'internet'. This is just a bunch of whining democrats who don't know anything, and want control over something that other people worked hard to create and maintain.
I think that you are greatly mis informed Mr Coward.
The USA's DoD(Department of Defense) created a system of interconnecting networks named the internet. It was at first connected to a few select companies and Universities. Over time it connected to Universisties and some test sites abroad. All that we know as the Internet was created and funded by the American peoples tax money. Everything you see now is an extention of that by people from all around the world.
You can have your say for YOUR part of the net, as for the core that the USA made, you have NO say.
Eg, you can wear what YOU want to the party, but you can't chose the venue or the music.
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
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.
The US kicked ass at the Bay of Pigs. And they totally put the Canadians to shame in the War of 1812. And they totally stuck it out in Somalia.
Its not about being broken, its about trust. Do none of you remember back in 95 what happened to NeverNeverLand.
.nn websites, so nobody knew what was happening, and you couldn't email .nn anymore. It was like NeverNeverLand just dissappeared off the map, and soon people forgot it was there, forgot it ever existed.
.nn off of the root servers.
The US wanted to invade to close all of the Pirate Training Camps, but the NeverNeverLand government was vocal across the internet in claiming there were no training camps, just theme parks. So what happened, the US kicked NeverNeverLands domain (.nn) out of the root servers. Suddenly no one in NeverNeverLand could email one another, the government collapsed and the country went into chaos.
But worse, nobody could access any
Now it's just an legend, like atlantis, and all because the US kicked
Remember it's happened once, it can happed again.
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.
I for one appreciate the foreign contribution to the internet. I mean just look what Nigeria gave us... a whole Internet sub culture where serious criminals will put loaves of bread on their head. Not to mention the serious amount of network security tests performed by the Chinese, Russians, and eastern Europeans. And how can we forget all those infected Windows machines which act as good little DDoS drones and are found all across asia.
Yup, the Internet has massively dwarfed what the US brought to the table.
OK first, we could make all online discussions really simple if we could come up with some sort of symbol or placeholder for a few concepts which hardly need any further exposition.
(666USA666) - This would be the placeholder for "The United States is evil and I am very angry but also experiencing a vague sort of pleasure in finding another reason to hate the United States." This would not cover extended, dispassionate discourse on the problems of the United States, but rather would stand in for such things as "Loud fat Americans! I HATE ALL OF YOU! I AM EXPERICING SCHADENFREUDE AT YOUR IRAQ PROBLEMS! Also you have no culture and crappy food!"
You could put two of them together, like . This would be vaguely the equivalent of a -vv switch on your favorite command line program. You could even do it three times. We could set a threshold of, say, 5 placeholders in a row to represent, say, a fairly robust, Al Qaeda sort of hatred for the USA, and then maybe like just once would be, perhaps, the way American liberals feel about the USA.
Then we could have:
(AmericaHYUK) - This would be the predictable ugly, dumb response we have grown to love to hate from so many Americans. This could be a stand-in for the trusty old saw, "WE BAILED YER ASSES OUTTA WW2 YOU EUROFLITS!" or "LOL FREEDOM CONSTITUTION LOL," "WE'LL PUT A BOOT IN YER ASS, IT'S THE AMURRICAN WAY!" or whatever it is that Americans say when faced with the fact that most of the world doesn't regard the USA as groovy as people from the US tend to do.
This is my contribution to all debate on the internet for this week. I hereby release both placeholders into the public domain, and this ought to help out with brevity.
Alright as for the whole internet, I say we put the Netherlands in charge.
No I'm not from the Netherlands but have you noticed that for such a geographically small country, they make up 1/3rd the population of the internet (Barring most of Asia, but I can't read their character sets so I typically stay away anyway)? If I just came to earth on a spaceship and spent my time learning about humanity on the internet. I'd guess that the Netherlands was the last remaning superpower.
Also, they tend to speak fairly superb English, which makes it easy for dumb ethnocentric Amurricans like myself. They seem to have an excess of technical skill and don't make a nuisance of themselves. Plus, who has anything against the Netherlands?
I say we put the Netherlands in charge. Here's to you, Netherlands.
You think I'm being sarcastic but I'm not. I love you guys.
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