The Fracturing of the Internet

farrellj writes "There is currently a major conflict between the US and the rest of the world about the control of the Internet. They are fighting over who will control the root DNS servers and assign IP addresses. The US is against an independent international body to do this. This could fracture the Internet into multiple country and regional mini-internets, with conflicts over IP and Domain Name assignments, with no interconnects between them." From the article: "... the Bush administration said in July that the United States would 'maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.' In so doing, the government 'intends to preserve the security and stability' of the technical underpinnings of the Internet. Without consensus, some experts say that countries might move ahead with setting up their own domain name system, or DNS, as a way of bypassing Icann." Update: 09/30 20:45 GMT by Z : I believe this to be another view of the discussion we had a while back.

Comments

followup field

[JS_RIDDLER]

/. needs a followup field, to link to previous related articles.
I dont mind hearing about them again, it would just be nice to be able to see the past article. Kinda like the "Related Links" on the right side of the articles we have now.

It nice how this article DOES link to the previous story at the end.
which was Posted 09:43 AM -- Friday September 30 2005

If funny how he calls it the other day tho

Re:followup field

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Uh- lets be honest.
1. Post story about US vs World.
2. Watch discussion degenerate into a flame war, as it always does in these type of stories
3. Get tons and tons of comments, mostly angry rants by trolls and flame throwers posting as ac, which is all but gauranteed with a story like this
4. Get more pages refreshed
5. Serve more ads!
6. Profit.
Even a/c counts as a page view from a traffic standpoint. An intelligent conversation devoid of a/c and flaming gets many fewer posts and thus fewer total ads served. If it that complicated? If you can get a story like this up once in a day, double you money by running it again!!!

Re:followup field

[Dogtanian]

Even a/c counts as a page view from a traffic standpoint. An intelligent conversation devoid of a/c and flaming gets many fewer posts and thus fewer total ads served. If it that complicated?

My feelings exactly. How naive do you have to be exactly to believe that all those "dupes" are really down the incompetence of the editors?

Slashdot is a large, well-visited site, with paid editors, and we're asked to believe that they're not capable of spotting stuff like this?

Sorry, it happens often enough that if it weren't deliberate, they'd have hired someone with two brain cells to rub together by now. Simple acknowledgements of the dupe or even of their supposed incompetence have become so much of a Slashdot "tradition" that it obscures the bleedingly obvious lack of plausibility these repeated "mistakes" have.

But in this case, I'm glad of the dupe, because without it, I'd have missed the banner advert for another gimmicky boy's toy^w^w^w brain-expanding, uh... glowy thing from ThinkGeek that I *must* buy!

Re:followup field

[evildogeye]

It is ironic that one of the Slashdot's primary themes over the years has been the evilness and incompetence of Microsoft, and yet with their constant duplicates, Slashdot is either being evil or incompetent. Personally, I understand that business is business, and have no problems with this behavior - Slashdot attacts much their readership by constantly attacking Microsoft.

Embrace your moral hypocrisy!

Govern

[certel]

I don't think anyone can really blame any country for wishing to control their own aspect of the internet.

Re:Govern

[diegocgteleline.es]

The problem is that Internet is not "their own", it is a world-wide service.

Yes, I guess we can't blame US for wanting to control certain things from another countries. I guess the EU would do the same. What buggers me is that our governments (US and EU) are so fucked up that it seems countries aren't able to think "hey, this is the Right Thing to do, let's do it because everybody will benefit". Instead, apparently they just think "let's do everything we can to have more power and control so we can have more money"

Re:Govern

[anaesthetica]

What buggers me is that our governments (US and EU) are so fucked up that it seems countries aren't able to think "hey, this is the Right Thing to do, let's do it because everybody will benefit". Instead, apparently they just think "let's do everything we can to have more power and control so we can have more money"

I agree. The U.S. has given power over the Internet to a private group with an international board. It doesn't directly control ICANN, but it does retain a veto--a right which it has infrequently exercised. The EU and the other countries are making a power play to move internet governance to the UN, where their governments can gain power over how the internet is used and regulated. This isn't altruistic in its motivations in the least, and it's certainly not The Right Thing To Do. Everybody has benefited from the internet so far, and it is only active government intervention that has limited people's access to free information.

Re:Govern

[certel]

Well, depends when you want to classify the internet as 'international' because the internet originated in the United States and just increased as other countries had the ability and technology to do so. So, one could argue that the internet IS the United States and we allowed access from other countries. Now that other countries are involved, they feel the need to have some type of control. It's a lose-lose situation.

Re:Govern

[jbellows_20]

What is the benefit of releasing control to an international governing body? More bureaucracy? From what I can see, things are working quite well right now. With so many businesses relying upon the internet these days, I believe that it's in everyones best interest that this sort of thing remain stable and protected.

Re:Govern

[Anonymous Coward]

By that argument, the US should give up their veto right or give the same right to everybody else. It's probably useless to argue about this with an American, but many people don't trust you, especially when you make a point of retaining privileges which can be used to hurt other countries. "I won't use it against you" kind of lacks a calming effect when you fight tooth and nail to prevent others from wielding the same power. The right thing to do is to respect that other countries want to feel safe too and avoid an administrative fracturing of the internet.

Re:Govern

[anaesthetica]

Right, the U.S., as a member of the UN, would have a good deal of say over Internet governance if this plan were to go forward. On the other hand, should the Internet have the U.S. along with every other government in the world having a say over its governance? The U.S. has given a private organization with an international board control over the Internet. It maintains a laissez-faire position, with the exception of a veto, which is not frequently (or at all) used.

The U.S. is pro-democracy, but only insofar as democracy is a means to guarantee a liberal and limited government. The UN is anything but, because of its member states, who are far more willing (indeed eager) to regulate, limit, and filter the internet. Other nations already have a voice--they just don't have ultimate control. And that's a good thing.

Re:Govern

[displaced80]

Ok -- this is Slashdot -- I think we all understand the 7-layer model.

The IP network would be worthless without the higher level protocols and services. Likewise, there's a whole stack of further inventions, developments and products of world-wide research that the IP concept grew from.

My point is, when it comes to the Internet, Nationalism (for that's what this is) is ugly. There's a pissing contest going on here and it's just plain dumb.

We're talking about root DNS. That's all. It's fucking pathetic that neither the powers that be, nor us /. plebs can discuss sensibly the best management of these (13?) servers that would be most beneficial for the global interoperability of the internet.

Instead, it's deteriorated to "We invented it! It's ours!". Don't behave as if the spread of the internet was pure altruism. It's spread because it made money for companies all over the globe. The internet may have been a US invention, but its current breadth, penetration and sheer utility is a product of global contribution. And that's why the people and corporations (and yes, if they've been paying attention, even the governments) of nations outside the US have a vested interest in the DNS.

Re:Govern

[hunterx11]

Freedom is more important than democracy, but it is rare that you can have one without the other. This, however, is one of those cases. The U.S. has shown no signs of censoring the internet at the DNS level. Many other countries would want to. If the U.S. really were exerting its power, I would be all for shifting it to the U.N., but right now countries are just trying to politicize something which shouldn't be political and has managed not to be as it is right now.

Brilliant Plan

[Erwos]

At least under the US, the citizens of one country have some oversight. Give them their own little organization independent of everyone, and they'll have absolutely none.

-Erwos

Re:Brilliant Plan

[JudgeFurious]

Will this council work with the level of efficiency and cooperation we've come to know and expect from the UN?

  That's what I thought. I'll take the US-Net.

  Thank You.

If it ain't broke..

[SaidinUnleashed]

...don't fix it.

I say the US has done a fine job in managing whatever it is managing.

The 'net has become a wonderful, open forum where anyone can express their ideas an opinions.

The UN tends to screw up everything it touches. I really don't want the internet to become another great cockup of the least organized, least effective polital body that has ever existed.

Re:If it ain't broke..

[SaidinUnleashed]

re: 1

Do I trust the US government? Definately not. That is why I think it is best to leave them in control of it rather than a government that is not watched and scrutinized as closely as the US governemnt. A watched thief is less likely to steal, and all that.

As for the Chinese, Indians, etc, when you join an ISP, you are under the rules and regs of your ISP. The internet was started by the US government. Yes, it has grown far beyond the scope of the original intent of the network, but does that make it right to take the creation away from the creator? I know I would not want my successful idea taken away from me just because it was successful, without my consent of course, and the creators of the internet do not want to hand over the reins. That, of course, is their decision to make, by the right of the fact that they created it.

Gosh I hope that made sense.

re: 2

Quite a bit of the backbone of the net is provided by these companies. They also have a right to a say in how their privately owned resources are used.

Basicly, whoever owns something has the right to dictate control of it and not have it taken away by others who don't like it. Free enterprise, capitalism, open market, etc. The system works, and apparently very well.

Re:If it ain't broke..

[AZURERAZOR]

1. It is controled by the USA, which means by its government. Most peolpe don't trust this government. Is this so hard to accept for US-citizens? Why shall the US speak for 1.3 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians, or the other 3.5 billion people?

And we should give away the leadership rights of the internet away why?
-to placate the no good, corrupt bureaucrats at the UN
-to bow to the new "chinese" or "eastern" overloads
This is a silly conversation to continue having...
Who developed the internet? We did
Who maintained an open access for all people around the world? We have
Who gives a damn about the French and German whiners who continually gripe about the dominance of the US in World Politics and Finance? Not me

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wrong with fracturing.

All that would mean is that DNS goes from being a decentralized system with a central authority to a decentralized system. Once that happens well-tested capitalistic forces will come into play and things will sort out themselves. If the U.S. government chooses not to recognize the actions of foreign root servers, eventually U.S. ISPs will just start using the foreign root servers themselves. Participation in the Department of Commerce DNS roots is voluntary for all involved.

IT's all BS.

[mindstrm]

All authority that IANA or ICANN or any other organisation has over IP addresses and DNS is through the strictly VOLUNTARY participation by every ISP and even end user, out there. Their authority comes form the recognition that an authority is needed.. that addresses need to be allocated in an organized way.

IT is ultimately those who provide the infrastructure who will decide what needs to be organized and by whom. This isn't a government issue.. it's an ISP issue.

Seriously...

[Comatose51]

Seriously guys, not only is this a dupe, but the summary:

There is currently a major conflict between the US and the rest of the world about the control of the Internet...
is such an over statement that it's almost misleading. We're not going to war with the world over this. It's a dispute. The only war so far are the flame wars that broke out on Slashdot when this was posted the first time. The Iraq War was a major conflict; this is a dispute that might have serious consequences on the Internet. Let's be a little more precise.

No, I'm not new to Slashdot. Yes, I'll probably be modded down for this but this is just so silly.

Re:All according to plan

[pete6677]

This will never happen, ironically due to corporate interests. Most large companies now do business overseas. Would they want those customers cut off from their website? Would they no longer want their employees to be able to send email to business partners in other countries?

Although there will certainly be conflicts regarding the internet in the coming years, there is too much invested for people to just give up on a solution and resort to fractionalized intranets.

Rome

[Spy Handler]

USA-controlled net is like the Roman empire's road system. Like USA, the Romans were hated by many barbarian nations because they got too powerful and pushed their weight around too much. These other nations couldn't wait for Rome to fall, and eventually it did.

When Rome did fall, the roads were taken over by various parties and sometimes looted for their stones and not very well maintained. But, those evil arrogant Romans got their uppcomance, and that's what really mattered.

Re:Fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Bing bing bing bing ... we have a winner. I was thinking the same thing. Is the internet THAT bad? What is the US doing wrong? Are we ruining the internet?

Not for nothing, but the US funded and created what is now the internet. And your b|tching that we don't give up control of root DNS servers? How's your internet connection, can you browse, shop, play games and read news? Thank the US then!

Next question; Who would you rather handle it? I've heard the U.N. mentioned - Food for oil anyone? Independant third party? Yeah, like they'll be immune to corruption. No thanks, I'll stick with old faithful and let the US keep it. Your internet connection will thank you.

Re:IF this happens

[anaesthetica]

Firewalls already mess with worldwide connectivity at national borders. Look at China. Giving the Internet to the UN, where China has veto power, is not going to solve the problem--it will aggravate the problem.

There may be no other international body capable of managing the internet (a specious claim on face), but granting you that, there are plenty of organizations capable of running the internet that are not international. ICANN has international board members and is doing just fine. Nor is the internet "exclusively under American control". The Department of Commerce retains a veto, but otherwise governance is left to ICANN.

Re:Needs to be taken from American hands

[the computer guy nex]

The number of misconceptions of the PATRIOT act almost total the number of anti-Microsoft posts anymore. Let me clue you in. The PATRIOT act does not give the government one ability it did not have before, it simply expanded the definitions of these old laws to include terrorism. The government could look at your library history previously, and now they can if they can prove to a judge you are a terrorist. The government could wire tap your phone if you were a drug dealer, now they can if you are a terrorist. The only thing you could call new would be the 'roaving wiretaps'. Previously you could ditch a phone tap by simply buying a new pre-paid phone, requiring the government to present evidence in front of a judge again. Now the wiretap exists on any phone you purchase. Please, bash things all you want. Its fun to read, but at least do some research first.

Re:Needs to be taken from American hands

[anaesthetica]

The internet has to be in safe hands, and if a fracturing of the net is required then thats the price we shall have to pay to safeguard the whole.

You're right. Let's give control to Syria, North Korea, and China. These UN members in good standing will keep the internet safe, while the U.S. and its back-dues to the UN can reap the whirlwind of wanting to retain control over their own creation, which they so presumptuously chose to share with the rest of the world.

Re:This is just further proof...

[nsayer]

You'd prefer the Chinese government to run things?

Let's compare, oh say, the Patriot Act - or better yet, Abu Grahib - to, oh say, Tienanmin Square.

Let's get a grip, folks. Even if you think our government sucks, would ANY of you prefer any of the alternatives currently on offer (I'll dispense with the customary "don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out" phraseology)?

Why?

[LWATCDR]

Why should the US give over control of the root DNS to the UN?
The US funded the construction of the Internet and has invited other nations to use it. Each nation has as much control over the network in it's contry as they want. Look at China and North Korea for examples.
Each country has control over it's nation level domain. The UK has control over .uk and so on.
I do not see how the UN or anybody has the right to demand the US to give over control of the root domain servers or get bent if the US says thanks but we feel like that would be a bad idea.

If the member of the UN really feel like they should have root name server control well then I suggest that the UN gets a bunch of nations together and build the UNNet. You could use IP6 from the start and have point to point encryption from the start.

Knock yourselves out.

simply would never work.

[CDPatten]

The reality is that ALL major (minor for that matter) corporations in the world would want to be on the US internet. All US companies would want to be on the US internet. At the end of the day, and after billions of dollars wasted, it would wind up looking like it does now. That said, don't other countries already get to manage their own root servers for their country extension, .ca, .uk, etc.? The UN is a colossal corrupt failure, I think someone else in the other post put it best, give control of the internet to the organization that made Syria head of human rights? What a joke.

But here is the real flame bate for all you liberals out there: The internet is a US invention that was shared with the world... it would be hugely successful today with or without the support of Bulgaria. Our closest allies and us have made the internet what it is today, not some third world nation. Australia and the UK have not been pushing for this issue, its coming from "developing" countries and France... the EU is very divided on most issues, and this is another one. I say screw the French and let them setup their own "super duper internet".

What's the big deal?

[Spazmania]

This sounds like someone making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mean really, what's the big deal?

IP addresses are already controlled regionally, not by the US. Europe and Asia each have their own registries. Theoretically they manage the IP space under rules set by the IANA, but in reality nobody is going to nay-say them if they don't.

Law and regulation? Ha! The US will regulate for the US and anyone who doesn't like that can block our IP addresses at their border. That's not going to change. Get over it.

The DNS root zone? All 62kbytes of it? Shoot. If you don't want to run ICANN's root zone, download it and run your own version. I do.

Or is control of your own counry's top-level zone not good enough for you? Is there some special zone you particularly feel you need to add to the defacto global root zone? No? Then what the hell are you complaining about!

Don't get me wrong, the ICANN is run by a non-accountable bunch of bufoons, many from Verisign, the same company that somehow managed to lose money selling domain names and ssl certificates. If anyone deserves a comeuppance, they do. But that's not the point, the point is: the system as it is now is stable, functional and reasonably cheap.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:And fragmentation is bad?

[garcia]

Don't know about you, but all my intranets connect to the Internet.

They do now, but in this scenerio COUNTRIES would be Intranets. That puts a huge limitation on the freedom of information (ala China).

Actually, thats all the 'Great Firewall' is, an attempt to make China on big intranet.

Thank you for proving my point.

international != independent

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a group being "international" always equate (in the bizarro leftist /. world anyway) with "independent"? as in:

The US is against an independent international body to do this.

Independent of what? A single country? And if so, so what? The UN is independent of a single country and it's the most corrupt organization on the planet (see Oil for Food amoung others).

Rude houseguests

[RentonSentinel]

The US built a house. It was called the internet. We invited everyone over to enjoy our house. Stay as long as you like. Hell, take a dip in the pool. Set up shop in the garage.

Now, the houseguests are bitching because they don't own the house. Fuck you houseguest. Its our house, its always been our house. If you are so inconvenienced, build your own house, but don't cry to me when its a crappier, less desireable house.

Please don't mess up with this...

[Pecisk]

Yeah, I don't like current US goverment too (no offence to US citizens, lot of good things coming from you, just sometimes all that shortsighted greed from your coorporations are killing common sense in me), BUT please please PLEASE don't mess with INTERNET infrastructure. Because it works now and there is NO need something to change. Please drop your arrogance from both sides. I don't see reason why Internet should not stay that way it is now. Yes, there are always room for improvement, but please...

Simply. Don't. Do. That.

No "citizens" control ICANN, including US citizens

[billstewart]

ICANN isn't controlled by the citizens of the US; it's basically autonomous, and went to a lot of work to free itself of the shackles of public participation in its board, especially any subset of the public including Karl Auerbach.
It's occasionally influenced by the US Commerce Department, which is occasionally influenced by the Bush Administration, who are occasionally influenced by right-wingers, rich corporations, or cosmic rays, but AFAICT, the only effect the Bushies have had on it is to suggest that they'd like ICANN to create .xxx and then insist that ICANN delay .xxx because some other right-wingers didn't like it.

The "IP" that ICANN cares about isn't the "Internet Protocol" - it's "Intellectual Property". The real influence behind ICANN is the WIPO-mongers, whoever they are, that have gotten ICANN to insist that anybody who registers a domain name anywhere under their control provide enough information to serve them with a subpoena for a trademark lawsuit (and possibly for a website-content lawsuit from RIAA, etc., but it's really trademarks that matter.)

The US and Censorship

[Thu25245]

Can you reach any of those pages?

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage/
http://www.korea-dpr.com/
http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2389/html/
http://www.cubaweb.cu/

If so, you're making use of a system maintained by the US Government.

Now try acessing
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/coredocs.html/ from China or

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=b s&sbrftog=1&catref=C6&fstype=1&from=R10&satitle=na zi+hitler&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&bs=Search&sargn=- 1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=ZIP%2FPostal&ftrt=1&f trv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction =compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&fgtp= from Germany or France.

Seriously, who would you rather have in charge of the internet?

Re:what isn't...

[Catbeller]

Offtopic? Listen, We-create-our-own-reality types. That IS the topic. Bush and his fellow ideologues are flipping off the planet, creating their New American Century so well described by the Project for the New American Century thinktank that so many of his people were part of. After the Soviets broke up their empire, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice et al wanted the US to become the de facto and de jure world government. This DNS holdoff is only one aspect of this war.

The world is in a semi-polite revolt against the NWO of the Bushes. The damage of the grab for our empire is horrendous.

Re:And fragmentation is bad?

[MightyMartian]

Seeing as how the Internet is a global network, having the core infrastructure of said network in the hands of one country is an awful lot of power. Theoretically, giving the UN control of the root DNS would give every member nation a share in the responsibility.

You know, as much as I hate the idea of a single country controlling the Internet, I think I like the idea of it being administered by the UN even less. At the moment it is a lopsided system which delivers too much power into American hands, but it does actually function. I really shiver at the thought of UN nabobs getting their hands on it. Until someone can demonstrate precisely how giving it over to the UN would actually improve matters, I think we should all stick with the devil we know.

Re:don't agree

[MightyMartian]

That's pretty much my stand. All in all, the US has been a damn good steward of the Internet, willingly giving itself a limited role. If there were abuses, then I'd be all for moving it into other hands, but this isn't a complaint based in helping the average Internet user or company or organization that uses the Internet or has an Internet presence. This is just nationalistic jingoism, and while there's a lot I don't like about American policy, the management of the Internet is one thing I can't fault them for.

Re:And fragmentation is bad?

[ramblin billy]

Yeah, and while the UN is waiting for Hell to freeze over, maybe they could do something about that little matter in Africa. You know, the fucking GENOCIDE! When they're finished with that they could start on AIDs, the international arms market, the proliferation of WMDs, human slavery and violations of human rights, the harboring of terrorists by nation states, the international drug trade and, if they have a little spare time, the attitude of the French.

Ok, so maybe I got a little carried away, no one is EVER going to be able to do anything about the attitude of the French. These are tough problems that impact millions of people all over the world. The UN's track record for dealing with these problems does not inspire much confidence. Let's face it, there are some influential members of the UN who have opinions that are in opposition to the beliefs of the net's inventors. You see, we KNOW if our rascals start getting too big for their britches we can snatch them back to reality. Who knows what the UN has the power and will to accomplish? I don't, and I'm not in a hurry to find out. Maybe the UN should concentrate on the problems crying out for attention and hold off on this one until we actually do something wrong.

billy - quit bugging us or we won't let you use google

Re:And fragmentation is bad?

[pacificdave]

Did you not understand what Billy said? Right now everything is running well with it privately run in US territory. The UN needs to work on other problems around the world than trying to get their hands into everything that they think should belong to the "world." The internet is open to the world but certain root levels need to be control by a trusting body. Why risk added complications by changing it now?

Re:And fragmentation is bad?

[Rycross]

I remember reading the original article about this, a couple of months ago. The main voices from the UN came from countries that had little to do with the creation of the current internet. China was one of the countries as well. The stated goals of UN control were censorship and filtering of content. They mentioned the xxx domain name, and stated that they wanted to do something about spam. Now, doing something about spam seems well and good and all, but who gets to decide what is spam? And considering that China was showing interest here, I don't really feel good about handing over internet infrastructure to the UN.

As an American, I would have no objections to handing over control of the DNS root servers to an international body, provided that they are able to reliably keep it working, and avoid exerting control over the actual content. Given the facts, I'd say neither seemed likely.

The European Union, however, might be a different matter. And Europe has given us a lot in terms of developing the internet as we know it today.

Bush != safe and stable government

[Numen]

It's the business of the US populace who they elect as their leader.... that goes without saying, but one has to realise there will be a reaction to who they choose.

Electing Bush as President once could be put down to an accident.... a second time and other countries started to question the stability of the country that elected him. Now all these other countries may well be in the wrong, and the US may have the right of it, but widespread polls outside the US consistenctly show the people in other countries regard Bush as the single most dangerous man on the planet, and more dangerous that S. Hussein..... in short they're no happier with a country that Bush is leader holding the reigns that they would have been pre regiime-change Iraq.

That is what a large portion of the planet is reacting to. Not the US in and of itself, but the man you elected as your leader twice (to the amazement of anybody not American), and to whom most of the rest of the planet wouln't trust the running of a corner store. Truthfully, everybody else may be wrong, I'm just trying to convey sentiment in large portions of the rest of the world... we think Bush is a moron, and we don't trust the people who decided he was they best they could find as their leader.

For the record, as I realise this does wade into traditionally anti-American flame territory... I'm English, I've traditionally been very pro the Anglo-American relationship, and a Europsceptic, but I want nothing to do with a Bush lead regime, and if you elect another muppet as your leader then yeah, I'm in favour of the EU backing away from the US on any matter of international import... and that includes DNS

The man's a nut job..... That's what most of us out here thing. We may well be wrong, but right or wrong it's how we view him. In light of that we view the US as a country whose leader is a nut. We therefore don't consider the US a safe and stable country to entrust anything in.

It's your president we don't trust, not the US. Your trustworthiness is only in question because you elected him.

I'm sorry if this gets read as anti-American as I enjoy the company of a fair few American colleagues, and more than a few online friends. I think the world is a better place to have had the US in it, but men of worse character than normal have convinced enough people to fear all else but their vision.

Good luck over the next couple of years, and I look forward to you electing a leader that might actualy qualify for a McJob before you attempt to make him Leader of The Free World.