Senator Wants to Keep U.N. Away From the Internet

Martin Boleman writes "ZDNet reports that Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month. "The Internet is likely to face a grave threat, If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on." he said in a statement."

Comments

well that would suck.

[xhrit]

I need my internets.

Re:well that would suck.

[LikwidFlux]

Or else you wouldn't be able to post blatant worthless material just so you'd be a first poster?

Re:well that would suck.

[Bad Boy Marty]

As do I. Unfortunately, the ITU can't seem to even keep a web site accessible (http://www.itu.int/ so how could they possibly be put in charge of administering DNS? The gory details on the upcoming conference should be available at http://www.itu.int/wsis -- at least that's the reference from the UN home page. I'd love to see just exactly what's being proposed before I decide whether it could be useful. I would hope that other /. participants would like to know the details before they shoot their mouths (fingers?) off. Doh! I forgot where I was, didn't I?

Re:well that would suck.

[jZnat]

If they can't even prevent their site from being slashdotted, I sincerely doubt they can handle the acre-sized server farm that ICANN uses for, oh, about a billion connections?

freedom?

[tomstdenis]

From the same country that brought you the monopolizing telcos and DMCA? [not to mention crippling patent system]

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Tom

Re:freedom?

[jarich]

You would rather China have a say in the administration of the internet?

Re:freedom?

[tomstdenis]

Since when did Canada run the UN?

I guess you missed the bit of the UN being a global [often waste of breath] effort.

You'd be surprised to learn that while the US started the net it's other nations that carry it to where it is today.

You think all that routing, networking and software you use was invented in the US? Oh, ok.

Tom

Re:freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right! Better have the bastions of liberty - Nigeria, China, Cuba, and Iran!

Re:freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

What gives you the right to forbid China from having a say in the administration of the Internet?

Re:freedom?

[Dachannien]

Consider first that France demanded that eBay remove auctions of historical WWII Nazi items from their site.

Consider next that Germany outlawed Wolfenstein 3D because it contained various symbols of the WWII Nazi regime, despite the game hardly being sympathetic to the Nazis.

If there's a country that stands for defending freedom of speech, it sure isn't either of them. Perish the day when we can't even register domain names like "naziscansuckmyballs.com" because Europe is too afraid to deal with the realities of its own history.

Re:freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the same country that brought you the monopolizing telcos

Hey now, leave Britain out of this!

Re:freedom?

[SteveAyre]

There's no harm in letting them have a say in it.
After all they won't control it. They can suggest ideas, yes, but they would then be voted on and all the other countries would have to agree too.

Re:freedom?

[nickmdf]

This parody image on sacredcowburgers says it all.
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi ?third_world_wide_web

Re:freedom?

[Capt James McCarthy]

Hey, we gave them powered flight. That's enough.

Re:freedom?

[tomstdenis]

cough, cough, GTA:SA ...

American censorship is no better.

As for the nazi stuff, maybe it's not good to celebrate a regime that murdered millions. And keep in mind that stuff is LOCAL. As in, you can sell the game, just not there. So really your point has no bearing on the general theme of running the the internet.

Tom

Re:freedom?

[starwed]

While the US is pretty good (possibly the best) for enforcing freedom of speech in political matters, considerlike the recent FBI crackdown on porn. That wouldn't happen in much of Europe. (Of course, political speech is probably more important for society than the right to porn. But it's still not true that the US is 100% more free than Europe. ^_^ )

Re:freedom?

[FlailofFury]

It may be local censorship but if they control the internet their local standards will be forced upon the internet. Americas standards are much easier then some European countries standards.

Re:freedom?

[Decameron81]

"You would rather China have a say in the administration of the internet?"

Nope. If you read the article again you'll notice that it's not about China, but the UN.

Re:freedom?

[Rycross]

Oh, and how was that censored? It got its rating upped to AO, which caused stores to voluntarily drop it until the content was removed, and Rockstar to voluntarily remove the content that upped its rating. It is in no way, shape, or form government sponsored censorship. Period.

Re:freedom?

[swimmar132]

GTA:SA wasn't censored in the least.

They included AO material in a game that wasn't AO. And got busted.

Re:freedom?

[PhilHibbs]

Thanks for all that FUD. The way I see it, countries should be able to control their own domains. The U.S. will keep the null domain (i.e. no country suffix), but domain names in the .uk area will be controlled by an organization appointed by the UK government, .cn by the Chinese government, etc. and all countries should agree to propagate the changes.

This issue first came to my attention when the South African government tried to sieze control from the US-nominated administrator. Can anyone remember what happened in that case?

Who decides where .cn domain names go at the moment?

Phil Hibbs.

Re:freedom?

[Mac Degger]

No...I prefer the old days, when the ICANN membership was voted in amongst the greatest nerds and hackers in the world. Too bad the ICANN forced the voted-in members out.

Re:freedom?

[stlhawkeye]

From the same country that brought you the monopolizing telcos and DMCA? [not to mention crippling patent system]

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

To be fair, the US government and internet oversight bodies have done a remarkable job of keeping bad laws off the internet. A few slip through here and there, but most laws that impact the internet do so as an incident of their aim, not as the direct intention of it (e.g., the DMCA). America has very few laws that are DIRECTLY intended to regular the internet, and most of those that HAVE been passed have no teeth.

In any case, the only legitimate question to ask is whether TLD is better off in the hands of the UN or the US. A few years ago I'd have said the UN, but lately I really think we're better off leaving it as it is. It ain't broken. Let's not fix it.

Re:freedom?

[DaPoulpe]

Then again we're speaking about UN, i.e. global and democratic (jokes asside), no China nor Germany would enforce its view on internet to the world.
Whether US standards are easier or not than the rest of the world is pointless, it's still one country to rule them all...

Re:freedom?

[Gherald]

> What gives you the right to forbid China from having a say in the administration of the Internet?

The despicable way[1] they currently administer it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_i n_mainland_China

Re:freedom?

[ultranova]

From the same country that brought you the monopolizing telcos and DMCA?

So tell me, does the Internet have any mechanisms that try to protect "intellectual property" (I presume this means copyrights, since "intellectual property protection" in the context of Internet doesn't really make sense otherwise) ? No, it does not. The usability of the Internet depends on it not making any attempt to distinguish "lawfull" information exchange from "unlawfull". In other words, the senators statement is completely correct - the proper functioning of Internet depends on it maintaining the current level of IP protection, namely zero level :).

You do have a good point in implying that the DMCA is a bad thing, thought.

Re:freedom?

[PhilHibbs]

which caused stores to voluntarily drop it until the content was removed

While I don't entirely disacree with you, I think that's what the phrase "chilling effect" was coined for.

Re:freedom?

[KiloByte]

Uhm, the actions of their government?

Don't forget the Little Red Book, Tianan-men square, the Great Chinese Firewall, and so on.

Re:freedom?

[AndersOSU]

The US didn't ban GTA:SA. After the rating was raised to Mature, many stores voluntarily pulled their copies. I know for a fact that I can still go to EBGames and buy the mature rated game.

Re:freedom?

[Microlith]

It wasn't included in the game.

You can't get to it without modifying a save game. If you don't do that, you'll never run across it during the course of killing, robbing, and associated violence.

Someone else found a discarded bit, and the media threw a shitfest over it because it was SEX.

It's all stupid.

Re:freedom?

[AndersOSU]

FBI carckdown on obsenity. Obsenity is not porn.

IMHO the FBI should leave well enough alone, and let obenity be enforced at a local level, but there is no porn crackdown.

Re:freedom?

[JeTmAn81]

Technically, GTA San Andreas has yet to be censored at all. It's still for sale. The issue was that it was rated improperly by the (volunteer) ratings board, and it had to be re-rated before it could hit store shelves again. No censorship there.

Re:freedom?

[Reliant-1864]

and America has already started to censor the internet by veto'ing the .xxx domain. The whole point of this is that no 1 country should have the power of veto over the internet. THAT is what leads to censorship. France and Germany have every right to try and get UN resolution to forbid Nazi stuff from the internet. The great thing about a democracy, it'll never get passed unless they can also get most other countries to agree, an unlikely prospect. US has banned online gambling, and they're cracking down on online pornography. The internet can only truely be free if it is outside the control of a single government.

Re:freedom?

[CDPatten]

Ya, you forgot to mention in your "funny" list that we are also the country that brought you the internet. More specifically to your post title; what country offers more freedoms then the US? The socialist nations of the EU certainly don't. Socialism by definition rules itself out. Who? Some tribe in Africa? China? Brazil?

The internet that you are trying to "steal" control over wouldn't exist today without the US, but it would exist today without your nation. It's was our money, businesses, and our citizens that made it what it is today. Others helped, but the overwhelming load was carried by Americans. Starting with our scientists, our pentagon, our MONEY, all the way down to our businesses (e.g. Cisco) and then working its way down to all our citizens building countless sites in the 80's and 90's.

Talk about gratitude; we pay for it (NO TAXES FROM THE US EITHER), we invent it, we build it, we share it with the world, it works great, and we keep it FREE, and jerks like you try and steal it to hand it over to the organization that made Lybia head of human rights.

Go to hell asshole.

Re:freedom?

[operagost]

I don't have a problem with those countries per se, but the U.N. Does the "Oil for Food Scandal" ring any bells? Do we want Kofi Annan's cronies corrupting the Internet?

Re:freedom?

[Delphiki]

The internet can only truely be free if it is outside the control of a single government.

Yes, how true. More governments being involved always means more freedom.

Re:freedom?

[JeTmAn81]

Nice, two Sandman sigs in the same thread!

Re:freedom?

[antarctican]

You would rather China have a say in the administration of the internet?

Yes, because America's exclusive control over the internet is having such a profound influence in preventing oppression and censorship online in China.

The argument is such FUD. What a country does with regard to IP routing, firewalling, etc within their borders is completely separate from the proposed handover of administration in IP allocation and other such policies. You're talking about ensuring global internet policies work for the improvement of all countries.

When it comes to influence from oppressive regimes, most certainly more needs to be done to ensure their ability to censor freedom of information is held in check. However I don't see much of that happening under current administration of the internet - if anything, we keep hearing stories about American software companies actually *helping* these regimes oppress their people.

Re:freedom?

[pclminion]

If there's a country that stands for defending freedom of speech, it sure isn't either of them. Perish the day when we can't even register domain names like "naziscansuckmyballs.com" because Europe is too afraid to deal with the realities of its own history.

You're ignorant. "Nazi" is not a banned word. Discussion of Nazism is not illegal. Glorification of the Third Reich is illegal. Goose stepping is illegal. As an American I don't really agree with these policies, either, but perhaps the Germans themselves are in a better position to judge the necessity of such laws.

The Americans helped to defeat the Nazis. The Germans, on the other hand, WERE the Nazis. As much as you wish that didn't make a difference, it does.

Again, I don't think these policies are constructive, but they are explainable. When I was in Greece recently, there was a scuffle in Athens between some anarchists and neo-Nazis. It occurred because the neo-Nazis came down to protest the fact that one of their conferences had been banned. The violence could have been avoided if they had simply allowed the conference to proceed. So outlawing the speech lead to violence in that case.

Re:freedom?

[ultranova]

Thanks for all that FUD. The way I see it, countries should be able to control their own domains. The U.S. will keep the null domain (i.e. no country suffix), but domain names in the .uk area will be controlled by an organization appointed by the UK government, .cn by the Chinese government, etc. and all countries should agree to propagate the changes.

Countries control the domains in their national TLD. When you try to get a domain in national TLD, the query first goes to the root DNS servers, which redirect it to the national TLD DNS servers. These national servers are run and controlled by the government of the country in question.

This controversy is about who controls the root servers. However, i think it's absurd. Nothing stops UN, national governments, or Joe Average from setting up new root servers, but you'd need to convince others to use those servers, and that is unlikely to be possible in anywhere but the worst of dictatorships. US has no control over DNS, beyond that everyone voluntarily agree that the US-run root servers are authoritative. This is authority by respect, and it is impossible to give away, even if US wanted to.

Given all this, could we please stop posting stories about this idiocy, it reminds me too much about that incident of a political entity trying to forbid the dangerous substance dihydromonoxide, AKA water.

Re:freedom?

[CDPatten]

CISCO equipment routes the majority of the internet, and that is an American company. Go look it up and stop spreading your wishful thinking.

Re:freedom?

[penguin_mafia]

The US didn't ban GTA:SA. After the rating was raised to Mature, many stores voluntarily pulled their copies. I know for a fact that I can still go to EBGames and buy the mature rated game.

Uhmm it was rated mature from the begining they raise it to adult until the sexual content was takin out.

Re:freedom?

[operagost]

GTA:SA was voluntarily pulled from the shelves by retailers. It was not censored by the U.S. government. The main issue was the fact that the game was rated Mature rather than Adults Only. The "Hot Coffee" content indicated that it should be rated Adults Only and the company elected instead to hide the adult content.

Re:freedom?

[halfelven]

Consider that US is seeing a resurgence of Dark Ages ideas such as creationism. ;-)

Re:freedom?

[keyboardsamurai]

This is so ignorant, I don't know what part of your "arguments" I should cripple first, but I'll try. 1. Yeah France did that, so what? There are items that cannot be sold on the US Market either. If the US are too afraid that anyone can buy detailed maps of their country online they ban them as well because they are scared of terrorists. Besides - eBay is not exactly the place where i'd measure a country's free speech policies. 2. Yeah Germany banned Wolfenstein from sale in stores - which made it ever more interesting for locals. It's true that it's stupid, but fact is, that showing the swastika symbol in public has been outlawed since the second world war. And nobody here in Germany who has half a brain resents that law. We have seen enough of these symbols for some generations to come. If you care for free speech, fine: In Germany you are allowed to posess and show Swastikas in your Home anywhere you like. You can even knit yourself a blanket with swatikas and wear swastika underwear, when you go to the elections and vote the National socialist party. Former party is not outlawed here simply because of the fact, that WE HAVE FREE SPEECH HERE. It is a small minority party nevertheless. 3. As for the Europeans being "too afraid to deal with the realities of its own history" - this demonstrates about the most disturbing lack of intelligence I have come across in a million slashdot comments. Admittedly, Europe, especially Germany, has a troubled past - that much is true. But do you have any idea how much effort, education, institutionalization and last but not least money is invested to "deal with the realities" ??? I assume that you don't. Every European (at least west europeans that is) who has ever stuck his nose into a school has gotten a real good tasteful of europes past wars. Our cities are plastered with monuments (big ones, like the Stelen right next to the Reichstag in Berlin and small ones, embedded into the sidewalks, bearing the names of jewish victims of the 3rd reich) to remind us what happened every day. And now you come along and tell us that we are afraid to deal with all that??? Think again dude. Whew....what a post, you really got me going there.

Re:freedom?

[Rycross]

First of all, vetoing .xxx isn't any sort of censorship. Those same sites can get normal domains like every other website. They are in no way banned from displaying their material.

I'm curious though, have you actually read what the UN wants to do with the internet? From TFA:

During a series of meetings organized by the United Nations, ministers from dozens of other countries have raised objections and demanded more influence. Suggestions that have been made include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access," and folding ICANN into the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. agency. As far back as 1999, U.N. agencies have mulled imposing taxes on Internet e-mail.

Gee great, taxing emails and domain names, and "consumer protection." Consumer protection certainly sounds a lot like censorship to me, when the ones making the big fuss about this originally were countries like China, and basically expressed discomfort over stuff like the xxx domains (on the grounds that it was pornography, with hints that they didn't like the idea of pornography being more visable on the internet).
,br> Oh, and there was some talk of dealing with spam in some of the earlier articles on this subject. Sounds good and all, because noone likes spam. But it certainly skirts on the fringes of censorship there, especially when its up in the air about who would decide what constitutes spam.

Now, granted the US could have a say in how its operated in a democratic process. Maybe. I don't really trust the UN, however, given its track record, their stated goals, and the countries who are really pressing for this, in addition to the demonstrated lack of understanding of how the internet works. I'd be all for global possession, so long as it remains as hands-off as its been, is free from undue control and censorship, and properly managed.

Re:freedom?

[Hatta]

Technically, GTA San Andreas has yet to be censored at all.

If GTA:SA wasn't censored, you wouldn't have to hack it to get to the sex scenes. The fact that it was self censorship is irrelevant, the result for the citizen is the same.

Re:freedom?

[operagost]

China has veto power.

Re:freedom?

[erikvcl]

Thank you. Your post is right on. My blood was starting to boil when I was reading the rest of the posts to this article. Until I read your post I was ready to scream throughout the office and offend my co-workers!

Re:freedom?

[halfelven]

At least in Europe children are not indoctrinated with retarded ideas such as creationism.

Re:freedom?

[skubeedooo]

Does US law protect the freedom of speech of foreigners? Is there anything in the constitution that says that a french person has the right to register any domain name? This question isn't rhetorical - I'd quite like to know.

Re:freedom?

[Stone Pony]

There's nothing wrong with holding the view that Germany and France (and the several other European countries which, I believe, have similar laws)shouldn't restrict the depiction of Nazi emblems etc.

I often despair at the way it's expressed, though. There's something distasteful about slashdotters who happily argue that copyright law enforcement is a savage assault on their human rights sounding off about another nation's response to a national trauma which makes anything they're likely to experience in their entire lives look utterly insignificant by comparison.

Re:freedom?

[delete]

Perish the day when we can't even register domain names like "naziscansuckmyballs.com" because Europe is too afraid to deal with the realities of its own history.

Europe is not merely France and Germany, but I wouldn't want to spoil this opportunity for you to generalise.

Re:freedom?

[Rycross]

I finit prett accurate, given some of the stuff said in all the articles concerning this. I see a lot of railing about how the Americans don't understand the UN and that we're selfish and whatnot. I've seen very few people that truly understand why the UN wants control, and which countries within the UN are pushing for this control. The anti-US sentiment has blocked any sort of critical thinking skills in this argument.

Re:freedom?

[Shakrai]

From the same country that brought you the monopolizing telcos

Ya know, I'm feeding the troll here and everything but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the regulated monopoly telco system provided much more reliable service then anything that has come since (even newer technologies can't compete with POTS for uptime) and the typical Government oversight provided a lot more protection to the consumer then people think.

Billing problem with landline? Dispute the charges and they have to investigate. If they give you shit contact the PSC and the PSC will force them to cooperate. Billing problem with cell phone? Dispute the charges then watch them charge your credit card without authorization, submit EFT's right out of your checking account and start listing black marks on your credit report.

Poor credit and trying to get a landline? Provide two-months worth of basic service as a deposit (less then $20 in Verizon land) and they have to give you service. Poor credit and trying to get a cell phone? Pay insanely huge ass and out of line deposit that they aren't even required to pay interest on and don't have to give back to you after six or twelve months. In fact, the last time a friend of mine tried to get service from Verizon Wireless (the only mobile carrier here with coverage worth shit) they wanted a thousand dollar deposit.

Sure, Ma Bell got very arrogant and cocky back in the day. But I'm sick of hearing people bash POTS carriers and root for their downfall. You show me a service that even approaches the bullet-proof reliablity of POTS and then we'll talk.

Re:freedom?

[badmammajamma]

You can cherry-pick games like GTA if you want but it doesn't change the fact that many games (especially violent ones) are banned in Germany. Personally, if I can't kill someone in a game I couldn't give a shit about it.

Re:freedom?

[Bake]

Only in the Security Council, but then again, so does the US.

Re:freedom?

[smackjer]

The Germans, on the other hand, WERE the Nazis.

Not exactly. Not all Germans were Nazis. Most, but not all, Nazis were German.

Even Hitler technically wasn't German.

Re:freedom?

[EzInKy]

and America has already started to censor the internet by veto'ing the .xxx domain.


Creating a .xxx domain would be a step towards censorship.

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

WTF does any of this have to do with the "day to day operations of the net?" The day to day operations of the net are accomplished by obscure engineers toiling in relative anonymity at ISP's all across the globe. This is about editorial control (not even technical control) of the "." DNS zone file, and nothing more. This is such a non-issue technically and for the future "evolution" of the Internet that it's laughable watching all the anti-American slashbots get worked into a lather over it.

Basically what this boils down to is who gets to say what new TLDs (like .com, .net, etc.) will be created. Right now it is ICANN under contract with the Department of Commerce. Some think it should be the UN. Honestly, I really don't know why. It's a minor thing that has nothing to do with actually controlling anything. If you don't like the US DoC controlling your root (and remember it's just the file, not the servers themselves), you already have alternatives.

Re:freedom?

[afd8856]

writing with one hands is tougher than it seems, right? :-)

Re:freedom?

[anotherzeb]

How does veto'ing the .xxx domain censor people's ability to see boobs on the net? Sure, you won't be able to go to lotsofbigboobs.xxx, but won't lotsofbigboobs.com still be able to exist? Also, relating to a previous post - if people weren't able to talk about nazis, wouldn't that affect discussions like those here on Slashdot, where more posts means more possibility of someone being compared to a nazi? For me, my freedom of speech to say as I see when I see someone acting as I think a nazi might is more important than my ability to see naked women. I know that nazi references on Slashdot aren't often very serious, but when my own government is trying to enforce control on its citizens in a way that seems increasingly like that of Hitler's government, I want to be able to say so without fear of censorship. I can live without porn a lot easier than I can live without freedom of speech

Re:freedom?

[pclminion]

Not exactly. Not all Germans were Nazis. Most, but not all, Nazis were German.

Well, I didn't mean it in an absolute sense.

Re:freedom?

[jacksonj04]

I'm sure that most countries would disagree with "The American Way" being the only alternative to communism. How about the British way? Or Australian way? French? German?

Re:freedom?

[suitepotato]

Yes, how true. More governments being involved always means more freedom.

Yeah, that was the idea of the League of Nations in the minds of people shortly to be plowed under by the Axis powers...

Re:freedom?

[AuMatar]

And what gives the government the right to decide what is obscene? The first ammendment doesn't say "except obscene speech".

Beyond that- what is obscene to me is porn to the next guy. The government has no right to make that decision, at *ANY* level of government.

Re:freedom?

[m50d]

Yes, how true. More governments being involved always means more freedom.

Oh yes, having less countries controlling a thing makes it more free. After all, governments made up of a single person are so much freer than those where there are a group of people.

Re:freedom?

[Rycross]

It was, however, shipped on the game disk. To use a ridiculous example to put it in perspective, what if kiddie porn was put into a game, locked out, and then shipped around with a E rating? What if this could be unlocked very easily with a game cheat device (I recall the PS2 versions could unlock it with a game cheat device, correct me if I am wrong)? Its not a simple black and white line of "its in the game" or "its not in the game." It was shipped with the game, and very easily unlocked, sort of a gray area.

As far as the fuss over sex... please. There has been a lot of fuss over GTA since it was launched. The sex was just more ammo to continue firing the volleys. You make it sound like everyone was ok with the game until sex was put in, which is blatently untrue. And even then, more people were upset with the fact that it seemed that Rockstar hid this content, and misled the ESRB. Not entirely accurate, but that was the perception.

To say that modders added the content (instead of unlocking it) and everyone got upset about it only because it was sex is a strawman, and blatantly incorrect.

Re:freedom?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

" cough, cough, GTA:SA ..."

Childish - just type your point and post.

"American censorship is no better."

The American government had nothing to do with GTA: SA being pulled from store shelves.

"As for the nazi stuff, maybe it's not good to celebrate a regime that murdered millions."

Sure - the answer to the horror and oppression perpetrated by the Nazis is more oppression. That makes a lot of sense.

Re:freedom?

[MooUK]

"Everyone" voluntarily agreeD. Once it's done, there is little people can do to change it.

Re:freedom?

[changa]

Concider American Scientoligists censoring Google for linking to sites about Xenu.

Concider MPAA censoring 2600 magazine for posting links to DeCSS.

How about the use of the DMCA to pull down information off the net because it is "Copyrighted"

Perhpas I am mistaken but I seem to rember many articles here about of censorship occuring in the US on the internet.

I don't belive our record is clean.

Re:freedom?

[speculatrix]

I prefer the old days, when the ICANN membership

bring back Jon Postel and IANA... he did it all practically for free instead of the huge financial wasteland that is ICANN and Verisign.

Re:freedom?

[diablomonic]

I've come to the conclusion that what it all comes down to is : parents are too stupid and embarrased to talk about sex with their kids (even though its a natural, REQUISITE, enjoyable, and relatively safe part of life when done right) so protest it being shown anywhere where a child might see it and ask embarrasing questions, whereas any kid with a sibling or two understands violence and any questions are seemingly less embarrassing to answer (although I think we should all be MUCH MORE embarrassed explaining why we are killing other human beings who have not attacked us than explaining a natural beautiful part of life)

(I also think it's mostly not concious that this is (part of) the reason, and its also drillied into many from a young age that sex is bad/naughty/dirty/sinfull/embarrasing so people accept it without thinking bout it)

Re:freedom?

[gcatullus]

I can agree entirely that what is obscene to me is porn to the next guy, but there must be a line somewhere. For example, are actual snuff films porn or obscene? What about porn depicting an adult having sex with a three year old child? Not that I claim to know where we should draw the line, but the definition of obscene can not be entirely relativistic.

Re:freedom?

[Rycross]

Which was my point. We don't have that kind of censorship in the US. The person I was responding to claimed that we did, referrencing GTA.

Re:freedom?

[roystgnr]

You're ignorant. "Nazi" is not a banned word. Discussion of Nazism is not illegal. Glorification of the Third Reich is illegal. Goose stepping is illegal.

And Wolfenstein 3D, In which the character escapes from a Nazi prison, was illegal - not because shooting make-believe Nazis is "glorifying the Third Reich", but because you saw some swastikas while doing so.

As an American I don't really agree with these policies, either, but perhaps the Germans themselves are in a better position to judge the necessity of such laws.

Perhaps it's exactly the opposite. The Germans may be in a better position to appreciate the obvious necessity of avoiding totalitarian governments, but when it comes to the less obvious questions of *how* to avoid them, I'd trust the answers from a culture that has so far succeeded more than from one that has failed. There is very little risk of a new resurgence of Nazi power, and that risk is *increased* by giving neo-Nazis a sense of persecution to rally around. There is a greater risk of a resurgence of totalitarianism, and that risk is also increased by training the public to accept and even defend government restrictions on political speech.

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

The way I see it, countries should be able to control their own domains. The U.S. will keep the null domain (i.e. no country suffix), but domain names in the .uk area will be controlled by an organization appointed by the UK government, .cn by the Chinese government, etc. and all countries should agree to propagate the changes.

You just described the status quo. And if you don't want the US to control your "." root, there are alternative roots, or you can create your own. The US only "controls" the root because thats where (almost) everyone in the world voluntarily points their name servers. The UN, the EU or any other corrupt body is free to set up their own "." and encourage networks to point at it.

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

Jesus, yeah. I'm fed up with this hypocracy. The US government wants to enslave the world. Period. If you doubt this, you've never opened a history book in your life. Even US citizens have no control over their own government, and want it to stop. The rest of the world just wants it's fair share. The rest of the world having a fair share is a threat to the greedy swine in suits. There's a reason why the majority of Linux distributions are started outside the US, even though some of the countries releasing Linux are showing up pretty dark on this map: http://www.exittoafrica.com/images/maps/m_world_ni ght-sky.jpg.

If this government is democratic, then it rules in my name. I don't want to be a global scourge.

Re:freedom?

[jeriqo]

How about Michael Moore's documentaries being censored in the United States ?

Funny thing is that Americans are probably the people on earth than know the least about America.

This is disgusting.

Re:freedom?

[onepoint]

It's very easy to answer that. It was created with US tax money. It was created for Americans and Europe to protect themselves from attack. it's been funded by the ton load and we paid for it. So at the end of the day, we own it. I'm writing to my senator and demanding that we don't loose it.

Worst case situation is that the rest of the world breaks off from the USA. I would guess that would last about 18 hours. then they would all come back.

Big industry needs us right now, so we still have the leverage.

Onepoint

Re:freedom?

[thesnarky1]

Thank you for saying that, its exactly what I've beent rying to explain to my friends here. I firmly agree that this whole argument is pointless, and would love to see real news here instead of this.

Re:freedom?

[acvh]

short answer, yes. the supreme court has ruled that the first amendment applies regardless of citizenship - in most cases. in time of war this can be moderated.

Re:freedom?

[AndersOSU]

My mistake after the rating was raised to adults only it was pulled from store shelves. My point, however, still stands.

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

what this boils down to is who gets to say what new TLDs (like .com, .net, etc.) will be created.

Yeah, like the FCC's only purpose in life was to control frequency use. Boy, they sure didn't run away with their drunken power binge on that one, did they? Hey, our government has an *excellent* record of never abusing authority, this what you're saying?

Re:freedom?

[DarthStrydre]

I hate to feed flamebait... but

"You think all that routing, networking and software you use was invented in the US? Oh, ok."

Routing and networking... goes back to the packet switched networks in ARPANET, ALOHANET in the 70's. Or perhaps you are refering to the TCP/IP stack we use today. Oops, you lose there again - Windows makes use (at least when it was first becoming network aware) largely of the Berkeley IP stack from over there in California. *BSD obviously uses this stack. Other operatin g systems do as well, directly, or in translation. What has come around since then has been similar to the advances in automobile engines in the past 50 years... bolt-ons that may offer some improvement, are nice to have, but not necessary in the least. Who needs anything more than telnet ftp, usenet and gopher? The intarweb addition by CERN was nice, but "has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move".

"Other nations that carry it to where it is today."

I agree that the useful stuff comes from places other than the US. Who can deny the catchiness of the Yatta craze? SSH is awesome. Countless other things as well.

The UN did not make the internet, it was a project of US military, handed over to private industry. The US has not abused its ability to manage the internet namespace to date. Given its track record, I cannot say the same would have happened had it been in the hands of the UN. I am not saying the UN would not be reliable - that is the topic of a whole different discussion. I am saying that up until now, there has been no reason to change. If it is not broken, do not go give it to someone else to frell.

Re:freedom?

[klang]

Well, China has more or less closed it's Internet borders to the rest of the world anyway, to protect their citizens from ideas of democracy and stuff like that.

USA on the other hand would probably just (down the road) protect all of us form downloading from certain domains. Popular torrent or God forbid Pr0n sites! BUT, parental control sells well with some people, so who am I to argue?

Re:freedom?

[hcob$]

And what does this matter, in about 10 years, the IPv4 Address space will be exhausted... so there will be a new overlord^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H controlling body at that point.

Re:freedom?

[glesga_kiss]

Granted Iran is not a Communist country, but it's not exactly a place that encourages any sort of free and open expression of ideas.

Argh!!! Communism/Socialism has nothing to do with freedom. It's an economic system. Your issue is with "totalitairism" and asshole despot leaders.

Until the American public realises that, your fears will continue to be abused by the politicians. If that's your definition of "freedom", then I don't want it.

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

Perish the day when we can't even register domain names like "naziscansuckmyballs.com"

What, you've never heard of hate-crime laws here in America? Try yelling your posting out loud on a college campus, and three Germans will immediately rush over with lawyers to sue for racial discrimination, two women will prosecute you for sexual harrassment for saying "balls", and a passing Jew will wail in court that he suffered emotional trauma for your outburst because it triggered an Auschwitz flashback.

Re:freedom?

[ifwm]

"Communism/Socialism has nothing to do with freedom."

In a purely Communist political system, do I have FREEDOM to own property?

No. So obviously it has SOMETHING to do with freedom.

Re:freedom?

[AndersOSU]

The definition of obsenity is not vague. In order for something to be obscene, it has to be explicity forbidden by law, fail to have scientific, artistic, or literary value, and appeal to prurient interest judged by an average person, applying contemporary community standards.

The only thing slightly vague in there is that community is not explicitly defined.

Re:freedom?

[JoeCodeMonkey]

That sir is an inductive fallacy due to a false analogy. A single representative government cannot be compared to a group of nations some of which are representative and some of which are tyrannical. That is to say, you cannot compare the United States and the UN as to the validity of the right of ownership based on the representative nature of either body. They simply aren't comparable. Not in a way that either supports or opposes your argument.

Re:freedom?

[Lucractius]

I demand you take the Cisco box apart and see where the american company gets its parts to make the things, that makes the internet work, work :P

Re:freedom?

[Craig Davison]

All they need to do is convince ISC and Microsoft to change the zone file they ship with their DNS server software. Every time a new DNS server is set up or upgraded, it will point at the new root servers.

Re:freedom?

[Ngwenya]

it's laughable watching all the anti-American slashbots get worked into a lather over it.

Actually, an equal amount of the silly shit seems to be coming from the jingoist community, who are just as well represented here.

If you don't like the US DoC controlling your root (and remember it's just the file, not the servers themselves), you already have alternatives.

Of course - and that's exactly what the EU and UN might end up doing if they can't get agreement from the US. It's their right to get their root service from anywhere [although I suspect many of their citizens would continue to use the ICANN root anyway], and the US can't stop them (and couldn't give two shits about even trying). But I think they're trying to see if consensus can't win over here.

However, I don't actually disagree with the gist of what you're saying. For the greater part of the Internet community, control over the root zone will mean ... absolutely bugger all.

--Ng

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

What's with the creationism trolls?

Re:freedom?

[StopSayingYouSir]

From wikipedia:

"In United States law, chilling effects refer to the stifling effect that vague or overbroad laws may have on legitimate speech and activity typically protected by the First Amendment."

My emphasis.

Re:freedom?

[Richard Steiner]

Even an accurate media portrayal of a given country presents a far less complete picture of that country than actually living in that country would present.

If you really think we don't have access to Michael Moor's documentaries here in the US, than you seem understand the US a lot less than you thought...

Re:freedom?

[Microlith]

Possession of child porn is largely a crime.

What Rockstar did is not.

It's not "grey," Rockstar discarded something stupid, it was found and Hillary rode it like a horse.

To say that modders added the content (instead of unlocking it) and everyone got upset about it only because it was sex is a strawman, and blatantly incorrect.

Not once did I say that. But then your argument is built on a farce so I guess I could ignore that. They -only- got fussy cause it was SEX. There's never been THIS much of a shitfest over GTA before.

Re:freedom?

[cayenne8]

"The US has not abused its ability to manage the internet namespace to date. Given its track record, I cannot say the same would have happened had it been in the hands of the UN"

I'm with you on this one....the old if it ain't broke, don't fix it saying comes to mind. What exactly will putting the UN in charge of this do to help things? What exactly is being done wrong so far? Has the US's management of this proven flawed and caused problems with other countries in the world using the internet?

It seems that if it has been working just fine till now, a change could potentially add nothing but new problems.

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

What? When was Michael Moore censored?

Re:freedom?

[JoeCodeMonkey]

>As for the nazi stuff, maybe it's not good to celebrate a regime that murdered millions. I'm confused, who is celebrating the Nazis? Europe certainly has more than its share of Neo-Nazis. The issue is do you face the past or push it under the rug? I think Europe chose the latter approach. If some American wants to sell on Ebay the SS emblem that his grandfather took from the body of a dead Nazi, what's the harm? It is a piece of history. Might it offend the grandson of said Nazi? Maybe that's why it is illegal?

Re:freedom?

[Daytona955i]

GTA:SA was not censored, just given a higher, more "mature" rating which essentially killed it because no one wants to carry it in the stores. However, they are still free to make the game. How is that censorship exactly?

Re:freedom?

[boldtbanan]

The irony of your comment is that it's 100% true.

A 1 person government can't enforce whatever stupid rules it comes up with, hence there is much more freedom.

The problem you think you're describing is 1 person in control of a large government. That gives the 1 person the ability to proclaim that everyone wear hats on Tuesday, and enforce it by killing everyone who doesn't (through the rest of the government). Without the large government to back him up, someone else would shoot him first.

The smaller the government, the more freedom people have. Granted that also can mean less security, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Re:freedom?

[Delphiki]

The function of government is to restrict freedom, theoritically to the benefit of everyone. If you add more governments there will be more ways in which they want to restrict freedom. It's possible that they could all negate each other, preventing anyone from getting any freedoms restricted, but the political process in practice doesn't work that way. Instead, if politican 1 wants to restrict freedom A, he will probably just agree to help politican 2 restrict freedom B in order to achieve his own goals.

Re:freedom?

[InfraRED]

you probably have, what you don't have is the FREEDOM to monopolize capital

Re:freedom?

[poopdeville]

The government does not, I repeat: does not decide what is obscene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test

In practice, if a District Attorney wishes to prosecute someone for obscenity, the DA presents evidence to the Grand Jury (a jury of your peers) to determine if there is enough evidence to indict. A major component of that is whether the content you're accused of producing/distributing/etc is obscene. That is, the Grand Jury decides. Even if they decide that it is obscene, you can exercise your right to trial, at which point you may submit evidence that the community at large does not find the content obscene. Typically, the ACLU takes care of the legal defense and conducts telephone surveys of the community on behalf of the defendant.

Re:freedom?

[Dachannien]

France and Germany have every right to try and get UN resolution to forbid Nazi stuff from the internet.

Just as Syria has every right to try to get a UN resolution to forbid Israeli/Jewish stuff on the Internet? The point is that with the Internet under UN control, the right to censorship is available at the foundational level. It shouldn't be that way. If Syria wants to filter out all traffic to Israeli web sites at their borders, they can feel free to do so. If China wants to block information about Falun Gong from their country, let them go right ahead. But when that control extends to a global level through a mechanism such as DNS, where censorship can't be bypassed without creating technological problems, we have a serious problem. The US hasn't been abusing its position in this regard, something that is even less certain if control were to pass elsewhere.

Wikipedia indicates that the US Department of Commerce has objected to the .xxx domain, but doesn't say that their objection is binding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx

It also indicates that the situation regarding the legality of online gambling in the US is somewhat more complicated than you suggest (and in any event, there's still an abundance of online gambling available on the Internet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

As for pr0n, yes, the feds frequently try to crack down on pornography, but just as often, the right to free speech is upheld on appeal by judges who value the First Amendment over dubious claims regarding pornography. However, the US is not trying to leverage DNS in its crackdown.

As many others here have said, censorship is a huge reason why other countries want UN control over DNS. With it in US control, that isn't a problem, because freedom of speech is at the very heart of the way the country works. Yes, the UN includes a statement of freedom of expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but even after 57 years, the document is still just a non-binding "feel-good" resolution.

Re:freedom?

[hcob$]

Jesus, yeah. I'm fed up with this hypocracy. The US government wants to enslave the world. Period. If you doubt this, you've never opened a history book in your life.

*Points to Canada*
*Points to Mexico*
*Points to the Pacifist^H^Hc Ocean*
*Points to the Anal-retentive^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htlantic Ocean
You're free to travel in any of those directions towards open borders. Let's hope you do the world a favor and take one of the last two... Oh, and don't bring any scuba gear other than the belt. HAVE FUN!

Re:freedom?

[drinkypoo]

As for the nazi stuff, maybe it's not good to celebrate a regime that murdered millions.

Celebrate a regime? We're talking about a game where your whole mission is to kill nazis and their mythical secret weapons of war. If that's a celebration it explains why people intentionally go out on holidays and drink alcohol to "get trashed".

Let's face it, the Nazi thing is something that happened. Germany had no choice after WWII but to impose a kind of self-revulsion any time the Nazi thing ever came up. The only way to not have the whole world hate them forever was to hate themselves even more. This kind of self-loathing may have been diplomatically necessary at some point (though clearly every world power has at some point gotten carried away with war) but I am of the opinion that it is intrinsically harmful in that it is a sincere self-effacement and if you tell yourself something for long enough, you will believe it.

And keep in mind that stuff is LOCAL. As in, you can sell the game, just not there. So really your point has no bearing on the general theme of running the the internet.

You may have missed the whole "U.N." thing. While united nations is something of an oxymoron, the UN likes to make usually toothless mandates that define things supposedly equally for all countries. How would you like ending up not being able to buy Nazi shit on ebay in Amerikkka because Germany ended up too powerful on the U.N. Internet Council?

Ultimately, there is no reason whatsoever why the U.N. needs to be involved with the internet at all. The whole idea of the internet is that it is peer to peer, so there is no need for a central worldwide governing body, and frankly there is little need for any governing body aside from for doling out IPs. The internet may have started in government but it is privatized today and for the most part, working fine.

If there is a problem it is that there are a few organizations which are entirely too powerful in the system. The continuing proliferation of internet-connected devices and the ongoing uptake of the internet by basically everyone on the planet (some places far more slowly than others of course) will lead us to a world in which it is practical to use alternate name resolution systems and so on. The larger the market, the more niches are created... So the 'net can become a far more abuse-resistant organism than it is today, and the need for [probably corrupt] overseers will decrease with time, not increase.

The more bureaucracies you involve in a system, the more inefficient it will become. Handing the 'net to the U.N. is a bad idea.

Re:freedom?

[Dachannien]

The fact that it was self censorship is irrelevant, the result for the citizen is the same.

So every time a movie director decides, "No, that scene didn't work. Cut it," the movie-consuming public suffers?

Self-censorship is part of freedom of speech - the right not to say something is just as important as the right to say it.

Re:freedom?

[Thangodin]

And I'm still not sure what it is all these countries find so disagreeable about the way it's being run, apart from the fact that it's being run by Americans. As far as I can see, they're doing a good job, which is really all that matters. If someone has specific criticisms of the way it's being run, propose an alternate way, and put it to a vote. But protesting about America running it, just because it's America, is bullshit, and makes me rather suspicious of their motives. And I'm not even an American...

Re:freedom?

[m50d]

Plato got away with comparing people and governments to say what makes a good city-state government and a good person, it makes sense to extend that to what makes a good international governing body compared with what makes a good government of a country.

Re:freedom?

[drinkypoo]

It's not censorship if you do it to yourself. It's editing. Rockstar is free to make an AO-rated game that features content involving people having sex. This limits their target market, so for the sake of money, they decided to make an M-rated game that didn't have the salami hiding minigame. THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP. Censorship is when your work has to make it past some official to even be sold, like on TV.

Re:freedom?

[JoeCodeMonkey]

What about DNS?

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

fuck you you leave. Why does this supposedly free society with allegedly Democratic rights for all demand deportation to the enslaved countries for the tiny offense of airing criticism of it in public? It's my vote, for "We the People", right? And I FUCKING SAY I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF A FUCKING DICTATORSHIP! That's my citizenly opinion on how to run this country. Go back to FOX "news" and get your robot brain programmed some more.

Re:freedom?

[takis]

More specifically to your post title; what country offers more freedoms then the US? The socialist nations of the EU certainly don't. Socialism by definition rules itself out. Who? Some tribe in Africa? China? Brazil?

Now that's funny. Most of Western-Europe citizens enjoy a lot more freedom then the citizens of the US.

Tell me, if you go to a rockconcert in Saint Louis for example (as I have been there), you aren't allowed to drink a beer wherever you please in the concerthall. I even bought a _non_ alcohol beer -okay, I _know_ that non-alcoholic beer still contains some alcohol- as I had hoped I could drink this while standing near the stage, but alas.

What happens when you smoke a joint in the US? Well, here in Belgium we even have a state secretary who admits enjoying a joint now and then. He states this just as another person would say he enjoys some whiskey now and then or likes to smoke a cigar.

Why do you hear all these beeps on MTV? Haven't got the freedom to hear some cursewords?

Nudity on television. I'm not talking about pornography, just nudity. Like when someone takes a bath, it might happen that the person undresses before he gets in the tub. Well, in Europe, indeed she/he would be nude. The same with computer games. There's heaps of games which are extremely violent, and children there's no fuss about it. Then there's the famous GTA-SA scene and WOW major commotion. I'm not saying that it is good or bad that that scene was in that specific game, I'm just trying to illustrate that to me it seems stranges that so many extremely violent games and movies are produced in the US, while a bit of nudity is shunned (again, I'm not talking about pornography).

So, the only rights I'm aware of that the US citizens have which the Europeans lack is the right to buy weapons in supermarkets and the right to make racist propaganda. Now why is that so great?

So my point would be that no citizens on this world have absolute freedom, and neither would it be possible to build a society with total and absolute freedom. But, if I could pick and chose I'd rather give in the right to buy a gun in the supermarket and to spread hatefull propagana and get the other beforementioned freedoms instead.

Furthermore, you seem to have a very distorted view on life in Europe. What do you think this "evil socialism" does in Europe? Take away our freedom? No, it is there to prevent people falling into absolute poverty and ending in the gutter. If you get really sick here in Europe or if you lose your job, you will not end up being a beggar on the streets. Other then that it means that there are certain things the goverment pays for (through taxes ofcourse) such as a free public library, free education, (nearly) free access to universities (100EUR/year or so for the lowest incomes), cheap public transportation that covers the entire continent and other similar nice things.

That said, I'm not for or against handing over the root-DNS servers to the U.N. or keeping it handled by the US. Frankly, I don't really care. And, as it is working now, so I don't see a reason for change. Although I must confess that the problems with the delivery of electricity in California has given me some doubts about the capability of the US to deal even with the most basic supplies for its citizens. And the handling of the crisis in New Orleans doesn't show great management capabilities either. So, maybe there haven't been awful problems with DNS yet, if they come, will the US be capable of handling them? I'm not really sure anymore.

The internet that you are trying to "steal" control over wouldn't exist today without the US, but it would exist today without your nation. It's was our money, businesses, and our citizens that made it what it is today. Others helped, but the overwhelming load was carried by Americans. Starting with our scientists, our pentagon, our MONEY, all the way down to our businesses (e.g. Cisco) and then working its way down

Re:freedom?

[DissidentHere]

Cheers to you!

It's as if some child says 'I'm running away' in the evening and ends up in a local bar/restaurant/strip joint/bookstore - who is really responsible for what he/she sees? On top of that, the child has to kill three cops and 5 hookers and do 4 lines of blow to get there. But add on top of that, the child needs turn by turn directions in crayon to a dark alley with a password "42" and a second password "purplemonkeydishwasher" to actually get in.

C'mon conservatives - kinds can find 'objectionable' so much more easily - like by walking outside, watching TV or reading your public record.

Re:freedom?

[Kafka_Canada]

True, but does it really matter? European kids won't grow up to live in a free country anyway. Europe's decline into non-democratic fascism is already well begun, and it doesn't help any that they're seemingly eager to assist the Islamo-fascists who will play a role in bringing their descent to fruition.

Re:freedom?

[susano_otter]

The only problem with this scenario is the same problem with the U.N. Human Rights Commission scenario: the worst human rights violators get a vote, and even get a regular turn chairing the thing.

Given that the conventional wisdom seems to be that what is good for the Internet is bad for the current Chinese regime, and what is good for the current Chinese regime is bad for the Internet, giving the current Chinese regime a greater say in the administration of the Internet seems like a step backwards. See also: The French, who have been very vocal and active lately about making the Internet suck even more than usual.

What, exactly, would the U.N. contribute to the Internet, except an increase in bureaucracy, government regulation, and wastage?

Nobody likes the amount of bureaucracy, government regulation, and wastage in the current America-managed Internet. I just don't see how turning it over to the U.N. would be an improvement. I always assumed that people preferred to make problems better, not worse. We should really be advocating less oversight, not more.

Re:freedom?

[drdewm]

And right on schedule the litany of comments citing freedoms and accomplishments of the past while ignoring the erosion of freedoms and lack of prosperity of the present. The world sees that the USA is becoming a corrupt and unpredictable monopolistic elitist bully and they don't want to just lay back and be rolled over. When the economy US collapses from over dependence on foreign everything and corruption and it becomes too expensive to run those DNS servers that everyone depends on how can you fault the UN countries from trying to have a little insurance?

Re:freedom?

[ifwm]

"cough, cough, GTA:SA ..."

Foot in your mouth Tom, is that why you're coughing? You do realize GT:SA was in no way censored, so apart from a funny non sequitur this point is meaningless.

"As for the nazi stuff, maybe it's not good to celebrate a regime that murdered millions."

Completely missed the point. The only thing you do by censoring speech is to assign extra meaning to that speech. What if I want to have a website denouncing the nazis, but using their symbolism? Oops, guess you didn't think of that.

Who gets to decide where the line is Tom? Who decides what things are ok to celebrate and what aren't?

So, mostly your post says "AMERICA BAD!!! OTHER COUNTRIES LIMTING SPEECH GOOD!!!" with no real logic or reason at all.

Re:freedom?

[teromajusa]

So, it should stay in the hands of United States government, which remains untainted by any hint of corruption? You don't follow current events very closely, do you? Here's a few keywords for you to google: Halliburton, Enron, Abu Ghraib, Valerie Plame, Frist, Delay, Jack Abramoff, Iraqi WMD, no bid contract, Guantanamo. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that these scandals make the US untrustworthy for this job, just that your saying that the UN is less untrustworthy because of one scandal is silly. In general, the right's pointing to the oil-for-food scandal as proof that the UN is completely corrupt is ironic and absurd given the numerous corruption scandals it is currently suffering from.

Re:freedom?

[Roscol]

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I know these organizations are not the UN, but they are international organizations that are dominated by politics and are not accountable to anyone.

The IOC. Highly corrupt and not free speech friendly. You have to bribe them to get the olympics (Salt Lake City, anyone). They own the super trademark "olympic" and any derived term. They attempted to get ownership of words like "summer" and "games" around the time of Summer Games in London (oops, can I say that?)

The WTO. Likely in interfere in the economies of sovereign states. One example is their trying, after centuries of use, to re-claim common words as region names and limit their use in trade. For example, trying to say you can't sell cheese labeled "cheddar cheese" unless it comes from Cheddar, England.

The EU WRT Airbus. Airbus has received countless government subsidies to build, from scratch, a competitor to Boeing. Now that Airbus is the largest airplane manufacturer in the world, you'd think the government subsidies would stop, (or at least be reduced) right?

Can you imagine what an organization like the above could do to the internet?

Re:freedom?

[rainman_bc]

At least in Europe children are not indoctrinated with retarded ideas such as creationism.

Yes, because France and Italy are predominantly Atheist right?

Re:freedom?

[gordo3000]

yes, in fact, unlike capitalism, everyone is guaranteed a piece of land. In a democratic republic, do I have the freedom to run for office? the correct answer is no. I can't just stand up and say I'm running and have my name on the ballot. I have to do about 10 other things that cost loads of money. So I am in certain ways restricted. Same thing(in pure communism). unfortunately, you lack the right to own nothing or to monopolize the resources. while this does keep growth from reaching a maximum rate(if you consider capitalism to be the fastest an economy can grow) everyone does get something. I choose capitalism personally,but as the op said, there is a major difference between theoretical communism and communism tied in to a dictatorship.

Re:freedom?

[ipxodi]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not from the USA and don't know any better. There are only a handful of communities in the US that are trying to stupidly incorporate Intelligent Design (I.e., "Creationism") into their school systems. Perhaps a total of 20.
If you consult your atlas, you'll see that the US has 50 states, most of which have hundreds of individual school districts.
So your blanket statement is automatically absurd.

Re:freedom?

[ifwm]

"At least in Europe children are not indoctrinated with retarded ideas such as creationism."

At least in America, children are taught to respect others' beliefs, even if they don't make sense.

Re:freedom?

[Gumber]

Not to mention that in many other countries (including european countries), the landline telco was long a nationalized monopoly. You think private monopolies are slow and stifling? Just throw in national politics and buracracy into the mix.

Re:freedom?

[rainman_bc]

Yes, I love the irony. The apathy towards violence IMO is quite comical. A game with senseless killing is okay for kids, but dare we through a sex scene in there and it ceases to be okay??? WTF??? And you Americans wonder why you're such a violent society...

Re:freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

No freedoms or accomplishments in 50 years?

What an uneducated and childish response. You're welcome to leave.

Re:freedom?

[tombeard]

Yea right. Here, put on these manacles so I don't have to. Freedom in the 21st century.

Re:freedom?

[Dachannien]

Phony interview? So sez the Dems. Even the LA Times can't come up with a sentence to incriminate the administration without making a fairly grandiose assumption on context. Note the brackets around "question" in this article, when "answer" or even "topic" would have been more accurate:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f g-bush14oct14,0,7903715.story?coll=la-home-headlin es

Also note that the article indicates that the soldiers didn't ask the questions - they answered them. The "coaching" was so that the soldiers knew which other soldier was best suited to answer particular questions. The soldiers would then know whom to hand the microphone to next, based on the question that was asked. They weren't told how to answer.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1174 866.php

Nevertheless, the Democrats and Jon Stewart spout kneejerk nonsense as to what was going on, and all the Bush haters out there take it as gospel truth.

Re:freedom?

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

At least in America children are not indoctrinated with godless, marxist ideas. Now, that'd be an awful thing to say, the street runsboht ways.

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

Logically qualify that statement coherently and I'll consider it.

Re:freedom?

[Decameron81]

Sure, but that's completely different from China controlling it, as you mentioned. The UN or some other similar international body SHOULD control DNS servers, rather than one single country (any one country).

Seriously, how can the US government call itself a promoter of democracy and freedom when they are not willing to give other people with different points of view a chance to voice their opinion as well. Is the concept of US democracy for-their-citizens-only?

In any case I see no reason why other democracies of the world shouldn't be able to participate. Claiming that the US is "more free" than, for example France, is just a demonstration that the real issue lies somewhere else.

Re:freedom?

[Red Flayer]

Except that the game industry adopted the ESRB system because of the threat of government censorship.

In principal, this is just as much government censorship as direct censorship by government is.

Re:freedom?

[Doug Dante]

Just like reporters in the US voluntarily avoided questioning the actions of J Edgar Hoover and the FBI?

Or just like newspapers in Hong Kong voluntarily avoid articles that are too critical of the central government in Beijing?

Or how news of the severity of the plague of 1919 was voluntarily toned down in the US?

Or how the crash of a space ship in Roswell, New Mexico was voluntarily suppressed?

(Well, 3 out of 4 isn't bad).

Re:freedom?

[ifwm]

"and America has already started to censor the internet by veto'ing the .xxx domain."

Explain, please how this is censorship? Is there some type of content that I'm unaware of, which is ok for the .xxx domain but unacceptable for others?

Re:freedom?

[nordi]

> In a purely Communist political system, do I have FREEDOM to own property?

In the USA, do you have the freedom to take cocaine? To kill the president? Individual freedom stops where you start threatening society itself. Any society that does not limit your freedom in this way is doomed to fail, hence all current societies do that.

Owning property that can be used for industrial/agricultural production threatens a socialist society, that's why it is forbidden (_not_ individual property in general). Being allowed to take cocaine would threaten the American society, and that's why it is forbidden there.

Re:freedom?

[timmyf2371]

Poor credit and trying to get a landline? Provide two-months worth of basic service as a deposit (less then $20 in Verizon land) and they have to give you service. Poor credit and trying to get a cell phone? Pay insanely huge ass and out of line deposit that they aren't even required to pay interest on and don't have to give back to you after six or twelve months. In fact, the last time a friend of mine tried to get service from Verizon Wireless (the only mobile carrier here with coverage worth shit) they wanted a thousand dollar deposit.

Don't you get prepaid service in the USA?

I know the cellular networks in the USA are behind that of other countries in general, but surely prepay accounts are available?

Re:freedom?

[orasio]

That's an interesting choice of words.
In an purely liberal system, you are not assured the FEEDOM to eat, either.
Or the FREEDOM to live in a house.
Or the FREEDOM to get an education.
Or the FREEDOM to get medical care.

Owning property is one of the Human Rights, of course, but no economic system assures all of them.

Just because communism has failed miserabily, it doesn't mean it's a completely idiotic idea. I believe it's good to measure other systems against it. Capitalism is a means, too, non an objective. The objective is the well being of the society and te individuals that form it. We have a lot to learn from every system. Just because communism is easily used by totalitarians, it doesn't mean Marx was an idiot with nothing useful to say. Totalitarians have that nasty habit of getting power in every system. Of course some are more fragile than others.

Re:freedom?

[hcob$]

fuck you you leave. Why does this supposedly free society with allegedly Democratic rights for all demand deportation to the enslaved countries for the tiny offense of airing criticism of it in public? It's my vote, for "We the People", right? And I FUCKING SAY I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF A FUCKING DICTATORSHIP! That's my citizenly opinion on how to run this country. Go back to FOX "news" and get your robot brain programmed some more.

You are correct that it's your vote, but you have been consistantly over ridden by less fanatical people. You can say what you want, just as I can suggest that if you really "don't want to be part of a dictatorship" then you have other options of citizenship. I don't really expect you to go running off into the ocean, but I'm weary of everyone using hindsight to justify venomous attacks with no real basis.

People in the US like people who make good plans. Yelling and whining and screaming does nothing but tick people off. Here's a suggestion, go run for office and see just how many supporters you can garner with your rhetoric. Dean recently tried to run for president on that level of "debate" and lost horribly... have fun!

Re:freedom?

[AuMatar]

If a DA is bringing charges to a grand jury, the DA is deciding it is obscene. Period. And a grand jury has no more right to decide I can or can't make or read a certain type of speech than anyone else. I fail to see where the exception for "unless a grand jury decides otherwise" is in the first ammendment as well. Damn, I must need new glasses or something.

Re:freedom?

[ifwm]

"WE HAVE FREE SPEECH HERE"

I would like the opportunity to open a store called "nazi's are awesome" and sell material related to the glorious Nazi campaigns. Then I would like to advertise on TV, and create a website to sell my goods.

Then, of course, you idiots will send me to jail.

Sure, free speech. You need to stop lying to yourself.

Re:freedom?

[Dachannien]

Yes, the atrocities of WWII were horrendous. Yes, you want to make sure nobody can ever perpetrate such atrocities again. The monuments that remind Europe and the rest of the world about what happened there during the war are important and vital to making sure history doesn't repeat itself.

But when will it be time to stop sheltering people from the swastika and the Third Reich? Why is it necessary to forbid people from buying Nazi memorabilia? Why is it necessary to ban a game that frames the Nazi regime as being evil, just because it features the swastika (and features it as a target for your anger, no less)? If Europe had truly come to terms with what the Nazis did, these laws would no longer be necessary. As it stands, Europe is still obsessing over it, and can't get a grip on the fact that it really is history now.

There are items that cannot be sold on the US Market either.

Not for speech reasons. Such items can't be sold because they are physically dangerous, easy to dupe people with (real estate, stocks, loans), or because there are special taxes levied on their sale. And even in most of those cases, you can get a license to sell those things.

Re:freedom?

[TuomasK]

What attack?

Re:freedom?

[MKalus]

Consider next that Germany outlawed Wolfenstein 3D because it contained various symbols of the WWII Nazi regime, despite the game hardly being sympathetic to the Nazis.

True, but those rules came from the US after the end of the war. And you cannot "pick and chose" when a sign is appropriate and when not.

It was decided (very long ago) that the swastika is NOT something that is allowed in Germany and that's it. They are just consequent in the way they go about it.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with censorship either. Change the symbol and the thing would have been fine (from that standpoint).

Besides, as someone else pointed out: America & Sex isn't working any better, now is it? I really don't understand the fuss about "Hot Coffee".

Re:freedom?

[Delphiki]

Plato got away with comparing people and governments

I think the key phrase is got away with. But even setting aside my complaints about The Republic, my interpretation of the book was different. It seemed to me what he was doing was not trying to justify that the government should be that way because it is like the good person, but trying to make clearer his explanation of why the city would be good. His arguments about the city-state would not have been any more or less valid without the comparison to the good person, they just would've been harder to understand.

The analogy between a government of the people and a government of governments is weak anyway, unless you assume that more government is better. Otherwise, you run afoul of the argument that government is better when it is closer to the people. Instead of people voting on representatives to send to congress, such as in the US, governments would choose a person to send to the international body, and the way that these are determined would vary from being entirely undemocratic to perhaps an elected official, though I don't know how many democratic countries elect a representative to the UN, if any.

Re:freedom?

[Bloke down the pub]

What a country does with regard to IP routing, firewalling, etc within their borders is completely separate from the proposed handover of administration in IP allocation and other such policies.

Only because, at the monment, they don't have the power to do it outside their borders too.

Re:freedom?

[Pig Hogger]

At least in Europe children are not indoctrinated with retarded ideas such as creationism.

Yes, because France and Italy are predominantly Atheist right?

Do we detect a tone of disapproval, here? Pray tell, what would be wrong for France and Italy to be atheist???

Re:freedom?

[MKalus]

Those games aren't banned. What happens is they are restricted to people of ages 18 and over.

They are also not allowed to be displayed in places where kids could see them, they can only be sold to adults, this also eliminates any mail order.

That is not censorship. Censorship would remove those games from the market entirely. This just restricts access to minors, similar to your AO rating.

Besides, do you have any idea how LONG it takes for this "censorship" to kick in? It can be months, because they only look at these things once someone complains to them, then they have to look at it. They don't just go out on their own to find and get rid of those games.

Re:freedom?

[Directrix1]

You're right! Christianity in its literal form is ignorance. Therefore, you should celebrate your cultures dissidence by presenting one side to every equation. Program your children, don't let them decide on their own. After all, you were involved first hand with the research which disproved it. Religion = belief system. Your religion is the observation of propagated theories by presumed trusted sources. Yet, you still follow blindly.

Re:freedom?

[gorbachev]

The US loves to censor "obscenity", which currently is defined by whoever howls "God will forsake you all, if you don't repent" the loudest.

Regardless, I fail to see the point of your post. They're not asking to give control to China or Europe, but to the UN. There is a bit of a difference, unless you think anything "not-US" is pretty much the same thing.

Re:freedom?

[Liam Slider]

Then again we're speaking about UN, i.e. global and democratic (jokes asside), no China nor Germany would enforce its view on internet to the world. Whether US standards are easier or not than the rest of the world is pointless, it's still one country to rule them all...

One country that doesn't censor the internet. The only reason other countries, even through the UN, want control is so they can censor the internet more effectively for their citizens. Last I heard though, free and uncensored access to information was considered one of the big Human Rights that the UN is always blathering on about...oh well. They're not the USA, so they can get away with ignoring the ones they don't like right?

Re:freedom?

[Bloke down the pub]

You do that displaying it isn't the same as supporting it, glorifying it or endorsing the ideas behind it, right?

Re:freedom?

[JoeCodeMonkey]

I don't think he was thinking along these lines. The organization of a good city state government and a national government may be similar. However, that argument is separate from who controls a function like DNS and it's location in a hierarchy of organizations.

If a supra-national government/organization is made up of similar national governments which are in turn made up of similar sub national entities, it makes sense to see a function such as DNS moved to the supra-national level.

For instance, if the UK controlled the root DNS servers it would be legitimate to argue that based on the shared values of the UK and other member nations of the EU, the DNS should be moved to the EU.

However, the UN is not really an organization of nation states that are equal in temperament, national organization or capacity. As such it isn't a completely legitimate supra national governing body. Totalitarian nations get a vote just like nations that derive the sovereignty from a mandate by their people.

Re:freedom?

[AndersOSU]

Do you see the "unless it's yelling fire in a crowded theater, or child porn" exceptions in the first ammendment either? Does that mean those are legal?

Re:freedom?

[antarctican]

Only because, at the monment, they don't have the power to do it outside their borders too.

If you really think that would occur, you truly are paranoid.

First, they would only be once voice, we're not talking about "giving the internet to the Chinese." Geez, talk about overblowing things.

Second, really, will this international body actually be able to enforce things in sovereign states? With the current status quo, has the USA been able to mandate "you shall not censor" to other countries with it's current control over the internet? Nope. Why on earth would that power change?

What this comes down to is Americans not wanting to give up their dominante world position, the idea of actually sharing control with any other country scares the shit out of them. Democracy on a world scale, what a concept.

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

Imagine if the US DoC decided that France was generally a bad idea (for example), and instructed ICANN to stop resolving .fr for a while.

ICANN does not actually run the servers (OK, they run one of 13) that serve the zone file, they just publish the file. If ICANN did something like delete the NS entries for .fr, I'm sure none of the root operators (who actually serve the zone) would accept it.

Re:freedom?

[antarctican]

What gives you the right to forbid China from having a say in the administration of the Internet?

The despicable way[1] they currently administer it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_i n_mainland_China

And has American control been able to do anything to prevent that? I really don't see how an international body could do any worse.

Censorship on a domestic level is completely different from address and name allocation. Apples and oranges.

And if I recall, certain American companies have recently been slammed for helping Chinese censorship. Where's the outcry from the US Senate over that? It seems like a double standard for freedom.... freedom, unless we can make a profit off oppression.

Re:freedom?

[Pig Hogger]

I can agree entirely that what is obscene to me is porn to the next guy, but there must be a line somewhere.

There can't be. One man's pr0n is another man's garbage.

Myself, I find pix of naked ch1x0r not arousing at all (must have been because my parents didn't make a big deal when I read my father's pr0n when I was a kid). However, put them in tight spandex - the more the better (even better: put them in basketball shoes), and I become horny as the devil.

Re:freedom?

[mdarksbane]

The line drawn by what you cite is that the creation of the video requires a criminal act. Having sex with a three-year-old is illegal, therefor encouraging people to make such videos by buying them is illegal.

Not to say this isn't without its own issues - technically, if you download a picture that you then find out is child pornography, delete it, and then someone finds it in your cache, it's a felony offense. But the general concept for creation of such items is at least decently clear-cut.

Re:freedom?

[keyboardsamurai]

Well frankly - yes. And like a number of other people already said: If I open up a "Usamas-r-us" fanstore right in the heart of NY, advocating terrorist attacks it will win me a trip to guantanamo. So there is really not that much of a difference. Sorry that i have to be so drastic in my example, but some people really don't seem to get it.

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

Of course - and that's exactly what the EU and UN might end up doing if they can't get agreement from the US.

Do the EU and the UN run an awfull lot of nameservers for use by others? I'm thinking no. This isn't a government issue. If you want to get DNS delegated from someone other than ICANN, set up your own DNS server and point it at one of the alternative roots, or talk to your ISP.

Re:freedom?

[MoneyT]

The don't have to impose, it will happen naturaly in an age where tollerance more and more frequently means banning that which someone finds offensive.

Re:freedom?

[Liam Slider]

The UN is not a representational body, it's members are not elected democratically, many come from nations which themselves are dictatorships. Doesn't sound like a very good government to me. And your premise makes the assumption that more government is good, and that is not really necessarily true. The more government is in place, the more restricted the people tend to be, the more rights taken away and violated. More government is, therefore, a bad thing.

Re:freedom?

[ifwm]

"Concider American Scientoligists censoring Google for linking to sites about Xenu."

Not the government, scientologists. Not censorship, trade secrets and copyright infringement.

"Concider MPAA censoring 2600 magazine for posting links to DeCSS."

Not the government again, jeez get your act together. Just because you don't like the DMCA, that's no reason to blatantly lie and call it censorship.

"How about the use of the DMCA to pull down information off the net because it is Copyrighted"

Not censorship. N-O-T C-E-N-S-O-R-S-H-I-P. 0 for 3 so far.

"Perhpas I am mistaken but I seem to rember many articles here about of censorship occuring in the US on the internet."

So post one. You have yet to do so, as all of your examples have NOTHING to do with censorship.

If you're pissed because companies exercised their (admittedly dubious) legal avenues in these cases, you be calling it the way it is, instead of rewritng the facts to fit your view.

The DMCA sucks. It's worse though, when people like you give it power it doesn't have, and use fear-mongering in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THE MPAA, RIAA, USDOJ, MICROSOFT, and other corporate bullies do.

Re:freedom?

[rainman_bc]

Do we detect a tone of disapproval, here? Pray tell, what would be wrong for France and Italy to be atheist???

Well if it were true, IMO there is nothing wrong, however it isn't true...

According to This
France:
90% Catholic, 6% unafilliated

You must be French. Your ability to comprehend sarcasm is quite funny...

Re:freedom?

[keyboardsamurai]

I agree that Germany is obsessive about the WW2. Somehow Germans still think they need to apologize for about anything to anyone in earshot. Sometimes, this behaviour is even understandable, given the stereotype picture of the "typical" German that one is associated with. This behaviour is clearly insane and I expect this to continue for some more decades.

However, I don't agree that the laws banning swastikas in public are outdated. Every Government has its own demons that it has to wrestle with, and I cannot imagine that it would be internationally looked upon very kindly if some hillbilly neonazis from the province of some godforsaken village start running amok in Berlin with swastikas and Sternmarsch-parade.

Anyways, you are allowed to sell and buy Nazi memorabilia in Germany. It is not illegal. I don't know why eBay had that much trouble with it. If I'd have the desire to decorate myself with a SS patch, I'd know the place where to buy it legally - right around the corner. In fact, even banned stuff, like the book "Mein Kampf" from Adolf Hitler is accessible to anyone with a legitimate interest in History. You just won't find that crap in every bookstore.

Re:freedom?

[Frymaster]

We don't have that kind of censorship in the US. The person I was responding to claimed that we did, referrencing GTA.

the united states has a long history of restricting expression. some if it may shock you.
start with these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act#1944:_Great _Sedition_Trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decenc y_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infr ingement_Liability_Limitation_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

Re:freedom?

[Hatta]

So every time a movie director decides, "No, that scene didn't work. Cut it," the movie-consuming public suffers?

No, not every time. But whenever he does so just so he can get under an R rating. It doesn't matter that rating films is done "voluntarily" by an industry organisation and not the government, the result is the same. That most people think movie ratings are required by the government is proof of this.

Now I can't read rockstar's mind, but I have to think that the hot coffee thing is one of these. The "mini-game" is pretty much the same gameplay as working out in the gym, which
was apparently good enough to make the cut. I'd say it's better, working out in the gym is
a chore, fucking your virtual girlfriend is at least good for a chuckle. They just didn't want an AO rating.

Re:freedom?

[Rycross]

Possession of child porn is largely a crime. What Rockstar did is not. It's not "grey," Rockstar discarded something stupid, it was found and Hillary rode it like a horse.

So its ok if its just normal pornography hidden in an E game?

Look, what I'm trying to point out is that they're trying to set a precedence. Its not much of a stretch to imagine a company could lock up some content, release a game under a T label, then later release patches or codes to unlock that content. I'm not saying thats what Rockstar is trying to do, but the fact of the matter is that some content was pushed out that was easily unlockable, that the ESRB didn't rate, and thats what the fuss was about.

Not once did I say that. But then your argument is built on a farce so I guess I could ignore that. They -only- got fussy cause it was SEX. There's never been THIS much of a shitfest over GTA before.

My argument is built on a farce? As a matter of fact, I remember the GTA being released, and I do remember a shitfest being had over it by Hillary and co. Ultimately, it came to nothing, until this happened. I've seen nothing to indicate that it was due to sex, but everything to indicate it was 1) another attempt for Hillary, Thompson, and co. to take another shot at it and 2) that people were concerned that unrated game content was shipped on the disk and unlockable with a cheat code or an easy patch.

Granted I think that getting that upset over 2 is a bit silly, but I feel that its good that Rockstar was called on it. I do believe it was a mistake on Rockstar's part instead of malicious action, and that the press was overblown, but I can't say Rockstar's reaction to it helped much.

Look, I can tell from the tone of your emails that you think I am a censorship nut, or that I support an anti-GTA crusade. I don't. What I don't support is people sticking their fingers in their ears, ignoring the real issues, then deciding people were really getting upset over it for entirely different reasons. You think people shouldn't have gotten upset over Hot Coffee? I agree. I do think, however, that it needed to be re-evaluated, and I do think that a precedence needed to be set for content shipped, but not accessable without a cheat. I guess we differ in that regard.

Re:freedom?

[ifwm]

"If I open up a "Usamas-r-us" fanstore right in the heart of NY, advocating terrorist attacks it will win me a trip to guantanamo."

Yeah, but that's not because of your speech, it's because you're inciting others to action. You can say "Usama is fucking AWESOME! I LOVE HIM!" all you want. It's this part

"advocating terrorist attacks"

that gets you in trouble. And to be honest, I STILL don't think you'd go to jail, and you have NO evidence to suggest I'm wrong, as this has never happened before.

Whereas in Germany, the law has been used to censor speech alone, with no association to action necessary.

So, the question is, are you smart and honest enough to admit there is a difference, or are you the typical slashbot who insits on trying to prove an already refuted point?

Re:freedom?

[halfelven]

I'm pretty well connected on both sides of the pond (born in Europe, living in the US for quite a few years now) and if I were to make a comparison, it's currently the US which worries me from a freedom standpoint - it's on the verge of falling under a disguised theocratic dictatorship promoting ideas recovered from the history's garbage can.

Re:freedom?

[Rycross]

And the ESRB rating systems prevents me from playing video games? I can produce any kind of video game I want, and play any kind of video game I want. The most that the letter accomplishes is that I will have trouble selling my game to minors. And as I've stated before, its a commonly held belief throughout the world, in terms of law, that minors can be barred from certain material and behavior, based on lack of understanding or responsibility.

The ESRB ratings has, in no way, shape, or form, impeeded my ability to buy games as an adult, nor has it in any way, shape, or form, prevented me from putting whatever I want into my games.

Re:freedom?

[halfelven]

Not atheist, but free from ideological constipation.

Re:freedom?

[takis]

The violence could have been avoided if they had simply allowed the conference to proceed. So outlawing the speech lead to violence in that case.

I fear that view is a bit simplistic. Their would have been violence too if they would have been allowed to go on with their conference. The anarchists would have surely gone to that conference to express their freedom of speech, which would obviously lead to disagreements, anger and violence.

Re:freedom?

[halfelven]

First off, it's not just a few communities, it's the leaders of the entire country that endorse those medieval concepts.

Second, it seems easy to see when others throw blanket statements at you ("US supports Intelligent Design") but very hard to see when your "side" is throwing blanket statements at the rest of the world ("the other countries are against freedom, so let's not give them any control over the Internet").

Re:freedom?

[Ngwenya]

Do the EU and the UN run an awful lot of nameservers for use by others? I'm thinking no. This isn't a government issue.

Well of course the EU commission won't be running the servers, merely doing what the US DoC does, and delegating to someone like the ITU to run them. You say it's not a government issue - I agree. But it is a governance issue. The US government has decided that, for it's own reasons, it cannot have the root domain under anyone's sovereignty but it's own. The EU has decided that the member states cannot accept the risk that the USA might not behave as properly as it has done to date. No-one is going to force anyone in Europe to use any such EU/UN sponsored root zone, any more than EU citizens will be forced to use the Galileo GPS system. But it will be there, and the EU and member states' government resolvers will be configured to use it (I guess).

And, as we're both in violent agreement here - no big deal either way. The chances that the US is going to turn into a police state is pretty small, and the chances that the EU would want to force a namespace conflict with the ICANN roots is equally slim. But from the amount of bandwidth consumed and venom spouted you'd think that World War 3 was in preparation.

If you want to get DNS delegated from someone other than ICANN, set up your own DNS server and point it at one of the alternative roots, or talk to your ISP.

And, for the record, I use ORSN as my root DNS provider.

--Ng

Re:freedom?

[the argonaut]

Owning property is one of the Human Rights, of course, but no economic system assures all of them.

Owning property is NOT per se a human right. A right to be secure in your person and residence is, and it may be that the easiest way to implement and enforce this right is to enforce property ownership, but one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Re:freedom?

[keyboardsamurai]

If defending my own point of view instead of giving in to some ridiculous argument makes me a "Slashbot" then a Slashbot I am. ;-)

Do you really think that Nazis in Germany cannot speak their minds? Really, I never thought the day would come that I'd use that as a positivism (which it really isn't) but in the Landtag of Brandenburg (which is something like a local Federal institution of the government here in Germany) we have some really stinky-ass nazis - that voice their opinions notoriously loud. The last time they made the press they were yapping about German war heroes and jewish defamations of germany. This is ugly - but it is possible. And right in the center of government. So what is it exactly you think you know better about democracy than every other truly democratic country?

Re:freedom?

[sploxx]

it reminds me too much about that incident of a political entity trying to forbid the dangerous substance dihydromonoxide, AKA water.
Is that really neccessary on /. now?!

Re:freedom?

[m50d]

The analogy between a government of the people and a government of governments is weak anyway, unless you assume that more government is better. Otherwise, you run afoul of the argument that government is better when it is closer to the people. Instead of people voting on representatives to send to congress, such as in the US, governments would choose a person to send to the international body, and the way that these are determined would vary from being entirely undemocratic to perhaps an elected official, though I don't know how many democratic countries elect a representative to the UN, if any.

But elections in both the US (where I assume you come from) and my country (UK) are indirect anyway - we vote on MPs who then vote on our PM, while you vote for electors to vote for your president (although you actually put the president's name down, but if the intent was direct choice of president, it would be easier to just have you elect one directly). I do think directly choosing both our prime minister and UN representative would be a good idea, but given the way countries currently work that doesn't seem to be the majority view.

Re:freedom?

[m50d]

If a supra-national government/organization is made up of similar national governments which are in turn made up of similar sub national entities, it makes sense to see a function such as DNS moved to the supra-national level.

Everyone is using DNS. It makes sense for the DNS to be moved to the top level regardless of how well we get along, because DNS is relied upon by everyone, just like things like satellite orbits are organised internationally.

However, the UN is not really an organization of nation states that are equal in temperament, national organization or capacity. As such it isn't a completely legitimate supra national governing body. Totalitarian nations get a vote just like nations that derive the sovereignty from a mandate by their people.

Sovereign nations get a vote, those that aren't don't. That's the only way to do things. In my country one party has an absolute majority and so can force bills through even though they only got about 35% of the popular vote. Is that getting sovereignty from a mandate by the people? I certainly feel disenfranchised. If you're going to insist on absolute democracy I don't think you'd allow anyone in. Countries can be and are not allowed representation in the UN if their government is not felt to be legitimate. Poor as it may be it's the best representative body we have of the world as a whole, certainly more so than the US Government.

Re:freedom?

[poopdeville]

The DA is indeed "deciding" that your content is obscene. But that decision is not binding, and does not carry the force of law, which is what is usually meant by "The government decided that..." His decision is analogous to the SCO's "decision" that Linux violated their copyright. His "decision" means nothing until a court of law decides the matter. In the case of criminal trials, a jury of your peers determines if the material is obscene unless you forego that right.

I didn't say the Grand Jury could decide if you have the right to read anything. What I did say is that the Grand Jury decides if the fact that you have read/distributed/produced something incriminates you.

Re:freedom?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But maybe I haven't thought this through. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this system? It seems technologically feasible, without really changing the way the DNS works.

Question: What percentage of users know what a root server is?

Answer: So small it is not significant.

Question: Where do most people get the right IP address to go with google.com or sex.xxx?

Answer: Their ISP of company runs a DNS server which grabs it's info from the closest 1 or 3 or 9 root servers.

Question: If ISPs query a different root server based upon the TLD and there are thousands of TLDs how many servers must they query?

Answer: Thousands.

This will generate a lot more traffic and open up all sorts of security concerns and their still needs to be a master list of what server operates what TLD (which is really what the root server is). If only one such list exists, whomever controls it can break traffic for any and all TLDs. If multiple such lists exist, how are discrepancies reconciled? How do expect these TLDs to be equitably created (given that they can be used to generate a lot of money) and why do you expect that whomever controls that root list will not decide to give .com to someone else who just paid them a billion dollars or when they are ordered to by their government?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposal, but it seems to me that the administration of TLDs needs to be distributed among a number of servers and needs to be a democracy, where multiple countries each maintain the same lists, with fees going to an international body and with the majority opinion on a TLD being the authority.

Re:freedom?

[m50d]

The UN is not a representational body, it's members are not elected democratically,

They are representatives of their country. How that country chooses its UN representative is their own business.

many come from nations which themselves are dictatorships. Doesn't sound like a very good government to me.

A government which represents all, sounds a lot better to me than a government which only lets certain types of people vote. I don't like dictatorships, but if we believe in national sovereignty and they are the recognised government of their country, they have as much right to a say in world affairs as any other government.

And your premise makes the assumption that more government is good, and that is not really necessarily true.

No, I make the assumption that what we believe is good in terms of a government of individuals is also good in terms of a government of nation-states. If you believe the US should be able to unilaterally control something the whole world depends on, doesn't that mean you believe that a single person should control the things everyone in a country depends on?

The more government is in place, the more restricted the people tend to be, the more rights taken away and violated. More government is, therefore, a bad thing.

Then why do people have governments? We don't believe that life should be about who has the bigger weapons, we band together in nations for the common good. Why shouldn't countries do the same?

Re:freedom?

[ifwm]

"Do you really think that Nazis in Germany cannot speak their minds?"

No, and I never said that, nor implied it, so stop with the straw men already.

"we have some really stinky-ass nazis - that voice their opinions notoriously loud."

Which is great unless they goose step into town, or give the "Heil Hitler" salute to each other, then they go to jail.

And you never addressed my point. Why? I can only assume it's because you knew your only chance at saving face was to throw up red herrings and straw men.

"So what is it exactly you think you know better about democracy than every other truly democratic country?"

Nice, very adult. Instead of admitting there was a side of this you hadn't considered (and then failing to address it) you decide to act like a child.

Why is it so hard for people like you to simply say " you know what, there may be something to that"? Why does it always descend into " I know more about this than you do, so you need to shut up"?

You got schooled. Grow up and learn from it.

Re:freedom?

[Kafka_Canada]

Yes, but even if you disagree with Bush's agenda -- even if you really do think he's Bushitler (which makes you nuts, btw) -- he'll be permanently out of office in a couple of years. When will the Eurotsars' positions at various "commissions" and other non-elected parapolitical positions come to an end?

And, if you missed my link elsewhere in this thread to the last dictators-want-to-take-over-the-Internet thread, see here for a discussion of "ideas recovered from the history's garbage can."

Hint: they're mostly practiced in the same garbage can they came from, not in America.

Re:freedom?

[Penguinshit]

You're a fucking twit. Read some history of WWII and then begin to understand why Nazi paraphenalia is outlawed in Germany. It may offend your sense of armchair-libertarianism, but the Germans take that stuff *very* seriously (as well they should, given the facts of their past). Commerce in Nazi paraphenalia is considered inciting violence, for the very reason that the Nazis are responsible for some of the worst genocide in human history.

And if you can't or won't understand that, you're either a troll or too pathetically dimwitted to bother with.

Re:freedom?

[changa]

Yes you are corrent and that was a bad mistake of mine...

For some reason I have had a hard time telling difference between corperations and the goverment.

I just don't know why I have that problem these days.

I still say we are not imune to the examples I was responding to.

Oh and here are some articles that you requested:

U.S. Goverment Responds to EFF's Indymedia Motion
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/10/239222

Induce Act Stalled For Now
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/08/00 18230&tid=153&tid=95&tid=103&tid=1&tid=219

FBI Shuts Down Website
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/24/013232

FEC May Regulate Online Political Activity
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/13/15 45228&tid=153&tid=103&tid=17

Re:freedom?

[takis]

because Europe is too afraid

France + Germany is not Europe.

Consider next that the USA defends its citizens right to sell and buy Nazi material on ebay while it puts some non-US people in a prison in no-mansland without trial or even without accusation.

Re:freedom?

[Delphiki]

Actually, the electoral college isn't particularly popular in the US, especially since 2000. The only reason it's still around I believe is because of the difficulty in getting a constitutional ammendment. Well, also the current administration is most likely in favor of the electoral college for obvious reasons. Honestly, I don't know the origins of the UK's system, so I can't comment on that. I believe much of the reason why the US has the electoral college is because a direct election over so many people and such a large area wasn't feasible at the time the system was put in place.

A closer analogy to the way representatives to the UN are chosen though would be if the governors of each state chose the congressmen, which certainly isn't the way it works and I don't think anyone except maybe governors would like it if it was.

Re:freedom?

[zod1025]

I pay for a box of software, yet I don't own it. I see the internet in much the same light.

When I pay for a box of software, I sure as hell own it - that copy, the box, the packing materials, etc. Just like with a book, movie, newspaper, etc.

I see the internet in much the same light. The rest of the world is free to make its own copy.

Re:freedom?

[DVega]

"Nothing stops UN, national governments, or Joe Average from setting up new root servers, but you'd need to convince others to use those servers, and that is unlikely to be possible ..."

If the UN setup their own root server, then many countries would order their network operator/ISPs to use those new servers. And you can be sure they will obey. This is not about dictatorships imposing their will, it's about national security and government policies.

What is being discused here is whether this transition could be implemented with USA conformity. Or which would be the consequences if not.

Re:freedom?

[arkhan_jg]

It's certainly not the life or death struggle over DNS (OMG! China will censor my blog!) that people have been portraying it, as the ccTLD's and gTLD's will continue to be run entirely by their appropriate registrars.

There is one other big issue than the creation of say, the .xxx gTLD - and that's directions to the ccTLD's. Currently, the US department of commerce can tell ICANN who gets to host ccTLD's. So any country's entire DNS system - for example, the .iq domain for iraq - can be arbitrarily turned off or assigned to a new registrar. And there's nothing that country can do about it. Haiti had to wait 2 years to get its domain assigned to the registrar of its choice, for example.

That's what this big argument is really about - why should the US government, or a fairly unaccountable company like ICANN have the right to determine which registrar, if any, gets to run a country's DNS? So far the US government hasn't abused this power *that* much - but it could.

Nor is ICANN entirely trusted either - remember the fiasco when verisign decided to start domain squatting with it's search engine on all unassigned .com and .net domains, and ICANN did virtually nothing about it?

The problem with the alternative roots is that software makers like microsoft only support the 'official' ICANN system out of the box. With very few people technicially capable of adding alternative roots, and even fewer knowing why they'd need or want to, ICANN and the DoC effective has the rest of the world over a barrel. And they want to get off it.

Re:freedom?

[FinalCut]

I can only hope you are being as sarcastic as the parent. You are aren't you?

I mean you can't possibly be saying their govts are unconstrained by ideological constipation? If you are I pity your naievete.

Have you read anything about the ongoing reproductive laws there (Italy) - heavilly influenced by the Catholic Church. http://www.lucacoscioni.it/node/5294

I applaud the Italian Govts efforts to stand independant from the secular influence that comes from the vatican but there is only so much they can do considering the nation is predominantly Catholic.

Re:freedom?

[keyboardsamurai]

Why is it so hard for people like you to simply say " you know what, there may be something to that"? Why does it always descend into " I know more about this than you do, so you need to shut up"?

Maybe it is because I happened to grow up in said country. Sorry.

Re:freedom?

[Red Flayer]

First, read my post. It's the little phrase "in principle" that you appear to be ignoring.

Second, in practice: An 'AO' rating is sure to hurt sales for games; therefore publishers tone down the content to avoid the 'AO'rating; therefore, indirect censoring has occurred.

If you believe that published game content has not been altered by the ESRB rating system, then you are living in a dream world.

I'm not saying that the ESRB is a 'bad thing' -- I'm just saying that it is, in effect, censoring -- and that teh threat of government action is what caused its implementation.

Re:freedom?

[teromajusa]

The listed issues you stated (name one country that does not have skeletons and I'll show you a 1 hour old government), have nothing to do with internet supervision, or even control of the internet.

That was pretty much my point, which you missed despite my adding: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that these scandals make the US untrustworthy for this job, just that your saying that the UN is less untrustworthy because of one scandal is silly.

What I will say is actually a question, Where can you go today, that you will be unable to reach if the U.N. controls it? Opinion -- anywhere that a member country says it doesn't want you to go.

I don't think you really understand what's at issue here. Its about administering top level domains, not control over content. There's no way that you can turn off Nazi images or Saab ads by manipulating the top level domains.

Re:freedom?

[Shakrai]

I know the cellular networks in the USA are behind that of other countries in general, but surely prepay accounts are available?

Sure. They cost more money and they have typically have less features. Verizon's prepaid service lacks nights and weekends (they have nights but not weekends) and costs $0.10/min.

Besides that, my point was that because of the regulated nature of POTS service, they aren't allowed to ask for deposits that are out of line. Why the hell can Verizon (Wireless) demand a $1,000 deposit? Are you telling me that the two month rule that applies for landlines wouldn't protect their interests well enough?

And don't even get me started on the reliably factor or customer service.

Re:freedom?

[badmammajamma]

Germany ban list includes: Doom 1 and 2, Wolfenstein 3d, Manhunt, and Spear of Destiny. It's possible Germany has changed their policy on this but if so, it's new.

Re:freedom?

[mrtroy]

At least in Europe children are not indoctrinated with retarded ideas such as creationism.

Oh dear god...

I read that "creamationism"

Re:freedom?

[Paul Jakma]

And the web was created by an Englishman paid for by EU grants. So we own the web and you'll have to give it back. Also, we own Boolean logic, if we take that back then the USA has to go back to early-19th century technology - so you'd better be nice or your internet will just disappear altogether.

BTW, the Arabs "own" enough of math to send us all back to dark ages - we'd better be nice to them from now on I think.

--paulj

Re:freedom?

[hunterx11]

Actually, I don't want the U.S. the control the internet, either. After all, they aren't too keen on things like obscenity.

Why not have a non-political body run it instead? Why, we could call it...
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

Just an idea.

Re:freedom?

[LifesABeach]

As much as I am agreeable to a one world government; I find my self questioning the need for the United Nations to get involved with something that is at such a petty level of importance. What's next? Ownership of Shoe Strings?

If I could have a list to submit to the U.N. General Council, it would be this:

1. If the internet is that important, then the U.N. should consider strongly funding its own version of the net. There are plenty of successful business models off the shelf that would allow the U.N. to be very successful with this approach.

2. U.N. meetings should be held above the planet. We already have the technology. And it would give these world body decision makers a view of how their effects on the planet would be.

3. The U.N. needs direction. World Peace! For crying out loud, people follow their bellies, not their minds. What is the goal of the U.N. other than to be a central clearing house of sending aid to those in need? If the U.N. wants the respect of the rest of the world, then it's got to start doing things that the rest of the world would be interested in getting involved in. Need an example? Try accepting bids to do argument #2 above. How about mining gold, silver, and what ever on the moon for the U.N.? All of the sudden, the arguments CHANGE. All of the sudden, its "What can I do, to do business with the U.N." Now the whole perception of the world is different. And by the way, if your going to wear jewelry; which is more interesting, a ring from the Moon, or from the Yukon?

Re:freedom?

[MKalus]

It's not new. It always was that way. You will also find CDs, Books, TV Shows and movies on that list.

It is pretty much like an AO or NC-17 rating in the US, the only difference is that there is a legal backing to it that prevents marketing etc.

http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/ is their official website, you may want to use the fish to understand better what they are supposed to be doing.

Re:freedom?

[MKalus]

Here's btw the offical statement:

General information about the BPjM (Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons)

We are an official administrative authority of the German government called "Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien" (BPjM) ("Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons"). Our task is to protect children and adolescents in Germany from any media which might contain harmful or dangerous contents. This work is authorized by the "Youth Protection Law" (Jugendschutzgesetz - JuSchG).

Media monitored by us are, among others: videos, DVDs, computer games, audio records and CDs, print media and internet sites.

Objects are considered harmful or dangerous to minors if they tend to endanger their process of developing a socially responsible and self-reliant personality. In general, this applies to objects that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or otherwise racist material.

The BPjM can only act on the request of other administrative institutions, not by itself. The German Youth Welfare Departments, among others, can file a complaint against an object. Once an official request has been filed, the BPjM is obliged to act.

A board of 12 representatives consisting of 8 different social organisations (e.g. artistic and literary community, entertainment industry, youth welfare, teachers, religious groups), 3 representatives of the federal states as well as the chairwoman of the BPjM, examines the respective object. If the board, with a majority of 2/3 of the members, decides that the object has a content dangerous for young people ("jugendgefährdend"), it enters its name into the "list of youth-endangering media" ("Liste jugendgefährdender Medien"), generally referred to as the "index". Distributors of that medium are then no longer permitted to sell, rent out or even present this object in public or to broadcast it. The same goes for advertising for this object. Violations of these restrictions will be punished under German jurisdiction.

If an object is obviously harmful to minors, it will be put on the index in a simplified act, requiring a unanimous vote, executed by a board of 3 representatives of the groups mentioned above ( 23 I JuSchG).

In case of a severe danger to minors, the object does not need to be put on the "index"; the distribution restrictions will be effective regardless ( 15 II JuSchG).

Media with pornographic content are regularly considered to be obviously and severely harmful to minors. Pornography itself is defined by the German High Court as a presentation of sexuality that is not connected to any kind of psychologically motivated human relationship and which glorifies sexual satisfaction as the only reason for human existence, often accompanied by grossly depicted genitals.

Distributing those objects to minors is illegal ( 15 I and III-VI JuSchG) and will be punished by law ( 27 JuSchG). In addition, the German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch - StGB) penalizes the dissemination of pornographic content ( 184 StGB).

Completely prohibited - even among people of legal age - are the depictions of sexual acts involving children, animals or violence. Similar regulations prohibit media with explicitly violent content.

The spreading of pornographic content and other harmful media via the internet is a criminal offence under German jurisdiction. A pornographic content on the internet is legal only if technical measures prohibit minors from getting access to the object (AVS = Age Verification System or Adult-Check-System).

The owner/distributor has the right to defend his/her film/music/game/book/site against the charges of youth-endangering content.

If the board decides to enter a product into the "index", the verdict will be announced in the official government information paper ("Bundesanzeiger") as well as in the BPjM-publication "BPjM-Aktuell". The author/distributor will receive

Re:freedom?

[Shual]

Every country, including the USA, has its limits to 'freedom of expression'. I will not try to burn a US flag next time I find myself in a US airport (and do not tell me that will not land me in jail - although it would probably be called disturbance of order, or whatever the correct legal term is). However, North-American and European countries typically have a very sound and broad interpretation of this freedom. I respect the US for the way they are trying to deal with their complex issues on freedom, races, immigration, religion, etc. I demand equal respect for the way European countries, like Germany, are dealing with their sensitivities while trying to guarantee a maximum amount of freedom and democracy.

Just to be clear where this is coming from, I'm Belgian.

Re:freedom?

[Oligonicella]

Cite an example of the US censoring "obscenity" on the Internet. Dare you.

The UN, however, is composed of the countries which do those things. You know, the body that just couldn't bring itself to call Darfur genocide because it would insult the genociders. Those guys.

Re:freedom?

[utnow]

It boils down to control. If you weren't in control of this vast world-wide communications network... wouldn't you want to be?

I say if they want their own DNS then they should start their own. Maybe one day when it's more popular/used than ours we'll beg to switch over and use theirs. In the meantime, they're welcome to play on our court, but at the end of the day the basketball is still ours.

My personal translation of the arguments I hear from the UN: "gimme gimme gimme!"
Translation of the ideal US rebuttal: "fuck you. go stand in the corner"

Re:freedom?

[dustmite]

we paid for it

No you did not. "You" paid for the US portion only. The network infrastructure in, say, Sweden was paid for by the Swedish people. The network infrastructure in Australia was paid for by Aussies. The network infrastructure in Japan was paid for by the Japanese. Likewise for every single country. In fact, not only did the US not pay anything towards the network infrastructure of other countries, the US is paid by all other countries to interconnect with the US portion. It's a for-profit thing: Other countries have been paying the US large amounts of money for a long time for interconnectivity in mostly skewed arrangments.

You are right about one thing: The country that paid for a network gets to control that network. But guess what, that means other countries should be controlling their own networks. You are extremely wrong if you think that the US paid for anything but their own segment of the Internet, the Internet was not "made by the US and then given away", honestly, what a childish view.

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

Currently, the US department of commerce can tell ICANN who gets to host ccTLD's. So any country's entire DNS system - for example, the .iq domain for iraq - can be arbitrarily turned off or assigned to a new registrar. And there's nothing that country can do about it. Haiti had to wait 2 years to get its domain assigned to the registrar of its choice, for example.

And this situation won't change just because you replace ICANN with some other keeper of the root. You still must have one root, and that means one entity that decides who is in and who is out. If someone were proposing a technologically feasible method whereby .iq could go to whomever the government (which one?) of Iraq chose without an intermediary, but that isn't the case. The current argument is along the lines of, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." And if you think the EU, UN, US DoC or any other government bureacracy is any more or less likely to fuck things up, then you haven't been paying attention for very long.

The problem with the alternative roots is that software makers like microsoft only support the 'official' ICANN system out of the box.

Do you mean in clients or servers? The DNS client doesn't know anything about roots, and just queries whatever server it's pointed at. A DNS server (even Windows) can trivially be configured to point at any root. Anyone running a DNS server who doesn't know how to modify root.hints should be banned from the Internet on principle.

Re:freedom?

[oakgrove]

Just because communism has failed miserabily, it doesn't mean it's a completely idiotic idea.

Dammit, man! Pass me some of that shit you're smoking.

Re:freedom?

[ShakaUVM]

In general, I'd advise not trying to set fires in airports. The fact that it's a flag doesn't really matter.

Fact is, America is the free-est country in the world. If you believe the mass media (which it sounds like you do if you think people are routinely getting tossed in the slammer for dissing America) then America is a totalitarian dictatiorship. But the mass media hates America, so they're not really an unbiased source. In general, you go way out of your way to act like a prick to get tossed in the slammer. Violating security cordons, blocking traffic, threatening to fly a plane into a building... Police sometimes respond with too forceful a reaction -- these are the events always reported in the mass media -- but it doesn't change the fact that Americans have rights that people in China, North Korea, or even Germany do not have.

I'd trust America 10x over to maintain the root DNS servers before trusting an international body with a proven track record of incompetance and corruption.

Re:freedom?

[gorbachev]

" Cite an example of the US censoring "obscenity" on the Internet. Dare you. " .xxx

Re:freedom?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

if Qwest wants to give the '.qw' suffix to someone else, go right ahead. If the consumer doesn't like it, he can start using the '.cc' suffix.

OK, you proposal is each ISP runs their own root server, right? So Qwest allocates .qw to route to their server and tells everyone that everything ending in .qw should direct to their system and they resolve all their customers to do that. In the mean time QualityWarner ISP in South Africa tells everyone .qw should direct to their system and they resolve all of their cuistomers to do that. What does every other ISP do? Do some resolve one and some resolve others? That is exactly what a root server is supposed to decide and what the U.N. wants to take control of so that everyone is directed to the same place. Thats is what the U.S. sponsored ICANN does now. There needs to be some body that allocates these top level domains so that there are no conflicts, otherwise the same TLD my be claimed by multiple groups. What the U.N. is proposing is an international body that will make these decisions.

Re:freedom?

[gordo3000]

anyone can say they are running, but it takes a whole lot more to get your name on the ballot. or are you ignorant of how the american political system(one of the more famous democratic republics) works? you require a certain number of signatures in each state/district to get on teh ballot unless you are running under the two major parties. even a more simple example exists. even if everyone wants me to be president of the US, if I haven't lived in the US for the last 14 years I am disqualified. That denies freedom of who to choose. So written into our own constitution are limits on our freedoms that we should theoretically have as a democratic republic.

Now those provisions don't bother me, but it also proves a major difference between theory and practice of any political/economic system. in the same way, pure communism says the means of production of communally owned(not governmentally owned, Marx believed a truly communistic state would not need a government at all). This means everyone has an equal say in how it gets used. Furthermore, you are allowed to own private property, as long as it isn't a means of production. That can be interpreted however you want but that is what the theory states.

now how about you go out and get educated on the stuff before calling people liars. of course, you think things are false just because you say they are. you might be the same person who things the solution to the problem P = nP is
n=1.

Re:freedom?

[onepoint]

>> the Arabs "own" enough of math to send us all back to dark ages
>> Boolean logic

both are public domain

as for the englishman, he should have patent his Ideas

Re:freedom?

[onepoint]

please review the aspect of control in the context of domain servers. .com is controlled in the USA. it's the most popular one. I did not try to infer that we control the pipe ( transit ). just the control of the registry.

otherwise the rest of your point is very very valid.

as for "we paid for it"
the fact are, we did, we developed it to a point that it became a public asset to Americans. afterwards when standards were more developed it became a world wide assets.

at the end of the day. .com is the most valuable asset in the game. controlling that group means you control the entire game of it. nothing out their preventing anyone else from trying.

Re:freedom?

[orasio]

Sorry, editing schizophrenia.
I had written another thing (much bigger) originally, and chopped the wrong parts. The idea is something more in the line of: "Just because many so-called communist contry projects have failed miserabily in most aspects, it doesn't make communism itself, as a concept, a completely idiotic idea"

Re:freedom?

[arkhan_jg]

And if you think the EU, UN, US DoC or any other government bureacracy is any more or less likely to fuck things up, then you haven't been paying attention for very long.

It's not about competency per se. ICANN mostly does a good job on a purely technical basis; but then so do the actual root operators, and ITU in its own field also. The question is political control. Imagine the US president was an elected dictator. Congress, supreme court, state legislatures et al were all subservient to the president, who ruled by fiat. Would you be comfortable with that situation? (assuming you're american) Do you prefer checks and balances on the power of any one man to decide your fate? Most people would, and unsurprisingly non-americans don't like having their economic fate pretty much solely in the hands of a US government department, especially with all the talk of 'axis-of-evil' and the like.

Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Brazil, France, even Canada are all on the US government shit-list to different extents - is it unreasonable that they feel somewhat nervous about what the US government might unilaterally do to their ccTLD domains in the future? With a multi-country overview of the system, no one country could screw up another. That is the real goal, at least from the EU perspective. They want to keep ICANN, but just give more countries than the US influence in who the registrar is for any given domain. China and russia want to replace ICANN altogether with a UN agency, which I think is going too far; but I can see why they feel that way.

Do you mean in clients or servers? The DNS client doesn't know anything about roots, and just queries whatever server it's pointed at. A DNS server (even Windows) can trivially be configured to point at any root. Anyone running a DNS server who doesn't know how to modify root.hints should be banned from the Internet on principle.

I was thinking of both. Purely at the client end, people currently can add alt root hosts to over-ride or suplement their ISP DNS. Most people wouldn't know how, and very few care.

For company DNS servers, I know quite a few windows admins who run DNS for AD, but wouldn't know a cache.dns file if it bit them on the ass. There's plenty of misconfigured DNS servers that go straight to root because they've no upstream DNS caches (forwarders) that demonstrates that. (98% of root queries are unnecessary!) A Windows 2000-based DNS server follows specific steps in its name-resolution process. A DNS server first queries its cache, then it checks its zone records, then it sends requests to forwarders, and finally it tries resolution by using root servers. By default, a Microsoft DNS server connects to the Internet to further process DNS requests with root hints.... Windows uses the standard InterNIC root server. Also, when a Windows 2000-based server queries a root server, it updates itself with the most recent list of root servers. Roots that list ICANN's file are the default, and it takes an admin with a clue to change that. I agree that DNS admins *should* know about how DNS really works, root and all, but from the amount of misconfigured sites I've been to, they're a lot thinner on the ground than we'd like.

ISPs hopefully know what they're doing, but very few implement the alt roots at the moment. China could mandate their own ISPs use an alt root that overrides the defaults, which solves internal DNS; but that doesn't solve the problem for people hosting outside the country, or indeed people trying to find chinese websites elsewhere in the globe if the ICANN approved registrar differs from the chinese internal one.

Of course, we don't want a root split. We don't want different roots that point to different registrars for a given ccTLD or gTLD, with ISPs using a root based on political affiliation. But if the US gov isn't prepared to loosen its control of ICANN a little, that's what may eventually happen, which won't be pretty for anyone.

I'd much rather have a more accountable ICANN, or at worst multiple roots that peer each others files; but that doesn't solve the problem of what happens when they disagree.

Re:freedom?

[boule75]

> Americans have rights that people in [...] or even Germany do not have.

Like what?

Re:freedom?

[jeriqo]

It was really hard for him to find a distributor in the USA, then he had to cut some scenes, and it was still rated R.
That is censorship.

Re:freedom?

[boule75]

> When will the Eurotsars' positions at various "commissions" and other non-elected parapolitical positions come to an end?

In case you had not noticed (surely you didn't), most decisions in Europe are taken not by bureaucrats but by the "Counsel", i.e. the assembly of the national governments, with EU parliament approval sometimes. So those decisions are taken by somewhat democratically elected people. The bureaucrats only deal with the recurring stuff, as everywhere else indeed.

Re:freedom?

[boule75]

er... should you want to learn from France past brutality in Africa, why not come in France or in Europe? What let you think there is censorship? If accusations are made that are deemed défamatory, the author can be sued, as in the US, by the offended. This is not censorship.

Could you provide factual examples that there is no brutal-African-colonisation material in France?

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

If the President of the US were an elected dictator ruling by fiat, then I would not be worrying about who had root on the root.

If I were one of the naive millions who still thinks that the UN can accomplish jack shit, and I gave a rat's ass what Iran thinks about anything, I still think I'd have more important things to worry about.

I think that it's really sad that the UN will likely be more succesful in convincing the US to give up control of "." (it will happen evetually), than they will be in convincing NoKor or Iran into giving up Nukes, or in convincing China to stop crushing its citizens under tanks. The fact that so much effort is being devoted to this is just another great example of how irretrievably useless a body the UN is.

The discussion of incompetant DNS administrators is besides the point. Anyone who wants out of the ICANN root can get out today. Anyone who doesn't want out (because either they like the current system, don't care, or don't know any better) is irrelevant to this debate.

Re:freedom?

[boule75]

PLenty of people here are working more than 35 hours a week, me included, and this is perfectly legal.

Next question.

Re:freedom?

[arkhan_jg]

The fact that so much effort is being devoted to this is just another great example of how irretrievably useless a body the UN is.

The effort isn't coming from the UN, it's coming from the EU and some big countries like brazil, russia and china, with smaller countries adding in their opinion. A UN agency has been mooted as one possible candidate to run the DNS root in some of the suggested plans, but it's a lot more than Iran who are unhappy with the current setup of the root.

The discussion of incompetant DNS administrators is besides the point. Anyone who wants out of the ICANN root can get out today. Anyone who doesn't want out (because either they like the current system, don't care, or don't know any better) is irrelevant to this debate.

Actually, they're key to the debate. Most people don't know about the root, and DNS (and the internet) works despite that. Any change to DNS that's going to work needs to factor that in. That means the control of ICANN is much more relevant and important than just setting up an alt-root or two - without changing ICANN, effectively nothing changes on a global scale because most people won't switch because of ignorance or inertia. Things not changing pisses off many of the governments of the 95% of the world that doesn't live in the US. That leads to more radical options, like a split root and mandatory assignment to a new one by governments, which would be extremely messy for all concerned.

You may not give a stuff about other countries or their economic security, but you know what? They do. And the US government should as well, or what do you think would happen to the US economy if asia stops buying american dollars in exchange for goods? The willingness of china and other countries to support the huge US trade debt depends on *them* having strong economies, and expecting that one day they'll be able to spend all those dollars on something useful. A root split could easily cripple the internet for business, and that would have a big knock on effect on the world economy. You might think billions of dollars of electronic trade is irrelevent, but DNS is key to much of it. ccTLD's matter.

Just telling everyone that's not happy that they can go use an alt-root fixes nothing. In fact, it's attitudes like that, that nothing needs fixing and the DNS system is perfect just as it is, that's causing the crisis in the first place.

Re:freedom?

[Liam Slider]

A government which represents all, sounds a lot better to me than a government which only lets certain types of people vote.

You mean a government that represents everyone, sounds better than a government made of a select few kleptocratic thugs who oppress the will of the majority? I agree with you. That's one reason I dislike the United Nations.

I don't like dictatorships, but if we believe in national sovereignty and they are the recognised government of their country, they have as much right to a say in world affairs as any other government.

The only legitimate government arises from the will of the people. Tyranny is not a form of legitimate government.

If you believe the US should be able to unilaterally control something the whole world depends on, doesn't that mean you believe that a single person should control the things everyone in a country depends on?

What are you talking about? It sure isn't the internet...since it's not under the control of the United States government. It's under the control of a privately run international organization based in the United States.

Then why do people have governments? We don't believe that life should be about who has the bigger weapons, we band together in nations for the common good. Why shouldn't countries do the same?

Yes, governments are a necessary evil...as they prevent even worse horrors from happening. But they are an evil regardless. The more power one is given, the more dangerous one is. It is best to keep them limited, caged, tamed...under the thumb of the People.

Re:freedom?

[ShakaUVM]

Besides the aforementioned point about the display of Swastikas and the fact that you can't buy Castle Wolfenstein because it promotes Nazism?

Freedom of Religion. In Europe, it's mutating into Freedom FROM religion. I.e., the right for easily-offended individuals to go through life without seeing or hearing anything religious, or religion-related. Note that this becomes the polar opposite of Freedom of Religion.

Teachers in Germany can't wear scarves to class.

France is worse. You can't even wear a crucifix or yamaka to class if you are a student.

Re:freedom?

[boule75]

I do not know what a Yamaka is, sorry. France has banned oustanding religious signs from state-run classes, in order to restore some order and avoid cultural wars inside the schools.

Sidenote: this is an issue for Sikhs. Sorry for them. No law is perfect. But, rougly speaking, the mess has gone with this law.

One can still wear small christian crosses or the little muslims "hands".
One can also choose to send one's children to "confessional" schools, generaly for a small expense. In most of those, the teachers are paid by the state.

I believe it may be hard to understand for deeply religious Americans. But the same must understand that those proeminent headscarves were quite an insult to French values. To put it bluntly, and in my opinion, those headscarves mean "we dot not want to mingle with you native-born French". That's not the way one minor children is supposed to behave in the Republican schools here.

Aren't there any state-run schools in the US or elsewhere where the children must all wear the same uniform? Has this anything to do with true freedom of speech or faith?

Re:freedom?

[BgJonson79]

Freedom isn't about protecting the things you like, it's about protecting the things you DON'T LIKE.

Re:freedom?

[Snover]

I guess you missed the article from yesterday about that very topic.

Re:freedom?

[Paul Jakma]

Humour is a new concept to you isn't it?

Also, if "the web" is public domain, then isn't the internet too?

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

I saw that one. It's satire.

"Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?"

Hurricane Katrina. Can *you* name me one reason why anybody HAS to rush to the aide of the richest, most powerful country on Earth and in all of human history? Can YOU tell me why our own government can't handle basic human services, but never misses a beat in it's global conquest to enslave the planet?

Re:freedom?

[monkeydo]

Actually, they're key to the debate. Most people don't know about the root, and DNS (and the internet) works despite that. Any change to DNS that's going to work needs to factor that in. That means the control of ICANN is much more relevant and important than just setting up an alt-root or two - without changing ICANN, effectively nothing changes on a global scale because most people won't switch because of ignorance or inertia. Things not changing pisses off many of the governments of the 95% of the world that doesn't live in the US. That leads to more radical options, like a split root and mandatory assignment to a new one by governments, which would be extremely messy for all concerned.

So, it boils down to:

--The current system is not broken, so we must come up with a new system that is equally not broken.
--The people who actually use the Internet are almost all happy with the status quo, so we need governments to change it.
--The UN hasn't gotten anything right up until now, so let's give them something really, really, important.

I don't give a flip what the EU ministers think we should do with the Internet. I'll be more likely to care when the big ISPs get behind transplanting the root

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

I'll tell you this, I've never been anywhere with as many people willing to help out and donate their time and money as here.

Thank you. Yes, American citizens are some of the sweetest people on Earth, except for the knee-jerk "THEYHATEUSFOROURFREEDOM" meatheads. Government is what I have a problem with.

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

Dean recently tried to run for president on that level of "debate" and lost horribly... have fun!

As in all "elections", the richest millionaire got the prize. Kerry had more money than Dean, so was more "popular", but still not as much as Bush. All elections will continue to be this way. You think we won't be in the same place with the same problems four/eight/twelve/sixteen years from now? Hence, I raise my voice to attempt to wake up my fellow countrymen, to whom most it has never occured that the United States is rapidly gaining a place next to Ancient Rome, Russia, Germany, Britain, as countries which tried to take over the world. And as all countries which tried to subjugate all of humanity, we will be defeated in our aim, and whether that defeat means an economic recession or having to be bombed into a smoking crater (will you be happy then? will that be enough war for you? THEYHATEUSFOROURFREEDOM), depends on how stupid we are about it.

Re:freedom?

[Pooldraft]

Do you really think that The US has faced the realities of it's history? I would say no, the cannibals in Jamestown for one example

Re:freedom?

[lawpoop]

No, I take it as gospel truth because I heard the tape of the coaching beforehand, which wasn't supposed to go out. Specifically, the white house co-ordinator said "if he goes off script". Also, I heard the press interview Scott McClelland after the event, who vehemently denied that this event was co-ordinated in any way, until he realized that the reporters had seen the preparations. And anyone who saw the event thought it was obvious that the soldiers were reading prepared questions.

Yes, it's okay to brief both sides before a talk like this, but the white house billed this as an open and frank discussion between the president and the troops. It was neither. They lied to us. Again.

This is just like when Bush when on his tour to sell social security reform in town-hall meetings, and gave an answer to the next question, which he hadn't heard yet.

Re:freedom?

[Boronx]

At least in America, children are taught to respect others' beliefs, even if they don't make sense.

I'm an American, and you, sir or madame, are fool of horse hocky.

Re:freedom?

[arkhan_jg]

Actually, it boils down to:

-- the current system is broken because one country controls other countries fate for no reason other than historical inertia
-- most people who use the current system are happy with the current system, because they don't live in a country that the US government doesn't like
-- everyone wants a working DNS system, and would rather not break it on a technical level if they don't have to.
-- the UN has run things like the WHO, the world food program, and the ITU competently and quietly for decades, so could also run the DNS at a pinch.

I suspect we're talking past each other here. I think who gets to assign country DNS registrars shouldn't be in the hands of one US government department, or a handful of ISPs, but be the free choice of the government in question.

Re:freedom?

[werewolf1031]

Well, pathetic punctuation not withstanding...

...you lack the right to own nothing...

"No! Please don't take away my right to own nothing!"
What the hell are you talking about?! Yeah, I get most of your post, but that part... Just, damn.

Re:freedom?

[m50d]

The only legitimate government arises from the will of the people. Tyranny is not a form of legitimate government.

Then why does the US conduct trade negotiations etc. with them? You can't recognise a government when it benefits you and then say they're illegitimate when they want something you don't like.

What are you talking about? It sure isn't the internet...since it's not under the control of the United States government. It's under the control of a privately run international organization based in the United States.

And answerable to (iirc it's the FTC), that's part of the US government. The US government has control over the DNS system, they may have to pass orders on through a couple of layers of organisations, but that's not really relevant from another country's perspective.

Yes, governments are a necessary evil...as they prevent even worse horrors from happening. But they are an evil regardless. The more power one is given, the more dangerous one is. It is best to keep them limited, caged, tamed...under the thumb of the People.

Worse things are likely to happen by leaving a single country in charge of DNS than by putting it in the hands of an international organisation.

Re:freedom?

[polysylabic psudonym]

Hey, we gave them powered flight. That's enough.

Er... no, you didn't (assuming you're not a New Zealander). And saying you did often enough will not make it true.

Re:freedom?

[gordo3000]

ok, fine. let me explain it using the right to vote, because it is the truest point about communism and what I think is the deciding factor on why fails.

In a democracy you have the right to choose to vote. You can, at any election(barring certain things on a criminal record here in the US) choose to vote for person A, person B, .... but your most distinct right from communism is your right to just say "I don't like anyone so I'm not going to vote at all". It is very similar to the signs of protest against Eisner at the Disney Shareholders meeting. about 48% of the voting stock withheld a vote of approval because they can't vote for someone else.

In communist Russia on the other hand, they had 100% participation. Why? Because it was required that you show up and vote.

It is very similar to owning something. In capitalism you can go out and work and own something and make it grow. But in communism you are forced to be a part owner in everything. The major choice you lack is to liquidate that holding. You are stuck with it. YOu can't sell it to the rest of the community because you would rather be eating extra chicken or buying books. That is what it means to lack the right to own nothing. If is a right you hold here in the US, like your right not to participate or your right to not work and be a complete bum(not meaning to start an argument about welfare. Welfare withstanding, it is still true that people could simply choose not to work).

Re:freedom?

[antarctican]

Referring to a system with equal votes between elected representatives of democracies and kleptocratic representatives of dictatorships as "democracy on a world scale" is so mind-bogglingly stupid it could only come from someone with a .ca address.

Who on earth even said dictatorships would get a voice? That is a huge "ass"umption and more FUD. We're talking the UN, which I would hope would work in the best interests of freedom and equity around the world.

Re:freedom?

[bigmac13]

But child porn is illegal because the government says it's illegal. So you'd be fine with it if the government would just make pornography legal? ;)

Re:freedom?

[Tom]

Consider first that France demanded that eBay remove auctions of historical WWII Nazi items from their site.

Consider next that Germany outlawed Wolfenstein 3D because it contained various symbols of the WWII Nazi regime, despite the game hardly being sympathetic to the Nazis.

Consider that the US requires fingerprints to enter, that it fines people and wants to pass laws because nipples are seen on TV or in video games, that it has laws that allow the state to hold any (terrorist) suspect indefinitely without charges, contact with a lawyer, or any other basic rights, and that it's federal police runs a system that scans all e-mail of its citizens (carnivore), I don't think you're the one to speak about "freedom".

Re:freedom?

[Tom]

The US has not abused its ability to manage the internet namespace to date. Given its track record,

Given it's recent track record, the rest of the world is pretty much counting down towards the day of that abuse, and/or discussing whether it hasn't already happened (the .iq TLD, for example).

Re:freedom?

[Tom]

despicable
Pronunciation: di-'spi-k&-b&l, 'des-(")pi-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin despicabilis, from Latin despicari to despise
: deserving to be despised : so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation

Just because you despise it doesn't mean they don't deserve a say. Who knows, they might have something worthwhile to say about it, if only you would listen.

In fact, if someone's attitude being despised by someone else were a sufficient argument to not allow them to vote, I'm fairly certain that absolutely nobody would be left to do the voting.

Your argument is subjective. I happen to share it, to a large extend, as I'm sure most readers do. But that doesn't make it true, objective or sufficient grounds for not granting a say.

In fact, your so highly valued Free Speech is free if and only if it explicitly includes the speech of your enemies.

Re:freedom?

[Liam Slider]

Then why does the US conduct trade negotiations etc. with them? You can't recognise a government when it benefits you and then say they're illegitimate when they want something you don't like.

Trade is one of the greatest motivators of change. The opening up of societies, a way of showing the people of those countries that other ways and ideas exist. And those places improve themselves too, and with better economies, eventually comes social and political change amongst the leadership. We've seen it many times. Hell, you can look back all through history and see that. Trade is one of the great motivators for social improvement. True, it benefits us directly, nothing wrong with that now is there, we want cool stuff. Everyone wants cool stuff.

And answerable to (iirc it's the FTC), that's part of the US government. The US government has control over the DNS system, they may have to pass orders on through a couple of layers of organisations, but that's not really relevant from another country's perspective.

Perhaps in theory (and it would be a political pain in the ass), but when has it ever actually been? AFAIK the only real control over the DNS system is ICANN, which is an international organisation.

Worse things are likely to happen by leaving a single country in charge of DNS than by putting it in the hands of an international organisation.

There is only one reason the U.N. wants control over DNS. And that is to censor content on the internet by controling who does, and doesn't have a domain. As it stands, the internet is already under the control of ICANN, an international organisation. I trust it with the DNS far more than I trust the United Nations, a group that put Libya in charge of Human Rights, tried to turn half of the U.S. into untouchable wilderness, and keeps demanding that the U.S. government disarm it's civilians even though we have these pesky things called "rights."

Re:freedom?

[m50d]

There is only one reason the U.N. wants control over DNS. And that is to censor content on the internet by controling who does, and doesn't have a domain. As it stands, the internet is already under the control of ICANN, an international organisation.

One could say exactly the same things about why ICANN wants control over it. The more likely reason, for everyone, is that they don't like being dependent on someone else. The profit from selling domains probably helps a bit too.

I trust it with the DNS far more than I trust the United Nations,

Rightly or wrongly, most of the rest of the world trusts the UN more than an organisation that's ultimately answerable to the US government.

Re:freedom?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

All your new argument has done is shifted the root servers to use country specific TLDs first, something still has to assign and maintain a list of those country specific TLDs. "The marketplace" deciding on those can be very dangerous. What if the .tv TLD is co-opted from the country that owns it by ISPs in other countries to be used for their own purposes? I still think an international body keeping an official root server list is a better idea.

Re:freedom?

[JoeCodeMonkey]

Guys like you that make me wish I'd voted for Bush. You are as vitriolic and disgusting as anyone I've heard on the extreme right. >"Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the >Americans in trouble?" >Hurricane Katrina. This question was asked in the 1970s. >Can *you* name me one reason why anybody HAS to rush to the >aide of the richest, most powerful country on Earth and in >all of human history? Can YOU tell me why our own government >can't handle basic human services, but never misses a beat in >it's global conquest to enslave the planet? We lost a chunk of the country the size of the UK. We lost enough of our refineries that our economy is in danger of going down and taking the rest of the world with it. Did you even take a civics class? Do you know what Federalism is? I bet you can tell me why it sucks though, huh? You and your ilk are the bowel cancer that is slowly killing the Democrats.

Re:freedom?

[Liam Slider]

One could say exactly the same things about why ICANN wants control over it.

Except for the fact that ICANN has never shown one bit of interest in the internet's actual content and has never done anything but it's job...the issuing of domain names to pretty much anyone, while the U.N. has actually stated that they plan on censoring content and controlling who can and cannot get a domain? Yeah, of course one can say the same things about ICANN's trustworthiness as one does about the U.N. (if you can't tell...that's sarcasm...).

Re:freedom?

[werewolf1031]

Much better, now I understand what you meant. Thanks for the explanation. :)

Re:freedom?

[Dachannien]

Specifically, the white house co-ordinator said "if he goes off script".

What, you think it's unreasonable for the President to prepare ahead of time the questions he wanted to ask? What's wrong with that? Interviewers write down questions ahead of their interviews all the time.

And many of the soldiers in the interview later said that they also wanted to be prepared, since they were nervous as all hell about talking to the President on (inter)national television, so they wrote down ahead of time many of the things they were going to say.

There's simply no evidence that either the President or the soldiers were giving dishonest answers to any of the questions, or that the answers they were giving differed in any way from their own opinions, and that's what's important here, not whether the people involved wanted to be prepared so that things would run smoothly.

Re:freedom?

[ShakaUVM]

A yamaka is a traditional Jewish Headpiece.

> I believe it may be hard to understand for deeply religious Americans. But the same must understand that
> those proeminent headscarves were quite an insult to French values. To put it bluntly, and in my opinion,
> those headscarves mean "we dot not want to mingle with you native-born French". That's not the way one
> minor children is supposed to behave in the Republican schools here.

Indeed. Religious values are indeed an insult to the French way of life. :p

> Aren't there any state-run schools in the US or elsewhere where the children must all wear the same
> uniform? Has this anything to do with true freedom of speech or faith?

State-run schools (aka public schools) in the US generally don't require uniforms, but some of them do. Which has nothing to do with wearing religious symbols. It is a violation of the Bill of Rights to prohibit a student from wearing a crucifix or yamaka, in fact. The only time there's been real contention is with the Sikhs, since they traditionally wear a little dagger, which is against the zero-tolerance policy on weapons in schools. It was an interesting problem.

And, yeah, in France it's illegal to wear a crucifix or yamaka to school:
http://txfx.net/2004/02/10/france-continues-to-ban -religious-apparel/

For all the media attention on abuses of the Bill of Rights, that gets so much press, it gets so much press exactly because it IS such a big deal to Americans.

Re:freedom?

[ShakaUVM]

> How many different levels of incompetance do you get from the US. How many posts have their been recently
> about the US administrations handling of Katrina?

How about the US's handling of Rita?

Note the drastic difference between Texas and Louisiana. Something like 15% of New Orleans police abandoned their posts during Katrina. A nursing home was abandoned to let the old people drown inside. Looting and incompetence (especially from Mayor Nagle who couldn't even follow his own emergency plans just in the exact case what happened happened) were rife. Vs Texas where the only serious problem was that unfortunate accident with the oxygen tanks exploding on a Nursing Home bus, which was just that -- an unavoidable accident.

> Talking about corruption - hows Tom Delay going at the moment?

There's corruption and incompetence in any government, but the US has the lowest levels of any large government. The UN is a poster child for exactly the opposite.

>I'm not saying the UN is not incompetant or corrupt, I'm just saying the US isn't exactly pure

You don't need to be 'pure'. What does a perfect government look like anyway? No matter what decision you make, 50% of the people will disagree with you anyway -- sometimes violently.

But the US has done a fine job of running the various components of the internet they do. Turning it over to the UN couldn't do anything but have it go downhill. Look at the monstrosity that is WIPO and say that the UN has a good track record on the internet.

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

You and your ilk are the bowel cancer that is slowly killing the Democrats.

Good, I only wish that I could kill the Republicans at the same time. They're both just as guilty.

As for you, anybody who'll lecture me on Federalism one minute and speak of Republicans and Democrats the next as if there were the slightest difference between the two, ain't even with it enough to stay in the same conversation with.
Ne-e-ext?...

Re:freedom?

[Hosiah]

When a disaster strikes, should it matter how rich or poor you are?

Well, lessee here. (1) Government charges me exhorbitant taxes, in part to fund FEMA so the government can help in case of a disaster. (2) Disaster hits, and thanks to croonie number one in charge of FEMA pocketing my tax dollars, FEMA sits on its thumbs. It's up to us private citizens to donate to help the victims, anyway, exactly as if we'd never had a FEMA at all. (3) Aftermath: Croonie number one resigns from too much heat, absconding of course with his generous salary. Replaced by croonie number two. (4) We sit and wait for the next disaster. Come budget time, guess which department will be squaking for a raise so it can be "better prepared" next time?

Huh? Isn't it your money, too? Don't you consider that when you pay taxes, you are essentially paying for the service of government? Does it ever occur to you to ask: "Where in the FUCK does all the money GO????" If it doesn't, it should. Government is rich and we are poor (by comparison). Government is rich from OUR MONEY. Yeah, I think the richest dictatorship in history is obligated to step in and LIFT A FUCKING FINGER, while the rest of us (in true American spirit) give until it hurts.

Re:freedom?

[boule75]

> And, yeah, in France it's illegal to wear a crucifix or yamaka to school:

I think you are right for the yamaka but definitely wrong for non-oustanding religious symbols. Sikh hats and Jewish yamake _are_ considered oustanding symbols, as big cruxifix and Muslim headscarves are. But yamakas can be hidden behind hats, small crucifix of muslims hands are no issue. Do not rely on US sites to get info about France those days.

And the point about "religious freedom" is void: it is not threatened here. What the law states is that there are rules in state-run schools. There are rules in the US too. How could it be otherwise?

For instance, imagine a guy believing that he must not wear any clothes. That's his faith, he believes it, his children too. Why not? Now, how would the US "freedom" system would deal with that? The kids would most probably be forced to wear clothes in school, would they not? But that's an intolerable abuse, this does not respect their religious rights!
Religious freedom is OK as long as it does not conflicts with the local rules. And there, this mess we all regret about Muslim headscarves, _was_ conflicting, for two reasons:
- because many of those young girls would not only wear headscarves, but were refusing to attend collective sports (touching boys!) or to go swimming (mandatory teachings here), were banned from some chemistry teaching (nothing on the head when dealing with flames is allowed, hairs must be attached), would refuse to attend some courses (sexual education, biology conflicting with their beliefs), and so on.
- because some of them were not only wearing headscarves but actively promoting their beliefs in school, and this is not allowed here. Some others were wearing it by fear of their parents and brothers.

The Muslim law allows Muslims to bypass non-essential religious rules to comply with local laws. Now there is a law banning headscarves in schools, French Muslims comply, the girls learn to swim and to play football, they are not present in school with a wear claiming them being threats to male morality.

Once again, this is not a perfect solution, but there is no perfect solution.

Re:freedom?

[JoeCodeMonkey]

Federalism is a layered approach to government. Every layer of government has its responsibility. I like this approach but it does lead to problems like we saw with Katrina. If two of the poorest states get hit by a major hurricane, the local authorities will have trouble responding.

That isn't to say anything about the crappy response of the feds.. But, the locals have to be the first on the scene and as far as I can tell they basically fell apart. (At least in Louisiana) Of course, if the Feds didn't respond at all, that would be the purer form of federalism, right?

I concede that the Federal government continuously attempts to make inroads into take states rights. I think it is natural for an entity to tend to want to lump power towards itself. We have to constantly fight to limit the power of the federal government while we balance the rights of citizens not to be lynched by the local rednecks.

>As for you, anybody who'll lecture me on Federalism one minute and speak of
>Republicans and Democrats the next as if there were the slightest difference between
>the two, ain't even with it enough to stay in the same conversation with.

The above is your tirade in support of federalism? Or is it against it? I'm not sure. It starts to seem that you are saying that the Republicans and Democrats are anti-federalists but then ends up saying that there isn't any difference between the two and that means I know nothing of federalism?

Isn't that a little like saying that I know nothing about monkeys because I use Linux? What is your point sir? Couldn't we have one party and a federalist system?

At any rate, from your vantage point there probably isn't much difference between the politics of the Republicans and the Democrats. From a great distance, details are less discernable.

Does that mean they are identical? Not necessarily. It just means your ideas are so out of the mainstream you can't even discern or appreciate the ideas of others. The differences are there, they just aren't great enough or what you would like them to be.

>Hurricane Katrina. Can *you* name me one reason why anybody HAS to rush to the
>aide of the richest, most powerful country on Earth and in all of human history? Can
>YOU tell me why our own government can't handle basic human services, but never
>misses a beat in it's global conquest to enslave the planet?

And as for your original post:

>Stupid fuck, "jealous of the freedoms and accomplishments of the United States." I LIVE in the United States, was probably here before you, and we HAVE HAD NO FREEDOM OR ACOMPLISHMENTS IN 50 years!

You never responded to my reply:

>What about DNS?

Isn't that what this hole chain of a waste of bytes is about?

Re:freedom?

[lawpoop]

It's not unreasonable to prepare ahead of time. What is unreasonable is telling the American public that it's an unrehearsed, frank dialogue between the president and soldiers, when it is not. That is a lie, and it is unfitting for an American president to lie to the public.

Re:freedom?

[onepoint]

>>Humour is a new concept to you isn't it?

I just recently went out and bought a sense of humor!! Maybe I should consider getting a refund.

and referencing the Internet...
  here is the definition
http://www.answers.com/internet&r=67

Re:freedom?

[ShakaUVM]

>- because some of them were not only wearing headscarves but actively promoting their beliefs in school,
> and this is not allowed here.

You don't consider that problematic? Again, I think Americans have a much stronger sense of Freedom of Religion than Europeans.

And yes, at my high school we had several religious clubs (for various denominations/religions). My church, after I was in college already, actually ran an after school program at the school. In America, the current view is that as long as the government doesn't give preference to one religion over another (i.e., that anyone would be allowed to form a club or run a program) it's allowed.

Re:freedom?

[boule75]

>> because some of them were not only wearing headscarves but actively promoting their beliefs in school, and this is not allowed here.
> You don't consider that problematic? Again, I think Americans have a much stronger sense of Freedom of Religion than Europeans.

I do plainly agree that the US way to deal with religion is much more liberal (shall I say so?), and maybe is it related to history. As far as I know, many immigrants went in the US becaus they were persecuted for their faith in Europe. Religion and politics were totaly mingled then, in Europe. In France, when the State and the Church were separated (1905), the top clergy had played in the hand of a greedy elite for decades. Europeans had already suffered from many religious (or presented as such) wars at that time, wars of choice in the Holy Land and in America (North and South), civil wars, defensive wars (against the Muslims) and wars between Europeans too...

Hence a kind of suspicion toward religion... In my -catholic- opinion, separating Church and State is a great idea.

But lets go back to school: children there are minors. Are they free to discuss religious matters? Sure; who could stop that anyway? There are "clubs" and religious activities organised for pupils. Are they free to refuse to attend some teachings and invite their comrades to do so? No. Are they free to discard scientific teachings in public, in the name of their faith? No, they will hear about Darwinism and about sexual matters betwen mammals. Are they free to promote the idea that few Jews were killed in nazi Germany and that current Israelis (and the US gov. for that matter) are nazis? No. Is freedom well served when a school let pupils promote ideas about women inferiority and their necessary submission to males? Not in my opinion. All those questions were raised when it was decided to stop those behaviours.

Is this law a good law? I would not say that. I only daresay it is not too bad a law for this complicated matter. Where does religion freedom stops? Where it contradicts the common rule.

In France, we are very suspicious about what we call "communautarism": the generally agreed idea is that we are one People sharing common ideals, not several separate communities tied by a common belief in free market. This is certainly a provocative way to put it, but the idea is there. This does not bode well with some realities here, and I am pretty sure that US citizens feel bounded by more than Wall Street, but it may explain the different approach toward religious matters, without implying that religious freedom is threatened here.

Enough for tonight, it is 1:30am here :-)

Re:freedom?

[Paul Jakma]

Oops, s/EU/European/ then.

And the EU *does* fund some CERN projects btw. I'm well aware the Confederatio Helvetia are not in the EU, CERN though is founded and funded by mostly core EU countries, CERN just happens to predate the EU. The Swiss might not be an EU country, but they do participate in pan-European organisations and they can't get away from fact all their borders are with EU members ;).

And by takeover...

[Ignignokt]

they mean isolating themselves?

Statist Musical Chairs

[dada21]

Norm Coleman ranked very pro-freedom by the RLC. While he's still a Statist, he seems to have a lightly more freedom oriented strategy for the Senate.

The provisions for the Internet being taken over by the UN or any political body will likely bifurcate the Net into multiple separate networks still interconnected but ready to dissolve from those that censor or regulate the information more than the billions of users want.

Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

My Internet doesn't need DNS as it is set up today. E-mail is dependent on DNS for now, but a combination of BitTorrent and LDAP will shut that need off if DNS gets ripped apart.

There are three reasons for government control of DNS:
1. Censorship
2. Regulation/licensing of certain speech (campaign, medical, educational?)
3. Profit!!! (for the cronies who sell domain names)

There is zero need for any regulation. The Internet could be usurped by any big business but isn't. The ultimate proof of anarchy in action. Companies that try to control the users are beaten by those that provide open access. Companies that want to break free from the global structure will anger their users who want access to anyone else. Verizon could separate their phone network completely but its in their best interest to communicate with their competition.

The UN just wants monopoly power through force and coercion. The private corporations want to be #1 but have to constantly compete with others.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[duerra]

Norm Coleman is my Senator, and I must say that I have been pleased with his approach to consumer rights and technology in general. He's also a supporter of HR 1201, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005 . While people may disagree with him, I definitely think that he's making an attempt to look out for the best interests of technological advancement with his constituents in mind, and not a corporate pocketbook.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[HunterZ]

Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

Are you kidding?
- Most BT torrents reference trackers by domain name. Of course this could change, but existing torrents would break instantly if DNS went down.
- Google links pages by domain names when they have them. They might be able to reindex everything by IP address, but it would certianly be nontrivial. Also, I'll bet you load Google via its google.com domain name and not by its IP address.
- I'd also wager that over 95% of your bookmarks link domain names instead of IP addresses. Expect every one of them to break if DNS were to suddenly disappear.

DNS will never go away simply because business don't want to put raw, hard to remember IP addresses on advertisements when they can put www.mcdonalds.com instead.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[morgan_greywolf]

How does LDAP and BitTorrent improve anything? LDAP still requires a degree of centralization.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[KingSkippus]

Bit-torrent doesn't need [DNS], Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

Bittorrent is an itty-bitty part of the services available on the Internet. And if you let search engines serve as your source for finding the location of resources you need, how is that better than DNS? It seems to me that you're just swapping one directory service for another, the second being corporately owned and changeable at their whim. Besides, without DNS, how are you going to even get to Google? http://64.233.161.99? Or maybe you prefer http://64.233.161.104/ or http://64.233.161.147?

Maybe you don't use DNS a lot, but the rest of the world sure as heck does. It's a basic network service that the Internet is almost useless without. Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.

But I guess that's just me. Oh, and the rest of the world. (And for what it's worth I am American...)

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[starwed]

I think the point was that, in the long term, DNS isn't needed. Not that it's sudden shut down wouldn't cause problems, but that those problems are only short terms one. (And remember when all advertisements had, not domain names, but AOL keywords?)

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[dada21]

I'm pretty open about my "Drop the Vote" anti-voting stance, but I do openly support the RLC for their voice. If you like Coleman, consider voicing to his office what you don't like. He's noteably affiliated with the neoconservative war-welfare machine, but I think his support there is wavering. Hes a surprising good listen on CSPAN, but talk is just talk.

The DMCRA is interesting but will end up as a pork conveyor belt. The best way to protect consumers' rights is to destroy laws curtailing them.

Rights can never be provided by law, they can only be destroyed by law.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

The point is that it's not the right of the United States to force this lack of censorship upon every country in the world.

I agree, it's awesome that information is free like this, and in the United States, it damn well ought to be free.

But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms. Yes, we try to all the time, because they're violating basic human rights, but this doesn't mean that we have any right to demand, and force change upon them.

As a show of hands, if you agree that the US should maintain controll of the internet for the Freedom of Expression for All Humanity (even though outside of the US jurisdiction), and you agree that US should have invaded Iraq even if they hadn't had WMD, because we were deposing a hated dictator, who was a threat to world security.

It's the same thing. No, we're not going in with soldiers and dictating our will upon China, Iran, and other countries with censorship. Rather, we're going in with our culture, and our technology, and doing the same thing. One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.

But then we trade-embargoed Cuba, Iraq, and all sorts of other countries that we don't agree with, and make their economy suffer, and their citizens sufffer, in order to force them to do something, like pay attention to human rights. We all see how that works... apparantly the Internet is a safe "non-hostile" way to force these people to see things the way we do.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[SteveAyre]

Plus every website using NameVirtualHost or equivalent to share the same IP with other websites would become inaccessible, whether you know the IP or not.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[revscat]

As a show of hands, if you agree that the US should maintain controll of the internet for the Freedom of Expression for All Humanity (even though outside of the US jurisdiction), and you agree that US should have invaded Iraq even if they hadn't had WMD, because we were deposing a hated dictator, who was a threat to world security.

I oppose the Iraq war. I support the notion that the US should encourage freedom, because liberty is a human right, not an American one. How this affects the current debate about control of the root DNS servers I am still contemplating.

Rather, we're going in with our culture, and our technology, and doing the same thing. One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.

No one, I don't think, is forcing China to do anything. They have many filters in place, their own technological controls, etc. Again, I am not necessarilly defending the US's unilateralism here. I don't know enough about the topic to judge.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Seumas]

The point is that it's not the right of the United States to force this lack of censorship upon every country in the world.

Then let the rest of the world make their own DNS servers. There's nothing stopping them. I'm sure if Austria invented the internet and built the major initial infrastructure, they'd have developed the main root servers themselves and hosted them, too. Basically ,everyone else is saying "you invented it, deployed it, put it to first major use... now gimme gimme gimme".

Besides, most of the root servers aren't even in America, if I recall.

This is just a bunch of whiney bitches wanting to edge in on something they didn't do the work for but reap the benefits of. Let's not forget where the net (darpa) originated, eh?

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[petermgreen]

who else would you like to control it though i'm not sure i trust the UN any more than i trust the U.S.A.

besides if the U.S.A decided to fuck with things too much it wouldn't be that hard to set up aternate roots that reflected the situation before the U.S.A. made the unacceptable changes.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[dada21]

You're mostly correct. Today, right now, DNS is needed. So are fax machines and Liquid Paper.

Yet the future of the Internet will only seek out more competition, fewer regulations and restrictions, and less dependence on older standards. I do believe the Internet could operate just fine without a central DNS authority. Yes, it would be an enormous problem if DNS broke today or even attempted separation, but it won't happen. Those who depend on the voluntary choice of their customers would immediately find a fix in the event of an outage or separation.

The US is wrong in wants to continue to control DNS root services. The UN is even more wrong in thinking taking control would make things better.

In the long run, newer protocols and information sharing services will give people the information they want without the need for DNS. Most people communicating over IM don't even see domain names. Most people communicating over BT don't either. As bandwidth goes up and newer forms of hive-communications are created, we'll see less and less central control.

I remember running my first BBS. 1 node. Local users only. No sharing of data with other BBSes and only 1 user at a time. Then multinode, then FidoNet, then UseNet, then Gopher, then E-mail, then WWW, then ICQ, then Napster, then BT, then ???

Information is getting less centralized or tied to a location in ever faste steps. DNS is ready for replacement.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[daviddennis]

The US did found the Internet, and that gives us a bit of an advantage.

If other countries don't want to play in our sandbox, let them create their own version of the net.

I'm thinking of moving outside of the US to take advantage of a warmer climate and a lower cost of living, and even so I'd rather the US win this particular battle, because above all, I believe in freedom.

If we can export freedom, great. If we can't, well, let them roll their own.

D

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[AndroSyn]

But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms. Yes, we try to all the time, because they're violating basic human rights, but this doesn't mean that we have any right to demand, and force change upon them.

Why the hell should we not attempt to hold other nations accountable for their human rights record. Surely enough nations attempt to hold the US accountable for its record, with say, capital punishment. Besides, China built the so-called Great Firewall of China. They don't need to control root servers for that. BTW, are you one of those people who think that certain groups of people aren't ready for democracy and liberty?

t's the same thing. No, we're not going in with soldiers and dictating our will upon China, Iran, and other countries with censorship. Rather, we're going in with our culture, and our technology, and doing the same thing. One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.

So having several nations in the form of the UN forcing a sovereign nation like the US to do something against its own will is wrong as well? Besides, nobody is forcing China, Iran, etc, etc to have their IP networks interconnected with ours.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[interiot]

AOL keywords are something that is somewhat stable due to contractual relations.

Google keywords, on the other hand, are not stable enough to satisfy pointy-haired bosses, especially for medium-to-small-sized companies.

Domain names, as random and hard-to-remember as they are, are at least something you can print on your business card and be reasonably sure that the URL will be valid as long as the company exists.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[grumpyman]

So all we need is www.google.com and no other domain name ^_^

Quite frankly the need for DNS is becoming less with tools such as google. However, there must be a starting point on the web and I don't think there'll be such a thing as a 'perfect search engine' that'll sit on the desktop, or '100% smart people' who'll know how to fully utilize of such search engine. Very ideal but very far-reached.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[PaxTech]

A hypothetical situation : Your neighbor is a drunken, violent man who you regularly overhear beating his wife and children in a most extreme fashion. They are regularly covered in bruises, and you suspect the man may even be raping his own daughters. The police are contacted, but the man is in business with the police chief and mayor and corruption has made them unwilling to prevent any of this. You are the biggest man on the block, and could easily prevent the man from harming his family any further with little risk to yourself.

Do you have a moral duty to stop him? If you choose not to prevent his actions despite your ability to do so, does it mean you are partially responsible for the continued abuse?

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[stefanlasiewski]

My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

DNS makes the Internet easy to use. How many external IP addresses can you recite from memory? When we moveto IPV6 addresses, will you remember an address like "2001:0db8:85a3:08d3:1319:8a2e:0370:7334/64"?

Google DOES make use of DNS names-- it's in the search result. If you rely too much on Google to browse the web, you are giving up some control to rely on a centralized power. I'd be willing to bet that all of your bookmarks use DNS names as well.

In the time before DNS, people STILL didn't want to remember all those long IP addresses, and usually stored a name/IP map as a host file on the local machine. And there was much confusion when the host files fell out of sync, and thus a centralized name service was created to deal with this confusion.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[misleb]

You haven't explained how, exactly, BT and LDAP can replace DNS. I'm interesting in hearing this. If I want to to to, say, my school's website. How do I get there under your decentralized system? IF they change the IP address of the site for some reason, how quickly (and reliably) does this change get reflected in this new system?

-matthew

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[aaronl]

-In response to LDAP as somewhat decentralized:-
LDAP requires full centralization in a very similar way to DNS. You have a server that is master and everything slaves from it. Things bounce around with referrals to write masters if you want to commit an update.
-End-

The issue that so many people here fail to comprehend is that you cannot implement a system such as DNS without there being some form of central authority. You have to be able to trust the data, so you can't let random people update it. The current setup is just about as decentralized as you can go for what the data and needs are.

"Tier 1" where a group of people run the root zone
"Tier 2" where a larger and different group of people run each of the TLDs
"Tier 3" where a truly massive group of peoplpe run each domain
etc

You need to know where to go for each of the TLDs, and the TLDs need to know where to go for each of the domains. That means you need to have something to point you to what servers are running each TLD. That means you need something like what the root zone servers do right now.

How do you implement this in a more decentralized way?

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Phred T. Magnificent]

I certainly can't dispute your assertion that the US government is untrustworthy. The problem is, so is every other government on earth, and the UN is worse by at least an order of magnitude.

The current, largely unregulated structure isn't perfect, but it's vastly better than anything we're likely to see coming out of governmental control, EU control or, heaven forbid, UN control.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[stlhawkeye]

There is zero need for any regulation. The Internet could be usurped by any big business but isn't.

The (supposed) purpose of American government is to protect freedom, not regulate. Government oversight is necessary specifically to ensure that nobody - not a private citizen, a foreign power, or the government itself, trods upon that freedom. Sounds great, we don't always succeed, but I think the long term our bad but corrected decisions get corrected.

The ultimate proof of anarchy in action. Companies that try to control the users are beaten by those that provide open access.

Sounds more like a free market in action.

Companies that want to break free from the global structure will anger their users who want access to anyone else. Verizon could separate their phone network completely but its in their best interest to communicate with their competition.

Adam Smith referred to this as mutual gain. The baker is baking bread because he can sell it and it serves his own interests. We win because we can buy it, and it serves ours. A fundamental principle of capitalism is that two people can both engage in a business relationship or transaction for completely self-serving reasons, and both come out getting what they wanted. A free market makes this arrangement possible; laws and limited oversight make it probable (e.g., when one side of the other violates this principle by breaking the market, for example by stealing something, or by price fixing, our laws get involved to reset the balance).

The market thrives on giving people what they want, not what somebody thinks they ought to want, the reality of limited resources means that not everybody has equal access to those things. That's a defining characteristic of capitalism, and really, of liberty. That each individual may make a choice and deal with the consequences. When your decisions don't matter because somebody has removed or adjusted consequences, either good or bad, you can reach a point where your freedom is only an illusion, in the Classsical sense. You appear to have choices but your decisions are irrelevent. Indeed, you don't really have choices at all, as all decisions lead to the same outcome. This is one of the reasons I distrust collectivist economies.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[misleb]

Indeed. It would actually end up looking a lot like DNS. You might have a corporate LDAP server which would make a referral back to the ISP, which would ultimately refer back to some central "TLD" server. I guess there would be an arbitrary number of TLDs (or containers, in the case of LDAP). But the question remains, how do the LDAP servers communicate information about other LDAP server which might service referals? How is it secured for poisoning?

Also, consider teh overhead of LDAP (TCP w/ binding). DNS is simple and efficient protocol in comparison. I'm still puzzled as to what Bittorrent has to do with any of this. Sounds like the OP just picked a couple of internet buzzwords and called it a DNS replacement.

-matthew

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[bigpat]

It's a basic network service that the Internet is almost useless without. Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.

ICANN controls it. The US just gave them its blessing.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[JasonKChapman]

And if you let search engines serve as your source for finding the location of resources you need, how is that better than DNS? It seems to me that you're just swapping one directory service for another, the second being corporately owned and changeable at their whim.

They're open to competition and they're a matter of individual choice. Don't like Google's results? Use Yahoo!'s or Teoma's or any of the hundreds that would spring up in response. Of course, you're swapping one directory service for another. That was the GP's point. DNS, while useful, is not the sine qua non of the Internet. DNS relates human concepts (domain names) to IP addresses. Search engines relate human concepts (text content) to IP addresses. My Bookmarks relate human concepts (whatever mnemonic I choose) to IP addresses. It's all the same function. If DNS got borked, the 'Net would recover with surprising speed. That's why any threat regarding "control" of the Internet is empty. Any problems would be temporary--a hassle, yes, but a short-term hassle.

Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.

s/country/organization/ and the statement works equally well for the UN. As a regulatory body, the UN is a proven failure. It works as a venue for mediation and it works as a coordinator for disaster relief. That's about it.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[misleb]

Yeah, put a single corporation at the center of ALL your internet needs. That's real smart. How does this in any way resemble ideal?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is more to the internet than the web. How, for example, do I connect to an IRC server without an DNS name? What about setting up my email SMTP/IMAP servers? IN the real world, DNS is becoming MORE important with things like Spammer and botnet blacklists.

What happens when the site, as indexed by Google, changes the IP address of its servers? All of those Google indexes are broken. You are totally underestimating the power of DNS.

-matthew

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[drew]

Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names

Ah, so what happens when google's DNS servers resolve differently than the one you are using? What if Google gives you a link to 'www.searchresult.com', which for them resolves to 123.123.123.123, but for you resolves to 101.101.101.101?

Google would be useless without DNS.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[cygnusx]

I'm *not* American, but my bullshit detectors go off hard when I see China and Saudi Arabia slavering for control of the free-est communication network known to man. And it's sad to see elements in the EU joining with these countries to promote their own bureaucratic agenda (and many Europeans have noticed).

And the ironic bit is that Tunisia, where this free-the-DNS-from-US-shackles gabfest was held, has an extremely lousy record on Net freedom.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Ngwenya]

ICANN controls it. The US just gave them its blessing.

No, I think you're wrong there. The US DoC has control. ICANN is simply their agent for exercising that control. ICANN cannot do anything to "." without permission of the DoC. See here for a better explanation than I could ever give.

--Ng

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Saxerman]

Maybe you don't use DNS a lot, but the rest of the world sure as heck does. It's a basic network service that the Internet is almost useless without. Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.

Basic is right. It would be trivial for the rest of the world to setup and use their own set of root servers. I predict this was cause new metalists to spring up that would become the new de facto root servers. And then those in the know could pick and choose whatever list they trust, or we could even start keeping our own individual metalists while the unwashed masses continue to use whatever list their ISP decides on. The only real battle I see here is the content cartels want an easy one stop shop to turn their name into an internet address and don't want to have to convince each internet tribal warlord through tithe, threat, or coercion of the same thing.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[TheRaven64]

I'm still puzzled as to what Bittorrent has to do with any of this. Sounds like the OP just picked a couple of internet buzzwords and called it a DNS replacement.

Maybe he wants to have a giant hosts file, and distribute it via bittorrent? Of course, by the time it was finished, it would be out-of-date, so you'd need to download a new one...

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Tibor the Hun]

I'm hypothetically confused.

is the US the wife-beater and the rest of the world has a duty to stop it, or

is Saddam the wife-beater and US had a duty to stop him?

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[natedubbya]

Good link, I'd mod you if I could :)

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Inoen]

1. Censorship
2. Regulation/licensing of certain speech (campaign, medical, educational?)
3. Profit!!! (for the cronies who sell domain names)

There are other, far more important, reasons for government control:
4: Guaranteed reliability
5: Accesibility during conflicts

4: Whoever has interest in a stable internet (i'm assuming governments have) will want some assurance of the reliability. Although ICANN's track-record is fine, I (not being a US citizen) have absolutely no guarantee that it will continue in the future.

5: If some conflict should arise between a nation and US, that nation will still want to be able to use the internet. As the internet becomes a more critical part of infrastructure, this point becomes more important.
Given the current political situation, a country such as Iran may value this much higher than cencorship or regulation.

To make a dumb analogy:
How would you feel, if i - someone you have no reason to trust (or distrust) - owned the road outside your house? If i could, for any reason, close it, regulate traffic, charge draconian road tax, remove it?
If there was a possibility - however far out - that one day, you could come home from work only to find that you can't get to your home, because i disagreed with your latest /. post?

My point is just that some things are too important to be left in the hands of other people/nations.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Timothy1965]

There is zero need for for any regulation. The Europeans have a point in that the current design of DNS requires that certain queries be answered by certain nameservers (e.g. ".com", ".net", ".org" and so forth), and it so happens that many of these TLD nameservers happen to reside in the US, where non-US users see large latencies, and where they are subject to US law, only. But there are new systems, like the CoDoNs alternative and safety net for DNS that appeared at SIGCOMM last year, that can solve the problems technologically. CoDoNS enables nameservers anywhere to serve any (crypto-protected) name. And deploying DNSSEC in the meantime would only help make the name system more secure.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[monkeydo]

Anarchy and DNS are incompatible. You must have a single root, or it will not work. There is no compromise around that. Have a look at the history of .biz for an illustration.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[TheRaven64]

If other countries don't want to play in our sandbox, let them create their own version of the net.

I keep hearing this, and I still have no idea what it means. Some of the protocols used on the Internet originated in the USA, some did not. Does that matter? Many of the implementations didn't. If you're using Linux then you may well be using a TCP/IP stack that originated a few hundred yards from me. I guess this means that people from outside Sketty, Swansea, don't deserve to connect to any servers running Linux.

The USA did not lay the cable that comes to my house. They did not lay any of the cable in the UK.

We did create our own version of the 'net. So did the French. And the Germans, and the Chinese and many, many other nations. And we joined them all together to create an internetwork.

The USA did not create the Internet. The USA created the first segments of the Internet. Since then, everyone has been creating the Internet. Everyone will continue to create the Internet whatever the USA does, but I hope the USA will choose to remain a part of it.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[misleb]

Perhaps it would be some kind of perpetual torrent where you never stopped downloading/sharing. Portions of the host file would be contantly replaced and updated. We could associate TTLs with each block. Each block would represent and entire "domain." Each machine on a network would hold an entire copy of the hosts, file. Could be interesting...

Nah, dumb idea. :)

-matthew

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[MerlynEmrys67]

I am confused - you type in Google's IP address when you go there ?
I personally use google.com

Google lists IP address in it's indexes - I haven't found that for anything that I have searched for - I always end up with a FQDN.

As for replacing DNS with LDAP - lets just say you are replacing an easily proven scalable system, with something that probably won't scale to the size that you would need for true Internet scaling, oh and there is a heck of a lot more control needed for the root.

The UN isn't really about control of DNS, they are talking about control of root A, This little simple file that points to all of the TLDs and their zone servers. This is a rather important service, but frankly - if you don't like the way root A is run, create your own and point your resolvers at it. If enough people do this (you provide a better service that people want to use) root A will become irrelevant and go away. Frankly - everyone knows you can't do that, so they want to corrupt it from the inside

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[scruffy_minds]

If I want to to to, say, my school's website. How do I get there under your decentralized system?

Fidonet nodelists

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Zak3056]

They're open to competition and they're a matter of individual choice. Don't like Google's results? Use Yahoo!'s or Teoma's or any of the hundreds that would spring up in response

And how are you navigating to these other competing search engines, if there's no DNS? Would any service that you feel the need to switch away from still carry its competitors in its directory?

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[misleb]

Fidonet nodelists

You joke, but I'm starting to think that some kind of perpetual global hosts file torrent might be the way to go. :-P

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[elrous0]

I support the notion that the US should encourage freedom, because liberty is a human right

You mean "liberty" as in the right to travel freely, work where you want to, voice your opinion openly on public streets--that sort of thing?

Or do you mean it in a more defined sense, like freedom of the press, right to due process, right to bear arms--that sort of thing?

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of countries out there with similar, or worse restrictions than the U.S. But let's not kid ourselves and think ANY country is truly free, or above cracking down on the internet if it has the power.

-Eric

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[mboverload]

You analogy is flawed. Each country has their OWN network which connects to OURS. Nothing is stopping them from "going to their house". Unless they happen to commute over the atlantic everyday.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

is the US the wife-beater and the rest of the world has a duty to stop it, or is Saddam the wife-beater and US had a duty to stop him?

Lets see wife-beater is to wife-beater as country A is to individual B?

To answer your question Iraq and the U.S. are both wife beaters, but the U.S. after selling and giving Iraq clubs and whips and teaching him how to use them decided it would rather beat Iraq's wife (people) after all and beat the shit out of Iraq until it could not really fight back anymore. The wife is till struggling and clawing a bit, but I'm sure she'll get used to it soon.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[merdark]

Sorry, regardless of how who invented the internet, there is absolutely no reason why the US should control other countries TLDs. None. This is not a matter of "reap the benefits". It's a matter of "we want to control our own country TLDs". The .com, .net, .org issue is sort of separate, and I don't think anyone should be able to censor those domains, that includes the US.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[InsideTheAsylum]

Bittorrent is an itty-bitty part of the services available on the Internet.

One service, yes, but it at one time consisted of 30% of all of the internet's traffic.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[atari2600]

First, the first sentence is grammatically incorrect (did found?). Second the internet might have been born here but doesn't mean for a second that aliens (people from other countries) didn't pitch in. Stop using that freedom word so much - that sounds so familiar. The solution here is to let people from the rest of the world have a say in how things are run - getting that solution out is a totally different story. Enough of the "we created this - so we are going to tell you how to use it" stance.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[anopres]

It will be even hard when the ip addresses start to look like this: http: //2001:4860:3F5F:1891:1A55:FB1C:1113:191D. Just looking at that thing makes me cross-eyed.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[daviddennis]

The US originated the Internet.

The UN has given us the uber-corruption of Oil-For-Food, the gross incompetence of their headquarters renovation efforts (1.2 billion proposed cost, which could build you an entire city if you wanted), peacekeeping efforts that led to prepetual war, and so on and on.

Now, the Chinese and other repressive nations are proposing to use UN muscle to put controls over the Internet.

Do you really feel this is the right direction?

If you do, I hope you'll join the Chinese Internet and enjoy.

I'd like to preserve what we have, in all its messy freedom. If other countries want to enjoy messy freedom, leave 'em in. If they want to create an authoritarian garbage heap, let 'em start their own net and attract people to it.

I don't really care who runs the Internet as long as it's done well and with freedom. Our guys have done a pretty good job. Replacing them with the Chinese and their pals doesn't strike me as a step in the right direction.

D

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

This is just a bunch of whiney bitches wanting to edge in on something they didn't do the work for but reap the benefits of. Let's not forget where the net (darpa) originated, eh?

Ok, let me rephrase this, and then I'll agree with you. "It's all stupid politics."

Exactly. The ICANN is doing a good job, so is the US. Just people are always annoyed by things dangled over them that they can't control.

Are they "whiney bitches" for wanting in on the "power" giving "authority" to the ICANN? I don't think so. It's a reasonable human response.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[fingusernames]

In the time before DNS, there was HOSTS.TXT, which was a centralized text file containing maps of hostnames to addresses. We used to ftp the HOSTS.TXT file from the InterNIC on a regular basis. Ah, the good old days of the Internet Cabal. Kibo!

Larry

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

Why the hell should we not attempt to hold other nations accountable for their human rights record. Surely enough nations attempt to hold the US accountable for its record, with say, capital punishment. Besides, China built the so-called Great Firewall of China. They don't need to control root servers for that. BTW, are you one of those people who think that certain groups of people aren't ready for democracy and liberty?

Everyone is going to push their ideals and values on another group of people. That's just how things work. China is pushing on us (the USA) because we're driving technological innovation, and they're upset that effectively, their government is subject to US technology. A natural desire... if you were the CIA would you want to be running computers from China, with software from China?

One of my friends raised the response to me: "I wouldn't trust China or Iran with DNS." Um... did you stop to think maybe they wouldn't trust us to control DNS?

No, I don't think that some people "aren't ready" for democracy and "liberty". But let me remind you of a couple things. East Germany's official title was "German Democratic Republic". The USSR was a "democracy" and so is China. Citizens vote on issues, they really do. Just the definition of Citizen is a lot tighter. So, when you ask "why aren't they a democracy" you have to rephrase, "why aren't they a more open democracy?" at which point the same question can be asked of the US.

As for liberty, they have some very limited rights. They have free speech, until it crosses certain boundaries, like anti-governmental speech, unpopular speech, protesting, etc. So we rephrase to be more accurate: "why aren't they given more liberty." But again, the same can be asked of the US. In the US, you can't say whatever you want whenever. Speech actively threatening the US government or major officials through the act of force is not allowed, or at lease extremely discouraged to the point of a chilling effect. (As one Kuro5hin guy found out daring the Secret Service to do something about him saying he wanted to kill the President.) You're also not allowed to threaten someone verbally with the threat of physical violence. In an entirely free enviroment these sorts of actions should be encouraged, if not at least tolerated.

Many will bring up the issue that we restrict the freedoms of our masses in order to provide for their security. Guess what? China, and Cuba do the same thing. Did you know that Cuba loses almost no people to Hurricanes? Wanna guess why? Not because people are all good and happy, but because Cuba forces their citizens into shelters, and away from target areas, at gun point if necessary. Now, let me ask you? If your neighbor wants to stay in New Orleans for a Hurricane, what the hell is the US going to do about it? Oh yeah, let him die, because it's his right to remain in his household.

It's not that I don't think these people aren't ready for democracy and liberty, but as a Christian, I'm reminded of many times when questions were to Jesus asking if someone should pay taxes, or otherwise follow the Roman government (which I think we can all agree, was not as democratic or free as the US is). Jesus said that their leaders were placed there by God, and it's wrong to go against the will of God and to oppose your leaders, and to "pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's". These people live in a different government from us. Should we try and help them out and make their life better?

Remember the Golden Rule? "Do unto others what you would want done unto you."? Well, let's see here. How many rebel groups have we armed to fight off their governments, and in many ways that could be considered a terrorist activity? Why should we expect different against ourselves?

Here's the big question. What happens when China decides that the US is housing WMD (which the whole world knows) and that we need to disarm because we're threatening the security of their country? Should they ma

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[DaFallus]

I thought DoC stood for Department of Corrections. Thats what prisoners have written on the back of their jumpsuits and I sincerely doubt that they work for the Department of Commerce. However, it certainly would explain a lot...

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

Do you have a moral duty to stop him? If you choose not to prevent his actions despite your ability to do so, does it mean you are partially responsible for the continued abuse?

This is the fundamental problem of dilemas, and free will. Are we morally obligated to protect his family? It's certainly not our job to do so. There's certainly no responsibilities that we have that might carry innately to protect them, beyond that we're human, and they're human, and we're aware of their plight. I see you're not arguing that it might be the responsibility of some person half way across the world to stop him. I'm sure you could certainly find someone in the world, who would be much better suited to the task of stopping this guy than yourself. Why would they not be responsible?

For that matter, what does being the largest person on the block have to do with being morally bound to stop him? Because you can? So, you're only responsible if you're aware of it and you are physically able to stop it? Couldn't one argue that no matter what your capability to stop him, it's your moral responsibility to try your best to stop him?

Bringing God into this just for a sec (as a piece of argument, you don't have to believe in him, you just have to accept that some people believe him to exist, and this question matter is important for them), since God is surely able to stop this (omnipotent) and he's surely aware of it (omniscencient) wouldn't that make it his moral duty to stop it?

You've already said: "The police are contacted, but the man is in business with the police chief and mayor and corruption has made them unwilling to prevent any of this." So, it's obvious to say that there are a number of people who have a moral duty to stop this, but already are not. So at issue here is not just the man beating his wife and kids, but also that the whole system is permitting this behavior and you consider it wrong, and you want to take action.

Now, say you're the Simpsons living next door to the Flanders. Your kid Bart is a horrible brat. Not only that, but you're a lazy bum, and just about everyone in your family has their problems. If you were the Flanders, is it your moral duty to rescue the kids from this situation, and give them a better life? You certainly could. Now, if you were the Simpsons, do you want them butting in on your business?

One may draw the line of moral responsibility to react only when they're breaking the law, but you have to understand that everyone will respond the same way, "this is my business not yours" no matter if it's a legal issue or not. That family-beater is going to tell you to mind your own damn busieness, you can be sure of that.

Fundamentally, it is not the responsibility of the individual to enforce the laws of their nation, state, county, and city, or other such divisions as they may exist. If the police department and the city government is not doing its job, then you let the next level up know, until someone does something to clean up that corruption, and save that family. You have no right to walk over and beat the shit out of that man, even if he is beating his family. But hey, free will, you can choose to ignore that you don't have a right to do it, and just go and beat his ass anyway, and teach him a lesson. Just expect consequences as a result of it. Is saving that family worth you going to jail for assault? Especially when it's not guarenteed that you'll save them permanently?

Rosa Parks knew she was going to get in trouble, and get arrested when she did what she did. She wasn't some clueless idiot who was just tired and didn't want to move back. Just because you believe that you are morally justified does not mean that you'll escape consequences for doing something. Most people into civil disobedience seem to forget this.

Anyways, I'm obviously ranting on a range of topics here. My answer: You're morally responsible for that family only if you feel or believe that you're morally responsible. You're also only at fault for allowing it to continue, if you feel or believe that you are responsible to stop it. No one else can dictate this moral duty upon you.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[killjoe]

Well to clarify your analogy it actually goes like this.

YOu decide to stop the wife beater, you go in and catch him, when his children try to stop you, you kill them, when his friends try to stop you you kill them too. Then you decide that he has a pretty decent house and take a room for yourself, nobody is allowed in there except you, if anybody tries you kill them. You also decide that his daughter is cute (her name is OIL) and decide that you want some of that yourself so you start raping her too.

You don't turn over the wife beater to the police, you keep him locked up in a secret location, you are now keeping residence at his house and killing anybody who tries to oust you, you tell his children what to do and when, you rape his daughter regularly.

Nice....

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Shakrai]

Google links pages by domain names when they have them. They might be able to reindex everything by IP address, but it would certianly be nontrivial.

It will be even more non-trivial when IPV6 is actually deployed in a meaningful way. And there's still the matter of virtual hosts -- how the hell would you host 50 websites on one IP without DNS?

And I question the GP's wisdom in suggesting that because of Google we could live without DNS. Do you really think that replacing Governmental control (in theory accountable to citizens, voters and world opinion) with Google would be a good idea? I know Google is held in pretty high esteem right now and your first instinct might be to say yes... would you be so quick to jump on the bandwagon if it was going to be Microsoft or Verisign? Besides I could point out the fact that Google China jumped right on the censorship bandwagon.

Fuck for-profit companies. Some things are more important then money.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[BrianGKUAC]

It seems implied in your comment, based on your specification of the hypothetical man's size, that your only solution to the scenario is more physical violence, showing you to be no different than the wifebeater, except in your choice of victim. You may feel you have a moral obligation to defend that man's family, but what gives you the right to cause the man himself physical pain in accomplishing this? Perhaps another solution should be explored before going over there with a bat and knocking the guy out. Besides... what's to say he doesn't take your actions and use them to appeal to all of his corrupt police friends, who later show up en masse at your house, armed to the teeth and ready for slaughter? It seems to me there's no better way to get yourself killed than to go in there and try to play the good guy. Maybe that's just me, though. *watches mods tag me as flamebait*

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[dwater]

> The US originated the Internet.

So what?

Who invented the light bulb? It wasn't Edison...but he did the work to make it practical. He wasn't even the first to do that work, according to Wikipedia.

The internet was practically nothing before the World Wide Web was invented, and that wasn't a USian.

Ask any non-tech-savvy person what the internet is, and they'll likely describe the WWW. Of course, that's probably just Microsoft's fault for labelling IE as 'Internet'.

Not that other parts of the internet aren't important too. Email/IM, for example, are very important too, but really that is only as a result of the popularity generated by the WWW.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[daviddennis]

All true enough, but you're ignoring my point.

Do you want the Internet controlled by the UN, where dictatorships like the Chinese and their friends have enormous power?

What advantages are there to having the Internet controlled by the UN?

It's been controlled by the US for all this time, it's worked fine during this time, what do we - meaning not only the US, but the world - gain by having it under UN control?

D

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Edzor]

what about using HEX addresses 0x80114b14

btw, if i try and make that hex addres into a hyperlink it gives some really odd errors when you try and preview or submit it.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

Heck, the U.S. has nuclear weapons, why should North Korea not have them?

Bad thinking, terrible logic.

No, North Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But if you can argue that some people shouldn't have nuclear weapons, then no one should.

East Germany was some sort of democracy because they had that word in their title? I do not know where to begin with such nonsense.

No. God damn, "Democracy" is the single most misunderstood concept by modern America. Likely due to all of that "Democracy vs. Communism" crap from whenever that shit was going on. Democracy is a form of government, and Communism is a form of economy. They're not fundamentally opposing, like Confusionism and Christianity. (Confusious teaches secular ideology, not religious ideology)

Let's look at how the DDR was a Democracy. First we need a starting groud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referenda, open to all or most citizens and the protection of the human rights."

Easy enough. Ok, first, who are citizens? If you define that to be men in the communist party, then it's a democracy. How, oddly, defining citizen isn't unique to just East Germany, and the USSR. In the earliest history of our government, the only people who could vote were white male land-owners. I suppose the US hasn't been a democracy that long at all...

The part about "protection of human rights" is a misnomer. Nothing fundamental to democracy requires the government to protect human rights, only that all or most "citizens" are allowed to vote.

Let's look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship

Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city but now usually a state), and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen. It is largely coterminous with nationality, although it is possible to have a nationality without being a citizen (i.e. be legally subject to a state and entitled to its protection without having rights of political participation in it)

See? I told you that countries can play games with the definition of "citizen".

Fundamentally there's a problem here because people confuse "Democracy" with an *ideology* of freedom, but it's not. It's a form of government. By nature of a Democracy, the citizenry will vote to protect their own rights, and the rights of the majority, but there is no guarentee that they will protect the rights of the minority.

That is a different fundamental that the US has taken on. Majority Rules, but Minority Rights.

Democracy != Freedom for All
Democracy == Power in the hands of those who can vote.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Castar]

They're open to competition and they're a matter of individual choice. Don't like Google's results? Use Yahoo!'s or Teoma's or any of the hundreds that would spring up in response.

This sounds fantastic. "My website is at Yahoo! keyword 'MyBusiness', Google keyword 'MyBuziness', and Teoma keyword 'NakedLizardSandwich'... All the good ones were taken, sorry."

Seriously, would private corporations really be better than the UN? At least in the UN there would be vigorous debate about freedom-squashing changes. At Yahoo! headquarters, they'd censor in a heartbeat for the good of the bottom line.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[tmortn]

"It's the same thing. No, we're not going in with soldiers and dictating our will upon China, Iran, and other countries with censorship. Rather, we're going in with our culture, and our technology, and doing the same thing. One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong."

That is an interesting view. IMHO your very very wrong. We are not forcing anything on China in terms of technology and culture. China is forcing limitations on its citizens. We are not responsible if their citizens do not care to follow those limitations. We are not forcing them to accept our culture and technology and we have no obligation to help China enforce its ideals on its population. It is not our fault they are trying to catch a fart in a bottle.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[daviddennis]

You prefer the stance of the Iranian government, no doubt?

Money quote:

While developing a woefully oppressive model of Internet management, Iran is participating actively in international talks about Internet governance that are being held as part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the press organisation said.

Of course the US isn't perfect. But I trust our guys over the Iranians and Chinese any day of the week.

You might cause me to moderate my stance if you could tell me even one thing changing Internet governance from the US to the world would improve the Internet. I've shown how doing this would make things worse; tell me how it would make things better.

D

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Spaceman40]

There is a workaround, client-side: you still have your hosts file, and you can still host your own DNS servers. Honestly, it's a terrible thing to have to do, but... Makes you wish there was a better naming system. :)

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[maxpublic]

None of the bodies lobbying to wrest control of DNS from the U.S. have managed to provide a compelling reason for doing so. Other than some extremely vague, incredibly lame politico-speak about 'freedom' and 'democracy', neither of which would be guaranteed in any way, shape or form if someone other than the U.S. were to control DNS, no one has managed to put forward *any* sort of reason for moving DNS control to another body.

On the other hand, the U.S. has a proven decades-long track record of doing just that where the internet is concerned. More freedom than you can shake a stick at, with no indication that this will ever change at any time in the future. You have to wonder at the motivations of folks who want to fix something that isn't broken.

Max

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[burndive]

Main Entry: 4 found
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French fonder, from Latin fundare, from fundus bottom -- more at BOTTOM
1 : to take the first steps in building
2 : to set or ground on something solid : BASE
3 : to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance

Source: mw.com http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=found

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[maxpublic]

The point is that it's not the right of the United States to force this lack of censorship upon every country in the world.

There is no 'force' involved here. Any country can erect a 'great firewall'. Or simply refuse to play along with the U.S., any time they feel like it, and set up their own root servers. It is absolutely impossible for one country, even the U.S. to compel any other country to adopt freedom via the internet. Your statement is beyond ridiculous.

But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms.

We have the right to tell them any fucking thing we please. First Amendment freedom of speech. The Chinese, for their part, don't have to listen to us. They can ignore us any time they like - and have, with their own national firewall. China, more than any other country on Earth, has opted NOT to listen to us, or anyone else, when it comes to the internet.

It's the same thing.

What a crock. Retaining control the DNS servers has nothing to do with 'imposing' freedom, or invading Iraq. Trying to connect these disparate ideas is both pathetic and ludicrous.

One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.

Tell that to China. Betcha they have something different to say when it comes to Tibet.

But then we trade-embargoed Cuba, Iraq, and all sorts of other countries that we don't agree with, and make their economy suffer, and their citizens sufffer, in order to force them to do something

Yet another statement that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. But since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the issue at hand, let me point out that *as a sovereign nation* the U.S. has every right in the world to NOT TRADE with other nations. No nation has a right to 'force' the U.S. to trade with it. Ever.

Max

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[tmortn]

Calling the USSR democratic is playing into a technical argument. Did they have elections? Yes. Were they free elections where even the select few who were citizens had the freedom to vote as they wanted to? Questionable at best. The democratic elements of the USSR were in general about as 'real' as Potemkin Villages. There was one party which generally meant one choice. The true power ecehelons were self selected by existing members that were not subject to election. Even in the case of elections the people running were selected by those in power in the party to begin with... the real election was those in power deciding who would be allowed to stand for election. The 'Democracy' of the USSR was a sham and essentially irrelevant in terms of who was in power.

But true enough democracy is not equal to freedom. But a true democracy is very unlikely to be controlling in nature. And by true I mean a true one to one voting of all citizens on all issues. Not something we do in America. The only democratic element of our government is in the election of our officials. The rest of our government is a republic governed by elected representatives. Occasionally you see a democratic decision made by refferendum... but not often.

Our system certainly isn't perfect. But by and large the track record of nations with strong democratic foundations has been pretty good in the freedom department.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[raoul666]

A question for you to consider, sir: Your neighborhood is full of men like this. One of them lives in a mansion and has huge sums of gold and riches inside it. The others do not.

Do you stop him and not the others? Why, pray tell?

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Lifewish]

Actually, $1.2bn is apparently less than 1% of the cost of building a city.

And regards the whole freedom thing: I thought that what triggered off this governmental flamewar in the first place was the United States' blocking of the proposed .xxx domain? The UN members only started to get worried when it became clear that the US was willing to throw its political weight around online.

I seriously doubt this will help China repress its people further in any major way, because this will not give it direct control over any non-top-level domain name, or the content of the site thereof. The worst it could do is have Taiwan's TLD reassigned or similar mischief, but it still wouldn't be able to touch the individual sites. It probably won't even be able to touch the other TLDs either - I'd expect them to delegate control of the individual TLDs to the relevant countries, as with the current system.

If you feel your government is the best one for maintaining freedom online, that's cool - you've got the entire .us TLD to play around in. If you feel that your government - which from the outside looks to be getting less freedom-friendly by the minute - should be able to use the internet, the most powerful collaborative tool currently available, as a political lever then I'm afraid I must disagree.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

Yeah, I agree with everything you're saying. It's just that people tend to lose sight of the "real" meaning of democracy in their strive for freedom. Much like people misusing "Occam's Razor" and "Begging the Question" from Philosophy.

No, I don't agree that the USSR's "democracy" was really all that much of a democracy. It was like a rigged democracy. Although, generally we accept that Mexico has long been a democracy, but until recently there's only been one party. You either voted for or against the guy, who was put up there to run for office.

Then you get into the question of if even the American way is all that democratic. Yes, we vote between freely standing people, but the majority of the time they're placed there and selected by their party. True, we tend to vote on who we want to represent our party in the next election, but for instance, a person of the republican party didn't have an option to say, "Hey, I don't think we should let Bush run for reelection." The party determined that he would run, and guess who the leader of the party that's in the White House is? Um... the President.

Now, granted any person can just up and run for president, we've seen a few independents, and lately 3rd party people are starting to come out of the wood work. But for the most part we are still vastly governed by an elite group of people who run their party relatively strictly. I mean, the party can outright tell some that they won't support their election. (Which is of course their right to do so.) But that's basically a relegation to 3rd party candidate and we've seen how they generally tend to fair in elections.

I've in fact heard from some Canadians that the Canadian parliment is run by the Prime Minister, who is also a member of the parliment, and is generally the leader of the party in control over the parliment (or over the coalition in control over the parliment) so that effectively, they have 4~8 year dictatorships, where the person in power controls the executive and the legislative branch in one fell swoop.

Crap, I'm ranting again. Um... so back to the topic. Yeah, Democracy != Freedom for All, right we agree. USSR's "democracy" was a piss poor democracy, and can hardly be called more than a sham, but it wasn't that far off from some of the actions taken by parties here in the US and other countries considered considerably more democratic. And democratic governments do tend to protect the rights of the people much better than other forms of government.

Democracy is pretty popular idea also, because the legitimacy of the government hangs upon the people giving the government such authority, and in a democracy that's the people generally giving most of that authority right back to themselves. Good Thing(tm) Rather than in some autocrat who dictates everything. No So Good Ting(tm) No matter how many people he saves from Hurricanes. ;)

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[rutledjw]

Damn man. I was thinking the same, but you have a much more articulate argument. But _IF_ we're to get into a battle, why doesn't the UN have their own DNS for their domains? I don't see anything wrong with adding .us to the end of each US-based address.

Why should other countries be subject to our DNS policies. I personally don't see anything wrong with them, but if someone does, they should be free to go elsewhere!

Great point though. Excellent argument!

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[drsmithy]

The US is wrong in wants to continue to control DNS root services.

Note that "the US doesn't want the UN to control DNS" is not the same as "the US wants to control DNS".

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[SteveAyre]

I was thinking that and it would be a workaround for your favourite sites, but it would be useless to your average user who doesn't know what a hosts file is and you wouldn't have listed any websites you don't normally go to so the internet would become useless in terms of looking for information, companies etc.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[unixbugs]

I'll volunteer to set up a Mosix root server. Accepting donation via pay-pal ( 216.113.188.64 and 216.113.188.34, just in case ;) immediatly... I'll need at least 1 OC48 to hold East Texas together. What WOULD it take to do that????

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[shaitand]

I don't know about you. Personally I don't find ANY government body to be trustworthy, now or ever. DNS being in the hands of a national government is scary. DNS being in the hands of a body composed entirely of national governments is REALLY damned scary. The only thing worse than this would be if it were in the hands of a corporate entity.

How about putting DNS in the hands of a UN funded non-profit entity created exclusively for that purpose as it's charter and no oversight. After all it hardly makes sense for a single purpose entity to answer to a body with outside interests like profit or politics.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms.

We have the right to tell them any fucking thing we please. First Amendment freedom of speech. The Chinese, for their part, don't have to listen to us. They can ignore us any time they like - and have, with their own national firewall. China, more than any other country on Earth, has opted NOT to listen to us, or anyone else, when it comes to the internet.

Emphasis added again so that maybe you can actually see what I'm trying to say here. There's no First Amendment in international politics. There's no First Amendment of the consitution of the world that says that the United States as a country, as a government has any right to tell another country what to do. I'm not talking about individual rights. Yes, you and I and everyone else in the US has the right to speak our minds about Chinese policy and government (which to me is stupid because we're not even citizens of their country, so in my opinion all our ranting and raving is stupid, because we have no legal authority or relevance to criticise their government, except as being a nosy neighbor. Like Mr XY across the street who says you should mow your lawn more often. Fuck you, it's my lawn, bitch.)

If you'd take ten seconds to think outside of individual rights, maybe you might realize that, hey, wtf? I'm talking about international relationships here, not personal criticisms of a government that isn't your own.

It's the same thing.

What a crock. Retaining control the DNS servers has nothing to do with 'imposing' freedom, or invading Iraq. Trying to connect these disparate ideas is both pathetic and ludicrous.

This is any different from trade embargos and trade restrictions, and human watch lists, and blah blah blah blah blah, the millions of international sanctions that have been and will be put out on countries just because we disagree with them?

One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.

Tell that to China. Betcha they have something different to say when it comes to Tibet.

You're right they would have something different to say about it. China would say that Tibet is not a sovereign country. It sees it as a subjugate province to the Chinese government, and always has been. Just at one point, China wasn't really taking this leadership role that it should have been, but now it is.

But then we trade-embargoed Cuba, Iraq, and all sorts of other countries that we don't agree with, and make their economy suffer, and their citizens sufffer, in order to force them to do something

Yet another statement that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. But since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the issue at hand, let me point out that *as a sovereign nation* the U.S. has every right in the world to NOT TRADE with other nations. No nation has a right to 'force' the U.S. to trade with it. Ever.

Does the US government have the right to tell its citizens that they're not allowed to deal with these governments? No, no one can ever force the US to trade with it, but there are companies that want to buy/sell with these countries, but they can't because of a trade embargo.

I'd liken a trade embargo to telling Joey who you don't like that he can't play with his ball, because you don't like something that he does. Yeah, you have every right to not let him play with your ball, but I still think it's pretty infantile.

Or telling your kid that he can't play with Billy XY across the street because they force their women to stay at home, and not work. Yeah, real mature. You may not agree with their lifestyle, but wtf are you teaching your kid? That it's ok to treat people like crap because you disagree with them.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

The US, the people that brought you the Iran-Contra affair, the militarization of guerillas in South America, the Bay of Pigs, the whole Iraq international argument, etc, etc, etc.

You might labast the UN for making some bad policy decisions, but the US does just as many. Don't act like it's not an innate property of human beings to make mistakes, or do something wrong. In fact, the more people you add into the mix, the more likely those mistakes become, and the more likely it is that people will use wrongful methods to gain things that they want.

Every government, and/or international group has done some very stupid shit over the course of time. Don't act like the US is immune.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[thej1nx]

Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple. And how do you propose to locate www.google.com itself in the first place, according to this nice scheme of yours ?

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Pharmboy]

You fucking American whiners don't realize how good you have it, and you won't until you have to deal with a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who declare themselves in charge of your lives and societies.

Ironic you would say that. Many of us do realize how good we have it, which is why we are willing to sacrifice to help Iraq acheive the same freedoms (Its ok to disagree with me on whether the war is good or not, but the REASON for supporting it for most Pro-Iraq war Americans is still to spread Freedom. Free people seldom bomb each other.)

If you study a little history, "Taxation without representation" was the main force behind the American Revolution. We didn't get to elect anyone or have any type of reprensentation in England but had to pay taxes to England. Americans still loathe taxes.

Most American's would quickly agree that the UN is crap. Liberal or Conservative, most think it is spineless. This is why the US will often go around the UN, and US citizens never give the govt. any heat over it. We NEED some kind of UN like organization, but the one we have is entirely too corrupt and gives people like Castro the moral equivelancy to continue his brutal dictatorship.

So many of us realize how good we have it here, and most Americans are not very fond of the UN for the same reasons you state.

As a side note: There are 600 million guns in the world. Over 250 million of them are in the US alone. That is almost 1 gun for every man, woman and child. I firmly believe this is one reason why American's don't worry about some dictator trying to take over, and why do army could really "invade" us in a traditional sense. Of course, I have a few, and a license to carry them concealed.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[cojerk]

Splitting hairs about whether or not the US invented, or merely started the "first segments of the internet" in asinine.

Besides, everybody knows that Al Gore invented the interent!

[/joke]
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Dwonis]

Similarly, nothing forces anyone to use the ICANN/IANA DNS.

Some eople don't (at least not directly)

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Dwonis]

what about using HEX addresses 0x80114b14

Huh? IPv6 addresses *are* in hex...

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[revscat]

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of countries out there with similar, or worse restrictions than the U.S. But let's not kid ourselves and think ANY country is truly free, or above cracking down on the internet if it has the power.

I do not. (Great links, btw.) But claims of hypocrisy, however justified, do not address the underlying issue of, well, righteousness. Is supporting freedom a good that transcends individual transgressions? I believe it does.

The reality is, of course, far more complicated. Diplomatic relationships, economic pressures, and other factors influence both the effectiveness and desirability of certain efforts. But nonetheless it should be a goal underlying every decision, and should never be allowed to be trampled upon.

-= James

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[dcam]

We NEED some kind of UN like organization, but the one we have is entirely too corrupt and gives people like Castro the moral equivelancy to continue his brutal dictatorship.

How exactly is Castro's dictatorship brutal? I'd agree it has been brutal, but as far as I know there has only been one instance in the last few years of Castro imprisoning anyone for dissent. I don't know of anything else that might be referred to as repressive or brutal.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[dcam]

The UN has given us the uber-corruption of Oil-For-Food, the gross incompetence of their headquarters renovation efforts (1.2 billion proposed cost, which could build you an entire city if you wanted), peacekeeping efforts that led to prepetual war, and so on and on.

And the US has give us the uber-corruption of Haliburton. Are we going to swap corruption stories all day? The question to my mind is more whether the internet should be controlled by an internation body or the US. And by the internet I mean simply DNS (which is what is is all about). I don't think that international bodies are somehow more suceptable to corruption than national ones.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Phil06]

Americans are free to oppose the war. Iraqis who opposed their wars of agression against Iran or Kuwait were killed, tortured or imprisoned.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[tmortn]

Yes. But the success or lack of for third parties is not a function of the two primary parties ability to dictate elections. It is in the American public's, willingness to be satisfied with them. The difference between the USSR and the USA is that if the people decided to vote a completely different set of people into office they could and presumably there would be a bloodless change in power.

Agree or disagree with the correctness of the fact that the american populace is so uninvolved right now that the selection of the president is left to a highly polorized 30% of the registered voting population staked to either the democratic or republican parties is actually a positive sign. It means the situation is such that most people simply don't care. Not because they don't think they have a voice. But because the situation is not such that it prods them into action. And trust me if things were half as bad as many like to make it out to be with the current administration... or as others tried to make it out under the previous administration then the people would awaken and you would see an almost universal turnout... and the result would be ugly.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[daviddennis]

That's exactly what I wanted to say.

People in this conversation have pointed out that I'm a horrible person, my reasoning is poor, and so on. Alas, none of them have told you or me any concrete change that would be made for the better if we didn't control it.

Thanks.

D

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[EireannX]

Actually DNS for IPv6 is more critical than that. Two things cause issues.

Firstly, multihoming is achieved differently in IPv6. Instead of advertising your /24 or whatever your network slice is to multiple upstream peers, you will instead request different equal sized slices from different upstreams. The host portion of your addresses will remain the same for a given server, but based on the upstream provider it is speaking through, its network prefix may be changed at your network boundary. If you only use one of the full addresses to access the site, and that link goes down, the site is unavailable to you only, while the rest of the DNS using internet can pick up the alternate addresses. Also you would be locked into a provider, because moving to a different point in the IP hierarchy would change your IP addresses and customers would be unable to find you again. And the stationery reprints would be fun too.

and Secondly, if IP addresses became the default resource locaters, you would probably have fights over addresses like 1::F00D and you could always have legal issues between 2:D0::F00D and 2::D0:F00D

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[DM9290]

As a regulatory body, the UN is a proven failure. It works as a venue for mediation and it works as a coordinator for disaster relief. That's about it.

You can thank the veto power that all permanent members of the security enjoy and insist on their right to possess for the fact that the UN doesn't work. And the United States has been the leader in using Veto power in since 1973. (prior to that it was the USSR).

The UN fails in every case where the solution supported by the majority of the worlds nations happens to go against one of the countries with veto power or its client states.

However.. be that as it is.. It is STILL the only international governmental body with a shred of legitimacy.

It ought to be fixed and can easily be fixed if the United States, China, Russia a other permanent security council members chose to allow it.

A countries weight in voting ought only be dependant on its POPULATION.
Are we supposed to believe in democracy. Or not?

Look at the history of countries exercising veto power, and see a record of opposing world opinion.

And by "WORLD" I am referring to the planet called Earth.

Look at the voting record of the UN general assembly and see what the UN *could* accomplish if no veto power existed.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you realize how good you have it. Trouble is you lack the basic honesty to admit that what you really want is to guarantee that you always have it so good, and that the rest of the world doesn't. Sacrifice in Iraq? Don't be a fucking idiot, nobody believes that. The really funny part of course is that Americas bleat about the French wanting to exploit the oil resources and the rebuilding contracts while doing exactly the same things themselves! The REASON for supporting Iraq, for most Americans, is basic ignorance and inability to think critically. They swallow what they hear on Fox hook, line and sinker. A moment's thought will show that you are wrong about "free" people and their propensity to bomb. "Free" people bomb others all the time, or at least you would think so if you looked at the America's history of interference in world affairs over the last 50 years.

America is not very fond of the U.N. because America would like to be able to forget about the rest of the world and treat it as a place to dump garbage and get cheap crap made to fill the shelves in WalMart. It's so inconvenient to have to make up all kinds of bullshit about WMD to satisfy the U.N., because the truth always comes out, and that's always embarrassing. It's a real pain to have Bush exposed to the smirks of the world when he stands up on that podium. It's just plain unfair to have to negotiate with anyone when you can just send the army. Why can't they all just kiss ass like Howard and Blair?

(And I just love the ePenis-expanding part at the end about you owning lots of guns. I would be even more impressed if you claimed to own a Hummer and a couple of black belts too.)

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[Krach42]

Very enlightening, thanks :)

I can only agree.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[maxpublic]

There's no First Amendment in international politics.

Another load of bullshit. We can say whatever we want to say, in any venue or forum, simply because we have that right - and nobody can tell us otherwise. Sovereign nation, remember? The same crap you're whining about concerning us oppressing our poor, misunderstood neighbors goes both ways.

I'm talking about international relationships here

The government IS us, you idiot. Ideally the two things are one and the same. So yes, we have every right to criticize anyone in the world, either as individuals OR in our distinctive capacity of "government".

This is any different from trade embargos and trade restrictions, and human watch lists, and blah blah blah blah blah, the millions of international sanctions that have been and will be put out on countries just because we disagree with them?

Of course! Where did you get the idea that we 'owe' these countries anything? If we don't like the way they do business or treat their citizens then as a SOVEREIGN NATION we can criticize them, or refuse to trade with them, at any time. These nations have no 'rights' when it comes to how we decide to conduct our affairs with them - or when we refuse to conduct affairs with them.

Does the US government have the right to tell its citizens that they're not allowed to deal with these governments?

Legally it does. Change the law if it bothers you so much.

That it's ok to treat people like crap because you disagree with them.

No one has the right to DEMAND that we do business with them just because they say so. You keep yammering on about how we're mistreating other nations by not bending over and grabbing our ankles for their benefit because, like, they're sovereign and all, duuude! And yet you keep making the argument that we ourselves don't have the right to determine the course of our own sovereign nation. You sound like one of those self-hating liberal schmucks looking to destroy himself and all of his countrymen to assuage his own guilt over past sins, real or imagined.

Makes you look like a nutcase.

Max

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[bigmac13]

You are correct in stating that the UK created it's own infrastructure, and thus created their own network. However, this is not "creating the internet." A network was created in the UK, and was added to the already existing internet. The problem with a lot of people's arguments on here is that they are arguing over the use of protocols. The problem that the US has isn't with other people using the same networking technologies and protocols that they are using. The problem is that the internet started with the IP and DNS structure that the US put in place, and now other countries that have since been added to the network now want to take over control of these structures.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[shaitand]

Who cares why the Saudis and the Chinese are clamoring for freedom from ICANN? The Saudis and chinese wouldn't have any authority within said non-profit. NONE of the member nations would have any say in how dns is handled from that point forth.

Re:Statist Musical Chairs

[vrmlguy]

Besides, without DNS, how are you going to even get to Google? http://64.233.161.99? Or maybe you prefer http://64.233.161.104/ or http://64.233.161.147?

How do you get to Google *with* DNS? You look up its domain name with a DNS server. Well, gues what, you don't use DNS to find that server, you use IP addresses. A DNS replacement would work the same way, with a seed file that has some hard-coded addresses of root servers, like Google.

There was a company called Real Names that tried to be an alternative to DNS; for a while it was included with IE. You could type "Ford" into your browser's address bar and it would deliver you to Ford Motor Company. Unfortuantely, the idea didn't fly at the time (although the company is still around: http://www.realnames.com/), but the infrastructure was there and could be built again.

Pot, Kettle

[eln]

we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on.

So his plan is to abolish the RIAA?

Seriously, the US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years, why does he think the UN would be any more dangerous?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Dutchmaan]

[i]we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on.[/i]

"So his plan is to abolish the RIAA?

Seriously, the US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years, why does he think the UN would be any more dangerous?"

If you read his statement as if he were part of the RIAA, it makes more sense.... unfortunately.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[TummyX]

Seriously, the US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years, why does he think the UN would be any more dangerous?


You have got to be bloody kidding. Well, I guess you're right. Other countries haven't had this "erosion of protections" because they NEVER HAD THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But let's not forget that Bush=Hiter, US=evil blah blah.

Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered? Yeah, let's give countries that filter words like "democracy" and "tiananmen square" and jail anti-government bloggers a say. What a joke.

The UN is a forum for international diplomacy. It is NOT a world government. If countries want to control the flow of information, they can setup their own DNS servers. They won't ofcourse, because noone will use something that's controlled -- that is why they're trying to subvert the system everyone is already using.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Ikeya]

Remember that Norm Coleman also was trying to STOP the RIAA from filing all of the John Doe-style lawsuits and whatnot. He's one of the good guys.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered?

Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.

If countries want to control the flow of information, they can setup their own DNS servers.

And therein lies the problem. If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today. The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus. You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.

They won't ofcourse, because noone will use something that's controlled

The Internet as it is today is controlled, you just turn a blind eye because you are the ones controlling it.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[g_adams27]

> Seriously, the US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and >information access for years, why does he think the UN would be any more dangerous?

Perhaps for this reason, taken from the article:

"During a series of meetings organized by the United Nations, ministers from dozens of other countries have raised objections and demanded more influence. Suggestions that have been made include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access," and folding ICANN into the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. agency. As far back as 1999, U.N. agencies have mulled imposing taxes on Internet e-mail."

Wanna pay extra taxes for registering your domains? Wanna pay a surcharge for every e-mail you send, to help fund other UN activities?

The UN is not your friend here. Like it or not, the USA has shown itself to be an extraordinarily-responsible gatekeeper for the Internet over the last few decades. Or perhaps you'd like China, Iran, Sudan, etc. to have a say in whether your website and e-mail should be allowed to continue?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Brad Mace]

You have got to be bloody kidding. Well, I guess you're right. Other countries haven't had this "erosion of protections" because they NEVER HAD THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But let's not forget that Bush=Hiter, US=evil blah blah.

You're right. When he said the US government has been encroaching on our freedom with laws like the DMCA, he *clearly* meant that he hates his country and its neo-fascist leader.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[TummyX]

Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.


Well actually, no, for the same reason many criminals have certain freedoms taken away from them. The internet is the greatest vehicle for free speech and exchange of ideas ever invented. I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet -- including countries that already, today, censor the internet for the 'good of their citizens'. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other nations?


And therein lies the problem. If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today. The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus. You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.


Fractured but if there is a need for interaction it will happen. The internet is already a sparse network of sub-networks. If there's a will there's a way.


The Internet as it is today is controlled, you just turn a blind eye because you are the ones controlling it.


Oh? Care to give an example of how the way its being controlled/managed limits your freedom of speech and expression? Or by "control" are you talking about the fact that it's being managed by a group who make logistical decisions that I could care less about (like whether .xxx or .goatsex should be added as a TLD).

Re:Pot, Kettle

[jsebrech]

You're being judgemental without anything in the area of facts supporting you. The UN is not made up entirely, or even mostly, out of governments like North Korea or Iran. Most of them are democracies, with civil rights, and with respect for human rights (which right now is a tender subject when it comes to the US, given the denial of basic human rights to suspected "enemy combatants"). Additionally, it can be argued quite convincingly that the US is not the most democratic nation in the world (as measured by how representative the three branches of government are when it comes to the will of the people). So let's move past that.

Control over DNS in US hands is in my personal opinion not a good idea, because it restricts the DNS system to US laws, which are very onerous when it comes to IP. For example, if you happen to own a domain name that contains a word or term that some major corporation has trademarked, it is nearly a guarantee under the current system that you will lose that domain name if the major corporation realizes you own it. The current DNS system is very much pro-corporate america (for example, .com is heavily US centric in how it is managed and how domain disputes are resolved, with almost zero effective influence on .com management by non-US parties). Moving control over it to the UN could be a mechanism for making it fairer to non-US citizens.

In practice though, I have no idea what the real motivations are that the UN wants control over it. Nor do I have any idea what the real motivations are that the US doesn't want to relinquish control over it. But what I do find significant is the statement by the good senator: "we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on.". To me that sounds an awful lot like the whole motivation for this feud has to do with differing opinions on trademark law, and on a wider battlefield, differing opinions on IP law.

I find the US desire to control world-wide IP law very disturbing, since it seems to be very much the wrong type of policy that is proposed. I would rather see IP law controlled by the UN than by the US, since at the very least the UN has the interest of more than one nation at heart.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Ngwenya]

The UN is a forum for international diplomacy. It is NOT a world government. If countries want to control the flow of information, they can setup their own DNS servers. They won't ofcourse, because noone will use something that's controlled -- that is why they're trying to subvert the system everyone is already using.

So how come the ITU arranges the international telephone standards under the UN's aegis? No-one is talking about transferring day to day control to the General Council - it would just be given to a technical working group like the ITU. (In fact the ITU offered to take over if asked).

The body which controls the root zone doesn't "control the Internet". There are lots of non-US based root zones. I use ORSN. Does that give political control of my Internet traffic to Paul Vixie?

And China, Syria et al can suck my balls. They can demand all sorts of changes, but unless they can get the rest of the world to agree, they won't get them.

I mean, I suppose that the DoC could yank ICANN's charter unless they do what, say, Tom DeLay says. (Pretty unlikely, IMHO). Does that mean that Tom DeLay controls the Internet?

--Ng

Re:Pot, Kettle

[pclminion]

Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered? Yeah, let's give countries that filter words like "democracy" and "tiananmen square" and jail anti-government bloggers a say. What a joke.

So logically, you also agree that neo-Nazis, KKK members, and violent religious fundamentalists should be denied voting rights. These people also suck. Do we really want the KKK to have a say in our laws? You say this in the same sentence you try to defend your "democratic" ideals. You make me sick.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[KarmaMB84]

If it turned that the Chinas, North Koreas and Irans of the world were a majority in the UN voting to take away your access to information you want or need, would you still hold that position?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration

Sweet merciful Jesus almighty. You are the biggest idiot ever. Do you not understand that "democratic" means of, for and by the people? Countries like Iran and North Korea and China are tyrannies where the people are totally dominated by groups of thugs or, in the case of the DPRK, a single thug dictator. There's nothing "democratic" about those countries at all, so giving them a say does nothing more than endorse their particular brand of tyranny.

How dare you invoke the holy name of democracy to defend tyranny and oppression? How dare you?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[roystgnr]

Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered?

Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.

That's a nice sentiment, but the analogy doesn't hold. If you want criminals to be able to vote, you count their votes. If you want North Korea to have a say in how the internet is administered, it's impossible. You can give Dear Leader a say in Internet administration, but you can't make him share that authority with the rest of the country. Letting totalitarian governments "represent" the populations they control would make international representation less democratic, not more.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Brian Stretch]

Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.

So not giving repressive dictatorships a vote would be undemocratic? Wouldn't that be like putting those same dictatorships on the UN's Human Rights Committee? Oh, wait...

It would be sheer idiocy to give goverments unaccountable to their people ANY control when we can avoid it. Unless you think it'd be okay for China's dictators to vote .tw addresses dropped from DNS, etc.

The current system works. Leave it alone.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet -- including countries that already, today, censor the internet for the 'good of their citizens'.

You mean like how the USA passed a law that forced Google to remove links to anti-Scientology websites? How like how USA courts forced 2600 to stop linking to a website that had code that allowed people to watch their own DVDs?

What's the matter with letting China et al have a say, anyway? You seem to be equating "can voice an opinion and has a vote in how things are run" with "can take control whenever they want". That's ludicrous.

Or by "control" are you talking about the fact that it's being managed by a group who make logistical decisions that I could care less about

Why on earth should what you care about be a factor in this?

And it's couldn't care less. You sound like a fucking idiot when you get it wrong.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Seanasy]

Wanna pay extra taxes for registering your domains? Wanna pay a surcharge for every e-mail you send, to help fund other UN activities?

The U.N. has no power to tax. I doubt even one member of the Security Council would let something like that through. It's a red herring.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[TummyX]

So logically, you also agree that neo-Nazis, KKK members, and violent religious fundamentalists should be denied voting rights. These people also suck. Do we really want the KKK to have a say in our laws? You say this in the same sentence you try to defend your "democratic" ideals. You make me sick.


Are you mentally retarded? The KKK and Neo-Nazis don't limit the liberties of other people and if they do, they are punished. The nations that the UN gives voting rights to deny those very rights and essential liberties to their own people

I do not consider north korea to be equal to south korea nor do I believe that nations have "essential liberties" that need to be defended nor do I believe that they should have equal voting rights about how DNS should be managed. I do not trust a communist dictatorship like NK does not vote on behalf of its individual citizens. I do trust a Neo-Nazi to vote on behalf of his individual self.

Personally, I have no problem with internationalising DNS management to a committee of free countries.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[crotherm]

Control over DNS in US hands is in my personal opinion not a good idea, because it restricts the DNS system to US laws, which are very onerous when it comes to IP. For example, if you happen to own a domain name that contains a word or term that some major corporation has trademarked, it is nearly a guarantee under the current system that you will lose that domain name if the major corporation realizes you own it.

SO you think anyone should have been able to get a domain called coca-cola.com? Or have a pron site under cartoonnetwork.com? Sure, some abuse has happened, but I bet there was far more cyber squatting going on.

In practice though, I have no idea what the real motivations are that the UN wants control over it.

From one of the past articles, Brazil was upset that the .xxx domain was created. They felt they should have had a say. This is where I have a huge problem. Besides, this whole thing is not about the USA giving up .com, .net, .edu, or .org, but rather the top level naming such as controling when .xxx get created, who has control over .uk and things like that. No one is asking USA to give away control of .com.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[m50d]

If you want North Korea to have a say in how the internet is administered, it's impossible. You can give Dear Leader a say in Internet administration, but you can't make him share that authority with the rest of the country. Letting totalitarian governments "represent" the populations they control would make international representation less democratic, not more.

This doesn't stop the US negotiating and signing treaties with such governments, or if it does, then they won't be part of the UN. If the rest of the world has normal diplomatic relations with that government, we accept it as representative of that country, and should count their vote on world affairs as much as that of any other country. If there's an illegitimate government somewhere, they don't get a place in the UN.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[mpe]

Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered?

How many governments actually have clean hands anyway?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[mykdavies]

Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered?

Thanks for trying to save us, but you're too late. A Chinese citizen is on the Board of Directors of ICANN, as is a Malayasian.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[dBLiSS]

"You have got to be bloody kidding. Well, I guess you're right. Other countries haven't had this "erosion of protections" because they NEVER HAD THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE"

I know! Only the US has these freedoms! all those other other pinko commie fasist states like Canada, England, Sweden, etc should take a lesson from the US!

Re:Pot, Kettle

[evil_tandem]

You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.

anyone who doesn't like it is more than welcome to go create their own "better" internet imo.

this *singularity* you're so fond of is only possible because one benevolent dictator forces everyone else to play fairly. besides, what exactly is the problem? i've never heard anyone complain about the open nature of the system...

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Guppy06]

"Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like."

Right to self-determination be damned? Come now, it's far easier for China to censor what's coming into it than it is for the United States to "un-censor" what a UN-regulated internet would provide. The United States is not forcing China to allow access to the Internet, restricted or otherwise, but you would have China dictate the terms of internet usage to the United States?

Fuck democracy, what about liberty? If the People's Republic of China wants to protect its people from "harmful information," then it's upon them to do so, not to go through some proxy which would force those same standards on others. Even if the information was truly harmful, it is the role of a nation's government ot protect its people from outside harm. The majority should not be allowed to step on the liberties of the minority.

I don't for a second buy the "freedom and enterprise" bull this GOP moutpiece is spouting (I don't care if he is a "good guy," that just means he was hand-picked by party leaders to soften the blow of a party-approved message), but what pathetic ability I may have in swaying politics in Washington is far more influence than I have in Beijing.

Letting convicted felons vote is one thing. Letting them serve on a jury, especially a jury where you're the defendant, is something else entirely.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[glesga_kiss]

because they NEVER HAD THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

What freedoms do you have that we don't have here in Europe? Seriously, I'm curious as to what you think makes you unique. We have more rights than you, and have pretty much always had.

PS WW2 Nazi memorabilia is not a "freedom". eBay pulled all 9-11 related sales IIRC, so don't even go there.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[BlackFoliage]

Remember that Norm Coleman also was trying to STOP the RIAA from filing all of the John Doe-style lawsuits and whatnot.

Sadly, that is about the extent of his "good guy" behavior. He is a political opportunist of the worst kind, and it makes me sad for the Republican party if this type of guy represents the new generation (Not that the current one has done much for the party).

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

you would have China dictate the terms of internet usage to the United States?

Um, no. If you can't tell the difference between "has a single vote out of ~190 member states" and "can dictate terms", then you are in the full throes of hysteria and need to calm down.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[JordanL]

Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.

Ah, yes. This would be the reason for the oligarchy that is the UN... because only good things can happen when you give power to an appointed body that is represented by over two-thirds non-democractic countries.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[nazzdeq]

"Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like." That is an idiotic statement. Criminals voting? You need to upgrade your brain software. Why should every nation be represented in a fair and democratic internet administration? Bullshit. Only democratic nations should be represented. Countries that don't give their own citizens freedom should be denied everything. People need to stop being politically correct and stop allowing dictators to exist in the first place. By your logic, gangs should be allowed to live and hustle in your neighborhood, because you have no right to control them. People want criminals in their neighborhood rounded up, but in the world neighborhood, we allow criminal and evil regimes to exist just fine.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Dan East]

You mean like how the USA passed a law that forced Google to remove links to anti-Scientology websites?

The US did not pass a law to force Google to do anything. Scientologists were able to get a judge to rule that the DMCA protected one of their documents - a document which those websites made available online. It was a copyright issue, the websites merely had to remove the offending content.

It would be no different if a website contained the full text of a Harry Potter book. Our laws would protect that copyrighted content as well. Slightly different than the spin you put on it - as if our government is passing laws to at the bequest of specific organizations to control Google. Sheesh.

Dan East

Re:Pot, Kettle

[leereyno]

You want criminals to be able to vote? Let me guess...you're a convicted felon aren't you?

You do realize that felons can petition to have their civil rights restored? At least in the US they can. Whether they can where you live isn't something I have a way of knowing. Someone who did something stupid when they were young and has been a good citizen for the past decade or more shouldn't be excluded from taking part in the political process. Career criminals and those guilty of especially heinous crimes on the other hand most definitely should be excluded.

I really think you've got a very naive understanding of the world. You can't have a democratic institution when it is comprised of entities for whom democracy is anathema. Not only that, but democracy is based upon individuals, not governments. An institution that is structured like a democracy but which is comprised of governments would never be a democracy or even democracy-like. You'd end up with a bureaucracy, in this case one primarily made up of cleptocracies and dictatorships. Giving control of the most powerful tool for freedom since the invention of firearms over to groups that want to stifle freedom is insanity.

The US isn't perfect, but our track record when it comes to human rights is second to none. Ideas like freedom and human rights aren't just far off dreams of a possible future to us, they are a cherished reality that we work each day to protect. The internet is free because it was created by a free people and is maintained by the same. Ensuring that it continues to be free means making sure that criminal dictatorships like North Korea don't have equal say in how it is run.

If other counties set up their own DNS root servers, it would only be for the purpose of censoring what their victims (aka citizens) have access to. By doing so they would be excluding themselves from the rest of the world and ensuring their own future irrelevance.

The only reason why the UN is wanting control of the internet is because the UN is comprised of criminal regimes whose power is being threatened by the freedom that the internet represents. These regimes want the benefits that they believe the internet will bring to them but they don't want the benefits it will bring to their society, namely an increased yearning for freedom and possibly the willingness to fight for it.

This talk of putting the UN in charge didn't start up until after governments like China's started taking steps to censor what their people had access to online. This is nothing more than a ploy on the part of criminal governments to try and put the genie back in the bottle. Well sorry Charlie, but that just isn't going to happen as long as American institutions are in control of it.

Lee

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Artevelde]

It makes me sad for both parties. Whenever you hear about Norm Coleman, remember that this is the same politician who switched parties right after being elected Mayor of St. Paul. To Norman, the Republican party (and the Democratic party, and his constituents), is just a vehicle for him to improve his political career.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[TerminaMorte]

You mean like how the USA passed a law that forced Google to remove links to anti-Scientology websites? How like how USA courts forced 2600 to stop linking to a website that had code that allowed people to watch their own DVDs?

Did you even read your own links? Or do you just enjoy stating misleading "facts"?
 
The USA did not tell google "Remove links to this website because it makes fun of Scientology.". Scientology lawyers bitched at google, citing the DMCA. It's a bad law, but it's not as bad as killing those who disagree with you, or limiting the terms 'freedom', 'democracy', etc.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Guppy06]

So the General Assembly will be overseeing the internet as a Committee of the Whole and won't instead set up a small, select committee of those members to manage affairs?

The United States will not get a vote in how the Internet will be managed, only a vote for who will do the managing. I would hope you are able to see the difference.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet -- including countries that already, today, censor the internet for the 'good of their citizens'. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other nations?

I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY person should have a democractic say including people that are black, jewish, or women, or too poor to own land. Those kinds of people voting might result in blacks owning local businesses and women being able to wickedly seduce men without a husband or father to stop them. Poor people could pass laws that provide a minimum wage, thus hurting the economy for their own selfish interests. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other types of people; education, the right to ride in the front of buses, the right to marry white women?

There is great danger and injustice in assuming that your beliefs are 100% correct and better than everyone else's. Democracy is all about taking everyone's opinion into account. Any country that relies upon the U.S. to always remain a benevolent dictator of the internet and protect their freedoms for them is a country of fools. Right now a power grab in the U.S. could result in the internet resolving to religious messages instead of proper resolution in muslim countries around the world. Even if the U.S. is a good defender of free speech now, that is not a reason to trust it implicitly in the future, instead the system should be made robust and redundant with control shared by many nations. Democracy is not a cure-all, but it is better than trusting a dictatorship of one nation.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[commodoresloat]

A quick look at his contributors confirms the point.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[thomas.galvin]

And therein lies the problem. If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today. The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus. You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.

Actually, this fracutring of the internet is the best possible solution, because it erases the single-point-of-failure problem.

The rest of the world is worried about the US being a central point of failure; many aspects of goventment, economy, etc, rely upon the internet. If the internet breaks, so does the government, so does the economy, et al. If the US decides to be evil, they can unilaterally decide that no traffic that is supposed to be going to, say, Afganistan's government TLD gets there.

The US's view is basically "screw you, we're doing quite qwll without your help, thank you very much." Also, we don't like the idea of giving countries like China or Iran control over who gets to see what on the internet.

What I see happening is the US maintianing its DNS servers, and these servers remaining the standard by which all others are judged. If a foreign server does not match up with the US servers, they will be considered "broken," and thier citizens, if capable, will protest against this, because they will suddenly not be able to communicate with the rest of the 'net. This will be bad, but it will be relativly localized: the rest of the net will carry on.

But, if the US does decide to be evil, and blocks traffic to some country that it is angry with, the rest of the net will, independently, but generally as a whole, recognize that it is now the US servers that are broken, and maintain their own listings. Bad for those of us stateside, but irrelevant to the rest of the world.

The only real problem that I see the the fees that will innevitably be imposed by someone, somewhere. I just know that some government or corporation is going to try to charge money to make our sites visible outside the US. It will likely be unsuccessful, but it will still be a pain.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

You want criminals to be able to vote? Let me guess...you're a convicted felon aren't you?

No. Believe it or not, a person can be concerned for the rights of a certain class of person without actually being a member of that class themselves. Your projection that I must have this concern out of self interest gives away a rather self-centred attitude.

Career criminals and those guilty of especially heinous crimes on the other hand most definitely should be excluded.

Let's take an example. A person has strong convictions that people should have the right to determine what goes into their own bodies, and embarks upon a career selling skunk. During this career, they get convicted several times. Does this mean they should be barred from voting for representatives that would decriminalise marijuana?

Or another example. A doctor believes that a person should have the right to avoid the suffering of a protracted terminal illness by means of suicide, so he assists a cancer-ridden old lady to end her life. There's no shortage of people in the USA who would label him a monster and call it an "especially heinous crime". Does this mean that he should not be allowed to vote for a representative that would permit assisted suicide for terminally ill patients?

Now in both of these cases, you might argue that their crimes weren't so bad. But I assure you, there are millions who would demonise them. Does this mean that their participation in the democratic process should not be allowed? Should anybody have the right to tell another that they may not participate in the democratic process?

Not only that, but democracy is based upon individuals, not governments.

Well in that case, the USA doesn't qualify, as individuals do not elect your president; states do.

The US isn't perfect, but our track record when it comes to human rights is second to none.

And you have the audacity to call me naive? Open your eyes. Your government refuses to apply the Geneva conventions to their prisoners. Your government turns a blind eye to prison rape to such an extent that it's become a running joke. Your government is one of only two out of hundreds that hasn't signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child that forbids executing minors. Your government is openly debating if it's okay if they torture people - as if the question even needs to be asked!

The only reason why the UN is wanting control of the internet is because the UN is comprised of criminal regimes whose power is being threatened by the freedom that the internet represents.

You do realise that the USA was one of the founding members of the United Nations, don't you? That it was an American president that named it?

This talk of putting the UN in charge didn't start up until after governments like China's started taking steps to censor what their people had access to online.

Actually, it came right after the USA reneged on it's word about how long ICANN could keep hold of .net, after it pressured ICANN to not approve the .xxx TLD, after ICANN imposed a tax on new domains (does "taxation without representation" ring a bell?), and while the registrars of the world said "Registrars consider there to be a breach of trust by the ICANN Board and the ICANN staff in approving a contract with Verisign regarding .net that contains significant changes from the draft .net agreement posted on the ICANN website, without public consultation.".

The push to move control of the DNS hierarchy to the UN has been largely from the EU, not China. So sorry, your allegations that it's all China's doing are without merit.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Easy2RememberNick]

The best post here!

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

Ad hominem, since you don't seem to be aware of what it means. I called him an idiot. I didn't argue that he was wrong because he is an idiot.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Flumph]

Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.

That's silly. The best government is a wise, benevolent despot, everyone sensible agrees about that. (The problem is how to ensure that the despot stays benevolent and wise, which they never are over the long term...) As long as ICANN is behaving wisely and benevolently in their despot role, what exactly is the problem? They're administering the phone book, and they're doing a fine job. Let 'em, even if folks in other countries have pulled the issue of internet administration into the "USA is evil" fad.

If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today.

So it's inconceivable to you that there could be multiple sets of root servers, disambiguated by smart client software? If the political environment changes, so will the software. Have a little faith, man.

You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms,

Sure, if "denying other nations a voice" consists of telling them they can't screw up the phone book, it sounds like a swell plan. And they'll keep playing ICANN's game because this is about giving the USA a black eye in the press, it's not about actually running the internet.

The fastest way to create client DNS software that handles multiple root servers is to give control of . to the UN. The people who care about the smooth functioning of the net would go mildly bananas, and multiroot dns would be fully implemented and deployed in 2 years. (Pro: http://public-root.com/, con: http://www.circleid.com/posts/putting_multiple_roo t_nameserver_issue_to_rest/; and naturally I think Vixie's more likely to be right about the naiive implementation, but I also suspect that the UN jerking around with DNS entries would be enough to motivate the right people (including the inestimable Mr. Vixie, I would hope) to get the work done.)

it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.

It's not "national", intra- or inter-. It's a resource that connects individuals and businesses, created and maintained by individuals and businesses, and it interacts with the various governments only as much as they require it with threat of force. The vast majority of the businesses and individuals that make up the internet are nearly as hostile to US government interference as they are to interference from China or Myanmar. That many local and national governments subsidise or create ISPs is of no consequence to backbone routing policies, or administration of the root domain.

And again, its singularity is the result of a simplifying assumption in the design, as a result of being sheltered under the hands-off protection of that nasty US government. But simplifying assumptions can be discarded, the software can become more complex, if the political situation demands it.

Cheers,

Flumph

Re:Pot, Kettle

[MJOverkill]

What he means is that the US has laws on the books that allow their citizens to forcebly remove content on the Internet based upon criteria set by the US Congress. This is regulation of content on the internet based on US law, not common consensus. The examples provided are not the greatest, but they do outline the problem.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[benjamindees]

The UN is a forum for international diplomacy. It is NOT a world government.

The US is a trade federation. It is NOT a national government.

The WTO is a trade federation. It is NOT a world government.

The state courts are a forum for dispute resolution. They are NOT a government.

ad nauseaum...

Educated people don't even know the difference between most of these statements. The masses see "group of people wielding power" and they think "government" and bow down.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

The USA did not tell google "Remove links to this website because it makes fun of Scientology.". Scientology lawyers bitched at google, citing the DMCA.

And who enacted the DMCA, the tooth fairy?

It's a bad law, but it's not as bad as...

And if I was trying to say that it was as bad as those things, then you'd have a point. But TummyX's argument relied upon the assumption that the USA doesn't censor the Internet, and I was merely contradicting him with examples.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[infolib]

He's one of the good guys.

Watch out, you might be setting yourself up for a disappointment.

I know politicians and activists that do fantastic things in some areas of "geek policy" but are aligned directly against me in other areas. The lesson to be drawn is that your (political) friend today may be your enemy tomorrow - or even both at the same time. It's not like you can apply for "good guy membership" anyway.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[benjamindees]

Let me guess...you're a convicted felon aren't you?

That's rude.

Not only that, but democracy is based upon individuals, not governments. An institution that is structured like a democracy but which is comprised of governments would never be a democracy or even democracy-like.

Correct. Such an arrangement is called a "republic". It's a particularly useful form of recursion that has the appearance of democracy, but isn't.

The US is a republic. In fact, so are all of the countries that we like to hold up as "democracies", such as Great Britain, Israel, and Germany. So really there isn't much argument to be made over which system is more "democratic". None of them are.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Zak3056]

Think of a 2 year old having a temper tantrum because their parents won't let them do something, and you have described libertarian politics well

Suggesting that, "what is mine should stay mine, unless I choose to give it to someone else," in response to someone else saying that, "what is yours is mine, and I will choose who to give it to," is most certainly not a temper tantrum. I would also point out that I am not a child, the government is not my parent, and that I am perfectly capable of tending to my own affairs.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

"that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."

Do you know the meaning of the words "rather than"? I addressed the argument by attacking it's foundation; the assertion that the USA doesn't censor the Internet. I attacked it by giving examples of how the USA has censored the Internet.

The fact that I later went on to call him an idiot does not change the fact that I addressed his argument itself; I didn't attack him rather than the argument.

"Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent"

This is at the very least a clear example of the second.

No it isn't. Merely. If I had done nothing but call him an idiot, then your claim would be true. But I addressed his argument as well, rendering your claim false.

It's not enough to quote the words at me, you have to understand them first. You clearly do not.

But you've got to ask yourself, what did calling him/her an idiot DO for the debate?

It did nothing for the debate. It might have done something for their future credibility though. It's true, saying the complete opposite of a phrase because you don't understand it makes you look like a fucking idiot. Next time, he might use the phrase correctly, without harming his credibility.

I consider people that throw around insults during a debate to be the less skilled debaters.

That's your prerogative. I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as using phrases you don't understand though.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[iminplaya]

Scientologists were able to get a judge to rule that the DMCA protected one of their documents - a document which those websites made available online. It was a copyright issue, the websites merely had to remove the offending content.

So the Americans use copyright to censor offending content. How is that different from how other countries censor their net? Same results, different tools. Copyright is being used to censor Google and others. These laws are selectively enforced. So yes, these laws are there for the benefit of specific organizations. The first amendment is toothless when it runs up against copyright. So, if you want to ban "offensive" speech, simply copyright it. And do your best to bully the world into enacting similar laws to the Americans.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Corbets]

And it's couldn't care less. You sound like a fucking idiot when you get it wrong. Inserting cuss words into an otherwise almost logical argument makes you sound every bit as much of an idiot.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[ThrobbingGristle]

So the U.S. should get thrown out of the U.N.?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[demonlapin]

Er, you mean that a US-based website was sued by a US-based group under US law for content that happens to be available worldwide on the Internet. Sorry, charlie. The entire process took place in the US, as it quite reasonably should.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

Inserting cuss words into an otherwise almost logical argument makes you sound every bit as much of an idiot.

Why? What do the letters f - u - c - k - i - n - g have to do with my intelligence? It was the word that most accurately expressed my opinion, so I used it. He, on the other hand, used words that expressed the exact opposite of his opinion. I'd be curious to hear your explanation as to why expressing myself clearly and accurately makes me as stupid as somebody who cannot express himself clearly and accurately, just because you consider it to be a naughty word.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[lemsip]

The US isn't perfect, but our track record when it comes to human rights is second to none

In that case your own track record for being oblivious to the real world is second to none! Perhaps you overlooked all the peaceful / militarily neutral nations of the world. If you look at the history of a large number of countries, you will find that your statement is very literally incorrect.

Consider that the U.S. demands immunity from being tried for war crimes for official acts of government officials. If Iraq demanded such immunity, Sadam Hussein would be immune from all he is being tried for.

The only reason why the UN is wanting control of the internet is because the UN is comprised of criminal regimes whose power is being threatened by the freedom that the internet represents

It's been a very long time since Britain was a criminal regime. In fact it was long before the U.S. even existed.

The reality is that non-U.S. countries want a say in the Internet because they use it, and invest heavily in it, and so of course they want a say in its control. Many residents of the U.S. would see things differently if they knew more about the world they live in beyond their shores.

One pitfall imperialistic nations often fall into is the feeling within that everything they do is right, and beyond question. But of course their motives are always self-serving, never for the good of everyone who shares the planet with them, although this is one of the things such nations are blind to. The closest thing we have to a worldwide democracy is the United Nations, where all member nations have a say, and imperialism can be countered in the same way non-democratic rogue nations can be countered, for the good of the world. Of course it's not perfect, but neither is centralised control by a single self-believing, self-serving nation that ignores even its historic allies for its own gain. This relates to the point above about immunity from being tried for war crimes in an international court. If a nation wants to play at policing the world, it has to live by the laws it preaches to the states it invades.

However, the original question of control over the DNS roots is in my opinion a separate issue - I've just been responding to the pro-U.S. anti-U.N. people. I'm not aware of any nations complaining about how the U.S. has controlled the DNS roots so far, so why break what's working?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[d34thm0nk3y]

It would be sheer idiocy to give goverments unaccountable to their people ANY control when we can avoid it.

Is ICANN accountable to the citizens of the United States?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[pierre-luc]

Letting totalitarian governments "represent" the populations they control would make international representation less democratic, not more. Is the actual international representation democratic ? US having control over the internet, that is now become a common property, is that democratic ? You say "totalitarian", don't you ? Well for me a totalitarian government is the one taking decision and having control over a lot of people thinking that it has the superiority to do it: god on it's side, science, money etc. That sounds familiar...

Re:Pot, Kettle

[jez9999]

Fuck the parties; it makes me sad for the public.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[DaFallus]

Why on earth should what you care about be a factor in this?

For the same reason anyone on earth should give a shit about your concerns. And it's couldn't care less. You sound like a fucking idiot when you get it wrong.

Talk about ad hominem attacks...

Re:Pot, Kettle

[xgamer04]

Dude, he's from Minnesota. How can he not be awesome?

PS: THIS IS A JOKE. Aside from his opinions about the RIAA, the guy's pretty much an asshole.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[jez9999]

It would be sheer idiocy to give goverments unaccountable to their people ANY control when we can avoid it. Unless you think it'd be okay for China's dictators to vote .tw addresses dropped from DNS, etc.

How can you say this with a straight face?

The Bush administration is unaccountable to over 50% of the US population, who did not vote for them. Yeah, there are other governmental institutions than the Whitehouse (not that they're any more representative of their respective areas), but the Whitehouse seems to be the focus of power. Isn't it the Bush administration that just put a block on the .xxx TLD, and fully support the FBI's new focus on deviant porn? They seem to like sticking their grubby fingers into the net too.

China want to censor anti-government feeling, Whitehouse wants to censor what it doesn't like. It'd censor anti-government feeling if it could get away with it, too.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Cro Magnon]

China want to censor anti-government feeling, Whitehouse wants to censor what it doesn't like. It'd censor anti-government feeling if it could get away with it, too.

But the US CAN'T get away with it. China can, and they would like to censor it in OUR country as well.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

The US DID NOT pass laws that censored the internet.

Then please explain how it is that 2600 is legally barred from linking to certain things. Did I just imagine that court case? Please explain how it is that the Church of Scientology can utter the letters "DMCA" and Google jumps. I thought it was the USA that passed that law.

If I'm wrong, please explain how, instead of just saying that I'm wrong.

Do you have any factual references to where the US government has stifled free speach on the internet by passing a law (show HR#) or do you want to continue posting random links and making up a story that fits your agenda?

The links are not random, they are links where a law passed by the USA government has resulted in censorship of the Internet.

Exactly what are you accusing me of making up? Are you denying that the Church of Scientology used the DMCA to force Google to remove links from their search engine? Are you denying that 2600 lost a court case and was forced to remove links from their website? Exactly what is it that I am saying is wrong?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[nilram]

Inserting cuss words into an otherwise almost logical argument makes you sound every bit as much of an idiot.

Thank you!

I fail to see why people seem to think that resorting to profanity makes their points stronger when in fact it makes them look like an idiot who can't think of a find a more intelligent way to express themselves.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[DaFallus]

no, you ran out of things to say, so you called him an idiot. By the way, the phrase "I could care less" is commonly used and accepted.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[DaFallus]

How about when someone walks into a school and mows down 50 kids with an assault rifle? I personally wouldn't want that person voting on gun control laws, but that is just me.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Salis]

He's a Republican and his top contributions come from businesses located in Minnesota.

CONSPIRACY, I declare!

(Yes, I'm joking.)

Re:Pot, Kettle

[badfish274]

Lets do a little comparison between the U.S. government, and the UN, which I assume would be given control of the Internet if it is taken from ICANN

From the U.S. Bill of Rights:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No matter what you say about Bush's DoJ coming down on porn offices, how many actually think it would hold up in court? I submit that no Judge in this nation would restrict speech in such a way, with the exception of kiddie porn and snuff films.

From the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
After affirming all of the rights laid out in the U.S. Bill of Rights, there is Article 29, Section 3:

"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

So basically, according to what Bill Clinton called "the greatest document in the history of mankind", your rights stop when they run contrary to whatever the UN is trying to accomplish. From an organisation where North Korea and Iran are on the same playing field as Great Britain, Germany, France, and yes, the U.S.

Just something to think about.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

I fail to see why people seem to think that resorting to profanity makes their points stronger when in fact it makes them look like an idiot who can't think of a find a more intelligent way to express themselves.

So saying "fucking idiot" is stupid, but "darn idiot" is not? Why?

Words have connotations. "Fucking idiot" expresses a very different sentiment to "darn idiot", even though they are generally the same thing. If it didn't, then nobody would consider it to be profane.

As it happened, the phrase "fucking idiot" expresses exactly what I was thinking. "Darn idiot" does not. I can't see how you could possibly think that I thought it made my point stronger; I think it makes my point more accurately.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Cro Magnon]

If you want to nitpick, "fucking idiot" was probably inaccurate. Though many Slashbots are idiots, very few of them do any fucking.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

No matter what you say about Bush's DoJ coming down on porn offices, how many actually think it would hold up in court? I submit that no Judge in this nation would restrict speech in such a way, with the exception of kiddie porn and snuff films.

Oh, there's something far more horrific than kiddie porn and snuff films that the USA will clamp down on free speech for. Copyright infringement! I already posted the link elsewhere in this thread, but here I go again: 2600 loses appeal.

To be perfectly honest, quoting from your consitution proves nothing. Your courts and lawmakers have made it abundantly clear that they will not abide by it, and your fellow citizens have made it abundantly clear that they don't care. Just because it says you have freedom of speech on a piece of paper, that doesn't mean it's true.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[NoMaster]

The internet is the greatest vehicle for free speech and exchange of ideas ever invented.

All men are equal ...

I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet

... but some are more equal than others...

Re:Pot, Kettle

[maxpublic]

Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.

Fuck that. When the word "democracy" encompasses nations like China, Iran, or North Korea, things start to become very Orwellian in nature.

If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today.

It'll be fractured for the countries who decide to divorce themselves from it, not for the rest of us. And frankly, I reallly couldn't give a shit if China, or Iran, or North Korea decided not to play with the rest of us. China's already doing that, or did you somehow miss the advent of the Great Firewall?

The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus.

What the hell are you smoking? The internet isn't run by consensus; it isn't a democracy. It is, in fact, a combination of both anarchy and dictatorship, one that seems to work quite well just the way it is. Anarchy in the sense that standards accrete over time without any one group being able to impose them from above, and dictatorship in that whatever piece I own, I get to make the rules on. If I have a website forum, for example, I can set up whatever rules I want; you don't like them, then your choice boils down to "fuck off". And if you won't go voluntarily I can ip-ban you and be done with it, and not a single person anywhere in the world can force me to let you back onto my forum.

There is no "consensus" here. The internet is one of the least democratic systems on the planet - and thank the gods for that.

You can't deny other nations a voice

You can't deny another nation a voice on the internet *because it's technically impossible to do so*.

The Internet as it is today is controlled

The internet is beyond any one nation's control. That's been proven time and time again. Even the U.S. Congress, passing draconian law after draconian law, has proven utterly impotent at regulating the internet. The Chinese, despite their firewall, are powerless to stop their citizens from reaching any part of it they wish to reach, assuming they have the will to do so.

That very lack of control, the inability of any one nation to effectively impose anything on the system, is one of the internets strengths.

Max

Re:Pot, Kettle

[maxpublic]

The UN is not made up entirely, or even mostly, out of governments like North Korea or Iran. Most of them are democracies, with civil rights

More than eighty countries are straight-up dictatorships, regardless of what they publicly call themselves. I have a huge problem with these countries being allowed a vote in the General Assembly, when each vote only represents a tiny ruling class for that country; or in a number of cases, the will of a single person.

Additionally, it can be argued quite convincingly that the US is not the most democratic nation in the world

Perhaps. Which has what to do with DNS administration? The U.S. has a proven track record in this regard, and nobody has managed to provide a convincing argument for needlessly changing a system that already works just fine the way it is.

The current DNS system is very much pro-corporate america

It's pro-corporate WORLD-WIDE. There's a huge difference between what you're arguing and what is actually true. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with this, as I'm a capitalist, not some wild-eyed socialist looney-toon out to destroy those eeeevil corporations!

I find the US desire to control world-wide IP law

How you make the conceptual leap from retaining control of DNS and controlling all IP, everywhere, across the entire globe is beyond me. Seems like you're just blowing smoke out of your ass, or chicken-littling this whole subject beyond any rational stretch of the imagination.

Max

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Bogtha]

When the word "democracy" encompasses nations like China, Iran, or North Korea, things start to become very Orwellian in nature.

Don't you think that attitude is quite Orwellian itself? "All nations are equal, but some nations are more equal than others"...

It'll be fractured for the countries who decide to divorce themselves from it, not for the rest of us.

I hope you realise that makes no sense.

And frankly, I reallly couldn't give a shit if China, or Iran, or North Korea decided not to play with the rest of us.

Who's "the rest of us"? The EU wants this too.

You can't deny another nation a voice on the internet *because it's technically impossible to do so*.

You missed the point. It's not that the nations don't have a voice. It's that they don't have a voice in how the hierarchy is run.

The internet is beyond any one nation's control.

Then how do you explain the recent news story about Bush pressuring ICANN into not implementing the .xxx domain? It seems the USA government is exercising its control at the exact moment all the indignant Americans are insisting that it either can't be done or won't be done.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[maxpublic]

Don't you think that attitude is quite Orwellian itself? "All nations are equal, but some nations are more equal than others"...

I never said "all nations are equal"; that's something you seem to think is true. And no, I see no reason whatsoever to provide a dictatorship an equal voice in world politics compared to, say, a republic. In fact, I see no reason whatsoever to provide a dictatorship ANY voice in world politics. Dictators are filth, swine, the scum on the bottom of my shoe, and act in ways completely contrary to all I hold dear. Dictators are my enemies.

Who's "the rest of us"? The EU wants this too.

No, certain politicians within the EU want this, as do some minority of their supporters. There is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of the citizens who make up the nations of the EU want this thing, or care about it, or understand the issue, or are even aware of it. It's nothing more than a few power-hungry gits trying to take what isn't theirs.

It's that they don't have a voice in how the hierarchy is run.

Apparently you don't have a clue in how that hierarchy is set up. Any nation, at any time, can set up its own hierarchy *and nobody else can stop them*. If you want to do this thing, then go ahead - nobody's trying to stand in your way. No one even cares.

Then how do you explain the recent news story about Bush pressuring ICANN into not implementing the .xxx domain?

This doesn't prevent YOUR nation from implementing an .xxx domain, or American ISPs from recognizing it. What part of this don't you understand?

It seems the USA government is exercising its control at the exact moment all the indignant Americans are insisting that it either can't be done or won't be done.

The only way the U.S. government can prevent your nation from setting up its own domains or its own root servers is if your politicians - YOUR politicians, not mine - are bending over and grabbing their ankles for U.S. interests. And if that's the case, the problem is on YOUR end. So stop bitching to me about it and go fix it, assuming you even have the balls to do so. Or the right to try without getting jailed.

Max

Re:Pot, Kettle

[naomiimoan]

Easy. He's not from Minnesota, he's from New York.

Bloody carpetbagger.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[splatter]

Once again this was done because coptright issues were involved. The same common law copyright issues that would happen in 3/4 of the modern world.

Making up a supposed law that was passed for the CoS which never happened except in your imagination. 2600 was breaking coyright laws, and I believe the DvD encryption which is protected as well. Antiquited rules that may have to be updated but still the law.

Try again when you have links you read, and REAL facts

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Brian Stretch]

The Bush administration is unaccountable to over 50% of the US population, who did not vote for them.

Over 50%, which is better than Clinton ever did and a helluva lot better than the fraction of 1% who control your average dictatorship. Learn a sense of proportion, 'kay?

And if you actually read the .xxx TLD article you linked to, it says:

The multinational pressure, unprecedented in ICANN's seven-year history, places the organization in a delicate position.

The Whitehouse can't censor much of anything, regardless of what you think they want. Dictatorships like China can.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[sheldon]

And his family all lives in California.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[TummyX]

All men are equal ... ... but some are more equal than others...


Who the hell modded you up? A nation is *NOT* an individual with equal rights among other nations. Are you telling me that you think the government of NK or IRAN will vote in the best interests of each and every individual citizen?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is not a cure-all, but it is better than trusting a dictatorship of one nation.

Thanks for Totally Missing The Point.

The concern is that there are these Nations, that are Dictatorships. Some pretend to be democracies, but there is 'coincidentally' only one choice for leader on the ballot during any given vote.

Democracy is all about taking everyone's opinion into account.
These Dictators would be the ones voting - not their citizens. The voice of these People has already been stifled.

Do you want to have one nation that does listen to its people most of the time running a 'free information' repository, or a 'majority vote' from 12 dictators that 'democratically' censors you if you criticize Kim Jung-Il on your webpage?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[DigiShaman]

If there's an illegitimate government somewhere, they don't get a place in the UN.

I wish there were so. But fact is, China is NOT a legitimate government. In fact, any non-democratic government is not legitimate as far as I'm concerned.

Unless the people can vote, no government is legitimate.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[DigiShaman]

Well in that case, the USA doesn't qualify, as individuals do not elect your president; states do.

Not entirely correct. America is not a direct democracy. It is however a democratic-republic as written in our Constitution. The Constitution can also be amended too by the people if and when they decide to put such changes to a vote. What's why it's called a "living breathing document". So in retrospect, America is very much a democracy. We just happen to use a different method of democracy to represent our government.

Your government refuses to apply the Geneva conventions to their prisoners.

Ok, let's the record correct once and for all. Terrorist are NOT covered in the Geneva Convention as a POW. Let me post what the Geneva DOES state. Ahem...

Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949. Entry into force 21 October 1950

PART I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Here, you can see that these captured terrorists failed to adhere B, C, and D in accordance to the Geneva Convention.

Your government is one of only two out of hundreds that hasn't signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child that forbids executing minors.

And a good thing too. You should read about some of the things gang members in LA and New York do to their victims. They should not get a slap on the hand for killing. And while you could advocate using a reform program, nothing echoes societies message for the preservation of life then the fear of your own should you take someone else life.

Your government is openly debating if it's okay if they torture people - as if the question even needs to be asked!

If some capture Islamic radical knows the location of an atomic bomb waiting to go off, you bet your ass I would torture them a million times over to get the answer. Better to lose one life though torture then to lose an entire city and millions of lives lost.

You do realize that the USA was one of the founding members of the United Nations, don't you?

Ya, what a sorry mistake that was. The UN has now become one of the most corrupt boondoggle in the world. And now, America is partially to blame for its shortsightedness when structuring its creation. *hanging my head in shame*.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[TummyX]

Are you telling me that your congresscritters are voting with the best interests of you and other citizens of US?


Congressman are elected brainiac.

Has your argument turned from democracy for every nation to democracy doesn't work?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[10Ghz]

Are you telling me that you think the government of NK or IRAN will vote in the best interests of each and every individual citizen?

Are you telling me that the government of USA will vote in the best interests of each and every individual citizen?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[m50d]

I wish there were so. But fact is, China is NOT a legitimate government.

For a long time after the revolution the UN didn't acknowledge the new chinese government. Then countries decided to accept it, normalised diplomatic relations with them, etc. Maybe we shouldn't have, but if we accept them like we have we should give them equal representation in world affairs.

In fact, any non-democratic government is not legitimate as far as I'm concerned. Unless the people can vote, no government is legitimate.

My country's election system would have put one party in power even if the other got 53% of the vote. Is that a legitimate government? I could vote (well, actually I couldn't in the last election because I was underage. Can I be legitimately governed by people who didn't let me vote?) but my vote wouldn't even come into the final count because of the way my country's electoral system works.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Tom]

You can give Dear Leader a say in Internet administration, but you can't make him share that authority with the rest of the country.

Absolutely! Except that I don't think that - even though you could - that you should give G.W. Bush a say in Internet administration. I mean, he really doesn't understand most of it, don't you think?

Re:Pot, Kettle

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The concern is that there are these Nations, that are Dictatorships. Some pretend to be democracies, but there is 'coincidentally' only one choice for leader on the ballot during any given vote.

Some people are of the opinion that the U.S. government does not represent it's people, with its pseudo-democracy. Having the choice between two candidates that both serve the same masters is not much different between choosing from only one candidate. You see, how well a country represents the will of its people is a matter for debate, but not something one country can decide for all other countries.

These Dictators would be the ones voting - not their citizens. The voice of these People has already been stifled.

Each country has to hash out it's own government system. Some will be less representative than the U.S. and some more representative. Tell me again how arbitrarily selecting the government of the U.S. to not only represent the will of the U.S. population, but also that of all the world, without consulting any of them is going to more accurately represent the will of the people. ...Wait, now try that again without making the unfounded assumption that the U.S. is better than the rest of the world and always will be.

Do you want to have one nation that does listen to its people most of the time running a 'free information' repository, or a 'majority vote' from 12 dictators that 'democratically' censors you if you criticize Kim Jung-Il on your webpage?

Your assumption is that somehow a bunch of third world dictators will arbitrarily be able to censor information over the objections of both the U.S., all of Europe, south America, etc,. etc. Now tell me why you think it is more likely that these governments, who have to date little power in the U.N. to push anything, are more likely to collectively gain that power and force changes on the rest of the world, than the U.S. is likely to censor it's enemies or threaten to do so for political/economic advantages?

The U.N. is a collection of nations with well formed and poorly formed governments. If a dictator took over the U.K. tomorrow though, the U.N. would not suddenly start voting to censor everything according to their whim. If a dictator, took over the U.S. tomorrow, they could start censoring the entire internet. Do you see where most countries would prefer the former situation to the latter?

Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[Surt]

We can't stop other countries from setting up their own root servers if they want to, except militarily. Are we really going to go to war to stop them (sadly, in this administration, this is not quite a rhetorical question)?

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[Xarius]

They can't even do it 'militarily'. The USA may have large armed forces, but compared to the armed forces of everyone else combined, it's small. And playing the "nuke" card is silly, because everyone has some.

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[Surt]

Thank you, that was hilarious.

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[locofungus]

No. They are governed by whoever ICANN thinks ought to govern them. And if ICANN decides the US should administer .fr because the French didn't support the US in the Gulf war there is nothing France can do about it.

If the rest of the world really does decide to go without the US they can. If they decide that they will just copy the zone files from .com, .org, .net and .us from the existing root servers they can. And the US can decide not to support .fr, .de, .uk

But either there is going to be agreement over this eventually or there is going to be two separate DNS databases that _might_ stay in synch.

The rest of the world doesn't even need to tell people to start using different root nameservers. They can just require ISPs to redirect any traffic from the existing root nameservers to new root nameservers.

Many dns servers will automatically fetch a new zone file so this could very quickly propogate around the rest of the world permanently.

Short of having a friend on the "other side" who you can tunnel your traffic to we could well end up with two different views of the same internet.

Tim.

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[Surt]

Good will / Trust of your ISP is the only thing keeping you safe. Think about who you would have to infiltrate to implement your scam. You'd have to break into/become an employee of the ISP or higher of your target. The scam target would then sue their ISP. This is why most ISPs have some procedures in place to help prevent such an event from taking place.

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[budgenator]

the generic Top level domains are .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro .travel .gov domain is reserved exclusively for the United States Government, .edu, .mil domain is reserved exclusively for the United States Military, .int domain is used only for registering organizations established by international treaties between governments;
there are 235 country codes controlled by the respective countries and they can do as they please with them, I have a domain registered through the Kingdom of Tonga

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[Trepalium]

That is great. Poor Australia, though.

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[Tom]

Are we really going to go to war to stop them (sadly, in this administration, this is not quite a rhetorical question)?

Once someone has explained to the chimp what DNS is and that it's not related to DNA, maybe, yes.

"Alpha Squad, we have the C root server secured. Area clear. Beta Squad is reporting shots fired, several terrorist technicians down, D root server within sight, but obscured visuals due to smoke. H root server has been destroyed by smart bombs. Over."

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[colinrichardday]

The US is having difficulty containing Iraqi insurgency. How it would handle the rest of the world is beyond me. Also, France's lack of aircraft carruers isn't going to be much of a problem for it defending France.

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[colinrichardday]

It's not the allocation of names, but of IP addresses that is critical. What if Geramny awards 123.45.67.8 to one company, and France allocates it to a different company? How would one (pardon the pun) resolve the issue? Granted, both are in the EU, and so might resolve it within the EU. But what about conflicts between nations that are not so related?

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[Rone]

The US is having difficulty containing Iraqi insurgency. How it would handle the rest of the world is beyond me.

The only reason the US is having difficulty with the insurgency is the near impossibility of telling friend from foe BEFORE the foe has fired the first shot. It's a little hard to win a fight when the other side always gets one free sucker-punch.

That, and the fact that Rumsfeld went in with half the troops needed to defeat an insurgency. Too much of a CEO's "let's downsize the workforce" mentality, I guess.

Anyhow, think back to how long it took for the US military to defeat the regular Iraqi forces a couple years ago. Three, maybe four weeks? One of the more powerful military forces on Earth*, and they're stomped flat in less than a month?

( * They were at least in the upper 50% of nations in the world. Probably even the upper 25%).

If Bush had been bright enough to follow the Powell doctrine, Iraq would be in much better shape than it is today. Unfortunately, he chose to listen to Rumsfeld, and we're STILL trying to clean up the resulting mess.

Re:Yeesh, how many times must it be said:

[colinrichardday]

The US is planning to have an army of 462,000. Even with 2 million, how much of the earth can we cover. How many countries could we occupy at once (or is this to be hit and run?)? And if we occupy countries, we have the same problem of distinguishing between friend or foe.

You are correct about Rumsfeld.

Norm Coleman?

[Robber Baron]

Norm Coleman? Is that the same Norm Coleman that got bitch-slapped by George Galloway?

Re:Norm Coleman?

[PaxTech]

If you consider that a bitch-slapping, you should watch the debate on the Iraq war between Christopher Hitchens and Galloway. Hitchens not only bitchslapped Galloway, he completely took him apart. All Galloway could respond with were ad hominem personal attacks having nothing to do with the substance of Hitchens' statements.. It was the most one-sided bitchslapping I've ever seen.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[Hatta]

I saw the same debate, and it was not one sided bitch slapping.
Neither opponent had a point and they both spent most of their
time insulting the other. Who you percieve as victor says more
about you than them.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[TummyX]

After seeing Glloway on real time with bill maher, I'm not suprised. His use of snide irrelevant sarcastic remarks to divert attention reminds me of Michael Moore's rants on his blog.

Also, does he really have to bring up "it's all about the jooos" every 15 minutes?

Golloway debates like a 15 year old and a retarded one at that.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[CheshireCatCO]

The same Norm Coleman who lost the gubenatorial race (along with DFLer Skip Humphrey) to Jesse "The Body" Ventura. Yep.

Warning! Land of Opinions Ahead! Take the following with the appropriate dose of salt!
Being from Minnesota originally, I've paid some attention to this guy. My view: he's an utter ass. But worse than that, he's a White House shill in the Senate. (Note: I might disagree with many Republican senators, but I can respect them if they come to their own conclusions and do their jobs. As far as I've seen, Coleman seems to merely do and think whatever Karl Rove tells him to.)

Re:Norm Coleman?

[ctid]

I would call that a comprehensive misunderstanding of the debate. I agree far more with Hitchens than with Galloway, but Galloway won the debate hands down. It wasn't even close, nor could it ever have been. Hitchens is a different kind of person than Galloway and Galloway has decades of experience of thinking and debating on his feet. Had they done a debate-by-newspaper-column, the outcome might well have been different.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[PaxTech]

Hitchens made many substantive statements between his insults of Galloway. Galloway was pure invective and spent all his time dodging Hitchens' point while throwing mud.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[turnitover]

Though I disagree with your view of that debate, it's clear that John Stewart bitchslapped Hitchens when the latter appeared on the Daily Show. So Stewart advances to the next round and faces off against the winner of Will v. Juan Cole.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[I confirm I'm not a]

Galloway has decades of experience of thinking and debating on his feet.

(Off topic) George Galloway is the only politician I've ever seen actually on a soap-box, back when he was a Labour MP for Glasgow Hillhead. Interestingly, he wasn't campaigning for himself, but for an issue. He's got pretty out-there views, sometimes, but he is a very dedicated representative: he's fought my corner before, and I've a great deal of respect for him as a result.

Britain's right-wing Conservatives (capital "c") seem to be getting squeezed into UKIP; Britain's left-wing Labour MPs seem to be getting squeezed into Respect (and in Scotland the SSP, or forced to sit as independents). It's sad that the major parties are no longer the broad-churches they once were.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[Beek]

Stewart bitchslapped Hitchens? I think you need to rewatch that interview. Stewart may have asked him a couple tough questions, but Hitchens answered them. I don't agree with Hitchens, but no bitchslapping took place.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[pudge]

Yes, but like most pimps who slap bitches, Galloway was totally full of shit when he did it.

Re:Norm Coleman?

[TummyX]

Yeah, because IN AMERIKA ...

The least you could do is spell his damned name right. It's GALLOWAY.



LOL. Every commie knows it's spelt AMERIKKKA.

A formed my opinion on galloway based on his writings and his performance on a TV TALK SHOW where he's supposed to convey his ideas and point of view. It's not like RTWBH is a fucking sitcom. Short of stalking the man, what do you think the right way to form an opinion?

Can someone explain this to me?

[rudeboy1]

You know, I work in IT, have a moderate grasp of how the world network operates. Why exactyl is the UN so keen on forcibly taking over the management of the internet? A. We invented it, we set up the first networks, and were only later linked with other countries B. It doesn't appear to be broken, why fix it? Can someone explain this to me?

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[eln]

Because other countries use the Internet much like we do, as a major component in much of their commerce. They don't like the idea of a major part of their daily economic and personal lives being controlled by another country where they have no say.

If the Internet were developed in, say, Sweden, the US would be the ones complaining that the UN needs to take it over.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[bigman2003]

Explanation:

The United Nations sucks. It is an organization designed to give little countries a voice. They use it to attempt to 'equalize' the world politically. Thier input and support is about zero, yet their expectations are that the rest of the world (G-7+) should be serving their needs...while they treat their own citizens poorly, use tyrannical leadership, and drain the rest of the world of 'loans' that will never be repaid.

It's a lot like welfare...but in this case the poor outnumber the not-so-poor.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Funny enough, aren't half the RFCs that control the 'net written in some scandanavian country or another?

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[rudeboy1]

I understand what you're saying, but can you be more specific? Exactly what do these countries have to fear? Even if we are war with a country, they still have access to our internet, unless they shut off access on their end. DNS assignments seem to be the only point of contention, and that comes down, as I understand it, to who gets to collect the money for things like domains and class A addresses. So, does that mean the UN sees us making money off of something that we designed and built without their help, and now wants a kickback? Still not clear on why this is happeneing.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[tommasz]

Sadly, in the real world governments often respond to non-problems with short-sighted (non-)solutions. We like to give lip-service to the idea of representational government here in the US but the reality is that power is seldom in the hands of the majority. The UN ambassadors really only answer to whomever appointed them, so their voice is even less representational than an elected official.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Kafka_Canada]

If the Internet were developed in, say, Sweden, the US would be the ones complaining that the UN needs to take it over.

No, the UN would be the ones complaining that the US needs to get out of Sweden.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[eln]

That's what they're threatening to do if we don't transfer control to the UN, and the US is throwing a big fit about it. Splitting the Internet in two like that would be bad for everybody involved.

The great thing about the Internet is that it's global. If we split it up along political lines, much of the power of the Internet would be eliminated.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Surt]

I doubt it. If the internet were invented in Sweden, the US would act unilaterally and set up its own root servers. We don't like to do much through the UN.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[pete6677]

This is the biggest problem with giving the UN strong control over anything: lack of accountability. If the U.S. congress really screws something up in a way that pisses off the average person, they will be made to pay at the polls. What can people do about an out of control UN delegate?

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Xarius]

I propose the United Kingdom take over the worlds telephone systems. After all, A. we invented it, we set up the first networks, and were only later linked with other countries

Please don't explain this to me.

I'm not pro or anti-UN control. I am, however, anti-US control. A totally decentralised model (which is what it was supposed to be anyway) is the ideal solution.

And, again, this is only DNS, which was an American invention (although Mockapetris and Postel don't sound very American to me). Should England/Europe have taken complete control of the WWW because it was invented by a Brit?

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[eln]

I don't know if you've noticed, but the US has earned a reputation for being sort of unstable in their foreign policy decisions lately in the global community.

If one of these countries were to piss us off, and especially if we went to war with them, it's certainly technically feasible for us to disallow them access to our root servers, and even to block all of their IPs from accessing US content.

In addition, organizations like ICANN have already shown that they are prone to cronyism and making decisions based purely on politics and/or profit, and that sort of thing makes other countries nervous.

Countries don't like to be told what to do by other countries. Therefore, it makes sense for a global network to be controlled by a global organization. It doesn't matter that the US built the first part of the Internet. The infrastructure supporting the Internet in these countries was built by them, and they are just as much a part of the global Internet as we are.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[porcupine8]

Because in a lot of UN countries, the national-level government runs a lot more stuff than it does in the US (health care, education, etc). It makes them nervous to have something like the internet controlled by something that's not a government agency.

Plus, they claim that having it controlled by an entity that happens to be in the US (even though it's not at all a part of US government) gives us some kind of "advantage" or "biases" it toward us somehow.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[budgenator]

Because other countries use the Internet much like we do, as a major component in much of their commerce.
You say that like you think the UN would be an improvement of US control. What exactly is the problem that made US control of the GTLD's a Bad thing(tm), Oh wait maybe it's the chicken-little arguement that we're running out of IPv4 address space; well IPv6 will fix that. No the bottom line is it's about money and power, the powers behind the throne at the UN wants to be able to get their hands on the money and divvy it out to their cronies and relatives and use the DNS system as a weapon to silence critics.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[eln]

ICANN has consistently maintained a policy of secrecy and rejection of public input. They repeatedly refused to let Karl Auerbach, a member of their own board, see their books. They abolished the policy of allowing publically elected directors on their board when public criticism got too hot. They have consistently acted in a manner that shows their primary purpose is to keep themselves in power.

To have an organization that is so allergic to the public be in charge of a public resource is absurd.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[falcon5768]

This is kinda the bullshit responce the UN is feeding other people, but its not totally the true reason. The real reason is freedom, and most of the countries trying to get the UN to have control want to censor the internet for one reason or another (China, France, Iran etc) In some cases their intentions are good but extreamly shortsided (europes insesant NEED to block out that they allowed millions of people to be killed right under their nose) Others, like Iran and China, want to use it to keep their populations away from it.

The truth boils down to using the US as a scapegoat to block their own people from the internet, the EXACT reason they are giving the UN why they want control to begin with. The truth of the mater is though that nothing will come of it. They threaten to leave the internet and start their own but not even their citizens would allow that, And given that 90% of the internet is thanks to the US and the fact that most Americans including our government even if you dont agree with Bush or didnt vote for him want the UN either abolished for the shame it has become or out of the US, there is no way the US would ever let the UN have control of any of it.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[bigman2003]

Yes...the U.S. is the same shitty 5% that gave the rest of the world an opportunity to use the net in the first place.

Maybe we should put the People's Republic of Congo in charge of the Internet. They'll provide the type of leadership we need.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[nosyjoe]

well, the WWW was developed in Switzerland by an English Computer Scientist. So according to your way of thinking, Europe (or England? or Switzerland?) has the right to control the WWW. How does that sound to you?

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[ahillen]

europes insesant NEED to block out that they allowed millions of people to be killed right under their nose

You know, it's OK that you disagree that the use of Nazi symbols etc. is regulated in places like Germany. But please stop this bullshit that this is to suppress the knowledge that the Nazi era happened. Books, films, TV reports etc. about the Nazi times are abundant in Germany. You can get into problems if you publish articles DENYING that the holocaust ever happenend, or use Nazi symbols otherwise than in a historical, educational,... context (films, books, theater plays... about Nazi times). As I said, one can argue whether this is the right approach, but claiming this is done to prevent knowledge that the Nazi era is a historical fact just makes you look very uninformed.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[aaronl]

The US is doing nothing wrong here. It is simple *not* doing what the UN and co. want it to do. That's fine, considering the UN has no authority over the operation of the US. This is by virtue of it being illegal under the US Constitution for anyone here to agree to cede power to them. For a diplomatic venue (UN), and a bastardized economic alliance (EU), there certainly seems to be an awful lot of laws and such going on.

If there is a fracturing of DNS, it will be directly the fault of the UN/EU/China/etc for doing it. *They* would have to set up another system, and that would be what results in a fracture.

DNS is working fine right now, and if they were so concerned with safeguarding the system, they could be making copies of the data "just in case". The approach of trying to forcibly take control guarantees a massive amount of disruption of the system, and a long period of distrust of the new system. The existing DNS is known to work, it has proven itself reliable and stable, and has done so over the course of decades. A new system would start with absolutely no history.

The UN and co. are the ones trying to split it up. If it is so bad to split it up, then perhaps *the UN shouldn't do it*. The truth is that the people pushing for this already have shown that they aren't trustworthy having power over this. They have already censored internet and banned things in regards to it. The US is actually the one that *hasn't* tampered with it!

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[aaronl]

Actually, no, the US couldn't do any of that. About half of the root zone servers are not in the US. The government doesn't control most of the ones that remain, and the telecom that the Internet runs on is all private sector. Also, you can't reliably block "all of their IPs" since you can't reliably know which ones those are. Even if the US did that, the only way they could reliably block off access would be to block *all* outside access.

You're absolutly right, countries don't liek being told what to do by other countries. Sort of like what other countries are trying to do to the US over DNS.

As for ICANN, you don't know any of that. All you know is that they dropped the community voters. You don't know how they're structured internally, or whether they are playing favorites, or much of anything else.

All things considered, if people want it fixed, then we should be working to fix ICANN, rather than pissing between national governments.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Evil W1zard]

Yes the US invented the Internet, but then again Switzerland invented the World Wide Web which allowed for organization of the information contained on the Internet... My point is that there have been so many contributors to how the Internet functions that it isn't really a single entity that should declare ownership of it as it functions today.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[gstoddart]

I doubt it. If the internet were invented in Sweden, the US would act unilaterally and set up its own root servers. We don't like to do much through the UN.

I would add "unless it's convenient" to the end of that last sentence.

Whether you like to like it or not, the US will go in front of the UN and claim to be working with the UN to solve some problems, and then for other issues (or when they get no support) claim very loudly that the UN is now irrelevant.

I certainly get the impression the US stance on the UN is that as long as they toe the US policy-line, they're good -- or at least useful. As soon as they don't instantly agree with what America says, they're bad, outmoded, unfair, etc.

Cheers

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[joranbelar]

Because other countries use the Internet much like we do, as a major component in much of their commerce. They don't like the idea of a major part of their daily economic and personal lives being controlled by another country where they have no say.

We're talking about administration of the DNS root servers here, this hardly equates with "controlling" the Internet. What exactly are these other countries afraid the US will do now, when it has been responsible for the root server administration for years already. What exactly has changed, besides the EU becoming more and more frustrated at their own incompetence and decided to throw a hissy fit about nothing?

If the Internet were developed in, say, Sweden, the US would be the ones complaining that the UN needs to take it over.

Well, yeah. But it wasn't the Swedes, it was the US. I think it goes without saying that countries will always act in their own (selfish) interests. Why should we expect otherwise?

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[hypergreatthing]

Uhhh.

Why can't countries hijack their DNS servers now?

Doesn't China already do something akin to this via the great firewall?

Besides, the UN is a group of politicians. I wouldn't want them to be in charge of their own personal computers.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[fingusernames]

And this is surprising or bad how?

The job of the government of the United States, and therefore its representative in the United Nations, is to promote and defend the interests of the United States and its citizens. If the United Nations is a convenient tool toward that end, then it is useful. If it is not, then it is not useful and is irrelevant to our needs. Nobody and no nation owes any allegience to it nor any respect or deference beyond its immediate and selfish usefulness. Our paramount goal in dealing with the world is to promote our interests, our needs, and to fiercely protect the sovereignty of the American people. If such happens to align with the goals of other nations, well and good, we will walk the same path. If not, we will walk our own.

Larry

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[gstoddart]

Our paramount goal in dealing with the world is to promote our interests, our needs, and to fiercely protect the sovereignty of the American people. If such happens to align with the goals of other nations, well and good, we will walk the same path. If not, we will walk our own.

All of that is patently evident, maybe moreso than you realize.

But, when Team America: World Police decide they are going to start overthrowing regimes and being the final arbiters of liberty and IP in the world, then they can either play along with everyone else nicely, or stop pretending that there is any thing such as international agencies and treaties -- just whatever the American government decides to do.

Because, quite frankly, why should anyone listen to anything your government says unless to treat it as what it actually is --- the yellings of a bully who expects to control the way everything works. You want democracy for everyone, protection of the RIAA's property rights, but then turn around and say "we don't care about what other countries want".

It's a two way street, if the US is free to promote their own agenda to the exclusion of what anyone else wants, then precisely why aren't the rest of the nations? You can either work with people, or eventually find you're being ignored.

You cannot on the one hand claim any moral authority to do the things you do, and on the other hand say that the democratic process is flawed and not helping, and decide you need to side-step it.

So which is it, "America is the champion of justice, equality and the rule of law"? Or "America doesn't give a shit what you say, follow what we say"? The ease with which you seem to think you can flip between those two completely contradictory poisitions is what troubles everyone else.

At present, America is being perceived as walking around with a big stick, expecting everyone to snivel, grovel, and blindly follow. But it likes to portray itsself as the benign, helpful country who wants everyone to prosper and evolve into democratic nations. That you're really ignorant/indifferent to anyone else but yourselves is pretty evident of late.

And, that is all really too bad. Because I used to think the US was something really special because its history and constitution prevented it from becoming all of these things.

Cheers

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[fingusernames]

So which is it, "America is the champion of justice, equality and the rule of law"? Or "America doesn't give a shit what you say, follow what we say"? The ease with which you seem to think you can flip between those two completely contradictory poisitions is what troubles everyone else.

I may respond to more of your message later, when I have time. But to respond to the above: both.

We believe that within sovereign nations, the people must be treated as sovereign, and they have fundamental rights to justice, equality, the rule of law and open democratic institutions. We believe that regimes which fail to provide such are illegitimate and should not be treated as legitimate.

However, we simulatenously do NOT believe in democracy between nations (e.g. the United Nations) in terms of it having the slightest control or precedence over the will of the sovereign people of the nation, or in a concept of international law beyond strictly voluntary treaty obligations.

Those two viewpoints are in no way contradictory. We believe people are sovereign and have the right to control their own governments, and we largely and generally, but certainly not perfectly, promote that viewpoint. We likewise do not believe that the United Nations, nor any other entity/nation, can or should have any power whatsoever over our government or our actions, beyond voluntary treaties we enter into, on our terms, subject to approval by our Congress and review by our courts, subject to our Constitution.

The world is free to disagree with us. They often do. We respect the fundamental right of free people in other nations to disagree. We aren't going to attack you for merely that. But believing you have the right to disagree does not mean we have to say "Oh, my, look at all the disagreement. We'll change our mind now. Sorry." It does not mean that disagreeing must engender no consequences, be they diplomatic or economic. The world (well, mainly Europe) seems quite happy to disparage the United States over, say, the Kyoto treaty or the ICC and contemplate consequences. Shouldn't the world instead say "OK, we disagree ... we'll just accept that disagreement as pals and not bitch about it incessantly."

Regarding sticks and I presume Iraq: do not let the facts as understood today blind you to the facts as understood prior to the invasion. Iraq had been, for many years, violating the conditions of the ceasefire which ended hostilities in 1991, something which alone provided all the much vaunted "legitimacy" required to resume hostilities. But further, Iraq was believed to have, not only by the United States but by most western nations, an active covert weapons program. The debate was not whether Iraq had such a program or whether Iraq had illicit weapons. The debate was whether such was worthy of invading immediately, or whether Iraq should be pressed diplomatically longer and further and harder. And make no mistake, it was a protracted debate. The United States did not fly in during the dark of night and in a vicious and unannounced unilateral action overthrow the legitimate elected government of Iraq. There were many attempts to convince allies. There were slides and Powerpoint presentations. In the end, the people of the United States, by a good majority, supported invasion. Congress supported invasion. We warned Iraq we would invade and provided terms (perhaps impossible terms, but terms nonetheless) to avoid invasion. And then we invaded. It wasn't sudden, it wasn't unexpected, and it was not without justification given the facts as understood at the time. The facts of today change that not one tiny bit.

Sticks: it has long been the policy of the United States to "walk quietly but carry a big stick." When we feel threatened, we carry the same stick but we talk about it. But the stick has always been there. Just like after we used the big stick in Japan, we'll get quiet again, once we feel safe and secure.

Larry

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[maxpublic]

But, when Team America: World Police decide they are going to start overthrowing regimes and being the final arbiters of liberty and IP in the world

Riiiight. So you've somehow come to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq means what, exactly? That we'll be stomping all over Belgium next? Get a grip.

And last I checked, every country in the world (minus Iraq) can and does enact its own ip laws. Some nations in Europe have far worse laws than we do in that regard. How are we supposed to be the "final arbiters" on IP when aside from global invasion and war we're utterly incapable of forcing our laws on anyone else?

Because, quite frankly, why should anyone listen to anything your government says unless to treat it as what it actually is --- the yellings of a bully who expects to control the way everything works.

As opposed to what you seem to be proposing, i.e., forcing each and every nation to get down on its knees before the UN because, like, that's somehow 'democractic'? A dictatorship by the majority is still a dictatorship, any way you slice it. That's one of the reasons the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, because democracies suck dick if you aren't one of the happy majority.

You want democracy for everyone

No, most Americans aren't at all interested in spreading democracy, no matter what bullshit you've been spoon-feeding yourself. The U.S. government isn't all that interested in it, either. Certainly the Saudis and Kuwaitis could attest to that.

protection of the RIAA's property rights

Which are absolutely impossible to enforce without YOUR own governments complicity. If you think your government is doing bad things to the benefit of the RIAA, then complain to your government, not to me or any other American. It isn't our problem if your politicians are corrupt shitheads.

but then turn around and say "we don't care about what other countries want".

The sole purpose my government exists is to serve American interests. My government has *absolutely no business* putting ANYONE ELSE's interests ahead of my own. It's that simple. To do so would be a betrayal of every single American on the planet.

The ease with which you seem to think you can flip between those two completely contradictory poisitions is what troubles everyone else.

The ease with which you seem to think it's okay for a group of nations to impose their will on the rest of the world, yet somehow think this is completely different from a single nation doing the same thing, is what bothers me. Not to mention the fact that your'e suffering from the delusion that the U.S. is even capable of attempting this feat, outside of easily-whipped little countries like Iraq.

At present, America is being perceived as walking around with a big stick, expecting everyone to snivel, grovel, and blindly follow.

Just another bitter European, I see. If it were the EU doing this you'd no doubt claim it was just and appropriate. What you're pissed at isn't that the U.S. has power, but that your nation doesn't have that power.

Try sucking it up and dealing with it. Europe had it's time in the sun - centuries of time - and now that time is over, and it ain't coming back. That's just the way things are.

Max

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Trepalium]

*sigh* Try putting yourself in other people's positions before you criticise them.

There are a number of reasons why other countries would prefer if the ITU or some other neutral party controlled the root servers. Perhaps the most prominent is the fact that most countries are somewhat uneasy with having a foreign country control a critical part of infrastructure that they use in their country. Maybe everything is fine right now, but what if a trade conflict arrises? Will the U.S. exploit their control over DNS to their advantage in this situation?

Then there's ICANN itself. ICANN has been pressuring ccTLDs to adopt their dispute policies, and various other policies. There's real friction between ICANN and the ccTLDs, and this "It's our toy, you can't have it!" attitude from the U.S. government isn't helping.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Trepalium]

How about how they altered the .net requirements so they could give the contract to Verisign? With the exception of things that were so completely hated by internet users (SiteFinder, WLS) that it would threaten ICANN's existance, Verisign seems to get whatever Verisign wants.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[dcam]

The sole purpose my government exists is to serve American interests. My government has *absolutely no business* putting ANYONE ELSE's interests ahead of my own. It's that simple. To do so would be a betrayal of every single American on the planet.

And this is just the sort of thing that gives Americans a bad name. I just hope that it is not an accurate name. I fear that it is.

You government should serve American interests unless they run counter to the interests of the rest of the world. If you applied the US attitude to peoplem there would be a word for that: selfish. I see no reason why that same description should not be applied to a country.

The very reason that GWB is so hated around the world is that he applies just that attitude. That and the fact that he is imcompetant.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[gstoddart]

How are we supposed to be the "final arbiters" on IP when aside from global invasion and war we're utterly incapable of forcing our laws on anyone else?

You mean, besides insisting on having your trading partners write your laws IP into their laws? So far this has been well observed in several different countries. It's been covered here on Slashdot. (Several times if you count the dupes.)

A dictatorship by the majority is still a dictatorship, any way you slice it. That's one of the reasons the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, because democracies suck dick if you aren't one of the happy majority.

Yeah, good thing all of those people who voted against Bush live in a Republic instead of a democracy. Like it or not, the US has an entrenched democracy -- hell, elected officials are spelled out in your constitution.

No, most Americans aren't at all interested in spreading democracy, no matter what bullshit you've been spoon-feeding yourself. The U.S. government isn't all that interested in it, either. Certainly the Saudis and Kuwaitis could attest to that.

Really? Then why would Condoleezza Rice and George Bush both contradict you? Or is it that the rest of the world is just supposed to believe that as a smoke screen for the real plans for the new American Empire? Because the public voice of your administration says very loudly they are 'spreading democracy'.

The ease with which you seem to think it's okay for a group of nations to impose their will on the rest of the world, yet somehow think this is completely different from a single nation doing the same thing, is what bothers me. Not to mention the fact that your'e suffering from the delusion that the U.S. is even capable of attempting this feat, outside of easily-whipped little countries like Iraq.

Hmmmm .... so it's OK for the US to go around imposing its will, but if a group of nations does it that's bad? The whole reason we have things like the UN is to prevent precisely that -- countries imposing their will on their neighbors.

Just another bitter European, I see. If it were the EU doing this you'd no doubt claim it was just and appropriate. What you're pissed at isn't that the U.S. has power, but that your nation doesn't have that power.

*laugh* You have no basis to say I'm European. Nice ad hominem attack. You've stung me.

No, what I'm terrified about is that Americans go around thinking this is about ascendancy of power instead of growing out of such archaic ideas -- some of us still hope we can actually positively build a global community. But, maybe I'm just too idealistic and naive.

Try sucking it up and dealing with it. Europe had it's time in the sun - centuries of time - and now that time is over, and it ain't coming back. That's just the way things are.

Wow. I'm sorry you feel so hostile to most of the rest of the world. Now I remember why the rest of us are starting to look at your country with a few reservations -- it's being filled up with Xenophobic jackasses.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[stormcoder]

Then they can build their own root servers. No ones stopping them. I'd much rather see a fractured internet then have it under the boot of the UN. The UN is a currupt and incompetent organization. They can't even manage themselves. The oil for food program was a dead simple operation and look how much they fucked that up.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[maxpublic]

And this is just the sort of thing that gives Americans a bad name.

If having a government doing exactly what it's supposed to do - put MY interests ahead of a the interests of non-citizens - gives me a "bad name", I'll wear it with pride. It sure beats the alternative.

You government should serve American interests unless they run counter to the interests of the rest of the world.

You think national governments should bow down and suck the dick of foreign entities at the expense of their own citizenry??? What a fucking nutjob! Do you even know what the purpose of government is?

Max

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[maxpublic]

You mean, besides insisting on having your trading partners write your laws IP into their laws?

The only way this could happen is if YOUR politicians are spineless fucking pansies incapable of representing the interests of their own people. It isn't my problem if you elected corrupt, cowardly twats to office; that's YOUR problem. YOU fix it.

Yeah, good thing all of those people who voted against Bush live in a Republic instead of a democracy. Like it or not, the US has an entrenched democracy -- hell, elected officials are spelled out in your constitution.

Speaking of twats, it's apparent you can't even tell the difference between the forms of government known as 'democracy' and 'republic'. The U.S. is NOT a democracy; it's a republic. The fact that you can't tell the difference, yet think you're knowledgeable enough to comment on American politics, does nothing but convince much of the rest of the slashdot audience that you're an ignoramus.

Really? Then why would Condoleezza Rice and George Bush both contradict you?

Because they're fucking idiots? Or perhaps they'd rather the majority of the American public not know we're in bed with a bunch of dictatorship-loving, freedom-oppressing scumbags? Like all the other administrations - both Democratic and Republican - before them? Of course, that doesn't make us any different from any other 'freedom-loving' country in the world, given the last few decades of European-style hijinx.

so it's OK for the US to go around imposing its will, but if a group of nations does it that's bad?

When it comes to root servers which, if you've forgotten in your ranting, is the topic at hand, the U.S. is utterly incapable of 'forcing' anything on anyone. And our track record re the root servers shows that we just aren't interested in doing that. No other nation can claim the same.

The whole reason we have things like the UN is to prevent precisely that -- countries imposing their will on their neighbors.

And we've seen just how fucking effective the UN is, too. And how incorruptible they are. Yep, now *that's* a body I'd trust with root server administration.

You have no basis to say I'm European. Nice ad hominem attack. You've stung me.

Sure I do. You give yourself away with all that stock I-hate-Americans crap so much in vogue amongst the bitter, disaffected youth of certain European countries. Can't blame your country, can't blame your politicians, can't blame your own lazy ass - so why not Americans?

I'm sorry you feel so hostile to most of the rest of the world.

Sad little boy. All I said was that Europe is not, and will never again be, a superpower - a thing painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain. Don't see why that's such a problem for you.

Now I remember why the rest of us are starting to look at your country with a few reservations -- it's being filled up with Xenophobic jackasses.

No, it's being increasingly filled with people who tired of taking shit from assholes from second-rate backwaters who seem to be pissed off that the Age of Imperialism ended long before they were born, and have decided to take out their impotent rage on a nation that has nothing whatsoever to do with their current political or economic status. Since it's apparently easier to bitch, whine, moan, and blame somebody else for YOUR problems than to fix them yourself.

Max

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Tom]

If one of these countries were to piss us off, and especially if we went to war with them, it's certainly technically feasible for us to disallow them access to our root servers, and even to block all of their IPs from accessing US content.

Which they probably don't care that much about. But you can also take away their TLD with everything underneath it, which they probably do care about. Can you say .iq ? (for americans and others who don't know: .iq is Iraq's TLD and has still not been handed back to the elected iraqi government...)

Tax Email?

[MaskedSlacker]

They want to tax e-mail? The UN wants to tax email.... Well they can go straight to hell.

Re:Tax Email?

[Maximum Prophet]

Taxing email is the best idea since slice bread. If the tax were 1/100 of one cent, it wouldn't be worth collecting from regular folks (like me and you), but the spammers would be shut down. Governments tend to look the other way when people make a nuisance of themselves, even if they bother 100 million different email users. However, when the spammers don't pay their taxes, you can expect jack-booted thugs to beat the money out of them.

Re:Tax Email?

[MrFlannel]

Just you wait until they raise it. Besides, who is going to collect it?

Why do they need to tax it? I already pay for my internet connection, as well as paying for the domain that my email comes from.

Give me some good logical reasons for a tax to be put on my email? Not 'it will stop spammers', but real reasons why it should be taxed.

Re:Tax Email?

[ChristTrekker]

That's stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. Taxing basic communication? Don't pass laws you think are unenforceable - gov't always finds some way to enforce them. When your cute little idea bites you in the butt, everybody will be asking "what idiot passed this law?" Every law is a curtailment of your freedom - we need fewer of them, not more.

Re:Tax Email?

[eheldreth]

Dinar, Drachma, Franc, Mark, Euro, Pound, or the Almighty Dollar. There is seven good reasons to tax e-mail.

Re:Tax Email?

[MaskedSlacker]

Agreed. There is no reason for a government tax on email, much less a UN tax.

Re:Tax Email?

[MaskedSlacker]

You're off the rocker on this one. I have a huge amount of work related email traffic, that has to cross multiple domains, its not just in-house email on a LAN that doesn't require the top level DNS servers, that would amount to a few hundred dollars a year at that rate. How about not.

What organization to choose?

[KiloByte]

I would propose to have the root name servers entrusted to a coalition of:

China -- to protect the freedom of speech
Poland -- to ensure reliability of connections
Sierra Leone -- to ensure cheap and widely available services
USA -- to curb bottom dwelling scum-suckers like RIAA

But really... if an organisation is to take over the root servers, UN is not far from Al Quaeda and RIAA. Just add corruption and take away any traces of balls.

Re:What organization to choose?

[Spy der Mann]

So, your point is, because the UN would have corruption, let's spare lying to the people and let a publicly known corrupted govt. take over?

Great idea, indeed.(/sarcasm)

Re:What organization to choose?

[Surt]

I just embezzled a million dollars from Al-Qaeda you insensitive clod!

Re:What organization to choose?

[KiloByte]

I just mention the alternatives we have.

Sweden, Finland, Norway -- good, but too small.
Britland -- nearly same as the US, but smaller.
China -- obvious.
Africa -- what is that "Internet" thingy?
India -- perhaps.
Germany -- censorship.
France -- you can't let them touch anything not made by a french-speaking person.
Muslim countries -- no infrastructure, a lack of will to do anything constructive.
Australia -- a remote colony of UK.
Russia -- they're too busy establishing Putinjugend and fighting not-obedient-enough businesspeople.

In other words, a randomly choosen replacement is a lot worse than what we have right now.

Re:What organization to choose?

[m50d]

But really... if an organisation is to take over the root servers, UN is not far from Al Quaeda and RIAA. Just add corruption and take away any traces of balls.

On the rest of the world's list, the US comes far below the UN in terms of "people we'd be happy about controlling our internet"

Re:What organization to choose?

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Don't forget Japan for the tentacle porn

Re:What organization to choose?

[Kafka_Canada]

On the rest of the world's list, the US comes far below the UN in terms of "people we'd be happy about controlling our internet"

Exactly -- that's why no one really cares about the "rest of the world."

(See here for more detail on the idiotic "rest of the world" construct, in the last dictators-want-to-take-over-DNS thread.)

Re:What organization to choose?

[bobbo69]

For those rest-of-the-worlders here that don't get this Polish reference - Americans are prejudiced towards the Poles. It's kind of the same as the 'Paki' jokes that used to go around the UK, but are pretty rare these days because that kind of racism isn't viewed as acceptable anymore.

I guess the same is not true of America yet.

Re:What organization to choose?

[randyest]

'Paki' jokes are "rare" in the UK? Surely you're joking mate.

Re:What organization to choose?

[bobbo69]

"pretty rare" is what I said - to cite one example: comedians on TV: wouldn't you agree that the racist jokes that used to be told by likes of Manning, Davidson etc. have vanished from the media?

Also, contrast the progress made in tackling racism in football in the UK with the situation in the rest of Europe...

I'm all for internationalizing...

[kaellinn18]

...the internet, but the United Nations is a worthless waste of space and resources. It should not be allowed the remotest of control over the internet. I would be much happier with an organization set up independent of the UN that actually knows what they're doing.

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[Mac Degger]

In reality, there's just three things wrong with the UN:

-VETO power; this HAS to be adressed; it has no place in a gathering of nations.
-lack of teeth; there should be a permanent peacekeeping force under UN controll...but this only works if veto power is revoked (or at least drastically reworked)
-too much diplomacy...lunacy like certain countries on the human rights commission...that would be like China on the internet-commission

What I never get is that organisations (and countries/corporations etc) are in a way set up like organisms, but always lacking that most effective way for positive evolution to happen: death. The UN charter (and any corporations charter, and every country's constitution) should include sections on it's own death and rebirth (for example a total revision after 50 years). Documents written hundreds of years ago might be relevant all those years later, but they just can't anticipate the way the world has changed, or the changed expectations of people. There's a reason why nature has this thing called death; it enables evolution.

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[deanj]

There are more things wrong with the UN than people think.

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[brouski]

I would be much happier with an organization set up independent of the UN that actually knows what they're doing.

We've got that already. It's called ICANN.

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[misterbitter]

VETO power [has no place]
This only applies to the Security Council, not the General Assembly. IMO, veto power rightfully belongs in the SC with those nations that have the ability to enforce the SC resolutions. Your logic would allow Algeria, Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Philippines, Romania, and Tanzania (current elected members to the council) to order an invasion of China to disable its internet firewalls. Those 10 nations combined couldn't muster up enough military force to overpower the Swiss Guard at the Vatican with Italy's approval.

-lack of teeth; there should be a permanent peacekeeping force under UN control
Until the UN bureaucrats(sp?) are held accountable in any way, good luck with that wish. Not to mention the astronomical cost of maintaining a military force (manpower, equipment, logistics support) that would need to be at least 1/2 as large as the current US armed forces in order to have any hope of being a credible threat/deterent to enforce anything.

-too much diplomacy...lunacy like certain countries on the human rights commission
Finally, something we can agree upon.

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[Daniel_Staal]

Actually, if you want to give the UN teeth you are going to have to work a little harder than that.

The UN cannot do anything in any country unless that country allows it. Anything they do is a voluntary action. Now, they can agree to impose sanctions, but those are based on other contries voluntarially following the sanctions.

Personally, I'd like to see this changed. I can see how it would scare lots of people though. (And how come we'll never get countries to agree to it.)

Still, every time I see agruments about how the UN should do something, and why isn't it, I always want to shout: They Can't. It is against their charter. Therefore, they resort to diplomacy. Because it is all they are allowed to do.

And you know who put that in the charter? The US.

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[PedroReish]

Still, every time I see agruments about how the UN should do something, and why isn't it, I always want to shout: They Can't. It is against their charter. Therefore, they resort to diplomacy. Because it is all they are allowed to do.

This is so true. Furthermore, the UN is or has been used as the ultimate bogeyman by pretty much anyone at this point. It's such an easy target. Some elected represantative from country X whines because the UN isn't doing sh*t on that issue and gets front page attention while country X's ambassador to the UN vetoed (or voted down) the resolution on that same issue (without any press attention). Replace country X with any country on the Security Council and you get a pretty good picture of how it goes. It is that easy to make political gains on the back of the UN by playing on both sides.
People don't want to see and accept that the ineffectiveness of the UN on some issues results directly from the unwillingness of the member-countries to do the right thing (or just plain something). And that includes our governements.
The UN is being asked to uphold a higher (humanitarian/moral/ethical) standard than its member-countries. Therein lies the problem.

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Maybe this is insightful. Maybe it is absolutely trivial to set up an international co-operation organization that is in every way totally superior to UN.

Could kaellinn18 or someone give a short introduction to how this is done? I'm not trying to pick a fight: I just really do not understand what you are proposing...

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[Tom]

too much diplomacy

You have absolutely no idea about international politics, do you? Every time the UN has failed, it was due to not enough diplomacy, or more precisely, because some bullheaded fuckwit of a country (many times the USSR, quite a few times the USA) simply refused to talk, move or think, and used its veto power or other machinations to prevent any actions or progress on the topic.

Trying to get well over a hundred nations with different cultures, governments, languages, to agree on anything is about a hundred times as difficult as your "america first" would allow you to believe, unless you consider steamrolling over everyone else and forcing your attitude, believes and values on them a proper method.
And that includes free speech, free internet, basic human rights even. They aren't as basic as you think. Heck, most of them weren't basic in the US 200, 100, some even 50 years ago!

Re:I'm all for internationalizing...

[Mac Degger]

"You have absolutely no idea about international politics, do you?"

No...8 years of MUN (delegate and organisation), a healthy interest in world affairs, a special interest in the long game, reading the classics (and the modern writers) and friends of the family who are ambassadors...I have no idea about politics. Not the history, no idea about it's forms or it's function. Not a clue about how politics is practiced in different parts of the world, nor an understanding of how those different systems interact or what different ideologies or realpolitik underlies it all. I have no clue as to where basic materials are produced in the world, and who has control over their extraction and distribution. Nor do I have a clue as to who the current players are, or who (likely) put them there and who would likely replace them. Strike me with thy clue-by-four, oh mighty low-ID#!

"Every time the UN has failed, it was due to not enough diplomacy"

Sir, it seems you know even less about politics and especially about the history of different organisations and the different actions those organisations have undertaken. Although it's true that what you say is correct in many cases, claiming that it is /only/ so is patently false.
The League of Nations is a prime example of what too much diplomacy does. Quite a few UN (in)actions point to an overdose of diplomacy and a lack of common sence (Burma on the human rights commisssion? WTF? And that's one of the lesser ones). Read up on the history of the UN, it's different NGO's and mission (hell, read a few preambulatory clauses of some recurring UN resolutions!) and you'll be a lot wiser and you won't embarres yourself with such broad and false assertions.

"Trying to get well over a hundred nations with different cultures, governments, languages, to agree on anything is about a hundred times as difficult as your "america first" would allow you to believe, unless you consider steamrolling over everyone else and forcing your attitude, believes and values on them a proper method."

First of all...no shit sherlock. Getting a hundered anythings to agree on whatever is hard, and the problems scale up. How insightfull of you.
And I'd like to point out I'm an englishman brought up in the dutch education system, and still live in the Netherlands; where you get the 'america first' idea from is utterly implausible, especially considering what I was advocating.

"unless you consider steamrolling over everyone else and forcing your attitude, believes and values on them a proper method."

Again, not at all, or even remotely, what I was saying or even implying. But as many conflicts have proven, having the UN as a buffer is immensely valuable. This is not the same as what you're saying at all.

"And that includes free speech, free internet, basic human rights even. They aren't as basic as you think. Heck, most of them weren't basic in the US 200, 100, some even 50 years ago!"

Did you even READ my comment? Go back, re-read it. Especially the last paragraph.

A modest proposal...

[farrellj]

Time for the internet to declare it's independance!

Let's have a Boston DNS party!

Tell the US & UN to get stuffed!

ttyl
          Farrell ...with tongue lightly planted in cheek...

Re:A modest proposal...

[mblase]

Time for the internet to declare it's independance!

Internet = independence? So that's why zillions of teenagers are blogging their hallway conversations every day....

Re:A modest proposal...

[marcosdumay]

Ok, you was joking, but this is such a good idea. We could put business and governement out of the internet control as they were at the begining, and create the rules as we do with RFCs.

We could do this with free software (look at Debian), why can't we do with the internet?

Re:A modest proposal...

[Sloppy]

Time for the internet to declare it's independance!

Let's have a Boston DNS party!

Tell the US & UN to get stuffed!

I think that has already been done. Hardly anyone has come to the party, though.

There seems tobe a misconception...

[91degrees]

That controlling the root DNS actually allows any control over the internet at all. DNS is no tthe internet. It's a naming mechanism. That's all.

Re:There seems tobe a misconception...

[frank378]

From TFA...

At the heart of this international political spat is the unique influence that the U.S. federal government enjoys over Internet addresses and the master database of top-level domain names--a legacy of the Internet's origins years ago. The Bush administration recently raised objections to the proposed addition of .xxx as a red-light district for pornographers, for instance, a veto power that no other government is able to wield.

So did you miss this, or are you disagreeing with it?

Anyway, this is no longer a uniquely American enterprise. Yes, the US innovated it but maybe it's time to consider opening up the control a little bit? I'm not personally in favor of the UN "taking over" but I think it is time for this discussion to happen in the interest of seeing the Internet continue to evolve.

Re:There seems tobe a misconception...

[maxwell demon]

Well, imagine for example the US government (rightly or wrongly) decided that some country X hosted primary terrorist sites, and to interrupt terrorist communication, it just ordered to remove all domain names of that country from the root servers. Don't you think this would have a bad impact on country X?

If the only way you normally get to a ressource is through its name, then the naming service is a crucial part of the infrastructure.

Re:There seems tobe a misconception...

[Zunni]

ROFL, yes DNS has nothing to do with looking up the correct IP address when I enter any domain name...

Certainly has nothing to do with not redirecting me to Ford's website when I enter GM's address...

That is not 'any control' at all..

Re:There seems tobe a misconception...

[91degrees]

So if the US government decided to make arbtirary changes like that - Do you think any ISP would still use ICANN?

Re:There seems tobe a misconception...

[Zunni]

Would they have any choice? My point was simply that DNS plays a much larger role in how the internet operates than the original parent stated.

Mine as well..

[kcb93x]

I think I'll be writing a letter thanking him...I'm trying to think if he's done anything I should reprimand him for though, I haven't been paying much attention.

Re:Mine as well..

[n6mod]

He was the guy who thought it was a good idea to drag George Galloway before the Senate, thereby making himself and the rest of the investigations sub-committee look like complete idiots.

Re:Mine as well..

[plover]

Oh, he's one of my senators as well, and I can assure you he's thoroughly capable of looking like a complete idiot at any time. As a matter of fact, I think it's pretty tough for him to do much else.

As far as I can tell, he's voted in a direction I considered appropriate only twice, and then only because of some piece of tasty pork lured him away from his party line. Otherwise, he's been a model toady of the Bush administration. He really knows how to kowtow when it's required, and can lick cowboy boots better than Neville Chamberlain licked jackboots.

How about: ...

[bcat24]

... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Does it really matter to anyone (not counting government officials that want to run everything themselves) who controls DNS? Also, I'm not sure I'd trust the UN to manage the Internet more than I trust the US.

Re:How about: ...

[Renraku]

The USA pretty much created the internet. It evolved from ARPAnet.

As a result, we have the root servers here. Its like asking Egypt to transfer control of the Pyramids to the UN. We built the wonder, we reap the benefits.

Re:How about: ...

[Zunni]

Yeah, why innovate and improve when we can maintain the status quo... That's forward thinking of you..

Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

It is so nice to see so many Americans voice their opinion here and really show how little they know about the UN.

Re:Americans

[Daniel_Staal]

Where are my mod points when I need them?

Re:Americans

[houghi]

Pity the people mod this as Flamebait, while it should be modded insightfull.

Re:Americans

[Rycross]

Its nice to see so many anti-Americans voice their opinion here, and really show how little they know about why the UN wants control, and which countries in the UN were pushing for UN control, in addition to American concerns about said control.

I eagerly await

[Dan Up Baby]

The United Nations' firm reprimand--perhaps even a tongue-lashing, or a dressing-down--of the rogue Bonzi Dictator.

Reasons?

[E-Rock-23]

A few thoughts:

The US wants to keep control for purely financial reasons. They want to gouge other countries for access, and allow the big telecoms to maintain their control on the flow of information at asinine prices.

Or, they want to keep control for moral reasons. Remember, Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales has started his Porn Squad (not to attack only kiddie porn sites, but consenting adult sites as well) in some sort of twisted moral crusade. Well, there is a buttload of porn on the net, isn't there. If we keep control, he can stamp it out...

Another reason could be "National Security," though I'm pretty sure they already spend an asinine amount of money to keep sensitive stuff off of the 'Net to begin with. The Internet is no longer a super-secret Pentagon project, and has been publicly available for over a decade. I remember reading somewhere that works of the Government are in the Public Domain. Dunno if that applys to just images and text, or to secret, non-military projects like the Internet (again, now that it's been made public, not prior).

I say we share control with the world at large. Except with the French. The French are too weird. And most certainly not with the UN, corrupt an organisation as that is. It should be a seperate, international consortium with equal power for all countries involved. There shouldn't be one "regulator," and especially not the United States.

But that's just me, and I don't count...

Re:Reasons?

[argent]

The US wants to keep control for purely financial reasons. They want to gouge other countries for access, and allow the big telecoms to maintain their control on the flow of information at asinine prices.

Gouge countries for access to root DNS servers?

What the hell are you talking about?

Re:Reasons?

[E-Rock-23]

Not that hard to deduce. Let's say the US maintains control like they want to. This would put the world's access to anything Internet (including DNS servers) at the mercy of the greedy bastards who run this country and their corporate cronies.

ICANN hands out domain name registry contracts. It costs money to register a domain. If the US had total control, they could jack up the prices at will. After all, the C stands for "Corporation," meaning business, meaning they want money. Done something to piss the US Government/ICANN off? They'll cut you off.

In short, it's too much power for one country to have. Personally, I think the Internet should be free as in speech and beer. But as long as there are greedy old farts with majority shares in these super-conglomerates, and they have majority control of this particular resource, that won't happen. Handing it over to an international consortium would be at least one step closer to that ideal.

Re:Reasons?

[argent]

You have no idea how the domain name system works.

DNS is controlled, at the lowest level, by the people who write and publish DNS software. In a way you can say that the root servers are defined by what Paul Vixie decides goes in the root cache of BIND.

Changing the DNS root servers your computer uses takes 5 minutes. There's dozens of "alternative roots", most of which exist to promote dome non-standard top-level domain, like ".dot" or ".cool". One of them, however, exists to provide an internationally controlled root that supports exactly the same domains as the official ones, in exactly the same way, but outside US control.

Paul Vixie's company is running one of the actual computers that implement this particular set of international alternate root servers.

So.

There is NO WAY that ICANN or anyone else could force any country to pay for access to DNS, because the root servers are deliberately NOT a single point at which DNS can be controlled. It's not technically possible.

Re:Reasons?

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

"There shouldn't be one "regulator," and especially not the United States."

You're right. There shouldn't be ANY regulator.

If the UN, et al. intended to "free" the Internet from the US, they would leave it the way it is, and not have countries like China and Iran have a say in how it is "governed."

Re:Reasons?

[Serengeti]

"most certainly not with the UN, corrupt an organisation as that is."

The UN is a great organisation, but its not immune to human corruption. It is, however, established and worthy of trust. A few politicians whine about corruption (which is entirely hypocritical on its own) and suddenly demolishing the UN is the next grass roots fad...

Unilateral Actions...

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

For once I agree with the US taking a unilateral action against the world community, or at least the UN. I think laws and policies need to be informed by global actions. I also think most need to pass the global test". but just as Mr. Kerry preceded his global test statement with "I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country", I believe that the UN should be kept away from things like root DNS servers, and any internet policy decisions. Arguments between members of the UN are much worse than any usenet flame war.

Re:Unilateral Actions...

[m50d]

I believe that the UN should be kept away from things like root DNS servers, and any internet policy decisions. Arguments between members of the UN are much worse than any usenet flame war.

Oh yes, so much better to have a single country imposing its will on everyone.

Huh?

[RoverDaddy]

Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

How do you find your trackers, by IP?

How does Google find all that wonderful information when you go asking for it?

Maybe you mean there's a way to do without root servers (I imagine there is with lots of peering ala bit-torrent), but DNS is a necessity as long as we can't ensure that IPs are constant.

If you think I'm the clueless one, visit my web site at http://65.39.170.204/ and leave a comment, unless of course the server IP has changed since I checked, or if I happen to move my site to another hosting service.

Re:Huh?

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

That is the point though. DNS *CENTRALIZES* the internet. The original intent *was* to give static IP's to objects which need a persistant 'location'.

Create an algorithm to map IP address to a String. Much like dialing a 'string' on a telephone (1-800-die-slow).

Sell IP addresses much like domain names are sold now. Does this require a major shift in how we operate? Well.. .sortof. It is more a state of mind than of hardware; most routers allow you to define your IP address manually, but most ISPs aren't set up to handle anything that isn't a subset of their own IP address range.

Even one of the US DNS servers going down slows the 'net. Two down slows it to a crawl, and you will get a few time-outs. Three down and there is a good chance you won't be seeing shit on the web that day.

Even if you KNOW the ip address of the site itself, chances are that they have embeded images which are mapped via DNS names.

DNS breaks the internet. *PERIOD*. There will be no successful argument against this. DNS the internet, which is the exact reverse of what the internet is suppposed to represent -- a communications device which is robust due to its inherent decentralization.

Re:Huh?

[ip_fired]

Sell IP addresses much like domain names are sold now. Does this require a major shift in how we operate? Well.. .sortof. It is more a state of mind than of hardware; most routers allow you to define your IP address manually, but most ISPs aren't set up to handle anything that isn't a subset of their own IP address range.

Right. Care to share your wonderful routing algorithm that will allow you to insert a random IP into the middle of a network? There is a reason why IPs are in blocks and each ISP is assigned a subnet. There would still have to be a centralized source of routing information unless you want the entirety of the Internet's bandwidth to be devoted to passing routing tables back and forth so that you know how to get to the computer that you wish to communicate with.

Even one of the US DNS servers going down slows the 'net. Two down slows it to a crawl, and you will get a few time-outs. Three down and there is a good chance you won't be seeing shit on the web that day.

DNS is a distributed system, which is what makes it robust. If you are experiencing a slowdown, don't use that name server. You *should* be using your ISPs DNS server, which caches requests and reduces the latency for everyone on your network. DNS is designed to stop using slow root servers, switching to another root server should the need arise. There are 13 root servers, each time a request is sent to one, the response time is recorded. If the response time gets too high, the name server will go to another.

DNS breaks the internet.

Without the DNS, the internet would cease to work. It is a good solution, it provides a wayto find a computer without remembering a 32-bit number. It helps the e-mail system work reliably (MX records) and prevents the massive mess that you described with random IPs everywhere.

DNS works and should stay the same.

Re:Huh?

[budgenator]

Even one of the US DNS servers going down slows the 'net. Two down slows it to a crawl,
not really, what happens if I need a DNS lookup, my computer

1. checks the hosts file
   
2. checks the named cache
   
3. checks the ISP's name server usualy 2 servers
   
4. the ISP checks 3 regonal severs
   
5. the regonals checks 3 national servers
   
6. the nationals check 3 international severs
   

Each check up the line updates the cache of the lower name servers which holds the results for the time to live variable; so when one sever goes down and you get a time-out a second attempt usualy get a hit fast. DNS is a distributed and very robust system, when it fails the source of the failure is usualy at an ISP rather than upstream.

Re:Huh?

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Right. Care to share your wonderful routing algorithm that will allow you to insert a random IP into the middle of a network?

Called a routing table. Might take a few hours for the update to propagate.

DNS is a distributed system, which is what makes it robust. If you are experiencing a slowdown, don't use that name server. You *should* be using your ISPs DNS server, which caches requests and reduces the latency for everyone on your network. DNS is designed to stop using slow root servers, switching to another root server should the need arise. There are 13 root servers, each time a request is sent to one, the response time is recorded. If the response time gets too high, the name server will go to another

*sigh* There have been a few times in the past few years where DNS servers failed, or the fibre lines failed, or whatever, for a day or so -- the ENTIRE NET slowed to a crawl. Hardly fucking anybody has a one of the 13 root DNS servers as their primary or even secondary DNS server -- but if you request a page that isn't in your own DNS servers cache, it will look to one of the 13 roots; therein lies your path to failure.

So, I speak from experience at least in that regard. For what it's worth, I tend to use Verizon's DNS, though at the time I believe I was using the comcast defaults. I have experienced the network going to shit for the exact reasons I describe. Because of the highly centralized DNS.

Re:Huh?

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Your steps are correct.

History has shown you to be incorrect regarding the actual degree of robustness however.

Failure of a single DNS has slowed the net (I lived it -- 2000? '99?). Failure of two has slowed the net to a *crawl*.

Anyway, I just don't see the need for it. Design a robust routing system INTO IP addressing, or just fucking forget it. You shouldn't need a crappy hack on top of the addressing system just to talk to each other -- and you don't.

If there is a legitimate reason that this can't work, by all means, let me know. I would love to read up on it. But as far as network topology goes, I don't see a need for DNS; my original post explains well enough I think.

Re:Huh?

[CorwinOfAmber]

Right. Care to share your wonderful routing algorithm that will allow you to insert a random IP into the middle of a network?

Called a routing table. Might take a few hours for the update to propagate.

Sorry, but that's not the way routing tables work, or IP for that matter. The Internet is not a single network, but is a set of inter-connected networks, connected by gateways, a.k.a. routers. An IP host can only send a packet to another host on the same network, or to a gateway. How does a host know if the other host is on the same network? By looking at the IP address. But if you start assigning IP address to hosts randomly, then the network concept has no meaning.

Gateways route packets from one network to another using a routing table; they do not map hosts. While you might be able to come up with an algorithm to route packets to arbitrary IP addresses, it wouldn't be using IP. If you don't believe me, try setting up a "network" of 3 hosts using these IP addresses: 192.168.1.90, 172.16.8.8, and 10.0.1.9. I believe you'll find that you need a gateway with 3 interfaces, one for each network.

Re:Huh?

[ip_fired]

Okay, let me try to be more verbose.

Hardly -- anybody has a one of the 13 root DNS servers as their primary or even secondary DNS server *No user* should have the root servers as their "primary name servers". They don't recursively lookup names. Here is the process that your local ISPs DNS server goes through, I'm going to use dig (a handy dns utility that comes with bind9).

Just typing dig at the prompt will return the list of root servers. (responses truncated for purposes of space)

$ dig
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 431417 IN A 192.36.148.17

$ dig @192.36.148.17 slashdot.org
org. 172800 IN NS TLD4.ULTRADNS.org

So you see, it only returns the first part of the address, or .org. It lists all of the DNS servers for the ORG top level domain. Next, your ISPs DNS server queries the ORG DNS server:

$dig @TLD4.ULTRADNS.org slashdot.org
slashdot.org. 86400 IN NS ns3.vasoftware.com.

Now it has given us another DNS server, vasoftware's name server. It has authority to actually give us the A record for slashdot.

dig @ns3.vasoftware.com slashdot.org
slashdot.org. 7200 IN A 66.35.250.150

Now your ISPs DNS server replies to you with this answer. DNS is extremely distributed. It's true that the root is the week point, but that is why there are 13 spread across the world. Losing them shouldn't be any great loss (though the latency may be longer to the next closest server).

You'll notice the number after each name, that is the amount of time that your ISPs name server caches the data. 7200 seconds is 2 hours for the slashdot domain.

There most likely where other factors that caused your internet to slow when one particular server went down. The DNS is *not* a technical problem, it works great.

Now, if your ISP is having issues, then that's another matter. But hopefully you're with a competent ISP.

Called a routing table. Might take a few hours for the update to propagate.

I submit to you that it would never update. The routing tables would be constantly updating, sending these updates out to all the routers, would exhaust the bandwidth of the connection.

If I was allowed to insert addresses anywhere on the Internet, then the border routers would have to have a routing table of every single IP address.

A routing table consists of the following: Destination Network, the Interface to Send the Packet, and the Weight of the Path

This means that instead of just knowing the network to find, I would have to know the network that the IP actually resided in instead of just using a netmask to find that out. That is something that isn't transmitted with IP, nor do I think it's supplied with IPv6, so you would have to upgrade the underlying protocols to even get this to work.

Considering how long it has taken IPv6 to be adopted, I feel this is a lost cause.

Norm Coleman

[tenchiken]

A quick note for the few of you interested in Norm Coleman beyond the usual dKos drivel that infects slashdot. Norm Coleman is a freshman senator from Minnesota (he defeated Mondale) who has quickly become the leading UN watchdog in the senate. He is the guy who is driving a lot of the Oil for Food investigation, and actually called out Kofi Anan because of the conflict of interest between Kofi Anan's son and the Oil for Food program.

He is a up and rising star in the RNC. Keep a eye on him, he will be running for president sooner or later.

Re:Norm Coleman

[AnonymousNinja]

he defeated Mondale

Mondale took over the race after the incumbent democrat Wellstone died in a plane crash shortly before the election.

Re:Norm Coleman

[CheeseTroll]

Well, technically you're right - he defeated Mondale. But only after the incumbent Sen. Wellstone was killed in a plane crash just a few weeks before the election.

IMHO, Coleman has a decent record, but his combination of grandstanding and coattail-riding means he's got a lot of work to do before I could tolerate him as President. (Not to mention how difficult it is for anyone with Senate experience to win a presidential election nowadays.)

Re:Norm Coleman

[greg_barton]

He is a up and rising star in the RNC. Keep a eye on him, he will be running for president sooner or later.

I also hear he moonlights as an airplane mechanic.

Re:Norm Coleman

[sceptre1067]

And to add to the series of critiques...

Besides being willing to take advantage of a situation (death of opponent), switching parties while in office (Dem when elected mayor of St. Paul), grandstanding and then shutting up when told to by the RNC (ANWR).

The local rumor was as mayor of St. Paul it was known in the press circles that his philandering made Clinton look like an amateur. But nobody wanted to touch that at the time...

Re:Norm Coleman

[American AC in Paris]

Norm Coleman is, and always has been, a political windsock. His overriding concern is gaining and retaining elected office; he doesn't really hold to any core value beyond what he percieves is his ticket to office. Consider that he was a dyed-in-the-wool DFLer (Minnesota Democrat) until 1997--just in time to join the rising Republican majority.

That you omit certain key facts about Coleman's victory over Mondale--namely, that Mondale came out of retirement to enter the race mere days before the election after Paul Wellstone died in an airplane crash--speaks volumes in and of itself. Coleman's victory was seated in complex, confused circumstances; to ignore this fact is to lie by glaring omission. (Consider, too, his vocal pique at the fact that speakers at Wellstone's funeral--a man who defined modern hardcore liberalism--had the temerity to express their political views in the course of their eulogies. Classy.)

The one thing you can count on Norm Coleman to do is to ally himself with whomever he thinks will be holding the strongest hand. It's a great political strategy, and you're right--it'll probably help his political ascendency...but make no mistake about it; Coleman is the textbook definition of a facile politician. He'll slip right off the RNC's radar the minute it becomes apparent that the Democrats have the upper hand again--whether that's in one year or twenty.

Re:Norm Coleman

[tenchiken]

Coleman was in the race long before Wellstone died. He was leading in the polls IIRC before that as well. In terms of taking advantage, surely you can't be stating that the Wellstone funeral (which put Mondal in the grave) was not the worst example of trying to take advantage of a death since Sonny had a run in with a tree are you?

Re:Norm Coleman

[CheshireCatCO]

You recall incorrectly. Wellstone was up about 6 points on Coleman when the former died.

Re:Norm Coleman

[wcf3]

...having watched this opportunist for years here in Minnesota, don't think for a minute that he does anything for any reason other than to serve himself.

Re:Norm Coleman

[Alarash]

Well, Bush administration's members have shares in companies that have government contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. Now that's a conflic of interest too, and I don't hear much buzz about it (and don't ask me for sources, go visit Wikipedia). My point is not to bash Bush, but to point out that any person in a position of power has one way or the other some "conflicts of interest".

Re:Norm Coleman

[revividus]

"Rising Republican majority"... In Minnesota? Haven't visited Minneapolis/St. Paul, lately, have you? A Republican stronghold it ain't.

Maybe Coleman simply changed his mind. Reagan was a democrat, too, when he first ran for office. It happens. Sheesh.

Winston Churchill (allegedly) said: "Anyone under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart. Anyone over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains."

People change their minds. Always have, always will. It doesn't make them windsocks.

Re:Norm Coleman

[sheldon]

An even quicker note for a few of you interested in Norm Coleman beyond the usual freeper drivel that infects the internet.

He lost the Governor race in 1998 to a Pro-Wrestler by the name of Jesse Ventura. He nearly lost the 2002 Senate race to Wellstone, except for the unfortunate event of a plane crash.

Coleman isn't a rising star. He has no leadership ability or vision. He simply repeats what others tell him to do and promises to voters what he thinks they want. In '02 he promised to protect ANWR because Minnesotans care about the environment, but now he's getting pressure from up above he's abandoning the pledge.

His wife lives in California. She's a "movie star". That's where he calls home.

You won't see him running for anything other than Senate, and he's more than likely to lose in 2008. President? Doubtful. But I doubt he'd even win the nomination in Minnesota, much less in the South.

Re:Norm Coleman

[sheldon]

Sure, some people change their minds.

But Norm Coleman is one of them. He's a windsock. You track his voting record, his positions... He holds no ideology. He votes the way he is told, and says what he thinks people want to hear. He's very good at being somebody elses man. There's no way he'd ever get the Presidential nomination. Certainly not from Republicans, definately not Democrats. Maybe the Whackadoodle party.

It's why he has the nickname Mayor Quimby.

Re:Norm Coleman

[American AC in Paris]

Actually, I lived in Minneapolis for several years during this period, so yes, I am fairly aware of Mr. Coleman's record. Furthermore, seeing as he actually did get elected, I'll contend that the fair state of Minnesota isn't nearly as blue as everyone assumes it is. It's still home to those wonderfully old-school, hardcore DFLers, but '04 showed us just how purple the state is on balance. Hell, all you need to do is get out of The Cities to some of the suburbs and you'll start to see strong pockets of Republican support. Take away Hennepin, Ramsey, and the North Shore and you've got yourself a heavily Republican state. I'm also aware that part of the reason he switched parties was that he wasn't faring that well against other DFL candidates--so he took his name ID and switched to the Republican party. This was a pretty damn shrewd move for him, as it was apparent by that point that the RNC was rising fast--and that if he switched sides, not only would he be grabbing the tail of that comet, he'd also find himself at the forefront of Minnesota's (then fairly weak) Republican Party. So, instead of being a second-stringer for the Democrats, he became the front man for the Republicans--and reaped the benefits of the GOP's massive surge in 2000.

Sure, maybe he changed his mind. There is certainly no way I could be absolutely positive that my hunches are factual. But "maybe" is the favorite defense of the implausible, the battle-cry of the duplicitous--and frankly, I find it far, far more believeable that Coleman is a self-serving opportunist than he is a passionate believer in his various causes...

Re:Norm Coleman

[seebs]

Hey, I vote Republican most of the time, and I am deleriously happy that Hubert H. Humphrey not only lost to a retired wrestler, but came in third.

But for what it's worth, you betcha I voted for Ventura. There's just one thing: By definition, those of us who voted for the winning candidate are not the "losers".

Non-binding resolution? So what?

[smithmc]

How exactly is a non-binding resolution supposed to protect anything from anyone?

No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fud and simply untrue, no matter how many times people repeat it.

What is happening is that several countries (not the UN) don't want to live with a situation anymore in which only one nation, the US, controls critical parts of their infrastructure. I don't know why such a sentiment should come as a surprise to anybody, I think it's pretty normal and inevitable.

And in case this comes up again:
It's not the EU pushing this, as /. falsely reported, but on the contrary the EU is right now trying to find a solution that both sides, the US, that doesn't want to give up control and other nations, the don't want the control in the hands of the US, could live with.

Finally, I'm sure we will be treated to about 100 posts whining about how the US invented the internet and the world was so unfair. This is of course utterly laughable, as it simply does not matter who invented what, or how would you react to the Chinese demanding you stop using paper, or, omg, firearms, because they invented the stuff?
But if you want to play this little game anyway, please keep in mind that the world wide web, or rather the technologies necessary for it, were invented in Europe.

Tempest in a Teacup

[DavidNWelton]

... and also the same country that brought you the internet. Or one bit of it at least.

Apparently there are more politics going on with this conflict than most of us realize from reading slashdot stories about it.

The Economist had a pretty good editorial about the whole thing here:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id =E1_QQRRGQQ&tranMode=none

unfortunately it's content you have to pay for. The gist of it is that things are working pretty well right now, and that the countries who really want to change the current situation are countries like China and Iran. If someone were proposing to hand over ICANN to Switzerland or something like that, maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but a big UN committee? That's not likely to improve the situation.

The ideal solution would be less government intervention from everyone involved, the US included, not more from a bunch of authoritarian regimes.

Re:Tempest in a Teacup

[ip_fired]

The ideal solution would be less government intervention from everyone involved, the US included, not more from a bunch of authoritarian regimes.

Agreed. This is not something that should be turned over to highly political groups. The decisions technological aspects of the Internet should be made by a group of qualified individuals, not a bunch of politicians.

I really don't see the issue with this anyway. To me, it just looks like the EU wants to take away the .com, .net, and .org TLDs and number assignment from US control. However, I thought that this stuff was already seperate (ARIN for north american ip assignment, RIPE for european, etc). And they each have their own domains as well.

Re:Tempest in a Teacup

[Catbeller]

Of course, there's nothing political about private corporations, like say, Diebold? Maker of the voting machines you can set up to predetermine the winner of any race? Whose chief executive pledged to do what he could to deliver Ohio for Bush? Or ICANN, which was owned, or may still be owned, by the Carlyle Group, an invitation-only investment corporation up to its eyeholes in ex-politians. Tony Blair, for example, will get a seat and block of stock that will set him up for life when he retires from political life. Carlyle, hard-core rightist, invites members in as reward for service to their interests. How about Haliburton, whose CEO is sitting as Vice President (some say acting President) of the US, still being paid his bloody salary into a deferred account as billions pour into his company from no-bid contracts in Iraq and the Katrina Money-sucking Zone? Haliburton IS the US government!

EESSSH. In a corporatist world, what Mussolini dubbed a "fascist" government, there is no real distinction between private corporations and the elected government. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the political world and the business world. Business is politics times infinity. Actions without oversight, no personal responsibility, no penalties, and no limits to power. Government is just another department to the corporate world.

The UN is right. We're not to be trusted with the world's communications system. We don't care about the world. We are a mortal danger to their survival. You don't put a two year old solipsist at the controls of a train.

Re:Tempest in a Teacup

[ip_fired]

Good grief, you have a severe case of conspiracy theoritis. What does anything that you just said have to do with the Internet transferring management to the UN? Do you think they would actually do a better job? The UN is not the governing body to do this sort of thing. It is not what it was chartered to do.

Right now the US controls the root name servers, and they let anybody register a domain name. What? The EU is complaining about the lack of a .xxx domain? Then guess what, they can do a .xxx.de or a .xxx.uk, or a .xxx.fr.

Nothing is stopping them from creating these special domain names. They control their own top-level domains.

The Internet works relatively well right now, with a minimum amount of meddling from the US Gov't.

Handing control of the Internet over to another government body that has a hard time of making up it's mind half the time because it makes decisions based on the conflicting desires of it's members is not the right way to do it.

Re:Tempest in a Teacup

[PinkPanther]

Right now the US controls the root name servers, and they let anybody register a domain name. What? The EU is complaining about the lack of a .xxx domain? Then guess what, they can do a .xxx.de or a .xxx.uk, or a .xxx.fr.

But why, on the internet must someone declare that their web service is .uk, .fr, .de or whatever? What, besides national-centricity, makes the US believe they are in the right to be the only nation controlling the "world wide" part of the web? But then again, they are also the ones controlling the "world series".

Re:Tempest in a Teacup

[ip_fired]

The .com namespace is saturated anyway. Notice my website is a .us site as well, because I couldn't get it under .com, .net or .org.

<rant>
If it's one thing I hate, it's a domain squatter! Most names don't even have a site or service under them. Drives me crazy.
</rant>

Look, the US was there first, and paid the initial investment, and set up their root domains. I don't think they ever expected the Internet to ever expand the way it did, until it became such a huge entity. Now they are reluctant to turn management over to someone else since they rely so much on it.

MPs, Senators, and shooting fish in a barrel

[Anonymous Meoward]

I don't give two shits for Galloway, but let's be fair: the man made Norm look like a complete and utter fool.

Someday our Congresscritters are going to understand that:

1. Other countries have democracies, even (gasp!) more vibrant ones than our own.
2. Some of the legislators in those democracies are forced to think on their feet (Question Time, anyone?), unlike American senators.
3. As a result, the rhetorical skills of those legislators put the skills of ours to shame.
4. Corner any of these people, even from within your own chamber, and you will still manage to have your arrogant ass handed to you.

So pardon me for thinking Norm isn't all that bright.

Re:MPs, Senators, and shooting fish in a barrel

[clearcache]

Isn't Norm the one who waged war against the UN and the Annan family for corruption in the oil-for-food BS? One has to wonder if he's got something against the UN or if he's really interested in maintaining freedoms.

It's probably a little of both. And yes, as a resident of MN, I'd have to say that the man probably isn't all that bright...although in this case he's probably doing the right thing.

Re:MPs, Senators, and shooting fish in a barrel

[deanj]

As a result, the rhetorical skills of those legislators put the skills of ours to shame.

You mean like this, or this?

Yeah, they really have the market cornered on rhetoric.

Re:MPs, Senators, and shooting fish in a barrel

[Chas]

"Other countries have democracies, even (gasp!) more vibrant ones than our own."

I should hope so!

Since the United States, regardless of what anyone says, is NOT a democracy! It's a Federal Republic with the trappings of democracy.

Goodness. I'm only 32 and I know this. What are they teaching kids in school these days?

"Some of the legislators in those democracies are forced to think on their feet (Question Time, anyone?), unlike American senators."

Meaning they are given a hotfoot, and are supposed to blurt SOMETHING out before they burn. And the rest of the time, they spend so much time in verbal vacillation that they are able to avoid actually acting on anything or, heavens forefend, ACCOMPLISHING something.

"As a result, the rhetorical skills of those legislators put the skills of ours to shame."

Like I said....

"So pardon me for thinking Norm isn't all that bright."

Always easier to label someone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior isn't it?

Saves you the trouble of actually having to defend your point of view...

Re:MPs, Senators, and shooting fish in a barrel

[maxpublic]

One has to wonder if he's got something against the UN or if he's really interested in maintaining freedoms.

Given the U.N.'s track record, especially its recent track record, I'd say these two things have become pretty synonymous.

Max

One country alone, is not freedom.

[taylor_venable]

I would assume (given the content of the articles presented here) that most in the Slashdot community support the Open Source / Free Software movement. This movement is founded in the idea that the more people working on and watching over a project, the better that project will turn out. How is it any FOSS project different from the Internet? With one country controlling the root servers, with one organization under the Department of Commerce controlling the naming system, how can the Internet possibly be anything other than a manifestation of that singular country? One might argue against me, saying that all great FOSS projects have a benevolent dictator, say Linus for example. But Linus can only keep up with his project because he has a group of people to whom he trusts absolutely the responsibility to commit changes, &c. These people are his peers, just as the United States should have peers to aid in harnessing the power of the Internet. The power of control should be distributed. I'm sure the Senator is a freedom-loving man, by his statements; what kind of freedom is controlled by one land alone? That sounds an awful lot like the kind of rule that those who founded this country tried to escape from. It is the principle of both our country, and the idea of democracy itself, to balance power and evenly distribute rights and capabilities. Remember the three branches of government? Checks and balances? What about "all men created equal", with the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? So, why should the United States be the only country to control the Internet?

DNS is also use full for other stuff

[DrYak]

Beside for finding a server IP dns names can be usefull for a lot of stuffs :

- providing load balancing.
By the fact they can point to different IP each time.
You can have a single domain name like "wikipedia.org" or "google.*" or "pool.ntp.org" pointing to numerous servers accross the globe and thus distibute the load.
Old way (providing a list of mirrors) requires the server the contains the mirror list to be able to sustain connextion from ALL users. And adds a cumbersome step to the process.

- server co-sharing.
A server is usually referred by a single IP addresse.
Assigning multiple name to the same server enables you to have different websites depending on used servername.
Most of the cheap server solution uses this. ...of course if one day the IPv6 rolls in, it'll be easier to have multiple IPs assigned to a single server (one for each website).

- dynamic IP
dynip.org and such. (see problems with load-balancing vs. on-line lists above) ..of course with IPv6 this may become less a problem.

- DNS used for everything else, including kitchen sink.
DNS are also used for listing Spammers,
listing botnets and other black-lists,
listing E164 number to VoIP maps,
what ever else.
DNS are often used as convenient lists, with standart interface.

Re:DNS is also use full for other stuff

[platyduck]

DNS used for everything else, including kitchen sink

I've always used Firefox for my kitchen sink, but to each his own.

Re:DNS is also use full for other stuff

[CaptKeen]

> Most of the cheap server solution uses this. ...of course if one day the IPv6
> rolls in, it'll be easier to have multiple IPs assigned to a single server
> (one for each website).

Yup, that'll be the day. Not that IPv6 doesn't have plenty of address space - it does - but I don't know how well your 'solution' holds up against how its set up now.

Currently, end-sites (including your house!) gets a /48 assignment. A /48 is huge - it is approximately an IPv4 universe of IPv4 universes. They use the MAC address of your ethernet card (48 bits) as the unique identifier for your system... in other words, system are specific to the /64, which is half an IPv4 universe of IPv4 universes. Sure, theres alot of address space there, but you aren't supposed to use it because you may collide with a valid MAC address elsewhere. Subnetting is done at smaller prefixes, and you announce the single /48 prefix to your upstream ISP.

But wait, you want to multihome? Oh, well... no PI (provider independant) space in IPv6 for end-users... only for ISPs. So now you have N /48's, one from each different upstream provider. Each device now has the N ip addresses, but the last 48 bits are the same from network to network - namely the MAC address of the card.

Now, don't get me wrong... you can use a prefix longer than a /64... I've seen proposals about assigning end-sites /96's, but then the IPv6 purists go off about how its not right and the automatic assignment / collision prevention doesn't work. Truth be told, I'm fine with using really long prefixes for end sites and allocating IPs to devices out of a DHCP pool... assuming the DHCP support for v6 gets to where it is for v4. I personally don't think you need a globally unique address inside your subnet... noone's going to be putting 2^48 hosts on a single segment... well, ever, I suppose.

I do, however, have issues with the current multi-homing setup. shim6 is an ugly, ugly hack - nat pushed all the way back to the end devices. The problem boils down to how we use IP space... technically its a locator reference, but we're using it as identifiers as well. Maybe we need to carve a chunk of v6 space off and use it just as identifiers, and have some other protocol - some weird hash between BGP and DNS - to match identifiers to locators, and to indicate locator preference based on where the request is coming from (for traffic engineering purposes).

Either that, or I'm crazy. One of the two. Anyways, a little off-topic, but everyone still seems to be taking the 'IPv6 just works' pill, but noone is really looking at the operational reality of trying to make it work - assuming that everything in the v4 world holds true to v6.

Let me run the internet

[doormat]

I think I should be appointde to run the internet. I'll be a benevolent dictator. And I got lots of guns.

Re:Let me run the internet

[m50d]

Rather you than the U.S. Government. And your argument makes about as much sense as theirs.

Re:Let me run the internet

[frank_adrian314159]

Dammit, ESR! Stop trolling under a fake pseudonym!

MOD PARENT UP

[petermgreen]

this is a very important point many many websites including some very very major ones rely on name based virtual hosting (it makes say using a cluster to serve a group of websites a lot easier).

.us domain?

[Janek Kozicki]

explain me just one thing: why http://www.whitehouse.gov/ points to something that should be http://www.whitehouse.gov.us/ ? If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?

Re:.us domain?

[Capt James McCarthy]

If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?

www.$$$$$.com?

Re:.us domain?

[I confirm I'm not a]

explain me just one thing: why http://www.whitehouse.gov/ points to something that should be http://www.whitehouse.gov.us/ ? If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?

In fairness (to the US) the whole thing's a mess: the EU uses eu.int, the UN uses un.org, the UK uses .gov.uk. Outside politics, it's much the same: the US and Australia, say, use "edu" for schools and universities; the UK and New Zealand use "ac".

I'm happy to let the US keep using the ".gov" and ".edu" domains, though - so long as "France gets control of teh intarweb bwahahaha" ;-)

Re:.us domain?

[Animats]

If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?

www.un.int, of course.

Re:.us domain?

[ChristTrekker]

No thanks. The UN isn't my government.

Re:.us domain?

[ChristTrekker]

I've always thought the generic TLDs were stupid. Virtually everything has a country of origin, and every country is going to have its own laws. Put domains under ccTLDs so it's clear where your origination and jurisdiction is. And there's .int for the truly international organizations. Some here like to talk about how the internet breaks down "short-sighted nationalism", yadda yadda - get real.

Re:.us domain?

[jvarsoke]

explain me just one thing: why http://www.whitehouse.gov/ points to something that should be http://www.whitehouse.gov.us/ ?

It's the same reason stamps from England do not have their country named on them; the country that invents the technology gets the prevelidge of being the default. England invented the postal stamp.

Re:.us domain?

[beholder]

www.earth.gov ? www.planet.gov ? www.all.gov ?

Why would aliens know that a whitehouse is something important in a first place? How can they tell a difference between a whitehouse and an outhouse ?

For that matter, can we?

Re:.us domain?

[roystgnr]

If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?

Nowhere, and hopefully it will stay that way.

If aliens came here and found a single government that ruled every human on Earth without the possibility of independence or emigration, they'll either think that's a bad thing or a good thing. If they think it's a bad thing then we'll have ruined first contact. If they think it's a good thing then we'll eventually *wish* we'd prevented first contact...

Re:.us domain?

[Guppy06]

"If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?"

GOP.com, of course.

Re:.us domain?

[Guppy06]

Who needs a country name when you instead put QEII's smiling face on each and every one?

Besides, in the early days before the Universal Postal Union it didn't matter what country the stamps were from if they weren't from the country the letter was in right now; you had to have stamps from your home country to get the letter out, and additional stamps from the destination country to get it delivered.

Re:.us domain?

[xgamer04]

I tried http://www.whitehouse.com/ but that seemed to be something WAY different than what you're talking about...

Re:.us domain?

[Cro Magnon]

That was the old site, when Clinton was in power.

Re:.us domain?

[zippthorne]

How many other nations refer to the executive office by the color of the building the executive lives in?

Re:.us domain?

[inerte]

www.rainbowhouse.gov ?

Re:.us domain?

[xgamer04]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it :P

Re:.us domain?

[Cro Magnon]

How can they tell a difference between a whitehouse and an outhouse ?

For that matter, can we?

Of course! An outhouse gets emptied more often than once every 4-8 years.

Re:.us domain?

[Bassman59]

"If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?"

"GOP.com, of course."

Note how it's a .com (as in "profit-making enterprise"), rather than a non-profit .org. Note that http://www.democrats.com/ is a progressive advocacy group whereas http://www.democrats.org/ is the national Democratic Party's website. I do like how the official Democratic Party website's current (as of this posting) home page headline is "Arrest Warrant Issued for GOP Leader."

Re:.us domain?

[Curly]

And England doesn't have to print the name of their country on postal stamps. So what? I don't get bitter every time I see USA on my stamps just because some other country doesn't...

Consider the FBI Obscentity Taskforce

[FatSean]

I'd rather live on a net where I can't talk about Nazis, than on one where puritanical hypocrits prevent me from seeing boobs!

Re:Consider the FBI Obscentity Taskforce

[Rycross]

Erm, how has the US in any way, shape, or form, prevented you from seeing boobs on the internet. There are a lot of porn companies in the US, a lot of porn shops, and a lot of US owned internet based porn businesses.

Re:Consider the FBI Obscentity Taskforce

[cyberchondriac]

I'd rather live on a net where I can't talk about Nazis, than on one where puritanical hypocrits prevent me from seeing boobs!

If you have a hard time finding boobs on the 'net, you seriously need to learn how to use a search engine. No one is preventing the show of boobs on the 'net.
Television, somewhat; Internet, no.

Re:Consider the FBI Obscentity Taskforce

[operagost]

Because porn is far more important than free political discourse and historical analysis.

Re:Consider the FBI Obscentity Taskforce

[klang]

An internet without boobs wouldn't be an internet at all!

I work for the biggest ISP in a small country and I remember (around 1999 I believe) when the network admin said today, the amount of non-pr0n traffic equals the amount of pr0n traffic.

What about Chris then mr. senator?

[el_jake]

How odd?!

"The Internet is likely to face a grave threat, If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on."

Then this senator can start by saving Chris from the US own censorship machinery?

http://www.freechris.org/

Reason 4

[Ironsides]

the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access,"

As taken straight from the article.

Re:Reason 4

[Monkelectric]

One of the UN's main goals is to promote "income redistribution". Which basically means, since there are rich countries, and poor countries, they want to make us all poor :)

The problem with the UN is that they think they can save the world from poverty by taking money from people not living in poverty and giving it to those who are. History shows that the only way to help people is to enable them to help themselves, not throw cash at problems.

Re:Reason 4

[Ironsides]

One of the UN's main goals is to promote "income redistribution". Which basically means, since there are rich countries, and poor countries, they want to make us all poor :)

Equality at the lowest common denominator. Sounds applicable to a few other areas as well.

I don't get it.....

[8127972]

"we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on."

I must be missing something. How does the U.N. threaten this? My understanding is that all the UN wants is to take control of DNS services (as evidenced by this /. story. AFAIK, that doesn't mean the end of the world as we know it. In fact, it may be a good thing long term from a privacy and security standpoint. IMHO, a bunch of Politicans are rallying around a non-issue so that they can look like they're doing something to protect the USA's interests.

Would that be a correct assessement or have I got it all (or partially) wrong?

Re:I don't get it.....

[ilyaaohell]

Unfortunately, you can't just go by news reports. You have to look at MOTIVES behind people's actions.

1) Why does the US want to maintain control?
2) Why does the UN want to take control?

The answer to the first one is usually first given as a rather selfish "it's ours, we invented it" answer. The answer to the second can be deduced if you look at who are the biggest proponents of the UN take-over: China, Brazil, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia (Source). Once that is established, the answer to the first question changes, and rightfully so.

Re:I don't get it.....

[Bassman59]

"The answer to the second can be deduced if you look at who are the biggest proponents of the UN take-over: China, Brazil, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia (Source: washingtontimes.com)."

The Washington Times is not a reliable source, assuming of course you want actual news and not far-right neocon Moonie propaganda.

Re:I don't get it.....

[ilyaaohell]

This article cites China, South Africa, India and Brazil.

doublespeak is not in full effizzect.

[xeeazgk]

the dmca also PROTECTS consumers... by limiting our access to our data and our devices. the clear skies initiative PROTECTS the environment... by making government inspections into private self-inspections. the no child left behind PROTECTS our children... by creating a hole in the education budget with an unfunded mandate. the patriot act PROTECTS our precious freedom... by ripping holes in the constitution. operation iraqi freedom PROTECTS iraqis... by bombing them. Why is it that whenever I hear the 'pubs talk about PROTECTING something, I start to worry about whatever it is they want to PROTECT? Perhaps PROTECT is actually some kind of acronym equivalent to "Drop your pants and grab your ankles." The Orwellian-ness of it all is excitingly terrifying. But, yes, by all means, let's PROTECT the internet. Is anyone thinking that maybe the gov't will start PROTECTING us from the terrorist content on the internet, the same way China does for their citizens?

Of course a US Senator would say that

[Xarius]

Disclaimer: This is not a flame or troll, it's simply what I think

The USA seems to be becoming more and more totalitarian in the way it handles things in general. I realise this is less evident for those actually in the USA (the same way most Chinese are oblivious to the same type of government) but for all of us outsiders, your government is increasingly hostile and arrogant, even towards those it deems friends.

What we don't need is the DNS root servers being almost all controlled by this one country. Things could go seriously bad in a shockingly small space of time, and before you know it a key part of the Internet we all rely on is subject to the every whim of a crazy man (not necessarily G W Bush). And considering the Internet is now critical to many industries and governments, any kind of manipulation will be a very bad thing.

Now I'm not saying the UN should take control of this, but why can't we have a collection of countries known for their relatively free nature be in charge of this? USA could take a few servers (with it being so big), Canada could have one, UK have a few (because I'm British and biased), scatter some around France, Germany, maybe even Russia (*gasp*).

Why does this need to be a UN issue? Surely these countries could have come to an agreement with the US.

Although the best course of action would be for the major world players to set up their own root servers, provide incentives for ISPs to use those primarily. I don't know if the root servers have the main configuration files available publicly, but surely there wouldn't be an issue of syncing them to non-US root servers? After all it only benefits everyone, and if the US does turn into a total bastard (pardon my French) at least everything won't crumble and we'd still have unbiased root servers scattered about.

Re:Of course a US Senator would say that

[NotoriousQ]

What we don't need is the DNS root servers being almost all controlled by this one country. Things could go seriously bad in a shockingly small space of time, and before you know it a key part of the Internet we all rely on is subject to the every whim of a crazy man (not necessarily G W Bush). And considering the Internet is now critical to many industries and governments, any kind of manipulation will be a very bad thing.

Now I'm not saying the UN should take control of this, but why can't we have a collection of countries known for their relatively free nature be in charge of this? USA could take a few servers (with it being so big), Canada could have one, UK have a few (because I'm British and biased), scatter some around France, Germany, maybe even Russia (*gasp*).

Not all the root servers are in US. And while a US agency is "determining" which ones are official, they do not even own them, private businesses do.

The funny part about this is the worst things that can happen if US manages to shut off DNS, is a DNS root split, which is exactly what all the countries are threatening to do if US does not cooperate.

So the worst thing US can do is exactly what they are about to do to themselves.

As that does not make sense, I am going to make a comment that this has nothing to do with infrastructure or security of the net. All that this issue is about is either input into decisions....aka some countries may not appreciate having a .xxx domain, etc. Or money, aka some countries want to use DNS servers to make people make payments to them.

There is no technical merit to any of these bickerings.

Re:Of course a US Senator would say that

[makomk]

That's assuming that the US shutting off DNS is the worst thing that could happen. It isn't - mucking with the data could be much more damaging. For example, imagine if the US government decided it'd be economically beneficial to confiscate certain large European business' domains and point them to their US competitors?

Re:Of course a US Senator would say that

[NotoriousQ]

But if DNS root splits due to EU wanting US to not have complete control, you will immediately have the situation where european businesses can lose domains in US, and US buisenesses will lose their domains in Europe.

Once again the solution is just as bad as the problem.

Re:Of course a US Senator would say that

[plasmacutter]

More and more politicians are exhibiting a "for your own good" attitude in their decision making processes.

It's the mentality which brought about the iraq war, the patriot act, the DMCA (and subsequent EUCD), and the privatization of what little government provisions there were for healthcare and retirement.

The "us vs them" attitude seen as directed toward outsiders is also directed against democrats (and not reciprocated, meaning a complete loss of political balance).
Legislation and policy in the united states is no longer a process of concensus, and more a process of pushing the opposition out of the way.
This is allowed because of the effectiveness of one side's attack arm on the one side, and the slumber of the press on the other (partially because the partisanship has infiltrated the press).

I'm not here to support one side over the other, but the lack of balance is the problem.

Why would we give control to the U.N.?

[geoffrobinson]

While all governments and organizations have a level of corruption, the U.N. has to be one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. Who in their right mind would give control to the Internet let alone the people who want to make the U.N. the world's ultimate governing authority?

There needs to be accountability.

Re:Why would we give control to the U.N.?

[rjung2k]

"While all governments and organizations have a level of corruption, the U.N. has to be one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet."

Have you even looked at the downpour of scandals in Washington DC these days? Those guys make the UN look like saints by comparison.

Re:Why would we give control to the U.N.?

[kevinbr]

Since the late 1800 The ITU ( International Telecommunications Union) has had control of such matters of Telephone Area Codes etc. the ITU is part of the UN. Any organization has corruption, yet you blindly dismiss the immense worth of UN organizations. The UN is the sum of MANY parts.

The DNS function used to be run by IANA in a US university - in essence one man. Major problems developed when the IANA function was faced with legitimate demand for more top level domain names. It was decided through NO OPEN PROCESS to remove the DNS process from IANA to ICANN.

Several problems stem from this:

1. DNS country code delegation. The process is arbitrary. ICANN can redelegate a nations "ownership" of a top level country code with no effective way for the legitimate users of that nation to stop the redelegation. Study what happened to Australia. Examine places like the UAE where the IANA arbitrairly handed over country code control to an organization of it's choice with no reference to the internet community of that nation and with no input from the actual rulers of that nation.

2. By what right does the ICANN function have to control what new TLD's be enacted? Who voted for the board of ICANN? How are board members nominated?

I would rather a central organization like the ITU who have for a long time successfully made the international telephone system work be in control of the DNS files.

Who is ICANN? Can you influence it? Can you see all it's documents? Is it good for the internet?

You are quite short sighted in you equating press hype of corruption in parts of the UN and fail to see that ICANN is a defiicient organization.

ICANN offers NO accounatability but of course your post proves you have no idea how the DNS function actually is managed today - with ZERO accountability. To you and I as US citizens - ZERO. To citizens out of the US - ZERO.

We are all in this together........try educating yourself about where ICANN came from and the implication of it's strangulation on what goes into the DNS.

Think of the EU having to ASK for permission of ICANN to enact a .EU top level domain. Had ICANN refused to enact this, there was NO PROCESS that would allow the EU to dispute this decision.

So yes change is needed.

to quote you " There needs to be accountability "

Re:Why would we give control to the U.N.?

[Bassman59]

"There needs to be accountability."

Yes, exactly, and we need accountability from the Bush Administration. Now.

Re:How about: ... (OT)

[Mr. Sketch]

Nice sig.

Guess I need to find a new one. I would think that you copied mine, if Lost wasn't such a popular show.

How can the Internet be decentralized?

[smackdotcom]

This is actually a topic I was hoping would come up again. I know there have been various thoughts and ideas ciculated around as to how one could further decentralize the Net, but let me put it to the Slashdot crowd: What sort of engineering can be done to further prise the Internet from control of any government, anywhere? I don't assume a single solution, and I don't expect that any solution(s) will be necessarily simple or straightforward. This is a political problem that the Net is facing, but perhaps engineers can be the ones to solve it.

I leave this as wide open as possible. We need a reasonable definition of the problem (this is not just a matter of addressing--it's a question of engineering in ways to reliably route around censorship), and some good thoughts as to solutions. Like I said, I'm sure there are plenty of ideas already out there, so if you know of any good schemes, reply to this post and link to them!
 
People ask if the UN would be any worse than the US. Well, yes. Much, much worse, and you all know it too. To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, everyone acts like the UN is some sort of conventional analogue of the United Federation of Planets, a utopian universal government where everyone comes to peacefully work together and solve the problems of the world. The reality is that a staggering number of UN members are dictatorships (and please, no cracks about the US being one of those dictatorships--you might as well go spit in the face of someone who has suffered under an actual dictatorship to compare the US to, say, North Korea). And make no mistake, these are the countries that most desire to have more and more control over the Internet, since the free flow of information can only undermine the lies upon which their power is based.

So please, let's get the discussion going. The goal? Help keep the Internet out of the hands of those who would strive to destroy it, or twist it to their own purposes. Think creatively, talk about it, and get the links going. Hell, if you've got a really solid idea, pay a few bucks to register and set up a web site about it. Huffing and puffing and complaining about it is one thing: Actually getting ideas out, and pitching them back and forth, settling on some solutions and starting to hack together some code--that's how you can really help to keep the Internet safe.

Re:How can the Internet be decentralized?

[m50d]

Multicast DNS, which is sort of how things are done at the moment for load handling (root server queries go to the nearest one, but only the nearest one). Straight multicasting to everyone - anyone who can reply does - would be the best way from the decentralisation point of view, but gives no way to handle conflicting replies. If two companies want www.foo.com, I can't see how you can get reliable service without deciding on some root server which is declared to be absolutely correct.

Re:How can the Internet be decentralized?

[AnotherBlackHat]

What sort of engineering can be done to further prise the Internet from control of any government, anywhere?

There are only a few things that are currently centrally controlled;
AS numbers, IP addresses, and DNS.

AS numbers could be replaced with cryptographic identities.
They'd be bigger and more cumbersome, but since no human is required to deal with them,
that's not really an issue.
As an added bonus, they could be used to verify BGP announcements.
It would require an update to all the core routers, but not in any time critical paths,
so while obnoxious, it's not really any worse than any other software upgrade.
This could be done gradually, with both the old and new system co-existing.

IP addresses could be replaced with cryptographic identities, but that would require a change to everything that currently uses them.
Roughly as difficult as changing to IPv6, but since these are in time critical paths, there would be lots of routers that didn't do verification.
(Not that they do any verification now.)
It would also expand the routing table (the new numbers would be a lot bigger even than IPv6 numbers) which means fewer total routes could be supported.
Essentially this means the core routers would need more memory and therefore cost more.
Moore's law will probably outstrip this, so the net effect would still be cheaper and cheaper bandwidth, but not quite as it would be with IPv4/IPv6.

DNS as it stands requires a final authority.
I can't think of anything that has both short, easy for humans to remember names, guaranteed uniqueness and doesn't involve an authority.
Either you give that up, or you live with a final authority and work hard to make that authority as powerless as possible in any other area.
It would help a lot if the entity that assigns TLDs was in no way affiliated with the entity that decides what the TLDs are.

-- Should you believe authority without question?

In other words

[elgatozorbas]

"...we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on." he said in a statement."

He wants the US to be 'the boss' of the internet, just like, for some reason, the US needs to be the boss of everything in order for it to be 'free', 'democratic', 'safe' etc.

not my impression

[aurelian]

I heard the debate on radio, and I assume the only reason you think that is that you agree with Hitchins' perspective. Galloway is a strange character, and you may or may not agree with him, but he's a ferocious debater. Hitchins never had a chance - he did well even to land a few hits.

Re:Non-binding resolution? So what?

[Viper Daimao]

The same way the UN's resolutions do[n't]?

Re:How about: ... (OT)

[bcat24]

Nah, I copied it from someone on another forum :-). Why would you change your sig, though? Keep it and help the Numbers spread. It's cool to know there are other Lost fans here, BTW.

Propaganda

[nnnneedles]

By reading these comments it seems that an international body controlling the internet would consist of China, Iran, Cuba, the United States and noone else!

I find this very interesting.

Re:Propaganda

[I confirm I'm not a]

By reading these comments it seems that an international body controlling the internet would consist of China, Iran, Cuba, the United States and noone else!

I find this very interesting.

I've found this whole debate depressing - full of jingoism from "both" sides. On the one hand we have a concern that France/EU wants total control over the Internet to go to Syria/UN. On the other hand we have the view that while the UN sucks, at least Dubya's not involved. There seems to be a "check IT knowledge/common sense at door" policy throughout this debate.

(Any generalizations above are satirical. Though not $10000 Jack Thompson satire)

Re:Propaganda

[commodoresloat]

You forgot Poland!

DNS is definitely a good thing

[jfengel]

Not to mention that DNS provides a nice layer of indirection. Change ISPs and you don't have to update everybody's bookmarks. And a bit of clever DNS management allows things like coral and akamai to do distributed web content delivery.

DNS isn't just an option; it's a necessity.

liberty, not democracy

[ChristTrekker]

Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.

I care more about liberty than about democracy. If you (and a majority of your peers) decide to limit my freedom, I don't really care if you did it democratically or not. Curtailing liberty is wrong. Those who would do so should not be allowed to participate.

Funny, I just read this which is exactly the same idea. Quite the day when a libertarian links to CommonDreams to make a point. Here's another link showing that unfettered democracy is not the best idea. A majority is not right simply because it is a majority.

so partial, it's wrong

[halfelven]

Please read through the political smoke-and-mirrors.
The aforementioned senator is doing a classic political deceit maneuvre: "if it's not us, it's the non-human enemy monsters!"

It's not that simple. The proposal they really want to combat is meant to give control over the Internet to a commitee of pretty much all countries in the world. It's not like all of a sudden dictatorships such as China will get ultimate power on-line: they will simply be members like anyone else in the commitee.
What the senator really despises is that the control over the Internet will cease to be a 100% american affair and become worldwide instead.

Yes, it would suck if China will get control over the Internet. Fortunately, it's not gonna happen either way.

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[OrangeTide]

Let's not assume the U.N. is human. It might contain a small selection of human slaves, but it's a massive bureacratic beast, even by American government standards.

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[cayenne8]

"It's not that simple. The proposal they really want to combat is meant to give control over the Internet to a commitee of pretty much all countries in the world. It's not like all of a sudden dictatorships such as China will get ultimate power on-line: they will simply be members like anyone else in the commitee."

I'm sure you're right...we can trust the UN to only put members of the internet committee that have proven track records for open thinking and free speech.

I mean, hey, lets look at the great track record for say....countries on the committees for things like "Human Rights" . Nothing but top notch choices there...

:-)

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[kilodelta]

The issue is that if you really want to kill something, you put it into committee. Passing control to the U.N. would do that. And please keep mind, it would be relatively simple to just cut the rest of the world off the net. But then it's no longer an internet.

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[Frymaster]

I mean, hey, lets look at the great track record for say....countries on the committees for things like "Human Rights"

you are aware that one of those countries is the united states, right?

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[sumdumass]

So what to stop the U.N. from using the internet as a way to control other countries? As of now, America doen't use it as a weapon but the UN and thier embargos for countries not following thier rules?

The U.N. should have any control over the internet outside what every other country or person does. They have already talked about taxing it. The role the US plays isn't anything a court cannot fix if the powers are ever abused. It has happened several time over domain names and cybersquating. We know the U.N. is as or more corupt then almost any other governing body can be. So what makes the it so speacial they get control?

People and countries can already place servers and appliances on the net to get it doing stuff outside the original intent. They can use it for the latest breakthru applications without getting special permisions. What is it the US does that the UN or some other ocuntry would do any different? (besides taxing it) What would the main benefit of letting the UN or EU control it over the US? eside disrupting our comunications networks and possibly imposing taxes?

I still havn't heard a compeling reason to give control of the internet to some other body except for "the US is evil" and "we have powers too" what would these reasons be?

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[cayenne8]

"you are aware that one of those countries is the united states, right?"

Hey...I didn't say they got the ALL wrong....they got a few of them right!

:-)

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[mean pun]

And please keep mind, it would be relatively simple to just cut the rest of the world off the net. But then it's no longer an internet.

Ah yes, like the classical Brittish paper headline: ``Fog in the channel. Europe isolated.''

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[bhirsch]

You do realize you can be jailed in Canada for vocalize things such as holocaust skepticism?

Re:so partial, it's wrong

[Phil Urich]

I mean, hey, lets look at the great track record for say....countries on the committees for things like "Human Rights"

you are aware that one of those countries is the united states, right?

Maybe that's part of his point?

YES!!!

[idonthack]

That SHOULD be the way it works. All domains in any country should have their respective extension, instead of just the .com or .net or whatever. The only organizations that don't have a country extension should be truly international organizations (such as the UN, actually...)

informational marvel

[boarder]

Is 'informational' even a word? I was thinking the guy was just a dipshit who took speaking lessons from G-dub, but then I looked it up. According to Dictionary.com it is a perfectly cromulent word.

I guess a noble soul really does embiggen the smallest man.

Re:informational marvel

[planetoid]

You forgot to include the obligatory Tonya Harding reference.

Re:informational marvel

[Now.Imperfect]

You really are damaged in some way aren't you?

How can you post that and be taken seriously?
"hur hur, I thought it wasn't a word and was like 'OMG what an Idyot!' then I luked it up... and it was....

Hes styll stupid! *cool* *cool*"

Re:informational marvel

[boarder]

What in the fuck is your problem? I posted a perfectly legitimate observation with proper grammar and in the same manner in which normal people converse. You come in with bad grammar and then try to insult me with a terrible analogy.

Haven't you ever had a conversation that went something like this:
"Hey, you know how kids growing up always said that Daddy Long Legs spiders were the most venomous spiders but couldn't harm us because their fangs were too short?"

"Yeah."

"Well, I Googled it the other day because I was curious, and it turns out they aren't even spiders at all and aren't venomous, either"

"Interesting."

As far as you equating my properly spelled statements with correct grammar to a bad melding of Beavis and Butthead and txt msg spelling, well, I have no idea where you were going with that. I threw in a couple of Simpsons references about the words cromulent and embiggen, but I wouldn't think a joke about how a made up word being used as though it were legitimate qualifies as juvenile and retarded.

I even stated that I was incorrect, and my ending quote was supposed to convey my acknowledgement of the politician speaking correctly. I didn't even post with my karma bonus, because it wasn't a very relevant post and was only meant for a laugh.

How can your post be taken seriously? You asked two rhetorical questions and then insulted my post (badly). I at least added information to the conversation by stating the fact that a word that sounds completely made up and stupid is actually a real word.

Here's my summary of your post:

"WTF?

dumbass!
I thought up this bad analogy!"

Re:informational marvel

[Now.Imperfect]

Okay, I was a bit harsh. But its pretty sickening how people just take random stabs at people ("for a second I thought he took grammer lessons from G-dub"(paraphrased)).

Besides, your post can barely be considered constructive. All it did was tell us a standard word in the standard vocabulary is in fact a real word.
"news flash, informational is in fact a word!"

George Galloway

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Heh. I dislike Galloway for a number of reasons, but you've got to respect (no pun intended) the way he makes his point and his willingness to stand by what he says and make his case.

I think it was one of our better satirical TV shows that said it best, quipping that in response to voluntarily accepting a grilling by the US Senate over his dealings with Iraq, the best George Galloway could do to defend himself was to speak uninterrupted for 20 minutes without notes, refuting every single allegation made against him by citing detailed, verifiable sources.

Considering that during the last US presidential debates, neither of the candidates could speak coherently even for two-minute stints, instead awkwardly repeating the same transparent sound-bites they had presumably been given by their campaign staff, I'd say that's pretty telling.

shh - don't spoil it

[Anonymous Coward]

This topic is like a honeypot for the sizeable number of /. readers whose mental age is below 15. It's for them to throw their toys around until they get tired; keeps them off the other topics.

Great idea Taco - keep posting it every few days!

Uhm...

[fudoniten]

He wants to 'keep it away' from the UN? I'm not sure he knows how the internet works.

Apparently Not

[everphilski]

The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus.

Apparently, its not, if they have to pry DNS from the US's cold, dead fingers...

-everphilski-

Re:Norm Coleman (Pipedream)

[ChristTrekker]

Norm is definitely an opportunist, and with him being a party flip-flopper I didn't trust him one bit. I voted for Kovatchevich.

Re:Re; Bush Hitler

[TummyX]

Oh right. Taliban controlled Afghanistan was "soveriegn" and is better off than it is today.

I bet those pictures of Iraqi voters holding photos of Bush must really twist your panties.

And if Napoleon has B-52s

[winkydink]

Waterloo might have turned out differently. But he didn't. And Sweden didn't. Arguing hypotheticals is nothing more than mental masturbation.

Build a competing product

[Jaeph]

First of all, if china, all of south america, europe, whoever wants to, they can build a competing product and americans will beat down the doors to use if if they like it. I think it would be great if they did this so we can let the market shake out competing architectures.

Second of all, UN control is a joke, right? It's a club with no entry requirements: any country can join. Who in their right minds would want the UN in control of the internet? That's just a sick joke.

-Jeff

Re:Build a competing product

[Jaeph]

Yes, you can put that rule in the dirty cupboard over there next to the 10th amendment, on the left.

-Jeff

Re:Build a competing product

[WhiteWolf666]

Bwahahaha....

Saddam's Iraq was a U.N. member, while Taiwan wasn't (and isn't)

Say that part again, about how U.N. membership is available to all peace loving states?

Coleman is all style, no substance

[mojoNYC]

Speaking as someone originally from Minnesota, Norm Coleman is all camera-mugging style, with little substance--originally a roadie for second-rate 60s era rock bands, like many of his generation, he turned from counterculture to yuppie culture, and has become part of the Establishment with gusto.

While his involvement in the Food-for-Oil scandal may be seen as laudable, it may also be seen as an attempt by Republicans to deflect heat from their own scandals. Saying he's an 'up and rising star in the RNC' and will be running for president sooner or later sounds impressive, until one considers that the same has been said about Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo.

To me, this is just another grandstanding play by Coleman--something that looks good to the cameras, but has no substance...

.xxx

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Remember, Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales has started his Porn Squad (not to attack only kiddie porn sites, but consenting adult sites as well) in some sort of twisted moral crusade. Well, there is a buttload of porn on the net, isn't there. If we keep control, he can stamp it out...

Yep. It's ironic that so many people here claim that the US is doing a fine job at present, can't meddle with a private company, blah blah blah. AIUI, the US government basically stepped in directly to block the creation of a .xxx domain. Regardless of your approval or otherwise of pornographic material, it's undeniable that the WWW has reached its current state in no small part because of the porn industry, and it's in the interests of both that industry and responsible parents (amongst others) to respect a separation between their material and that intended for more general consumption. I don't know about anyone else, but I have a problem with a nation that is run by the Christian Right and has a demonstrated problem with abusing its power making that kind of decision for the rest of the world, many of whom don't share the Christian Right's views on the subject.

Re:.xxx

[E-Rock-23]

approval or otherwise of pornographic material

I certainly approve, but only of the consenting adult variety.

it's in the interests of both that industry and responsible parents (amongst others) to respect a separation between their material and that intended for more general consumption

There's the problem. Parents (not all, but a rather sizable portion) just aren't responsible these days. They rely on other people way too much to raise their kids and teach them important life... stuff. There does need to be a seperation, and the .xxx domain would have acheived that. But no...

I have a problem with a nation that is run by the Christian Right and has a demonstrated problem with abusing its power making that kind of decision for the rest of the world, many of whom don't share the Christian Right's views on the subject.

You're absolutely right. It sucks. The Christian Right doesn't deserve the power it has, just like Radical Islam doesn't deserve the power it holds over people. I, too, have a problem with the Religious Whackos wanting to force their moral values on the rest of us. Yet another reason that the Internet shouldn't be totally controlled by the US.

If they maintain control, and the Right assumes power and starts tampering, they can inflict all sorts of damage on the flow of information the Internet provides. At their own discression, and acting on the so-called "Will of God," they could wipe porn from the net, sure. But what's more frightening is they could take total control and use the 'Net as their own perosnal Evangelistic tool. Imagine: Wiping out mentions of Darwin, Science that doesn't agree with "God's Plan;" Anything they don't want us to read/know/think about would go bye bye, all in the name of some fairy tale deity (sorry, I'm Atheist, that's my opinion, don't mean to offend).

On the other hand, though, an Interactive "Choose Your Own Adventure" Bible would be neato keen! Then you could make Jeebus shack up with Magdaline, Noah going down like the Titanic, etc. That'd be fun...

One thing about this Senator

[The Woodworker]

He was the guy who said Kofi Annan (spelling nazi alert) was taking bribes in the oil for food program, and after getting ripped apart by the UN, turned out to be correct. So, right or wrong, I can see where he has a very sour taste in his mouth after his last round with the UN.

Ever considered ?

[dzafez]

Have you guy ever considered, that the USA is also a member of the UN?
It's not like they will have the internet taken away! It's more like
their Ideas are to be facing a democratic system, rather than one Nation
to rule them all.

What the hell are you afraid of? Oh sorry, I forgot, democracy has been
removed two elections ago. What whould I expect from a country without
a democraticly elected President...

Re:Ever considered ?

[Now.Imperfect]

Still bitter over an election almost 7 years ago?

Regardless, if you still hold that his first election is null doesn't that give him the right to run a third time?

Regardless he won the national vote last time, that is your definition of democracy isn't it?

fucking moron.

mod parent up please

[halfelven]

insightful and to the point

the difference

[everphilski]

Finally, I'm sure we will be treated to about 100 posts whining about how the US invented the internet and the world was so unfair. This is of course utterly laughable, as it simply does not matter who invented what, or how would you react to the Chinese demanding you stop using paper, or, omg, firearms, because they invented the stuff?

the difference being paper and firearms are derivitive works. Root DNS servers are not derivitive works, they are the technology that makes *the* internet work. it *was* developed in the US.

But if you want to play this little game anyway, please keep in mind that the world wide web, or rather the technologies necessary for it, were invented in Europe.

Sure. But without a network to run on top of, its utterly worthless.

-everphilski-

Ever hear of PNAC? It's their plan, as was Iraq

[bewert]

The Project For A New American Century is an organization dedicated "...to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." Among the members are VP Dick Cheney and his currently embattled Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, SecDef Don Rumsfled, Jeb Bush (brother of President Bush), etc. See their Statement of Principals and a list of the signers of this founding document. If you don't recognize some of the names, Google them and see where they have worked in the last five years. Paul Wolfowits, Dov Zakheim and Zalmay Khalilzad are good ones to start with. Here's a nice place to start with Zakheim. And it only gets more interesting from there ;)

In September, 2000 PNAC released a controversial document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which they argued that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to speed up their planned re-militarization of America (see pg. 68). Earlier in this document they itemized their core principals, including 'CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.'(see pg. 11) On page 57 they go into more detail about how and why America must retain control of cyberspace. Controlling ICAAN is critical to this goal.

Scared yet? Remember, these are the folks that brought us the Patriot Act, forcing a vote on it after 9/11 without allowing anyone to read it, and enabling such great things as holding potential "terrorists" indefinitely without access to family or legal representation, sneak-and-peek searches, warrantless monitoring of e-mail, monitoring dissent groups without any suspicion of criminal activity by them, etc., etc.

As for Iraq, PNAC has been calling for the overthrow of Saddam since 1997 as a way to retain control of world energy supplies, critical to ensuring America's control over the world. But I think they bit off more than they could chew over there.

This group is truly scary, and they have been running our government for five years now.

useless grandstanding

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month.

Yeah, because passing laws in the U.S. is a great way to control what other countries do, in their own countries, with their own hardware and networks that they built and paid for. Brilliant! This is just another politician trying to capitalize on the "us versus them" sentiments trying to be pushed by a number of factions in the U.S.

There is no reason why any one country should run a single point of failure for a resource vital to communications and commerce throughout the world, especially when most of the gear it is running on, paid for by, and resides in those other countries. The world has spoken, they want a democratic solution with representation for everyone. They don't want to keep paying large fees to U.S. corporations for a naming service that was free before the big corporations got involved and can be free, or nearly free again. Most of all, they don't like an increasingly aggressive and deceptive country to be able to severely damage the economy of another country at their whim. No one trusts the U.S. to be a benevolent dictator and they would be foolish if they did. It is time to remember some of those American ideals, like democracy and representation for all are far more important than the new American ideals of making money and bullying the rest of the world.

To put it simply, the internet is a global enterprise made up of hardware and software running in and paid for countries all around the world. Those countries deserve a say in how the naming scheme works and this sort of "America is superior to the rest of the world" nationalist bullshit is not only useless chest thumping, but it makes the U.S. look like even more of a vicious bully in the eyes of the world. You should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Coleman.

Re:useless grandstanding

[VGPowerlord]

They don't want to keep paying large fees to U.S. corporations for a naming service that was free before the big corporations got involved and can be free, or nearly free again.

You mean, like this?

This is a moot point, though. Everything that's been said on this matter has had nothing to do with the TLDs, but rather with the root servers, the ones that tell you which TLDs exist and the IPs for the master DNS servers for each TLD.

Re:useless grandstanding

[Corbets]

There is no reason why any one country should run a single point of failure for a resource vital to communications and commerce throughout the world, especially when most of the gear it is running on, paid for by, and resides in those other countries.

Except for the fact that we already do run it. What possible motivation do we have to give it up?

Re:useless grandstanding

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What possible motivation do we have to give it up?

What makes you think we have a choice? The U.N. already voted, now the big question is will we force them to fork the internet, possibly introducing conflicting TLD entries and separate payments within and outside the U.S., will they change their minds to avoid that possibility, or will the U.S. play nice and let the rest of the world have a say and a share. Sorry but if someone has to choose between the world and the U.S. being able to view their page, most people will choose the world, because that is where most of their viewers are from. U.S. citizens may be very unhappy when they cannot reliably reach internet resources for all foreign businesses, markets, and government, much more so than the rest of the world will be unhappy about problems reaching the U.S. The U.S. is not in the best bargaining position here and foreign politicians can get a lot of political currency out of "standing up to the U.S. bullies."

Re:useless grandstanding

[Jaeph]

a) It's wrong to take other people's property just because you want it. Built in the US, owned by the US.

b) This debate is silly; every country/region has it in their power to build their own competing systems. It's not even terribly expensive.

This is another case of a lazy world trying to take rather than do it themselves.

-Jeff

Re:useless grandstanding

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I hope you are joking and are not really that ignorant. These countries already own most of the hardware and software the current system is running on. What they are planning is to stop letting the U.S. decide how it is administered and start a U.N. run organization to do that, since without a single master root server, not everyone can communicate together. The U.S., however, has decided it does not care and wants to be in control and is willing to let the world have trouble talking to the U.S. and the U.S. have trouble talking to the rest of the world, because we are not willing to use the U.N. root TLD list. This is not about the cost of hardware of bandwidth, it is about the U.S. being able to shut off service and refusing to transition to a system controlled by all the countries involved and it is about U.S. companies charging yearly for entries to that list, thus motivating the U.S. to try to stop the world from moving to a better solution.

Just so we're clear

[Rogerborg]

You do know that most of Afghanistan is back in the control of the Taliban or the Taliban-By-Other-Names, right?

Tell the UN to beat it.

[St4rScream]

DNS is useless without the pipes to transmit the data. Currently the major ISP create mutual love hate agreements to pier with each other. Arbitrarily giving anyone control of the DNS system would be a horrible idea.

ISPs for the most part decide what DNS servers are used by there customers. Most ISPs agree to use the same root name servers much like the agree to connect thier networks. But no one forces them, this is driven by customer demand.

This leads lots of room to block and cache any Name resolution an ISP or Country would like. Last time I checked the UN has no power to stop Genocide in its member countries. There is no way they are in a position to counter censorship acrross the globe.

This sounds like a power grab by the UN.

Re:U.S. Military Invented the Internet

[FLAGGR]

The U.S. Military Invented the Internet... therefore the U.S. should have control over it.
The Chinese invented guns, therefore the Chinese should have control over them.

You can say it about anything. The fact of the matter is that the internet has evolved because its global. The internet as it is isn't the same as it was when it was a US thing. Many countries depend on it heavily for their economy as the US does, and don't want the root DNS servers hosted by one government. Imagine the next president, lets call him Joe, decides that country X is in some way evil (terror threat? It'd work with the american public) the US could cut off DNS record access to that country, so no domain names would resolve. or they could intentionally fudge them up and send them redirecting to wrong places. Imagine waking up, going to your computer, opening Firefox, and your homepage is now a site telling you that your countries dns access has been halted for war measures. Every domain you try now resolves to this page.

Would this ever happen? Unlikely, but it's still a bad thing for any country other than the US (and Canada... unless the softwood lumber dispute gets out of hand ;) )

It's not a matter of the UN having control, its the world, not just the US. Personally I don't want China, North Korea or any other country with a crazy government having root DNS servers, but hell if every country got one (or one per certain amount of capita) then thats decentralized enough for everyones sake.

The downside? China or some country using that power to block their citizens access to certain domains (well, at least stopping them from resolving correctly) As long as their are enough other root dns servers that can just ban getting their stuff sync'd from china then its not bad for the rest of the world, but it's another tool that China/etc can use against it's people which isn't cool.

U.N.

[PortHaven]

The U.N. is not a governing body. It is an assembly for discussion.

The U.N. grants voting rights to dictatorships and democracies alike. Making the vote of one man equivalent to all of Australia. Why should I accept government by an entity that has a much lower rights status than my own nation? why should Europe? why should Australia?

What we really need is a new global entity which requires a bare minimum constitutional/charter protected democractic structure and human rights level in order to be eligable to vote. Any nation could participate in discussion but only those who give their masses an ability to affect decisions and protects their citizens rights should be eligable to vote.

Otherwise, I believe the United States should keep the internet under their control (as it was originally a DARPA (Department of Defense) project for national security (created to establish a decentralized communication system). Until an entity which guarantees equivalent or greater protections as the United States' Constitution does for it's citizens I see no point in relinquishing control.

If it is really a big issue, the U.N. should consider investing in a new internet. Heck, build it from the ground up and fix some of the major problems in the current one. (Be nice to eliminate spoofing). They could call it "NewNet"...and I am sure within time, if it is the better mousetrap, it will supplant the current internet and this issue will become moot.

- The Saj

Re:But who forced the ratings system onto the game

[Rycross]

The ESRB is a board set up by the game industry itself. It is self-policing. The government has no involvement in it, besides a couple of states (not national government), passing some laws that merely enforce the ratings at the retail level (where in most states it is voluntary).

And banning children from certain innapropriate content, while consenting adults can freely play that content (and companies can freely publish that content) hardly constitutes censorship. That would be like saying that laws stating a 14 year old cant have sex with a 30 year old violate the 14 year old's rights (whereas most developed countries have statutory rape laws, and consider them a good thing).

liberty, not democracy (again)

[ChristTrekker]

Democracy is not the antithesis of tyranny, liberty is. There's nothing "holy" about democracy. Democracy can be used to defend liberty, but it can also be used to create it. Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority"?

Clone it fool!

[m1a1]

So, I'm probably too late for anyone to notice, but I'll post anyways.

It is completely unnecessary for a change of hands or the root servers to take place. The mechanisms are already there for any country to effectively free itself from the evil grasp of the U.S. At least this is true if the motivating factor truly is a fear of the U.S. crippling other economies by use of it's control of DNS servers.

Any country could simply keep up daily clones of the root servers. They could then legislate that ISPs and Universities use these clones exclusively. The clones could even directly reference the actual rootservers until such a time as access to those root servers is denied, at which point it could failover to it's own database.

This prevents the scenario where the U.S. messes with your country by breaking the rootservers. If we decided to split you at least have a relatively up to date domain name service structure and you go from there.

Re:Clone it fool!

[boule75]

You are right except for one aspect of the thing : if companies do heavy business through the Internet in several countries (clients & partners accessing its websites, and subsidiaries scattered all around the planet using various DNS), they could be much harmed by DNS records corruptions imposed by just one country (or plain access denial).

Considering how much trust the US has currently, this is considered a threat. Is ICANN to be trusted? Can we solely rely on Verisign? No and no. Is a private company more trusworthy than the UN? No again.

The EU is right in its attempt to broke a _fair_ deal to address this, not against the US, but with it. Apart of all technical matter, the discussion seems logical to me.

Re:Clone it fool!

[smashin234]

"Is a private company more trusworthy than the UN? No again."

The UN has been involved in scandals. And since ICANN has yet to be involved in a scandal, I do not see how you can defend the UN over ICANN without any sort of proof.

"The EU is right in its attempt to broke a _fair_ deal to address this, not against the US, but with it"

I agree, at the very least they should work together. But the EU has been threatening the US if they don't turn over control to the UN. How is that "working with" the US? I still have yet to see how the US is at fault here when every other indication seems to scream a power grab attempt by the UN/EU.

And where does this idea that the US threatened anyone with DNS server problems come from? I will not deny it happened, but I haven't read any claims of this from official channels.

Re:Clone it fool!

[boule75]

Well. First I do not advocate a UN role as such for this DNS mess. I just understand the fuss.

The UN has been involved in scandals, as have many private companies and governments (US included) and NGOs: there is no perfect system. But the more transparent it is, the best it goes, and ICANN is (clearly :-) not transparent at all...

And then, the EU has _not_ threatened the US: it has _warned_ the US that the Internet could split if the current US position was not changed, which is a completely different matter. Besides, the EU has repeated that the current US-led system was not considered fair by the EU. This is no threat, just a longtime opinion and demand for reform. The fact is that those demands have not been considered by the US authorities for years.

The current US administration and its whole "business/military/media/lobbyist" political system has really dealt a blow on US standing: it is not trusted in any matter, except by some East Europeans and Tony Blair.

Re:Clone it fool!

[smashin234]

The EU did threaten the US. If the US does not change the current system to "something favorable" to the EU, they are going to stop talks on internet cooperation on issues such as spam and other things. This was from a previous article featured on slashdot.

"The current US administration and its whole "business/military/media/lobbyist" political system has really dealt a blow on US standing: it is not trusted in any matter, except by some East Europeans and Tony Blair."

What does that have to do with ICANN? ICANN has been around much longer then the "current US administration".

Re:Clone it fool!

[boule75]

For years, the EU -and others- have pointed out several US policies that are considered too one-sided to be honest and asked for a change in US attitude and acts. Those calls were not rewarded with proper attention. How does it come as a suprise to you that the demands are now voiced with a harsher tone? Besides, the official EU statements I read were no menaces. Could you provide a first-hand link to substantiate your claim? When Chirac stated that "time had not come to invade Irak because the UN inspectors had found nothing", it was quickly transcripted in the US media as "Chirac states he will ever use its veto power to counter the US over Irak, whatever the circumstances". I am rather cautious with AP those days.

As for ICANN, it is a US gov appointed body, that could just be revoked/revamped/bypassed quickly by this administration. ICANN legal form does not really masks the fact that it is under a sole government rule.

Bingo!

[The Stars Look Down]

"The Internet is likely to face a grave threat, If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on."

He hit the nail on the head.

This is about IP space

[BagMan2]

With IPv6 unlikely to be widespread anytime soon, I think this has far more to do with IP space assignment than DNS assignement. The only DNS entries that countries don't have control of already are the .com, .net, .gov, and a few other key root entries. Let every country manage their own root names. The US can keep the root names it came up with .com for company, .net for network, .gov for government....all english based words for a reason.

However, IP range assignments are an entirely different matter. US companies that helped develop the internet have already been granted enormous chunks of IP space and they aren't likely to want to give that space back. If we ever run short on IPv4 addresses, that is when the controlling entity really starts to matter, and we are soon approaching that point.

Somebody down below made an analogy about a neighbor borrowing water from you, and that is exactly what is happening here. It's time for the other countries to pony-up and develop IPv6 on their end so this problem goes away.

What has the UN ever done for us?

[MosesJones]

UN is not far from Al Quaeda and RIAA

Wow.... its amazing isn't it how the organisation that is responsible for some of the most effective global treaties, charities and welfare organisations. The UN has certainly done more than any single country to promote peace and equality and you are comparing it to a terrorist organisation and the enforcement arm of the media industry....

This is the organisation that is ABLE to do peace keeping in lots of countries around the world where ONE COUNTRY is unable to act as an independent between warring factions. (UN Peace keeping) This is the organisation that the US Goverment is DESPERATE to get more involved in Iraq for instance.

This is the organisation that can get countries together to discuss elements that matter to the whole planet (Desertification) and specific elements like helping out certain groups in countries ( helping out in Laos)

This is the organisation tasked with sorting out the trials of Rwanda and Yugoslavia as well of some of the most important international treaties.

And then of course there is the REALLY bad stuff they do like UNHCR on landmines and of course the scum at UNICEF

This is just part of what the UN has done since the second world war, the vast vast majority of it very good and very effective.

And as for your corruption, "Aid for Food" was indeed bad corruption, how different this is of course from Halliburton and the open White House chequebook is a mute point.

Re:What has the UN ever done for us?

[glesga_kiss]

Wow.... its amazing isn't it how the organisation that is responsible for some of the most effective global treaties, charities and welfare organisations. The UN has certainly done more than any single country to promote peace and equality and you are comparing it to a terrorist organisation and the enforcement arm of the media industry....

Forgive him, it's not his fault. His leaders have subjected him to anti-UN propaganda since birth. Propaganda is an important cornerstone of "freedom" apparently.

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[Chas]

So, let's look at this from the POV of software development.

You design something.

You give it away for free.

Yet you control the specifications on it.

Now Ned Gruberman comes along, telling you that you suck. That he doesn't like you, and doesn't trust you.

Therefore you MUST give up your rights to control the specifications on your own invention.

Never mind that he already gets free usage of it.

Time to show him the true beauty of Tai Kwan Leep.

Boot to the head....

*FFFFFFFWAP!*

We need to let go a little.

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

I'm not convinced the UN needs to be involved with the internet admin at all. The one thing I am certain of is that the internal is a global thing now. No one country can be allowed to run it in the future. The more we grasp at keeping the internet 'ours', the sooner it will be that we will have the US internet, and the world internet. That's a bad thing. The internet as itself has a very great skill: routing around "problems". Sometimes those problems are political opression; sometimes there are stupid laws; sometimes they're outages, and sometimes they are simply inter-BigCo disputes.

The internet routes around those issues, and finds a way to get there from here. That's what it does, and it does it well. Is the US keeps fighting this, the internet will perceive us as the problem, and route around us; eventuall cutting us our of a larger picture IMHO.

Pathetic threads

[thunderbee]

Every time the subject comes to the front-page, the thread is aflame with uninformed, knee-jerk, and often plain stupid posts.

Half of the people posting here don't even have a basic grasp of how the internet works.
And, no, the internet is not the US. Sever the international links, and then you'll have a US-owned internet. Oh boy, you've lost access to the pirate bay. Hey, you can't get some crypto packages anymore! Please. That's the whole point of the internet.

If the world starts using different root-servers, that's it. They'll talk to the US-only roots to maintain connectivity, and the Us-only roots will talk to the new roots for the very same reason. And if they don't, why, just add them to your own setup.
There. No one was harmed.
Sharing the IP-space will be a bit harder; but that would be a good excuse to move to ipv6 faster.

But short of invading the world, there's little the US can do about it.

I can't see what the fuss is about. Really. Get on with your lack of life.

Burning karma like ther's no tomorrow

Re:Pathetic threads

[necrognome]

I can't see what the fuss is about. Really. Get on with your lack of life.

The "fuss" is nothing more than mere, thinly-disguised anti-USism. At some point the complainants want to be able tell their constituents, "We wrested control of the Internet from the clutches of the US and evil Cowboy Bush!!!111" Whatever.

Re:Pathetic threads

[CupBeEmpty]

But short of invading the world, there's little the US can do about it.

I thought that it was Europe that wanted all our DNS severs are long to them?

Re:Pathetic threads

[DJCF]

It was the UN, or rather a small number of people within the UN, who want to regulate the root servers via the WGIG which has been set up precisely for this purpose. The EU is backing them because they are pissed at the US for a whole lot of reasons, Brazil because they are pissed at ICANN, and Chile, China, and the other Usual Suspects for obvious reasons. The UN (or, again, a small number of people in the UN) are doing it for control. Needless to say, I believe this is an incredibly unbelievably bad idea but the large number of slashdotters who seem to be saying "Its ours, fuck off the rest of the world" annoys me even more than the WGIG's proprosals. These are the same people who also believe the US 'controls' the Net, and that all the root servers are located within the States (or, more to the point, don't know what a root server is).

Re:Pathetic threads

[dcam]

This is a solution that is not a solution.

This means that there is no longer any authoritative root servers. This is a problem. The effect of this is that you might nt be able to access some sites. If your ISP uses say the europen root nodes and they do not have a recently registered site, or the DNS records have changed, and the changes have not propogated through to the Eurpean nodes, then there is an issue.

This is precisely what the EU was warning might happen in the last article that turned up.

It is possible that solutions might be developed for this. But it would be better to head the problem off before it happens.

To be quite frank I don't understand how people can defend the US continuing to maintain control.

You Can't Do That

[LukePieStalker]

Someone once observed that the reason there was no German Bill Gates was that "The Ministry of You Can't Do That" is running the country. The garage tech startup would have to get special government permits allowing the use of lightbulbs to illuminate an area used for business purposes, etc., etc. There was a Wall St. Journal article a few days ago about German regulations concerning what name you can call yourself. Hyphens are not allowed. Can you imagine what a country like that would to with a domain names registry?

Re:You Can't Do That

[TheKnightWhoSaysNi]

He's the chairman and founder of SAP.

Re:You Can't Do That

[thinkzinc]

That looked like the setup for a good joke.

decentralize...

[dowstreet]

flatten the namespace (if necessary) and use a distributed directory (maybe DHT). link domain names to keys to ensure authority. i'm sure there are issues to be be resolved, but aren't folks already working on this? i know there is a chord based dns implementation out there, as well as DHT-based resolution in some of the HIP implementations.

anyone working on this stuff that can highlight the major open problems?

Who should we fear more?

[pyite69]

Having to choose between a one-party US Government and the UN is like having to choose which testicle to cut off with a rusty knife.

I Believe in the Golden Rule

[Prototerm]

The one with all the gold makes the rules. That leaves the UN out, I guess.

The Source

[Famatra]

"the media threw a shitfest over it because it was SEX."

Yes, because dipictions of murder and violence is ok but if a dinky goes into a yahoo that's intollerable.

What is the root of this stupidity? A lot of it was exported to India when the British ruled them, and hermaphrodites there who were once a revered type of people (because Vishnu has sex with his female half to create the other gods) are now much less tolerated, and a crack down on non procreative sex occured.

A lot of it appears to be the Christian/Victorian viewpoint since in Thailand it is much more open to different sexual identity (they recognize more then 2 genders as far as I know with the difference being that Thailand and other similiar countries were never directly ruled by a european type power.

Re:The Source

[cayenne8]

"A lot of it appears to be the Christian/Victorian viewpoint since in Thailand it is much more open to different sexual identity (they recognize more then 2 genders as far as I know with the difference being that Thailand and other similiar countries were never directly ruled by a european type power."

Ok...this one caught me off guard. More than two genders?? How can there be more than 2?

• Male
• Female

I'm not sure where others could fit in there?? I don't really count freaks of nature/mutations, like hermaphrodites (mixture of the 2 established, normal genders). I guess that could be a point of argument...but, really...what others are there?

Re:The Source

[Pig Hogger]

Yes, because dipictions of murder and violence is ok but if a dinky goes into a yahoo that's intollerable.

What is the root of this stupidity? A lot of it was exported to India when the British ruled them, and hermaphrodites there who were once a revered type of people (because Vishnu has sex with his female half to create the other gods) are now much less tolerated, and a crack down on non procreative sex occured.

A lot of it appears to be the Christian/Victorian viewpoint since in Thailand it is much more open to different sexual identity (they recognize more then 2 genders as far as I know with the difference being that Thailand and other similiar countries were never directly ruled by a european type power.

That's shritstianity's at work, pal. The old jewish fears of the dangling doo-dah (maybe the old patriarchs could not bear being reminded of their own sexual dysfunction - Ah! If we had Viagra back then!!!) was perpetuated in the stupid christianity what setback Mankind a thousand years (if that Jesus H. Fucking Christ guy had not been nailed 2000 years ago, and people would not have believed his "son of god" scam, we'd have had bases on the moon for several centuries by now).

Shritstians cannot bear the thought of people having - GASP - fun, but they have no problem in inflicting pain and suffering to others (crusades, spanish inquisition, anyone?), hence the approval for murder and mayhem violence.

Mankind should rebel at this stupid state of affairs, and take a pro-active role; every priest, preacher and shritstian religious loony should be shot 20 times in the abdomen and left to suffer 2 hours before being shot in the head with a .303 bullet.

At least, Stalin had the right idea there.

Re:The Source

[Blondie-Wan]

Some would classify "gender" as being related to but distinct from "sex," with the latter referring to the strict biological classification (male or female, as determined by the sex organs), and the former referring to culturally-constructed notions of sex roles, so that there isn't a strict 1:1 relationship between gender and sex, even though the one is based on the other.

Um...

[Colin Smith]

Who gets to remove "undesirable" countries from the top level domain then? All in the name of safety from terrorism of course.

Re:Norm Coleman - Al Franken

[dodongo]

I'll bet a dollar (hey, I'm a grad student, OK) that he runs against Al Franken in his next election -- which I believe is in 2008, isn't it?

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Like GPS, the DNS root servers are a service funded by the US government. Like GPS, the US does not want to give up control of the service that it funds. And, like GPS, the EU is welcome to create their own competing service.

But don't whine that the US doesn't want to release control. Regardless of who invented the internet, the root servers are funded by the government. If you don't want to use them, no one is forcing you to.

The people of MN should be ashamed...

[hackel]

This is ridiculous. Norm Coleman is an isolationist control freak and he must be stopped. The U.S. government should have absolutely no role in governing the internet. The internet is a public, global medium--perhaps just the push we need to work toward some global unity. The continued influence of the U.S. on the internet is what is dangerous, wrong, and already leading to a considerable amount of censorship.

Norm Coleman never fails to entirely embarrass both the state of Minnesota and the entire United States of America (not that he needs much help with the latter). And his antics never fail to appear on Slashdot, either, further demonstrating Minnesotans' complete incompetence when it comes to electing political leaders. First we thought Jesse Ventura was as bad as it could get, but we were so wrong. I am surely ashamed to be a Minnesotan today, and cannot wait for the day when I can get an EU residency permit, but until then, I hope people will remember that Minnesota USED to be a decent place, a leader in fact of the shamefully small progressive movement in this country. We're not all bad, and if we work together, we can kick the scum that have invaded MN back to the south where they belong.

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[dustmite]

You give it away for free.

Protocols maybe, but the US did NOT give 'the Internet' away for free to other countries. On the contrary, other countries have all paid huge amounts of money to install their own network infrastructure in their own countries (and in fact the US charges money for connecting to the US's portions of the Internet - it's a purely for profit enterprise not a charity). I'm sorry, but if I paid to create a network, I damn well have the right to say how it's run and who controls it. Same goes for any country.

Re:Funny Argument...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Lets say you have a neighbor who just moved into a newly built home next to yours. The first weekend out, they're in the yard trying to start a garden and want to water in some plants. Sadly, the outside faucets weren't hooked up, so they poke their head over the fence and ask you if they could run your hose over to their yard just so they could get their garden watered a little bit. You, being the nice guy you are, let them use your hose and water... you're on a well so it's not costing you much of anything.... There is nothing saying other countries can't go and start their own DNS servers. They can provide their own service, there's no obligation on the part of the US to hand over its root servers to anyone else.

Your analogy is fatally flawed. First, there is not one well, but a dozen well systems we (the U.S.) control. Second, nearly half of those well systems and more than half of the actual, physical wells are not in our yard, but those of our neighbors. Third, this is not about two neighbors, but one guy who runs the "well access system" for all the wells both on his land and other peoples land, for everyone in town. Fourth, the neighbors paid to drill those wells on their properties and paid for all the plumbing. Fifth, we (the U.S.) have our little cousins charging money every year for entries in this control system. Sixth, The guy running this control system is a violent psycho who breaks the town ordinances, beats people up, and has been caught outright lying in town meetings over and over again. This guy also has running feuds with about half of town (it's a pretty rough town).

What the U.N. nations are likely to do is just what you suggest, start their own naming service and switch over all the wells and well systems on their own property. And here is where your analogy completely collapses, because while the value of wells is supplying a resource, the value of the internet is in the connections themselves. It is a transport mechanism, not a commodity. What our dear congress critter is proposing is legislation that says all those neighbors can't do what they want with their wells, which they will promptly ignore. It might go so far as to threaten sanctions or poisoning of the existing system if other countries try to switch, which is also useless.

I see no "control" being exerted over the Internet here. What do they fear?

They fear that they will have to keep paying money to use their own networks and they fear that the U.S. will shut off or redirect DNS service to foreign countries. They fear being economically and socially dependent upon a resource that they have paid to develop and pay to maintain, while that resource can be shut off by the U.S., whom they do not trust. For that matter, I thought the U.S. was supposed to be about representation for all and democracy. What is democratic about one country making decisions for the world without giving them any sort of representation? The U.S. should be championing this move to distributed DNS in many countries with redundancy against a single (political) attack. Instead they are claiming to know better than the world, and that they should be able to make decisions for everyone. It is sad how broken, nationalist, and adversarial American ideals have become.

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[RexRhino]

Actually, countries like China and Syria have mad it quite clear that their goals are to restructure the internet such that it is easier to track users, servers can be licenced and tracked, internet services can be taxed, it is easier to block sites, etc.

The whole "They just want to control a critical part of their infrastructure" arguement doesn't come from China, Syria, North Korea, or Cuba, it comes from apologists in the West in order to justify what is clearly an attemt to destroy the free internet as it operates now.

It would be extremly easy to implement a system where no one entity controls the internet (have each country be responsible for there own .uk .us. country extension, and with IP6 to give each country a huge block of IPs it controls). It would solve the problem of the U.S. "control" of the internet, and wouldn't require giving massive power to the U.N., and technologically wouldn't be that different than what exists now.

This has nothing to do with countries worried about U.S. control of critical parts of their infrastructure (because all those countries have 100% control of their own infrastructure right now!), this is about wanting to end the era of the free, wild, and completly unregulated internet. It is about making the internet an easily controlable medium, like television, radio, and telephone. It is embarrasing for Western politicians to admit that their views on censorship, taxation, and internal survalence of their population is virtually identical to that of China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. So you spread some FUD about the U.S. being in control of their critical infrastructure (which it isn't, and even if it was the problem could be solved without the U.N.), and hope that knee jerk anti-Americanism will blind people to the real authoritarian goal.

Non-binding Resolution

[Landshark17]

Doesn't anyone watch "The West Wing"? A non-binding resolution means nothing. Besides, a law in this country saying the Internet belongs to the US doesn't apply to any other country, ie, the UN. This is just more politics.

Bottom Line:

[Hosiah]

As an American citizen, I want the UN to control the internet. Because that is the only way to ensure that I can still read news that isn't filtered through the US Fascist propaganda network.

Re:Bottom Line:

[Hosiah]

Only Fascists today are wearing business suits, son. Maoists are a miniscule threat compared to what we face in Washington.

The difference between "inventing" and "making"

[maillemaker]

Finally, I'm sure we will be treated to about 100 posts whining about how the US invented the internet and the world was so unfair. This is of course utterly laughable, as it simply does not matter who invented what, or how would you react to the Chinese demanding you stop using paper, or, omg, firearms, because they invented the stuff? But if you want to play this little game anyway, please keep in mind that the world wide web, or rather the technologies necessary for it, were invented in Europe. It's not a matter of who invented the technology that makes the internet possible. (besides, we all know it was Al Gore who invented it! :) ). By that logic, the internet would belong to the bright folks living around 2000BC who figured out how to draw non-ferrous wire. No, it's a matter of who built the infrastructure. The United States built the infrastructure that became what is today the Internet. To be sure, the rest of the world went and built their own infrastructures that tied into ours. But no one is up for telling them what they can do with their own infrastructures - we just want to retain control of our own! I really don't understand the problem. As has been said many times before in this discussion, if countries want to set up their own Internet, they can easily do so. And then someone will develop gateways between them. Geez, we were doing this with FIDOnet and WWIVnet back in the dial-up days. Maillemaker

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[Chas]

"I'm sorry, but if I paid to create a network, I damn well have the right to say how it's run"

Yes. On the segment you set up.

If you're opting to partake of this service, which you had ZERO hand in creating, guess what.

You
have
NO
say!

Re:Reason 4^H^H 1

[hcob$]

the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access,"

As taken straight from the article.

Shouldn't that read Reason "1"??

Search engines don't relate text content to IPs

[Augusto]

This is false;

> Search engines relate human concepts (text content) to IP addresses.

No, they resolve text queries to URLs. These URLs may or may not include IPs in them.

Kind of an important point when trying to say we don't need DNS ...

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[Sven Tuerpe]

... but on the contrary the EU is right now trying to find a solution ...

And the problem to be solved is what, exactly?

Re:What are you, retarded?

[glesga_kiss]

Yeah, I think Osama bin Laden wrote that.

Hey may well have! We are misled about OBL's intentions as much as America is deliverately mislead about UN intentions. OBL doesn't want a global Islamic world. He doesn't want us to lose our freedoms. He doesn't want to destroy our democracies. He simply wants us to stop things like, you know, disposing of democratic governments and replacing them with puppet leaderships, who's sole intestest is furthering the strategic gains of the USA in order to line their own pockets. But no, he "hates freedom", let's keep it simple for everyone and keep them from asking the wrong (or right) questions.

Americans hate the UN for a reason. They are bombarded with near constant critism of it at any opertunity. They will be completely unaware of the factual things the UN does. The UN doesn't figure in The Project for A New American Century. The proponents of that policy (i.e. the upper echelons of US politics) want to see America in that role.

Neocons Hate the Internet

[Doc Ruby]

Norm Coleman is running cover for US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. This neocon crew has so alienated our allies (driving them into the arms of our enemies) that we actually face the prospect of leaving control of the Internet to many incompetents (and worse, tyrants) rather than the reliable US control. We need real diplomats to work this out. Instead we've got John "Detonate the UN" Bolton and Norm "Bomb Osama in Iraq" Coleman. We need to get rid of these renegade Americans turning us into a rogue nation that can't be trusted by international partners. Minnesotans, you've got to wait until 2008 to replace Coleman, and Bolton's antidemocratic recess appointment to the UN expires in 2007. So we're stuck with these foxes in the henhouse until after this UN/Internet risk is averted. Somehow. I hope.

Keep it free government censorship?

[gorbachev]

Quoting the fine Senator:

We cannot stand idly by as some governments seek to make the Internet an instrument of censorship and political suppression. We must stand fast against all attempts to alter the Internet's nature as a free and open global system.

I just have one question to the Senator:

Would that include censorship by the US Government as well?

I'm, of course, referring to the .xxx incident where Christian conservatives managed to get the US Government to politically suppress creating the new TLD.

Pot...kettle...black, dear Seantor.

Re:Keep it free government censorship?

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

I missed something, I thought conservative christians wanted .xxx ?

Re:Keep it free government censorship?

[Bassman59]

"I missed something, I thought conservative christians wanted .xxx ?"

Well, of course they do ... they just don't want it on the Internet.

Corporate & government censorship

[gad_zuki!]

> The ESRB is a board set up by the game industry itself. It is self-policing. The government has no involvement in it

First off, the content industry learned long ago if they don't self-police then the government will step in and police them. This is why you have stuff like the Comics Code Authority, TV ratings, warning stickers on music, etc.

Now these ratings systems are used and abused by retailers. Many stores simply wont sell games rated violent to people under 18 for the very same fear. Other companies abuse this leverage. For instance Walmart sells so many magazines, it can dictate content such as what goes on the cover. Many publishers submit their covers to Walmart first to make sure the Walmart moralists are happy with it. Not to mention editing of tracks on music.

So, its really disingenious to say that the US lacks censorship because its not done by the government per se. Also, I would like to remind some of the posters here that the FCC does censor content over public airwaves, usually to the wishes of religious moralists. Also state and municipal governments pull books from libraries all the time due to trivial complaints and lately some states have been working hard to erase other "threatening" ideas like biological evolution.

The European criticism is a strong one, but like someone said all censorship is local. These are the countries that are still healing from the horrors of WWII, which to me is a much more compelling reason to limit access to something than the American "Jesus told me he doesn't like it" culture-war bullshit reasons. Also, I'd like to mention that finding a copy of Mein Kampf isn't hard to do in Europe, but libraries in my own town have pulled books for "homosexual" or "anti-family" content.

Also, the US is no more pro-speech on the internet than any other country and all the bills that barely failed to pass as laws to censor the crap out of the internet should give Americans pause about censorship. I don't care if the Germans are "worse," it shouldnt be happening period. Now toss in Utah's big porn control law which is still in effect and you've obviously got real unresolved censorship issues.

Videogames are still new media and the "We'll censor ourselves" approach has worked pretty well, but its still a hot-button issue and people like Jack Thompson and his millions of followers (or at least people who agree with him) are a strong influence in American culture and possibly law. Expect further tightening of "self-censoring" and retailers refusing to sell to minors for more trivial reasons.

Question:

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Is what DNS server you use determined entirely by your ISP? Or can a browser be set to look at a specific DNS? If it is the latter, couldn't the makers of browsers simply agree on a protocol to include the DNS in the URL itself? Something like http:US//www.whatever.com or http:UN//www.whatever.com. And that would become the standard way of making links (a default DNS would be set in the browser for old style links), so that if the internet does split, you can reach any domain name, regardless of whatever DNS it resides in, or in the case of two web sites with the same domain name on two different domain name servers.

Re:Question:

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I probably should have said the W3C rather than the browser makers. That is if they havn't already made a feature that can do that and it simply hasn't been a need to implement it yet.

Shouldn't we check with Al Gore first?

[Shakes268]

I mean, the father of the internet and the "information superhighway" should have a say in who controls it. My vote goes that the internet be controlled now by CURRENT, the hip new news network that even Tipper approves of.

How does the U.S. control the "Internet"?

[RexRhino]

Can someone explain to me how the U.S. "controls" the internet? Clearly the U.S. only controls the actual infrastructure in it's own country. ICANN has no real enforcement powers, not even in the United States, it relies completly on voluntary compliance to it's technical standards and protocals, and those are regularly ignored not only in the rest of the world, but in the U.S.. The "root DNS" servers that it uses have no power to push anything onto any other servers, they are completly passive... other countries are not required in any way shape or form to use the root DNS servers that the United States provides (in fact, the root DNS servers are in the U.S. more because of historical reasons of when the U.S. was the only country on the internet than any big decision by ICANN). Countries, ISPs, even ISPs and networks in the United States often have DNS server information that differs from the root DNS servers.

Right now, NO ONE really controls the Internet. The U.S. has a big influence on the Internet, but you don't think the U.S. would have a big influence on the Internet if it was controled by the U.N.? You do know that the U.N. is based in the U.S., is funded mostly by the U.S. (despite what you may hear about the U.S. "not paying it's dues"), and on most issues tends to support the U.S. position (remember, you only hear about it in the news in the rare occasions that there is a disagreement with the U.S. and the U.N.). So shouldn't the arguement not be that "The U.N. wants to take control of the Internet from the U.S.", and instead be "The U.N. wants to take control of the Internet". And the word "control" should give you an idea of what this is really about. Right now the Internet isn't really under control, and that is what the U.N. wants to change. It wants to make the Internet like TV, radio, and telephones: centralized and easily controllable!

Re:How does the U.S. control the "Internet"?

[FLoWCTRL]

The root DNS servers allow the global DNS system to function. They _could_ lie about name:IP address matching for the purposes of, say, economic/industrial espionage. Potential abuse of power is the reason that the root DNS system should have an open, distributed and international governance.

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[hcob$]

This is of course utterly laughable, as it simply does not matter who invented what, or how would you react to the Chinese demanding you stop using paper, or, omg, firearms, because they invented the stuff?

Point of info: Chinese invented rockets and blackpowder, not firearms. However, lets take this a bit further. Ok, they invented paper. Fine. We don't want to use theirs, so we can make our own. Blackpowder? Oh, well we just make our own and developed smokeless powder also. So, we invited the internet... you don't want to use ours? Fine, go build/make your own. I'm just tired of hearing about all this SHIT. Countries make your own .country stuff. Leave TLD alone, it's working fine. then you'll have your own little sandbox to play in and tax and everything.

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[R2.0]

"don't want to live with a situation anymore in which only one nation, the US, controls critical parts of their infrastructure"

Let me pose a question - why DO these countries rely on the internet for "critical parts of their infrastructure?" It's not like the US suddenly nationalized the DNS servers. Why is Brazil running 90% of their tax collections over a network ostensibly controlled by someone other than themselves?

Here's an answer - DNS service is free, and these other countries were taking advantage of a freebie provided by the US federal government. They have been risking their operations for years, and are just now realizing it, and their response is to demand control over something they don't own instead of developing more reliable systems in house.

As for the EU being a mediator, you are being disingenuous. Nations that don't want the US to have oversite of DNS want simply that - no US control. The EUs' "compromise" position? No US control, but UN control. So the nations that are complaining get 100% of what they want, and the US gets what? Generally, a compromise is when both parties get at least something of what they want. But in the EU scenario, the US is getting the screwing without even the consolation of a reach-around.

No, really - what does the US get out of this proposal? The US government has paid for a service that the whole world has been able to use for free, enabling almost incalculable savings and economic growth to these countries. Now the EU wants the UN to play eminent domain and take that property away "for the greater good" - how will the US government be compensated?

Here's a proposal - let's have the EU and other counties calculate what they have saved in not having to develop their own systems, and offer the US 10% of that. Now calculate the economic growth fostered by this US largess, and offer the US 1% of that. After the 1 Bajillion USD check clears, the US federal government will deliver those little DNS servers to the front door of the UN - after creating our own DNS system for our critical infrastructure (aside from the other networks we already have). Then, since the UN can't organize an orgy in a whorehouse without a multinational committee, much less set up a DNS system that's given to them (who, exactly will run it - the infighting will be endless), the rest of the world will come clamoring back to ICANN and ask to join back up.

Euros back to old habits.

[daemonenwind]

Why is it that Europeans, when stumbling on something pristene and good, always have to put their flag on it, claim it in the name of $LEADER, kick out the natives, screw up the borders and then run away when they've well and truly screwed it all up?

And furthermore, will we allow them to continue to do it? It's time the natives got restless!

Re:What are you, retarded?

[randyest]

Why'd you omit the one big qualifier that applies to all of those rights?

Article 29.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

That is, you can have the right to free speech and what have you, as long as those rights are NOT "exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Of course, the "purposes and principles of the United Nations" are not spelled out, and they are subject to change. So, you know, all those rights -- you can have them as long as the UN says so.

Compare to the US Bill of Rights (which are unalienable, and endowed by the creator.) Which seems more permament and un-exceptionable to you?

Re:Corporate & government censorship

[Pig Hogger]

Also, I'd like to mention that finding a copy of Mein Kampf isn't hard to do in Europe,

Here, as always, Google is your friend.

Re:But who forced the ratings system onto the game

[takis]

The ESRB is a board set up by the game industry itself. It is self-policing. The government has no involvement in it,

From the citizens point of view, that doesn't really matter. If you do not get access to the content, whether it was blocked by the goverment or by companies, that doesn't make a difference.

And banning children from certain innapropriate content, while consenting adults can freely play that content (and companies can freely publish that content) hardly constitutes censorship. That would be like saying that laws stating a 14 year old cant have sex with a 30 year old violate the 14 year old's rights (whereas most developed countries have statutory rape laws, and consider them a good thing).

Comparing a cartoonish hidden sexscene (*) to not only rape, but even the rape of children doesn't sound insightfull (as /. rates it) to me.

* And knowing that the cartoonish hidden sexscene was part of an ultra-violent gangstergame where your main objective is to kill either for money or for the "fun" of it makes it sound even more lame to me.

Neither is a tyranny of the majority.

[Richard Steiner]

In fact, it's precisely such a "tyranny of the majority" that the US system of government was specifically designed and intended to avoid cowtowing to.

If I knew that the UN would do a better job of handling things, and if there was enough transparency and accountability in the UN and in the process of transfer, then I might support a voluntary transfer of control from the US to the UN.

However, the current attempts by the UN to wrest control through coercion are a far cry from the above.

Just because the UN happens to be an international body doesn't make it the best solution in this partiucular instance, and their Modus Operandi seems to prove that.

Re:Hardly.

[greg_barton]

Keep your shoes on, Nancy.

The Pelican sleeps tonight.

How would UN/EU control of DNS improve things?

[Optic7]

I understand the concerns that the other countries have about US control of DNS - in theory. But come on guys, sell us on this idea in practice. How would UN/EU/etc control of DNS improve the system we have now, either technically, administratively, or in any other way? Are there any documented common issues of any kind with the current structure? Isn't there a great potential that such a change would just make things worse?

Another thing, the folks saying "OMG teh internet will splinter!!1!one" should realize that 99% of Americans wouldn't even notice if the rest of the world dropped off the Internet. I was wondering to myself, what sites would I miss if this theoretical splintering of the internet took place, and I could only think of the BBC and some European rally (car racing) sites that I visit. This makes the parties that want this have a really weak bargaining position. And before you dismiss me as an ignorant American, I should tell you I was born and raised in another country.

Re:Screw them

[Deternal]

Okay fine, you keep tcp/ip, then we europeans keep http and www thank you very much.

Who would do it better?

[CyborgWarrior]

While I understand your problem with the fact that the US is essentially in charge of the Internet at the moment (at least as far as architecture), I challenge you to find a body that will do a better job of keeping it free, democratic and safe. The United States is a powerhouse when it comes to just about anything. Who would we turn it over to?

The Untied Nations? If we turn it over to them, then it's going to become so entangled with red tape and beauracracy that it will become essentially useless within a couple years. While the US is no model of perfection when it comes to limitting beauracracy, we at least have the luxury of being in general agreement on the fact that the Internet SHOULD be free. If the U.N. got put in charge, there would be so much conflict of interest that it would pretty much grind to a halt.

Another country? Why the hell would we give it up and give it to another country?? The only reason for us to give it up at all would be if it was freeing it more. Turning it over to a different country simply means that we are giving THEM the monopoly on it. Again, no progress is being made.

Are we going to invent a new body simply to manage the Internet? If so, who's going to have a say on who is in this group. Even if such a group were created, they would be under such incredible political pressure from every single direction that in the interest of compromise they would have to give up some of the freedoms of the Internet or else they might as well just be part of the U.S.

I see where problems exist now and where problems will arise in the future with the U.S. in control, but it is still the better choice. We can't turn it over to a different country. We can't turn it over to the only major recognized international body and we can't create a new body that will manage it without giving up these freedoms. So come up with a better solution to this problem rather than simply spouting propaganda about how the US has to control "EVERYTHING!!!!1010101010111".

Re:Who would do it better?

[elgatozorbas]

The Untied Nations? If we turn it over to them, then it's going to become so entangled with red tape and beauracracy that it will become essentially useless within a couple years. While the US is no model of perfection when it comes to limitting beauracracy, we at least have the luxury of being in general agreement on the fact that the Internet SHOULD be free.

A have a bird that I think SHOULD be free. Therefore I keep in in a cage to avoid that others catch it and emprison it.

Another country? Why the hell would we give it up and give it to another country?? The only reason for us to give it up at all would be if it was freeing it more. Turning it over to a different country simply means that we are giving THEM the monopoly on it. Again, no progress is being made.

See my previous post.

Re:Who would do it better?

[CyborgWarrior]

Turning it over the U.N. does not make it any freer than it is now. Read my previous posts to see why. Your analogy would be closer if it went more like:

I have a bird that I think SHOULD be free so I put a tag on it so I know where it's at and nobody else has captured and caged it.

It's too dangerous to allow "world" to control it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundamental concepts of freedom of information and the free flow of ideas would be in jeopardy if you allow the nations of the world to control anything about the internet. There are too many religiously based and politically stifling nations that would censor the free flow of ideas if they were allowed to control the internet.

Hell, China already locks people up in their country for "misuse" of the web. What would the religiously oriented governments do to those that use/misuse information from the web in their countries?

States and the United States

[Wyatt Earp]

Good post and it touches on a big problem with Europeans being critical of the United States in matters like Katrina and Creationism.

They don't have the first frackin' idea how the United States works and they blanket everything on the Feds and "The United States does X".

OK everyone, first thing to grasp is that the Federal Government doesn't run the United States at every level. The Federal Government does international relations, military, and crap between states. If Tommy murders someone in Detroit, the Federal Government doesn't deal with that, there are no national police to arrest Tommy. If Wilima hits Miami, Bush can't send in troops unless Jeb Bush asks formally for em and so on and on.

The second thing to grasp is the States of the United States have governments of thier own and have many, many more powers than the Feds in terms of the crap that's not in the Constitution of the United States. Oregon and Kansas and Iowa decide on gay marriages, NOT the Feds.

The third thing to grasp are the tens of thousands of lower sub-state governments with the power to tax, levy and call elections, School Districts, School Boards, Local Governments, Counties, Parishes, Townships, Cities, Regional Governments, special entities, etc.

Example - I live in Portland Oregon. So theres the United States - Oregon - Metro (regional government) - Multnomah County - Portland - Portland Public Schools - Oregon Liquor Control Commission - DEQ and a other governments/entities that oversee where I live in basicly that level of importance.

School Districts are the battle ground of the Creationism fight, NOT the United States.

Re:Hardly.

[Richard Steiner]

Hey, man, I'm not going barefoot... They've got SCORPIONS down here in Atlanta! :-)

(Okay, just little dinky ones, but still...)

Re:U.S. Military Invented the Internet

[Zphbeeblbrox]

I'm not a DNS expert but I don't think that would technically be possible. Nothing says that the country in question can't roll back to a previouse version of the database and just not sync up to offending root servers. Heck I can cache DNS results on my own personal server if I wanted. In fact the only thing keeping those Root Servers as TOP Dog is the voluntary agreement by all the ISP providers and Backbone providers to do so. Those Same Providers could if they wished cut the root server out of the deal totally and come up with something else. Which they would if global market pressures required it. That's the thing about free markets. Someone always finds a way.

Mod parent interesting!

[aurb]

The idea of independence of the Internet is worth thinking of (IMO). Just imagine the Internet as a virtual country with its' users as its' citizens, its' own law, elections, currency and stuff like that...

And the President.

[khasim]

Or did you miss George's statement that he believed it should be taught as well?

1 school district would be funny.

2 would be funny.

20 school districts and it stops being funny and is really a reflection of our national ignorance of science.

Re:And the President.

[Oligonicella]

First, every citizen has a right to state their beliefs. Even George. Even the president.

Maybe in Germany or Belgium it would be a reflection, but not in the US. There are thousands of school districts. Each city has at least one.

NOW (assuming a mere one thousand):

1 school district would be .1% of them.

2 would be .2% of them.

20 and it stops being a fraction, but only gets you to 2% of them.

Since you used the pronoun "our", you knew all of the above, right?

Re:Hardly.

[Pike]

I think you missed the joke.

He was more likely referring to Sen. Wellstone's death in a plane crash just before the 2002 elections. (and if he was, it was in poor taste.)

Norm Colman is an idiot

[boardin_1]

When he was the Mayor of St Paul, I wanted to get him out of the state. Unfortunately, this wasn't the way I wanted to get rid of him.

Re:But who forced the ratings system onto the game

[Rycross]

From the citizens point of view, that doesn't really matter. If you do not get access to the content, whether it was blocked by the goverment or by companies, that doesn't make a difference.

The general public can get access to this rated material. Just not children in some states, and in other states not from some stores.

Comparing a cartoonish hidden sexscene (*) to not only rape, but even the rape of children doesn't sound insightfull (as /. rates it) to me.

* And knowing that the cartoonish hidden sexscene was part of an ultra-violent gangstergame where your main objective is to kill either for money or for the "fun" of it makes it sound even more lame to me.

Way to strawman my argument. My point was that developed countries will often inact laws that will prohibit certain materials and behavior from children, on the basis that they are not mentally developed enough to understand or comprehend said behavior or materials, or exercise them responsibly.

Many countries have legal drinking ages, driving ages, and ages on voting. Many other countries ban certain materials from being sold to minors. I'm just pointing out that most don't consider this censorship per se, and often consider it a good thing, in order to diffuse the argument that "if children aren't allowed to play the games then they're being censored." This is not the case.

Any adult can play a game that he or she wants to in the United States.

Norm Coleman

[seebs]

Norm Coleman was the asshole mayor of Saint Paul who broke campaign promises right and left and spent all his time trying to raise taxes to buy free stadiums for our local sports teams, because everyone knows people with annual salaries in the 7-figure range need a lot of help from people who are hoping to break the $25k line.

Norm Coleman lost a gubernatorial race to a pro wrestler, and this reflected a clear and considered rational choice by the electorate.

I am not surprised to see him spouting random propaganda that he thinks will get him votes.

Ugh...

[JimiSpier]

Where did this whole "Lets get the internet from the US" mentality come from?

and

Everything is (for the most part) running well with the US in control. I think the people who live here in the US should put it to a vote amongst the people first and foremost before we let a bunch of screwballs in underdeveloped countries take away the biggest means of mass communication in the world.

Just my opinion..

Re:Screw them

[Deternal]

I just love AC's who don't even bother to check their facts - guess he wanted his flamebait ratings to stick...

From wikipedia on Tim Berners-Lee:
"After leaving CERN in 1980 to work at John Poole's Image Computer Systems Ltd, he returned in 1984 as a fellow. By 1989, CERN's internet site was the largest in Europe, and Berners-Lee saw an opportunity to marry hypertext and internet. In his words, "I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the TCP and DNS ideas and -- ta-da! -- the World Wide Web" [1]. He used similar ideas to those underlying the Enquire system to create the World Wide Web, for which he designed and built the first browser (called WorldWideWeb and developed on NeXTSTEP) and the first web server simply called httpd (which was short for HyperText Transfer Protocol daemon)."

From wikipedia on web-browsers:
"Tim Berners-Lee, who pioneered the use of hypertext for sharing information, created the first web browser, named WorldWideWeb, in 1990 and introduced it to colleagues at CERN in March 1991. Since then the development of web browsers has been inseparably intertwined with the development of the web itself."

Hypertext and the hyertext to tcp/dns connection was made at cern, that he later made the w3c in massachussets is a totally different story.

Of course, trolling AC's don't care about facts....

China

[uberdave]

China is already on the board of directors.

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[fmaxwell]

Finally, I'm sure we will be treated to about 100 posts whining about how the US invented the internet and the world was so unfair. This is of course utterly laughable, as it simply does not matter who invented what, or how would you react to the Chinese demanding you stop using paper, or, omg, firearms, because they invented the stuff?

Straw man argument:
No one said that other countries had to stop using the Internet.

Non sequitors:
1. No one suggested that non-U.S. countries had to stop USING the Internet, so your firearm and paper analogies are invalid.
2. Firearms and paper are standalone items. If I go to a rifle range in the U.S., it does not have any impact on China. Given the amount of spam that arrives here from Chinese servers, I can tell you first hand that what China does on the Internet directly affects the U.S.

All that your opponents have said is that the U.S. shouldn't cede control of important Internet infrastructure to foreign governments or corporations. If China (or any country) wants to set up their own multi-computer network which is separate from, but uses the protocols and standards of, the Internet, they are welcome to. But this situation is analogous to Mexico and Canada demanding that we hand over partial control of U.S. roads to them because we allowed them to interconnect their roads with ours at border crossings.

But if you want to play this little game anyway, please keep in mind that the world wide web, or rather the technologies necessary for it, were invented in Europe.

No one is suggesting that other countries should be prevented from using U.S.-developed hardware and software networking standards. But why should the U.S. give up control of root name servers, ICANN, etc., especially when it provides us such a strategic advantage?

Re:Insightful? More like clueless.

[Bogtha]

What do you mean, "nice try"? They did remove it. It was widely covered. That they later managed to reinstate it is beside the point.

The /. moderators are scabs. :-)

[Richard Steiner]

Hey, I think the mechanics take enough crap in the media without folks slamming them here on Slashdot. Coleman probably thinks a "spanner" is someone who watches the US Senate all the time on cable TV and a "D check" is what Clinton let Monica do...

I am from Minnesota

[shuz]

I can I safely say I did not vote for him! Go Ventura!

Simple question

[LWATCDR]

Do you want an organization that puts North Korea on the Human Rights committee to control the root DNS servers?
Want China, Iran, and every little dictatorship to have an equal say as to how it is run as the members of the EU, the US, Canada, and Australia? Anybody want to bet that the majority of countries want an Internet free of censorship?
A political power grab by the EU to look active while really wanting nothing to change.
The US will say no. The EU will say look how mean they are. Everything goes back to normal.

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[shaved_weasel]

Here, Here excellent post. I couldnt't agree more. The anti-american retoric is getting a bit old.

My own dumb analogy

[Cro Magnon]

Suppose the road outside your house was owned by a large man. He had never interfered with your use of the road, but he recently whooped the tar out of someone for questionable reasons. Would you take control of that road away from the large, aggressive man, and give it to a known crook who obstructed the roads he was in charge of?

Re:But who forced the ratings system onto the game

[takis]

Many other countries ban certain materials from being sold to minors. I'm just pointing out that most don't consider this censorship per se, and often consider it a good thing, in order to diffuse the argument that "if children aren't allowed to play the games then they're being censored." This is not the case.

That depends. Who decides what children should be allowed to see? What if a government would forbid certain parts of history from being tutored at high schools for example? That could surely be considered as censorship imo. Ofcourse, I'm not saying that children should be allowed access to _everything_.

Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern

[bjheu]

What is happening is that several countries (not the UN) don't want to live with a situation anymore in which only one nation, the US, controls critical parts of their infrastructure

Then they need to change how their ifrastructure works so they can be self reliant.

If I run a business and I depend on a product another company provides to keep my business alive,
I can't go and expect that company to yield control just because the lack of it would cripple me.

Or another analogy:

The U.S. military developed, built and deployed the GPS constellation. It's freely available without charge, and the U.S would not consider giving it up for a second. WHY? Because like it or not, it's a MILITARY system, despite the fact that billions more use it and are dependent on it. The same applies to the internet, it was developed as a U.S. MILITARY asset and was opened up for free use without charge or royalty.

So my point is if you are that dependent on it YOU are the problem, and not ICANN control.

The truth

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

So what to stop the U.N. from using the internet as a way to control other countries?

Lets swap the N with an S there, and maybe you might see the problem that other countries have.

The role the US plays isn't anything a court cannot fix if the powers are ever abused.

Whose courts? And why should US courts have any say over what happens in other nations?

What would the main benefit of letting the UN or EU control it over the US?

Here's whats really going on. The US probably, as a part of trade talks or talks over military matters, mentioned to various groups, including the EU (forget the UN, thats an arena, not an entity, its like blaming the whitehouse lawn for the actions of Bush), that their internet is looking mighty fragile, and whoops, wouldn't it be a shame if someone accidentally knocked it over, as a leverage tool. So, after going away and pondering their options, aforementioned governments tell the US to go hump a pineapple, and set up their own redundant system. That they are doing it publicly (no need to) should tell any observer all they need to know about what's really going on.

Don't think you get to see every power struggle displayed on the evening news. 99% of what counts is never seen, but may be readily deduced.

Re:The truth

[sumdumass]

Lets swap the N with an S there, and maybe you might see the problem that other countries have.

Whose courts? And why should US courts have any say over what happens in other nations?

Here is the thing, the US created and developed the internet and they already have the control over it. There hasn't been any indecations that they are using it as a tool other then bargaining with underdeveloped countries and tacking on access as part of the deal. No other country is precluded from doing this so there ins't any special deal going on there. Once the infra structure in in place, the country would completley own or control what is in thier country so even if the US did cut them from the rest of the world it would be trivial to have another country pipe the access thru thiers. This infrastructure would remain intact.

For the courts? Whichever court has jurrisdiction. Giving control to the EU or UN would only wouldn't change that unless they placed restrictions over it. Right now if someone in england is cybersquating on your companies domain, you can either goto englands courts and hammer it out, goto a world court and hammer it out, or goto whoevers court the registra's company is located in. There are treaties in place that would bind a country or citizen of another country to a rulling outside thier country if it is "inline with a treaty"(copyright, trade, trademarks,any treatycould have provisions) both countries have signed. Giving control to another body wouldn't change that in anyway other then maybe place restrictions on the process.

Here's whats really going on. The US probably, as a part of trade talks or talks over military matters, mentioned to various groups, including the EU (forget the UN, thats an arena, not an entity, its like blaming the whitehouse lawn for the actions of Bush), that their internet is looking mighty fragile, and whoops, wouldn't it be a shame if someone accidentally knocked it over, as a leverage tool. So, after going away and pondering their options, aforementioned governments tell the US to go hump a pineapple, and set up their own redundant system. That they are doing it publicly (no need to) should tell any observer all they need to know about what's really going on.

the key wording is probably. You or i don't have any reason except our own guess that this "might" be ocurring. Changing control from one country to another would only change the the country's ability to do the same. Currennt US law would prohibit the US from stoping some other countries from providing access from thier branch so i don't see it as a big deal. With the war on terror and all the laws passed to support our actions, this issue would have already been brought up and most likly taunted as a way to fight the war on terror. Could we cut the internet off to countries that support terrorism in an attemp to punish or isolate them and thier anti US speach? We havn't and as far as i know have no plans to do so (although there are a few countries some might think this is a good idea to do)?

The fact is that there are already opertunities to misuse the power of controling the internet. The US isn't taking advantage of it and don't show any sighns of wanting to do so in the first place. The UN has already discused placing a tax on the internet to fund itself but was shot down. Know thay and UN firendly countries are wanting control of the internet for what reason? Reason we can only guess at because all control would change is who has the ability to misuse or tax the internet. There is nothign stoping other entities from blocking websites based on content. Nothing is stoping them from doing anything else they want. Treaties already in place dictate what sort of actions can be taken against others in other countries. Swithing control to another country won't chang ethat.

What it will change is those other entities ability to tax access to the internet. As lon

Kettle, meet AK-47

[MMaestro]

What's the matter with letting China et al have a say, anyway? You seem to be equating "can voice an opinion and has a vote in how things are run" with "can take control whenever they want". That's ludicrous.

In China, by "take control whenever they want", they mean "do what we say or we'll lock you away in a hole Americans wouldn't dare to call a prison, torture you, gun you down in a ditch and then have a bulldozer bury your body in an unmarked grave in the middle of nowhere."

All those stories during the Cold War about Russia making enemies "disappear" weren't entirely fiction. Ever wonder what happened to the organizers of the Tienanmen Square protest of 1989? What happened to the sole person who stood infront of the column of tanks? Due process in China is whatever the man holding the AK says, the media is censored so theres no public outcry, the richest are smart enough to get their asses out of there as soon as possible and the government isn't exactly composed of Founding Fathers.

Re:Kettle, meet AK-47

[makomk]

Whereas in the US, they'll "disappear" you to the prison system of some country with a dodgy human rights record for torture ("extraordinary rendition"), rather than torturing you themselves. It's not really *that* much better, to be honest. (Of course, they probably wouldn't dare do this to an American citizen; they'd have to at least strip you of your citizenship first. I think there's an interesting loophole in the laws here IIRC...)

Re:Kettle, meet AK-47

[Cro Magnon]

In the US, such things are new enough and rare enough that people are screaming about it. In China, such things are taken for granted, and nobody bats an eye.

mod parent down

[ag-gvts-inc]

Why on earth should what you care about be a factor in this?

Because it's his Internet you want to alter. And mine, and lots of other peoples too.

And it's couldn't care less. You sound like a fucking idiot when you get it wrong.

This post got modded insightful? When people resort to this kind of name-calling it means they have nothing more of substance to say. Flamebait in my book.

Re:mod parent down

[Bogtha]

Because it's his Internet you want to alter. And mine, and lots of other peoples too.

Where do you think the majority of the "lots of other people" live? Inside or outside the USA? I think you missed the irony.

Re:mod parent down

[Senjutsu]

Because it's his Internet you want to alter. And mine, and lots of other peoples too.

Yeah, and shit, you'd almost think they all deserve a say in how it's run. And, come to think of it, most of them live outside the US, so what we need is some kind of international body in which representatives from everywhere can get together and hash things out. A group of nations, united....

Excuse me but...

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Who forced anybody to use these root servers in the first place?

Re:But who forced the ratings system onto the game

[orzetto]

[European speaking]
The whole point with GTA|SA, in my view, is that a stupid interactive sex scene was considered highly outrageous and inappropriate in a game where shooting unprovoked at by-passers, policemen, other gang members with gory detail was the main theme. This was not a game about killing evil, white, shiny, cloned Stormtroopers, or some sort of nasty monster from hell. The people you can kill or carjack in that game look exacly like your neighbours.

Normal and decent people have sex (yes, I realize the irony of writing this on Slashdot), including your parents, psychopaths kill people at random (hope you don't have any in the family). In a videogame, it is legitimate to show people killed at random, and to encourage the player to do so, but if two people consensually have a shag, Hillary Clinton starts screaming "Will you please think of the children!".

In short, all countries have their mass histery. Iran has Islam, Norway has the usage of dialects, Denmark the usage of commas, Germany has the ß removal complex, and the USA have problems with sex.

Incorrect

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I've seen this rubbish mirrored so often around here I have almost given up, but what the hell, I will make one concerted effort to put it away. I'll just point out the parts where you are wrong, and you can look up the relevant posts on earlier discussions on this subject yourself.

It was created with US tax money.

Incorrect.

It was created for Americans and Europe to protect themselves from attack.

Incorrect, as it is today.

we paid for it.

Incorrect.

So at the end of the day, we own it.

Incorrect.

I'm writing to my senator and demanding that we don't loose it.

Okay wow, this is wrong on several levels, technically not realistic, and unless you happen to own a major corporation, futile. And spelt wrong.

I would guess that would last about 18 hours. then they would all come back.

Given your ability to get the present wrong, my faith in your fortune telling abilities is less than solid. How does this stuff get modded up? Even true patriots (tm) must realise this is factually incorrect rhetoric from some boob that actually believes the freedom of speech crap for defence of the internet on the american news. Well probably not but I don't give a rats about moderation either way, despite which I have karma to burn and burn and burn...

Anyway, typically enough you have missed the point of these whole shenanigans. I posted this earlier, but I'll probably end up reposting it a few times. Sigh.

Here's whats really going on. The US probably, as a part of trade talks or talks over military matters, mentioned to various groups, including the EU (forget the UN, thats an arena, not an entity, its like blaming the whitehouse lawn for the actions of Bush), that their internet is looking mighty fragile, and whoops, wouldn't it be a shame if someone accidentally knocked it over, as a leverage tool. So, after going away and pondering their options, aforementioned governments tell the US to go hump a pineapple, and set up their own redundant system. That they are doing it publicly (no need to) should tell any observer all they need to know about what's really going on.

Don't think you get to see every power struggle displayed on the evening news. 99% of what counts is never seen, but may be readily deduced.

Re:Incorrect

[jtev]

Um, please give evidence of your points. If you want to talk out your ass with revisionist history don't expect not to be called on it. Thank you, have a nice day.

Re:Incorrect

[McSmithster]

Well I'm not American but I'll put in a good word for them. One the UN does want control. Not the EU the UN. The EU was a latecomer to the game. Meaning they originally didnt care about this issue at all. The ones who wanted it were smaller countries in Asia and Southern Europe. Countries Like Chine, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, Vietnam, South Africa, France, and Spain. The EU was not involved and did not want to be involved. It got involved when France started complaining that they werent backing them up. Thats when the EU got involved. In fact, EU wasnt even involved in the initial push for UN control. China was leading it. The UN endorsed the idea before the EU did. So I dont know where you are getting your info but a lot of what your saying doesnt add up.

Secondly, it will not be a company that runs it if the UN takes control. What China wants is to have a body consisting of members of the UN to have control. That would almost guarantee that China would be on the board. Thus giving them near unlimited power over their citizens. Countries like Spain want to have control over all Internet activity in their country so they can trace whatever you do and read whatever you type. France wants similar power to Spain and its pretty obvious why Syria, Egypt and North Korea want more power. If China gets what they want it will not be technical people making decisions. It will be politics and that is and has always been a bad thing for the net. Im sorry to say but I agree with the U.S. on this one.

Re:Incorrect

[Brinczer]

t was created with US tax money.

Incorrect.

No, correct.

It was created for Americans and Europe to protect themselves from attack.

Incorrect, as it is today.

No, correct.

we paid for it.

Incorrect.

No, correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

So at the end of the day, we own it.

Incorrect.

By whose definition? We own the governing organizations, we own the infrastructure inside of the U.S. I suppose you could argue that no one can own the Internet, but we certainly control it, and I have yet to be presented with a reason why it shouldn't be that way.

Re:Incorrect

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

The UN endorsed the idea before the EU did.

To quote myself...

mentioned to various groups, including the EU

The EU is just one of the larger and more influential ones in the group.

Thus giving them near unlimited power over their citizens.

As opposed to what they have now...

Re:Incorrect

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

That's an interesting conspiracy theory. Here's another one:

Hahahahah, you linked to the DDOS attack on the root servers. As if any sovereign nation would need to resort to that. What nations do is what they are doing. You really shouldn't have posted AC, I'd have modded you up funny, if I hadn't already posted.

Re:Incorrect

[onepoint]

he's right about me owning my government. American tax dollars developed the network, the later on business took over.

we still control certain parts. those part are very important to commerce. sine they have become standards more power to us.

Onepoint

Re:Screw them

[Cyphertube]

Not that wikipedia is exactly the best place to claim evidence to refute an argument.

UN "Committees"

[kcurtis]

Indeed. Not like the UN allows China and Cuba on the Human Rights committee, making it a complete mockery.

Oh wait, yes they do.

Re:UN "Committees"

[ceejayoz]

Some would say the same about the United States, which was until very recently one of the few countries to execute minors.

Hell, the United States is only one of two - the other being Somalia - to not ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Now, the US is by no means as bad as China human rights wise, but they're certainly not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

The U.S. has *no* right to keep control.

[smagruder]

The Internet is a global technology and must be governed by a consortium of nations. All the arguments I've seen against doing this are bogus. Only archconservatives oppose changing the governance of the Internet.

Re:The U.S. has *no* right to keep control.

[BCW2]

The US invented it and has always had control. Say what you want about censoship, corruption and the rest but the UN will be 100 times worse.

Re:The U.S. has *no* right to keep control.

[steak]

this is the best response i have seen to this situation

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=12310& comment_id=47546

Yes. It is an American internet.

There are times when nostalgia gets in the way of a person's sight. It IS our baby, but it's all grown up now.

I don't have any particular problem with the status quo. I also generally agree with Bush. In this case I think their view on this is short-sighted and rather silly.

Conversely, the rest of the world is acting like having control over the internet is their *right*, which it is not. If we reliquish control (which I am _not_ arguing against), then everyone else need to realize that *we* are relinquishing control over something that was *ours*.

Re:The U.S. has *no* right to keep control.

[Big_Al_B]

What part(s) of the Internet did the US invent, specifically? Just curious.

Re:The U.S. has *no* right to keep control.

[joe2683]

The ignorance of some people in regard to this is amazing. The internet was created, developed, and funded right here in the United States. Period. Look up the history of it. I'm not going into it here. Just because other nations chose to JOIN our network, doesn't mean that anyone outside the US is entitled to any control over it. Most PC's in the world run MS Windows, so using some peoples logic on this, should we take away control of windows from Microsoft (all joking aside here.) and let the UN put together an international group of programers to manage and develop future versions because so many people in the world use and rely on windows? Since so many people in the world use windows that means that no one corporation should control it right? It's a global thing. With this kind of logic all products and services that reach out globally should be turned over to the UN immediatly. All of this stems from anti-US setiment. It's amazing how much other countries will bash us, talk shit on us, and the minute some disaster or some idiot who thinks he should rule the world invades your country, who do you go to? the UN right?...and just who do think the UN calls on when it's time do the hard work? When it's time to send in troops or send money or aid? Yeah, say what you want assholes, but you know it's true. France wouldn't even exist if it weren't for us.

Re:The U.S. has *no* right to keep control.

[BCW2]

The internet came from research developed by the U.S. Department of Defence. DARPA wanted a way to connect it's research facilities and created a blend of computers and phone lines to do it. Then the technology was released to the public for everyones use. For all the anti-military liberals out there this is sad news, something good came from D.O.D. research.

Re:The U.S. has *no* right to keep control.

[gedhrel]

"...or some idiot who thinks he should rule the world invades your country, who do you go to?"

And they say Americans have no notion of irony.

Re:The U.S. has *no* right to keep control.

[Big_Al_B]

The internet came from research developed by the U.S. Department of Defence.

Not entirely. Yes, the DoD Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) headed the DARPA initiatives that lead to the creation of the TCP/IP protocol suite. The head of IPTO, J.C.R. Licklider, hired Robert Khan from Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) to lead the ARPANET project in 1972. When Khan found that architecture incompatibilities made it impossible to internetwork ARPANET with other packet network projects, he started exploring a solution.

Note that the Stanford researcher Khan recruited to lead the development of what became the TCP/IP suite, Vince Cerf, heavily credits the *French* CYCLADES network, created by Hubert Zimmerman and Louis Pouzin, as a technical foundation for TCP/IP. Ooh, that's gotta hurt your neocon pride a bit, eh?

The DARPA TCP/IP team (headed by Cerf) was only one of the three original concurrent TCP/IP development groups. The other two teams were headed by Ray Tomlinson of BBN, and Peter Kirstein of University College London (UK). At the IPTO, Khan played an important part in coordinating these efforts, and in 1977 Cerf unveiled the first TCP/IP demo. DARPA didn't adopt TCP/IP as its primary internetwork stack until 1983 or 1984, if I recall.

DARPA wanted a way to connect it's research facilities and created a blend of computers and phone lines to do it.

What utter nonsense! Cerf designed the upper-layer TCP/IP suite, which he implemented in software on otherwise standard computers of the day. The underlying physical LAN/WAN and datalink protocols that DARPA used were also established already by others.

If you want to talk about phone lines, Alexander Bell, the father of modern telephony was born a Scot educated in the UK, lived in Canada when he invented the modern telephone, and didn't move to the US until later.

Then the technology was released to the public for everyones use.

Hold up there, my friend. First, in 1983-84, MILNET split from ARPANET and DARPA passed the research torch to the National Science Foundation (NSF), because our beloved military elected to stop funding additional Internet projects. Oddly enough, the NSF, as you know, is a frequent target for neocon ire. Funny, eh?

And, yes, it was the then Sen. Al Gore (D) that worked very, very hard on key budget legislation to keep NSFNet growth and commercial fiber optic research going. That's how he "took initiative in creating the Internet." So now we can put that favorite neocon talking point to rest, what say?

Also in about 1983, USC researcher Jon Postel created the DNS protocol and then went on to operate the precursor to ICANN and IANA to maintain the root namespace and address space. He also has his name on several hundred more protocol and standard RFCs.

By the late 1980s, The NSFNet backbone connected universities and private researchers to regional networks with an increasing commercial presense. Additionally, commercial ISPs started emerging nationally and internationally. By 1994, larger commercial networks overtook the NSFNet backbone in size and connectivity. Eventually, commercial access eroded the NSFNet "research-only" mandate so badly that NSF opened private access to their backbone, in April of 1995.

It was also in 1989 that the *British* Tim Berners-Lee working at CERN (a *Europian* Lab) capitalized on DNS and TCP/IP to create the URL, HTML and HTTP protocols, which he then implemented in a "browser" called--drum roll--WorldWideWeb. There are many, many others who were born and educated outside the US whose names appear on many RFCs and drive many Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) working groups.

Finally, note that in 1997, an engineer born and educated in India founded Juniper Networks, a company that rivals Cisco Systems as a backbone router vendor. In fact, I can say from extensive experience, Juniper is superior for most core routing applications.

Next time, please don't bring an AM-radio talking-point knife to an Internet history gunfight.

Its the UN, with the space aliens,and the morlocks

[gad_zuki!]

>What is happening is that several countries (not the UN)

Remember, we'll dealing with a loudmouth Republican senator here whose career is pretty much badmouthing the UN. Facts are secondary.

Essentially, from what I've read about this issue is that these foreign economies are a bit nervous of doing all this business on a US controlled network, so they write up a few requests and papers for somehow decentralizing DNS or at least sharing root servers. Some of these papers may have come from UN letterhead. Oh, the horrors. New World Order. Microchips in our hands, the second coming, etc.

Back on planet earth, these are serious concerns and someone might make a break for a seperate DNS system or some kinda of solution if the US won't play ball. We're already seeing it in Europe's Galileo system because the EU doesnt want to be investing in GPS technologies considering the US can shut them off anytime it feels like it.

Currently, the US has been a gracious host, but as internet activities become more and more important its simply a good idea for foreign countries to look after their own. The recent spat between level3 communications and SBC (?) is showing people that the current stability of the net is not something to take for granted.

Re:Screw them

[Deternal]

True, however in this case it's the same story I've been reading in papers since the early 90'es.
Not that papers are the perfect source of information either.

However it is generally accepted that hypertext and www was developed at cern, wheres tcp and dns was developed in the us, with tcp being developed by the us military, and later used by us universities.

My point with my original posting wasn't as much who developed what, but more the fact that many have argued in the IP discussions, that knowledge builds upon knowledge, and that software evolution is gradual, and thus for one country to claim ownership over the internet would seem at odds with that. Even if hypertext and www was developed in the us, it would be an odd statement put in that context.

Of course the US is the one country working hardest for IP laws, so in that way it makes sense.

PS: I still believe the IP term is stupid since it mixes things up and makes it unclear exactly what you are talking about.

Who "owns" the internet?

[gone.fishing]

We can trace the roots of the internet back to DARPA projects that related to networking and the construction of a "bullet-proof" network used by the United States government, the military, and educational institutions. In a way, the United States can lay claim to the discovery of the internet. By extenstion, since "we" discovered it and "we" built it, it is possible to lay claims of ownership over it - but these would be historical claims and not something that we could use to control it's use outside of our borders.

Over the years, we have allowed others to connect up and use "our" network and our technology. This has been a two way street with people from all over the world working for mutual benefit. The fact is that while the roots of the network may have sprung from the United States, it is no longer an American institution, it is a world-wide communications network and nobody can lay claim to owning all of it.

Like a geo-political boundary, we can decided what enters our counrty and what we do not permit (like the Nazi paraphanalia issue that Yahoo went through with France). In order to make this effective though we would need some sort of cyber-customs.

Does this then mean that the UN should wrest control of ICANN and other orginizations? What makes the United Nations uniquely qualified to serve as an arbitrator of cyber-space? Is it because we can expect a special sort of nuterality out of them? Is it because they can create international forums to deal with issues unique to the internet and cyberspace in general? If this were the case, I'd be all for the UN running the show. But the UN does not work that way, they are a very political orginization and they tend to mix issues using their influence on one issue to gain compliance in some other realm. Like oil for food. No, the UN has too broad a charter and is too willing to trade one cause for another. I'd feel uncomfortable with the UN having a huge role in internet regulation and control.

Still, I suspect that there will have to be some such agency, something that can rein in the outlaws and bring fair and impartial decisions that relate to various conflicts. How about a completely seperate orginization seeded with people from DARPA, CERN, ICANN and other orginizations that have done more than their fair share to build the internet?

Just dreaming I guess.

Re:Who "owns" the internet?

[steak]

cliffs for people who dont want to read
1. america invents internet
2. america shares its new toy
3. eurotrash want the toy
4. ...
5. profit?

Re:Who "owns" the internet?

[cranos]

How about this:
1. America invents ARPAnet 2. America allows others to use ARPAnet 3. Others build new and shiny things using ARPAnet (like the Internet) 4. America gets pissy when Others want a say in how ARPAnet is run 5. ??

So tell me again why this supports turning over??

[CyborgWarrior]

I disagree on a number of points you base your argument on.

At the end of your comment you claim that globalizing control of DNS would be the solution to maintaining freedom of the Internet and in the first part you claim that it shouldn't matter what some senator does, the other nations should be able to control their own networks despite whatever one of our senators does. First of all, there is nothing preventing said foreign nations from generating their own DNS infrastructure right now. Anybody can set up a DNS server and map whatever URL's they want to whatever IP's they want. So changing the control of the Internet over the UN would not change this in the least. All transferring such control over to them would do is create a much larger body of "crackpot" politicians that could actually have the potential to do something to the Internet; the difference being that not all of them are from countries that believe in freedom of speech.

As for your belief that red tape will support freedom, I think you missed what I meant by "red tape" or perhaps I did not explain it too well. I don't mean that there will be lots of red tape for politicians trying to inhibit the freedoms of the Internet: I mean that there will end up being a lot of red tape for anyone trying to actually make use of these freedoms. Say someone in China trying to say something about his government: if you add red tape to that, he won't make it through to the Internet with his beliefs. This is loss of freedom. If the U.N. gains control, such problems will arise in any country whos government does not beleive in freedom of speech / press at the moment. This is why I say that the added red tape the U.N. will add is a bad thing.

And what is that whole section about other countries who don't believe in these things usign US technologies to make their own networks supposed to get at?? If you are trying to say that if the U.N. caused loss of freedoms then other countries could still just make their own networks, then I don't see the point. I assert that turning it over to the U.N. WILL lose freedoms. In your case, they are free to make their own networks right now, so that won't change a thing. If you are saying that the ability of other countries to make their own networks using US technology is a bad thing, then you're just wrong: the more networks there are in existence, the better the Internet is because of the wider range of views presented.

If you are saying that the US's inroads into censorship is bad and other countries can use our technology to make their own networks if they disagree with it, then you missed my entire point. If the Internet goes to the U.N. cencorship WILL increase and countries who would do this because of the US's censorship will do it because of the UN's cencorship. So again, giving it over to the U.N. will not improve this situation!

You also seem to make an assumption about my concerns about freedom and tell me that I'm more interested in waving stupid flags ("If freedom is your concern (it's not--it's waving stupid flags)...". I find this to be petty and far off base. While I support the traditional U.S. beliefs of freedom, I am by no means a stupid flag waver. I base my argument concerning the freedom of the Internet on who I believe would do a better job of handling it. As I said in my parent post, give me a better option and I'll be happy to go along with it. In fact, I hope a better option presents itself. As for the ones that are currently on the table, leaving the US in control is the one that best protects the freedom of the Internet.

So don't make assumptions about my motivations in petty attempts to debase my arguments; you have no idea who I am.

Rubbish

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

not because shooting make-believe Nazis is "glorifying the Third Reich", but because you saw some swastikas while doing so.

In the game, the nazis were depicted as having vastly superior technology, far advanced from the tech of the time, and were tremendously strong. I don't honestly think the game should have been banned, but I do see the reasoning behind it.

Perhaps it's exactly the opposite.

Aaaaand this is why the rest of the world loves americans so much right now.

I'd trust the answers from a culture that has so far succeeded more than from one that has failed.

Ever hear the saying that I'd rather trust a man who has tried, failed and learned from his mistakes, than one who has never failed at all? The reason for this is that when things go wrong again (and they will), the guy who failed will know what to do next time round. The other guy won't. Not to point any fingers, but there does seem to be a strong theocratic tide surging through american politics right now...

There is very little risk of a new resurgence of Nazi power,

Actually neo-nazism is on the rise in Germany and Austria, partially due to the influx of immigrants from Turkey and the Middle East.

that risk is also increased by training the public to accept and even defend government restrictions on political speech.

So tell me, what is the US position on Al-Queada rallies within its borders? Is burning the flag still a crime? So much has been outlawed over there lately its hard to keep track. And lets say I release a reasoned, well thought out political pamphlet supporting the 9-11 attacks. What is your opinion on governmental censorship there?

So, lets talk genocide. No, really, pull up a chair and pour a cup. Genocide has happened many times in history, one conqueror or another going back to Rome and Egypt ordering the slaughter of all members of a particular tribe. Why is everyone so upset about the Nazis? Is it the scale of it? Not really... What about the very fact of it? Well it's bad, but no different than most other conquering races. So what then?

Its the way that modern industrial techniques and corporate efficiency were applied to murder by the MILLION relatively blameless people. Numbered, signed, stamped and sealed. Factories were built for the tidy slughter and killing of vast numbers of people, who only a few years before were happily productive members of society. Its the picture of Dorian Grey for Europe, the reminder that civilisation is only skin deep. And Europe will never, ever let an atrocity like that happen again within its control. These stark facts ecape many americans, who blindly burble about freedom of speech and constitutional rights, never ever really knowing the truth of what went on behind the concrete walls in rural Germany. Damn fucking right it's glorification is banned, you fuckwits.

One problem with your analogy with GPS...

[Phil John]

...the US has been throwing hissy tantrum-fits because:

• Galileo will give private citizens much more accurate positioning data: Oh noes, terrorists will be aided!
• They can't turn it of as and when they wantL Oh noes, terrorists will be aided!
• Europe has for the most part steadfastly refused to allow the US to implement a backdoor that would allow them to jam Galileo signals: Oh noes, terrorists will be aided!

So we go and make our own and you still get upset!

Your response is FUD. Thanks for playing.

[smagruder]

There's nothing to fear about "UN control" as there's nothing to fear about the UN. Again, only archconservatives hate the UN, and they hate it the same way they irrationally hate other things.

But if you want to consider the worst-case scenario, where the Internet does become "screwed up", how hard would it be for the U.S. or the U.S. plus a group of nations to cordon off its own Internet? Not hard at all.

So why are archconservatives wailing about this? They have no leg to stand on.

Offtopic? You guys don't get it

[bewert]

The US government has been following PNAC's playbook almost line for line since Bush was elected in 2000. Retaining control over ICAAN is a key part of PNAC's planfor retaining control over "cyberspace". Hence, it's now the US government's posture as well.

What's off-topic about pointing out where this plan came from, and a few other things from the same plan?

Incorrect.

[Morinaga]

The political body of the UN does not want simple administrative controls over DNS servers. They want total control. It's very easy to see because the most vocal of the UN members who want control tell you this themselves. In fact, the UN body that started this mess calls themselves the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)http://www.wgig.org/index.html

For example. In the second meeting of this body that wants to govern the Internet, Brazil had this to say; http://www.wgig.org/docs/Brazil.pdf
Madame Chair,
Allow me to focus our discussion on internet governance beyond Principles and towards practical matters that our citizens are in need. Our citizens are demanding cheaper access. This could be translated here by:
a) lower internet interconnection costs;
b) affordable hardware;
c) free and open source software;
c) regional administration of the root server system;
d) national administration of courty code top level domains (ccTLSs);

I'm sure there's a joke in there regarding reasons c & c but the whole flavor of the language is interesting. What even half of that has to do with a hands off administrative control I have no idea. This governing body is somehow going to make all this happen?

The EU reps had this to say; http://www.wgig.org/docs/EU-PrepCom.doc

As we have had the opportunity to state before, the EU believes that the WGIG should concentrate on the stable and secure functioning of the Internet, by addressing issues related to:

The organisation and administration of naming and numbering, including the operation of the root server system;

The internationalisation of Internet Governance, taking into account public interest concerns and participation of developing countries in the governance structures;

The stability, dependability and robustness of the Internet, including the impact of spam.

Spam? Well, that sounds to me like this new governing body wants to control content (which is evidenced elsewhere by UN reps, this is really no revelation but few people seem to see it or wish to look for the motivations behind this move). If all they want to do is sing Kumbaya and peacefully administer some DNS server then why, pray tell would they have anything to do with spam control? What's spam to Brazil, yet information to another? The great thing about the Internet is what makes the Internet a bad place at the same time, freedom. The examples of UN reps citing issues OTHER than DNS administration are numerous and distrubing. They want to actively participate in governing a rich and wonderfully free form of communication and trade. It's time that some government officials here in US started asking themselves why. We need more libitarian thinkers like Coleman and I don't care which side of the political isle they come from.

Re:Incorrect.

[DJCF]

Thank you, thank you, someone other than me has had the foresight to read up on the issue rather than just blindly commenting, and mention the WGIG.

The reality is that it's not really ours *now*.

[smagruder]

The Internet is clearly no longer the baby of the U.S. With the entire world using it, and depending on it, the rest of the world has a *moral right* to participate in its governance.

To deny this moral right is to declare some sort of American preeminence that doesn't exist. The U.S. is but a nation amongst nations now, and we need to back down from the imperialistic rhetoric. It's high-time to start being a good player in the world. And handing over the Internet would make a great beginning.

What?

[Rui del-Negro]

Disguised? How is it disguised? People are just too stupid to understand what's right in front of their eyes.

Re:What?

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

You know, if all the root servers went down, it wouldn't be the end of the internet.

I know, thats my point. There's no need for all this public fuss at all. But to paraphrase Galileo, and yet it moves. Diplomats first, politicians second, are making an issue of it, and I'm telling you why. However, if they wanted to take full control of the internet, this would be the first step.

Re:What?

[onepoint]

actually, if the root servers went completely down, the interest on money lost on the overnight would be huge. Banks would scream and so would all the federal reserve type money institutions. ( 18 hours I think is all the American fed wire is open ). the amount lost would force people to react.

Re:What?

[ozmanjusri]

interest on money lost on the overnight

Over whose night? There'd be plenty of people awake, alert and in daylight to reconfigure DNS servers. It could be done in seconds, if there were contingency plans in place.

Re:What?

[werewolf1031]

It could be done in seconds, if there were contingency plans in place.

I'm almost willing to put money on the odds that there's already a contingency plan in place, only the general public doesn't know about it. If by some fluke all 13 of the root DNS servers went down, somehow I don't think the Internet, nor the millions of netizens, would even blink. I mean c'mon, the U.S. gov't is notorious for its paranoid planning for what-if scenarios; do you really think this particular "emergency" scenario doesn't have a contingency?

I would consider

[jd]

...any country guilty of war-crimes, the kidnapping of foreign citizens for the purpose of torture and the arrest without right of trial or representation to be guilty of being a repressive dictatoriship. Sounds fair?

If yes, then America is a repressive dictatorship and it would be sheer idiocy to leave control of something like the Internet under American Government control.

If no, then most of the countries America happily labels repressive dictatorships aren't, and should be entitled to a say in the way the Internet is run.

Besides which, you should bear in mind that although America built the infrastructure that exists in America, it did NOT build the infrastructure anywhere else. Even in the early days in Britain, the Internet was carried as a service over the X.25 lines provided by British Telecom's PSS service. At the very least, those countries that built their own networks, laid their own cables, designed and installed their own routing equiptment, etc, aught to have a voice in how those lines are run.

I'd say that European Internet users probably use as much European equiptment as US hardware, if not more. Telebit, now deceased, actually beat Cisco to a fully-functional IPv6 implementation and had some very nifty virtual networking layers in their routing protocol as part of their security. They weren't the first, or the last.

Manchester's GMING (Greater Manchester Inter-Networking Group) is a metropoliton ATM-based fiber optic network with impressive throughput, with customers ranging from the five Universities to a large number of businesses and corporations in Britain's third-largest city. What business does the United States' DoD have, controlling such a network from afar? And - since ultimately some fraction of any charge for any service must go back to them - what right do they have to impose taxes but deny representation?

I seem to remember reading in history books about some people who kicked out a king who tried running their country from a vast distance. Taxes without representation seemed to play a big part in that, too. Oh, now where was it.... Can't have been America, because they're guilty as all Hell for doing exactly that! They wouldn't repeat the very crime they accused others of, would they?

Re:Freedom isn't free

[Krach42]

Our military must be willing to sacrifice to ensure our freedom is not threatened by rogue states. If we were unwilling to use force to protect our freedom, we'd be speaking German or Japanese right now.

Sovereignty is not the ultimate right, individual freedom is.

China shouldn't be feeling this same way? I mean, imagine all the horrible irony of them saying: "If we don't do something to stop the USA, we'll be speaking English in 10 years!"

If China were unwilling to use force to protect their sovereignty, and freedoms, what's to stop them from lobbing a couple of nuclear missles our way?

We believe that individual freedom is what is the ultimate right, but what protects those rights? The sovereign state of the United States. Without that sovereignty then any government with the power could dictate to us that the constitution doesn't matter, and we're going to follow their rules from now on.

It's like copyrights being used to protect copylefts. Copylefts say that the end-user's rights are more important than all, but in order to have force to say that and enforce that, they need the copyrights that say that we can dictate any use that we want to.

Sovereignty shields the individual rights from other countries so China can't just come in and say, "Company XY, you're too powerful, we're taking all your assests into the Chinese government, so that we might better manage that power for the good of the people."

List of things to return

[orzetto]

So, if the US invented it they "own" it?

The Web was invented in Switzerland by a Belgian with a French name and a Londoner. Uninstall your browser and go back using Gopher and Archie.

Gunpowder was invented in China long ago and intended for recreational purpose only. The inventor could never envision its usage for anything else than making children happy, and uncivilised westerners use it today to maim them. Please return your firearms to the PRC. Do keep Charlton Heston.

Ships were invented in Greece to find a golden fleece. They were to be a means of transport and exploration, not military platforms. Please return the Nimitz to Athens.

The Latin alphabet was supposed to be used for Latin and derived languages exclusively. It was developed by legitimate scribes with Etrurian sublicenses, and never intended to be used by barbarians that cannot even write. ("write", for example, should be spelt "VRAJT"). Please send all your keyboards and typewriters back to Italy.

Bread was invended in Egypt as a tasty way of eating flour. It was never meant to be used in (bleargh) Big Macs. Send all your McDonalds to Cairo (though they will probably answer "thanks, but... let's just say like we took them, right?")

The Statue of Liberty was built in France to honour the values of Freedom, Equality and Fraternity, together with friendship between France and the US. It was not meant to symbolise a nation that claims to have saved France in the world wars (in the first the US entered only for one year, in the second they did not enter until attacked), calling the French "surrendering cheese-eating monkeys" (the "eating" remark, coming from an American, is really offensive) while never had a military occupation on their soil since the Brits left, and screwed all the statue was meant to represent by invading a defenseless country with bunches of black sticky liquid, and installing their puppet regime like Hapsburg Austria used to (ok, no sticky liquids back then). Unmount and shove it in a place the French will be all too happy to illustrate.

Cars were invented in Germany to visit the countryside in the weekend, not to be a penis supersizer. Please transfer of GM and Ford motor companies to Mannheim. Not sure whether they want the Humvees. Bikes go to Karlsruhe.

Circumcision was invented by people who had little water and lived in the desert. It was not meant as a way to prevent masturbation, and whoever thought for a second to cut a baby's willy because he might do "dirty things" with it in 15 years' time was a complete psycho. The idea was hygiene! Return to Israel your... oh never mind.

Re:List of things to return

[thinkzinc]

"Cars were invented in Germany" Are you sure about that? I guess it comes down to what you consider a car. If you consider a car a self-propelled automobile, you are wrong. Steam cars were functional long before the German automobile. Cars were invented in various stages around the world. Nicolas Joseph Cugnot (1725 - 1804) created the first self-propelled automobile (steam-powered) in France in 1769. Daimler created the first commericial car... but then again you are trying to be funny right? This is off topic-sorry. To add to the conversation I'll just say that I like my internets just the way they are.

Re:List of things to return

[onepoint]

the argument you present is under patent law. stuff expires, some of the other stuff is public domain. so again you are out of luck.

we are talking about business and about control of the registry. there is nothing stopping someone else from creating a .business .... let them run that root server.

ha-ha

Re:List of things to return

[EireannX]

If only he knew what irony was.

"We are saying that we created the internet therefore we own it therefore we control it." "..we are saying that we don't want people who are so fond of censorship to fuck with ours."

"I wish I had mod points now, because you and many others on this topic should be modded into oblivion."

I understand your concern. America owns the internet, so the only censorship should be American censorship. And if only you had the power to censor anyone who disagreed you the world would be a better place.

Re:List of things to return

[KevinIsOwn]

Nitpick all you want, it doesn't change his argument. I mean, the best response to your entire post is: Who cares?

A Modest Question: Why not multiple roots?

[lildogie]

Why are we limited to one set of root servers?

Would it not be possible to have ISP's provide DNS that queries multiple roots?

Sure, there would sometimes be some sites that could not see some domains.

But isn't that the same situation with IP routing? And still the Internet is fairly well connected (recent news items notwithstanding).

Re:Screw them

[Cyphertube]

IntProp laws are dumb in the way patents have been applied to processes and also in the way copyright keeps being extended forever.

I just had to respond to the Wikipedia reference due to the joy of recently seeing a Jewish dietary law listing eating hamburgers or some other fast food nonsense, which was clearly NOT relevant to the article, nor factually correct.

Having lived for a number of years outside the US and also taken courses (in the US) on the history of US foreign policy, I can understand the trepidation felt by a number of countries regarding US control of root servers. Arguments of having built it are ridiculous. It's like saying that Italy should have control over all our spelling for those of us using Latin-based character sets.

I do agree that I wouldn't want to see a country like North Korea deciding who gets cut off, but moreover, now that I live in St. Paul, Minnesota, I really don't want Norm Coleman making any such decisions, either.

Re: please open your freak'n minds a bit

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Yeesss... Ok....

I didn't state specifically that I assumed that if you need a 'named' IP address, then you are going to be a 'host'.

For example, if I am *hosting* myrandomdomain.com2 then it is a host -- is this always the case in real life, right now? No, because we've been jacked around by DNS as well as the lack of available IP addresses. You can have multiple hosts on the same IP address even (use port addresses in the DNS record).

If I have an SQL server on that same network, its IP address would be a subdomain. If my house is on a 'named' domain, my toaster would not have its own domain, even if it did have its own IP address.

I would not have crap like myRandomDomain.com2 and myRandomDomainForMySQLServer.com2, and try to run them in the same network.

Realistically, this would increase the number of records that the average gateway would hold on to. The trade-off would be that there would be no need for a DNS cache, nor DNS lookups -- the gateway would handle this 'stuff' instead of a DNS server.

So, my contention is that, yes, that is how routing tables work. Because I am talking about the top-level network when I say 'create a naming algorithm'. Your toaster doesn't need a domain name. And if you really think it does, then buy it a f*ing gateway.

At no point did I say 'every IP address will map to a domain name'. The reality is that you would have to specifiy chunks of addresses to represent 'named IPs' in each of many languages. It would be a hell of a task. In my mind, getting rid of the leech that is the DNS system would be worth it.

Repeating now ....

[bizitch]

We (the USA) hereby officially DARE the europeans to disconnect themselves from the internet.

Says a descendant...

[andersh]

Says a *descendant* of those very same Europeans that settled in America... Hope you don't mind the Native Americans taking their land back?

P.S. We really did fuck up the on North American continent I must say. Just look at that mess!

I find your response telling

[AntiCopyrightRadical]

He said "US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years", and you read into that "Bush=Hiter".

Defensive?

The erosion of rights in general has been going on for a long time, arguably since the day the constitution was ratified. Bush as continued it, but so did Clinton, and so would have Kerry or Gore, or Dole, McCain, Dean, or Perot. Probably even Nader.

While control by North Korea or China would be disturbing, they are not the totality of the UN. Purely from a business perspective, I'd imagine the brittish and japanese, among others, might have legitimate problems with US control of the root domain.

What?

[Ayanami Rei]

You know, if all the root servers went down, it wouldn't be the end of the internet. Most ISPs could reconfigure their name servers in short order to take over the functionality of the root servers and operate without peering for however many months it'd take to get new root servers up and running for a TLD.

So... I don't see that as being how the conversation went. World leaders are not CIOs...

Three little pigs...

[JimiSpier]

I'm gonna take another crack at making a point here..



I'm going to borrow from the three little pigs for this exercise.

There are three little pigs, and a root DNS. The root Dns needed a safe place to call home, to be safe from the big bad wolf that is total global war.

The first pig (China), said, "Come on over here most honorable root DNS, I'll keep you safe and so secure that people will never see you or the internet again. Oh and by the way, my house is made of straw."

The second pig(Europe), being linguistically superior to the first, gave a compelling arguement as to the obvious lack of common sense to hold up in a straw house and let someone else dictate what you can and can't do. Then the second pig invited the root Dns into his wood house for some Tea and some fryed snails.. Oh, by the way, we are currently in a penis size contest with the third pig, if he says or does something we don't like, then I order you to not talk to him or give him the time of day..

The root DNS getting fed up of all the bullshit politics said screw it, I'm gonna stay with the last pig(USA), there is still a lot of retards running the house, but at least I'm free to talk to the other two pigs whenever I want and if the big bad wolf comes then I am going to be safe cause pig#3 has all the nukes and his house is made of brick, metal, iron, with motion sensing lazers and the pig has a kung fu grip to die for..



Ok, its not a perfect example, nor is it a perfect world. The UN is a group of countries looking to exploit this for profit for their countries, which means that eventually they will hold it hostage..

No improvements as such

[andersh]

I believe the issue is control over something that is hugely important to commerce in every country today and in the future. Now, we've seen how bad the US legal system can be - and what views the US has on many issues (biotech, creationism, pornography etc) are often not acceptable to other countries. American legal action against what we consider to be free speech scares me - we actually believe in having freedoms not just paying lip service to them. So when the US controls something that could effectively restrict our sovereign rights as free nations we tend to take that seriously. The European Union is simply saying that's it's not fair that the US should have control over how European nations run *their* part of the Internet. Now, I would like to see it simply split apart and the EU putting up it's own root servers - that would be the easiest solution. It's not about taking it away from the US as much as giving us control over our part. And that's something most people would agree is fair, isn't it?

As a resident of Minnesota . . .

[boyfaceddog]

I would like to appologize.

Re:Corporate & government censorship

[ShakaUVM]

Uh, censorship IS the repression of material by the government.

A store can choose to stock its own goods.

If you get your way -- that WalMart would have to carry magazines with naked ladies on the covers -- then you've just removed a fundamental freedom we have here in America. The government now controls what stores may stock.

No because we don't give a shit

[Sycraft-fu]

Other countires are MORE than welcome to setup their own roots. Nobody seems to have a problem with that. In fact I've suggested it several times on /. and so have others. However that's not what the UN wants. They want the US to give up control of the existing roots most of which reside in the US and are run by US companies or the government. THAT'S what's worrysome, is that they seem to think they can force the US to give up something created in the US, paid for by the US, and maintained in the US.

So no, there's no worry about the US trying to stop other countires form running their own root servers.

Re:Your response is FUD. Thanks for playing.

[Bassman59]

Right after you tell us you're a "moderate conservative," you go off and prove otherwise with your bullshit rantings taken straight from the fat lying ass of Bill O'Reilly and others of his ilk. You're no more a "moderate" any more than Dubya is a "compassionate conservative" or a "reformer with results" or anything other than a lame duck douchebag loser.

Recall that the internet flourished under the adminstration of a moderate Democrat -- the very Clinton you deride for getting a blowjob (which is something you've never had the pleasure of getting).

As for your rants about "morality," well, let's see -- tell me again about those weapons of mass destruction?

I'm lookin' forward to seeing Rove and Cheney frogmarched to jail. DeLay is guilty. Your boys are all goin' down. It'll be fun watchin' them be somebody's bitch.

Wow... how many objectivist key issues...

[israfil_kamana]

... can you pack into one single rant?!? If only any of this tripe weren't founded on a philosophy whose latest adherents' exploits include "debunking" heizenberg's uncertainty principle and Godel's theorem. Anti-scientific AND anti-religious; ravingly individualist yet totally happy with the collectivist system of corporatism. Anti-statist, yet they are happy to have the state use their power in favour of corporate property over individual property. It's quite the "have-cake, eat-too" package.

.

It's my ball

[Bezben]

Naturally on slashdot with a story like this you get a lot of posts presumably by Americans saying 'we built it, if they don't like it fuck off and make your own'. Which is a dangerous thing to say. Because if we do, you'll have American on one internet and the rest of the world on another, and won't this fubar Americas economy? Anyway, if we did build our own, maybe we could improve a bit. Maybe roll out ipv6 for a start...

I wouldn't trust any government body with that much control if I had the choice. But then I don't. Damn democracy.

Re:U.S. Military Invented the Internet

[Possum139]

The issue is not really whether the rest of the world outside of the US can take control of their own nameservers or split off into their own subnets. They can, and there is nothing the US can do about it. What's at stake here is whether the US should cede control of its nameservers to some international body, thereby giving them control of that portion of the internet which exists within the US. As many of the posters here have stated, it is certainly understandable that when a country depends upon the internet to keep a substantial part of its economy or government functioning the idea that a foreign government controls it makes them nervous. You don't trust the US? Okay. So why do you find it so hard to understand that the US doesn't trust China, France, the UN, or anyone else to control OUR access to OUR own portion of the internet?
But of course if various parts of the world wished to spin off their own subnets they would be disconnecting themselves from the world's largest economy, and they really don't want this. And there are a lot of other countries that really would rather be connected to the US version as opposed to the greater UN network or whatever it would be called. If you want to split off--don't talk, just do it.

Re: DNS

[E 99]

is DNS control even necessary?
Yes, DNS and DNS regulation is necessary -- at least if the Internet is going to remain something beyond a plaything for geeks. What do think, that businesses are going to start advertising, "visit our web site at 123.456.789.012"... or "Google our company name -- we're the third result in the list"?

And what about security? The integrity of the DNS regulating body is the only reason that a person can type, e.g. "www.bankofamerica.com", get a secure connection, and be confident that their information is going where it's supposed to be going.

You want to give that kind of responsibility to the U.N.??? The Internet will remain free and intact only as long as the U.S. is responsible for keeping it that way.

Re:So tell me again why this supports turning over

[Bassman59]

Grammar Nazi time. Instead of, "I disagree on a number of points you base your argument on," perhaps "I disagree with a number of points on which you base your argument" is less convoluted.

Re:Your response is FUD. Thanks for playing.

[BCW2]

There is everything to fear about UN control. They will screw it up like they have screwed up everything else they have touched. The UN is more bogged down in useless beaurocracy than any government and more corrupt than most.

Re:U.S. Military Invented the Internet

[BgJonson79]

And we invented the Colt .45... oh right.

your all miising the point.....

[heartsurgeon]

follow the money...

the U.N wants to impose a "user" tax, and God knows what else...

this is a money grab...

if it ain't broke, don't fix it...why would we want to cede control of a major economic force in our country to outside control..this isn't about "arrrogance" or "totalitarian" control of the internet by the U.S., this is plain old self-interest. Anyone who argues pursuing "self-interest" is somehow bad is just plain crazy....

the U.N crowd is pursuing it's own self-interest...a taxable "international" endeavor that will generate funds for a bloated organization, whose administrators appear answerable to no one.

for those who loathe the U.S., at least we have a system where the politicians can get voted out of office....many of the members of the U.N. have despots, dictators, or "elected-for-life" leaders...you may believe the U.S. has a rotten political system, but rest assured, just about every other political system out there is worse....

Re:your all miising the point.....

[spepper]

EXCELLENT COMMENTARY! I could not agree more-- the UN has been reduced to an extortion operation run by these foreign thugs, and what disturbs me is that our good old federal government keeps funding their existence here on our soil-- that whole operation needs to be sent packing out of THIS country-- but I'm reminded of an old saying: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies CLOSER"-- so perhaps it is a trade-off, in dealing with the ne'er-do-well's of the rest of the world, to "keep them close" by allowing that operation here-- and we CERTAINLY don't need to give THEM the "keys to the computer room" by turning control of the internet over to them-- hell, WE INVENTED IT (just ask Al Gore, he'll tell you it's so-- LOL) So, as long as we are STILL AROUND, it should stay with US!

Re:your all miising the point.....

[Big_Al_B]

follow the money...

the U.N wants to impose a "user" tax, and God knows what else...

this is a money grab...


You're partially right.

But you've got the picture bass-ackwards. ICANN is charging a US$50K application fee for new gTLDs, and charging registries worldwide US$2 per name per year. But those registries have no say in ICANN policies...

This is a "non-profit" corporation overseen by the US government (Dept. of Commerce), too. So is it surpising that the fees smack of "taxation without representation" to many registrars outside the US? Not exactly.

Remember our country's history with unfair taxation? How can we be surprised by foreign registries pushing for multilateral control?

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

Clearly, many feel that there's something to fix...

Anyone who argues pursuing "self-interest" is somehow bad is just plain crazy

There's many ways to pursue self-interest, and some of them are indeed wrong. Is ICANN an example? I don't care enough to think it through, frankly.

Bah

[sheldon]

That's not the fucking purpose of the UN.

It's a body, where a bunch of countries can get together and debate things to death. That's it. That's all it should be.

Debating things to death is good, it's healthy. It helps us formulate international treaties, which are the basis for international law.

Re:Bah

[Mac Degger]

Which is why I put that last paragraph in: you might not have noticed, but the UN has outgrown it's charter, and thus it's ability to do those things effectively (things like inspection, peacekeeping, even just armed escorts for valuable supplies/relief aid etc; stuff which most people would agree doesn't fall within the UN's charter, but are damn glad the UN does anyway).

"It helps us formulate international treaties, which are the basis for international law."

Which, the US has shown in recent years, isn't worth much without enforcement. And unenforcable laws reduce the law to farce. Basic human rights should have som e teeth behind it, some way of enforcing sanctions to say 'Gulags like Guantanamo are wrong, repression of people and information like China does is wrong, and this is what we're going to do to help you decide to stop doing that'.

Re:Bah

[sheldon]

Well we ought to reign the UN back to it's charter.

I'm totally and completely opposed to the UN being involved in peace keeping and other military actions. The UN is not a military alliance. Such things should be the work of entities such as NATO, which is a military alliance. If we need to do more of that, we should be developing seperate agreements to handle that.

"Basic human rights should have som e teeth behind it"

Honestly, I think there are teeth. The US's actions in the realm of abandoning the Geneva Accords and their treatment of prisoners have completely damaged our credibility. Not to mention the abandonment of principles just on free and fair elections in our own country.

The teeth are there, for the US elected officials have damaged their own ability to ask for anything to be done.

Call it the Free Market of ideas.

MOD'S MOD DOWN - Ignorant Argument by Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Original quote stated "I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet", now the parent is sarcastically stating "I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY person should have a democractic say including people that are black, jewish, or women, or too poor to own land."

My argument is that you were modded up because you are appealing to /. groupthink and emotivism. Which seems to be the norm these days.

Democracy is all about taking everyone's opinion into account.

What have individuals got to do with the international system of anarchic states where the Internet is a tool of potential power by state actors? Individuals don't have a democratic say in how the Internet runs. Countries do. And as much you like to think you have a democractic say in how the Internet runs - you don't, and you never will.

Right now a power grab in the U.S. could result in the internet resolving to religious messages instead of proper resolution in muslim countries around the world.

Say's who? Essentially the Internet is still free. You are free to post what you want and read what you want. No one is forcing you to read anything and the ability to spread a message top-down to people on the internet is ludicrous. The major messages and memes of the net spread via bottom-up social networks and even then you don't have to read them.

instead the system should be made robust and redundant with control shared by many nations. Democracy is not a cure-all, but it is better than trusting a dictatorship of one nation.

Here's a suggestion: Domestic based political ideas like democracy don't work at an international level. That is why there is a complete study of international relations. Democratizing the Internet will not work at an international level. You know why? Because of balance of power politics. You are giving control to many other countries evenly, but it doesn't work like that. These countries will form coalitions for control of the Internet against other state actors. It's always been that way at the international level and it'll never change for a resource like the Internet.

I find it quite disturbing that you /.'ers put a whole heap of mistrust in solely the US but cannot put that mistrust against all the other state actors. It seems an enemy of enemy is your friend. How's that for ethical behavior? Here's a clue: All countries are out for themselves.

Re:MOD'S MOD DOWN - Ignorant Argument by Analogy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

My argument is that you were modded up because you are appealing to /. groupthink and emotivism. Which seems to be the norm these days.

That is an interesting argument given that the argument itself is buzzword compliant. What is groupthink, a bunch of people agreeing when you disagree with them? Maybe a lot of people thought the argument was an interesting and pertinent comparison to show how the logic of the previous argument was flawed?

Individuals don't have a democratic say in how the Internet runs. Countries do.

Ummm, not really. Right now the U.S. has a say, and certain corporations have a say. Various countries, via the U.N. have said they will have a say, and the U.S. cannot stop them. As for democracy, we aren't talking about democracy we're talking about representation. A dictator may, poorly, represent his people. An elected official may do a very good job of representing his people. When the people of a country who pay to build and operate portions of the internet, contribute to its development, and rely upon it have no one to represent them at all when decisions are made, they are said to have no representation. This is similar to how the American colonies objected to having no say in taxes and policies imposed upon them by England.

Say's who? Essentially the Internet is still free.

I say so and anyone who has a clue about how DNS works says so. Name resolution is not free, it is controlled and fees are imposed upon it. More importantly, it is not resilient with U.S. run servers comprising a single point of failure. At the whim of some bureaucrat there is no technological or political process that can stop the U.S. from redirecting the vast majority of internet traffic to and from Iran tomorrow and the world objects to that sword of damocles.

Domestic based political ideas like democracy don't work at an international level. That is why there is a complete study of international relations. Democratizing the Internet will not work at an international level. You know why? Because of balance of power politics. You are giving control to many other countries evenly, but it doesn't work like that. These countries will form coalitions for control of the Internet against other state actors. It's always been that way at the international level and it'll never change for a resource like the Internet.

Yes because U.N. committees making decisions about air traffic control, shipping, commerce, traditional telecommunications, etc. have all failed miserably with third world dictators censoring free speech in America and China making it illegal to ship copies of the declaration of independence from Jamaica to Chile. Oh, wait. All those regulatory bodies do just fine and the sky has not fallen. Telephone directories are not subject to the whims of Kim Jong.

Your assertions that "democracy" does not work at an international level and a dictatorship by the U.S. is a good idea are specious and poorly conceived.

I find it quite disturbing that you /.'ers put a whole heap of mistrust in solely the US but cannot put that mistrust against all the other state actors.

And there you miss the point of equal representation. No one has to trust anyone when everyone is represented, they just have to trust that all the countries working together will reach a workable compromise. This is a lot better than blindly trusting the U.S. to currently and always in the future behave benevolently. You're the one advocating a single government should be trusted over a coalition of the entire world, to manage a global enterprise no less. "No taxation without representation" is just as valid a slogan now as it was when U.S. patriots chanted a couple hundred years ago. Right now the U.S. charges for entries into the DNS system, has complete control over it, and all the other countries who have spent billions building the global internet are not represented. That is not fair or wise.

Coleman is an empty suit - always will be

[JimmytheGeek]

The guy is a disgrace. Wellstone actually believed in things. Coleman just believed he'd like to be a senator.

The very same ass

[vague_ascetic]

Yep, the very same Coleman that Galloway tore a third anus into to go along with his matching set of the one he defecates with, and the one he thinks with.

Coleman is worthless.

The only reason he is a senator is because of Wellstone's tragic plane crash. He was a strawman candidate in a no chance race.

If you can handle the sissification, read a couple of congressional daily reports:

• Coleman plays straight man to Hatch
• Barbara Boxers Coleman's ears in

If Coleman had any morals, he be investigating the Americans implicated in tthe Oil for Food scandal, but he is too much of a party hack to investigate family and cronies of the President.

Here's an example of Coleman's compassionate conservatism:

"United States Senator Norm Coleman said today that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina offers an historic opportunity to revitalize the Gulf Coast, while providing for economic incentives that will ensure massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure."

Coleman Press Release September 5, 2005

You say natural disaster, Coleman says "historic opportunity"; and he released this one week to the day after Katrina had hit New Orleans.

The same type of historic opportunity that made him a senator...

Of course in keeping with contemporary conservatism's rampant hypocrisy, their vaunted fiscal responsibility shines brightly by their funding this "massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure" with the work product of the future. Norm shares another common trait with contemporary conservatives.

Coleman the chickenhawk

Coleman was born on August 17, 1949. That made him Grade A prime monkey-boy fodder for the Vietnam War, but Norm never served in the military. Judging from his appearance back then, he was on the antiwar side of the equation when it was his turn to march off to war.

"A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944, and December 31, 1950.

[...]

The highest lottery number called for this group was 195; all men assigned that lottery number or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction."

Coleman's number would have been 154

Source: The Selective Service System website

Re:Followed by:

[randyest]

Um, you can't destroy what doesn't exist. Deal with that .

Nice try though. The UN still isn't getting any kind of control of the internet; at least not the internet that matters. Deal with that , too.

I second that

[spepper]

WE invented it....therefore it is ours....and no, YOU cannot have it....end of discussion.

International yes, U.N. no

[xenobyte]

I some ways I understand this senator... The UN is an obsolete monster that feeds on insane amounts of money and left wing people's naïvity. So far the US seems to have done a decent job running the Internet, while the UN have failed miserably in the primary task it was created for: Preserving World Peace.

A few years ago the US tried - and failed - to get the UN to do something serious about this warmonger sitting in Baghdad making fun of the UN with a history of attacking three neighbouring countries (Iran, Kuwait and Israel) and mass-exterminating certain segments of his own population (sounds a lot like nazi-germany, right? - the very thing that inspired the creation of the UN).

The UN could only agree to disagree internally, and the US was thus forced to act alone (with the support of a few allies that agreed on the principle that warmongering dictators should be removed with any means nessesary) and still the UN fails to step in and help defeat the Baathists and the Al-Queda wannabees that use Iraq as a violent playground, and thus create the peace that it was founded to create and promote.

UN != Europe

[sh4na]

I find it peculiar that the article is talking about UN and US, and lots of posters here keep talking about Europe, as if the UN equals Europe. Uh?

UN is an international body of many nations, including the US (who is, btw, it's most important member in terms of $$$$$, if not in brainpower), european and NON-european nations. UN is not EU, get your facts straight before marching your ignorance / stupidity all over the place.

I have no idea why americans believe europe is having a "penis size contest" with the US... Europeans couldn't care less if the whole northern part of the american continent (excluding canada, of course) crawled it's way back to the hole it came from and quietly expired. Ah well.

"ignorance is such a blessing!" - unknown

Re:U.S. Military Invented the Internet

[Alioth]

I don't think you understand DNS. Many of the root DNS servers are not in the United States (probably half of them are outside of the US). I think three of them are notionally located outside the US, and out of the rest that are notionally inside the US, parts of them are in other parts of the world. This is because they have 'anycast' addresses, so a root server can be many machines in many places with the same IP address; routers on the internet will decide which physical root server you'll actually contact.

Re:But who forced the ratings system onto the game

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Germany killed 6 million Jews - slightly larger problem than the one you referenced.

Re:Screw them

[Deanasc]

And self-rightous pricks don't care to check to see if someone posted under their own name or as an AC.

Not hygiene

[ebvwfbw]

Most men in the world are not circumcised. Saying it is for hygiene is a big lie and very sexist. That is like saying we need to circumcise little girls for hygiene (no, not the clit, they can be circumsised in the same way little boys are) - a much better case for this by the way. They get along just fine without it and so do males. Male circumcision is genital mutilation, child abuse and child molestation all rolled up into one. They cut off what will be 15 square inches of highly sensitive erotic skin without antistetic. Then they sell those foreskins for production into womens cold creams to help stop wrinkles. Those that do it should be put in jail for a very long time and forced to register as the sex offenders that they are.

As for the root servers, why not leave it as it is. It ain't broke, lets not fix it just because the U.S. is running it. There isn't even a case to complain about where the U.S. has done something bad. They should be grateful someone else is taking care of it and there are no problems. Making it an international entity under the UN is really asking for trouble. I think you would do better gambling your economic future in a casino. Lets not do that unless it really is necessary. There are far better things for the UN to be spending their time on.

Re:Not hygiene

[Berner]

I'm not going to touch that first part but the rest i feel I have to say something about.

It's not what the US HAS done it's what it MIGHT do.

The US right now is looking more and more of going straight to (a VERY warm place) and fast, the internet is kind of important to alot of people other than those in the US (more so looking at broadband growth) and we don't want some future Napoleon (american version) holding us all by the balls to get us to go along with his/her plans.

Re:Not hygiene

[ebvwfbw]

I'm not going to touch that first part but the rest i feel I have to say something about.

Too bad. Circumcision is something the UN should be addressing as well and doing something about. It is happening to boys so it is ok I guess. Not just any boys, American boys at that. I wish Europe was against this as much as they are against the death penalty.

The US right now is looking more and more of going straight to (a VERY warm place) and fast, the internet is kind of important to alot of people other than those in the US (more so looking at broadband growth) and we don't want some future Napoleon (american version) holding us all by the balls to get us to go along with his/her plans.

Rumors of the US going to hell are greatly exagerated. Even if a Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin (ever notice how these guys come from the other side of the pond?), etc came to power - so what. It isn't as if they can just willy-nilly change things. There already is an international body handling this. Maybe they should move ICANN to Europe someplace? Is that the real issue? Europe has a far worse history than the US does. Even today the EU is not making very many friends (outright enemies) as they outlaw cheeses, wines and many other things produced for hundreds and thousands of years (feta cheese anyone? Roman wine?). The root servers are set around the world and anything this really bad guy may decide to do would be useless in a matter of days, perhaps even hours. Much ado about nothing. On the other hand moving this to the UN brings in politicians and other people that have no clue making decisions. Often making the wrong decisions it seems.

Oh well, it isn't as if anything we say on slashdot will make a difference anyhow.

Re:Not hygiene

[orzetto]

Excuse me, at what point did I say I supported circumcision? When I said "the idea was hygiene" I meant "in the desert with little water". If you hardly have water to drink, and cannot wash your body for months, circumcision may be an hygienical advantage, since it reduces the risk of infection (which in ancient times meant "slow and painful death"). However I could possibly despise Americans, I could not believe they do not take a bath now and then.

Re:Not hygiene

[ebvwfbw]

Excuse me, at what point did I say I supported circumcision? When I said "the idea was hygiene" I meant "in the desert with little water". If you hardly have water to drink, and cannot wash your body for months, circumcision may be an hygienical advantage, since it reduces the risk of infection (which in ancient times meant "slow and painful death"). However I could possibly despise Americans, I could not believe they do not take a bath now and then.

You are excused, you did bring it up. Men without circumcision live just fine precisely in areas that are arid. It makes as much sense as ripping (surgically removing they would say) your fingernails off in the name of hygiene. Maybe this drives the point home? Both are totally un-necessary and both would be abuse if not outright torture performed on whoever it was done to. However when it is done to a baby boy, it is especially barbaric. Separating the foreskin from the head is done with a hemostat and is very much like separating the fingernail from the finger. All in the first hours of his life, after going through birth. Some boys die from this procedure though they refuse to keep track of it for obvious reasons.

By the way, why would you dispise American's more than say the French, Swiss, Tibetians or some other nationality? They are people just like you are. Hate breeds more hate and causes more wars due to misunderstandings, either unintentional or intentional.

Re:Screw them

[Deternal]

probably - tho the post you just answered was an answer to an AC post. Guess you couls'nt be bothered to check that....

what an incredibly logic fallacy you committed

[rrgg]

Wow, you spent a lot of time writing up an incredible strawman logic fallacy abouts cars, the alphabet and so on. Whether it's right or wrong, the argument being made is that the US funded development of the existing internet and therefore want to retain control of it. The argument is NOT that the US should own and control all "internets" developed throughout the world. If you want to make a point about this, at least understand this first.

Consider the FBI Obscentity Taskforce

[FatSean]

Did you not read the subject of my post? Did you do as it asked? Probably not, or else you would know why I am concerned about the future of porn on a US-controlled internet.