Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet

TechScam writes "A new resolution was introduced in Congress that aims to backup the Bush administration over retaining U.S. control of the Internet's core infrastructure. From the article: 'The resolution, introduced by two Republicans and one Democrat, aims to line up Congress firmly behind the Bush administration as it heads for a showdown with much of the rest of the world over control of the global computer network.'"

Comments

what drives this controversy?

[yagu]

How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?

This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).

I don't think the U.S. is the wisest and most sage about everything, but seriously, what is considered the risk here for it maintaining stewardship. It may have misstepped once or twice but empirical evidence suggests competent management (note I didn't say the "best"), and I haven't seen any contraindications to the detriment of the rest of the world.

I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrest the internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and more seriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today.

(Meanwhile, has anyone peeked at the ozone hole lately?)

Re:what drives this controversy?

[TrappedByMyself]

it's a communication infrastructure that's too important to the future of humanity to be screwed with.

Ummm, which side are you arguing? It's been stable for like 50 years now, and you want to toss it into a 'rule by committee' environment?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Decameron81]

"How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?"

No, the Internet as we know it is the result of the work of programers, engineers and other profesionals from all over the world. It may be based on DARPA's work but there's a lot in it that has nothing to do with it. Simply discarding other contributions as irrelevant to make Internet what it is today is simply an attempt to give the US more credit than they actually have.

"This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not)."

The reason why other countries want more control has nothing to do with jealousy or envy. They simply don't want to be dependent on the US in something as important as this network is. I am quite sure that if the situation was reverted, the US would be requesting the same.

What really scares me a bit is the notion some US citizens have that other democracies in the world are not as democratic than theirs. On top of that I find it quite interesting that out of all possible motivations you could have seen behind the request of other countries to have more control, you decided that the most plausible one was jelousy and envy. That kind of reasoning can lead to no good.

"I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrest the internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and more seriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today."

That's completely subjective. I personally feel like the Internet is too big for the US alone.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[jadavis]

It doesn't really have anything to do with who invented it. They can "reinvent" the internet any place they want, it's not like the U.S. has some global patent.

It has everything to do with economic power. Many people in the U.S. would hardly notice if other countries started dropping off the internet, except, perhaps, for a small decrease in spam. In any other country, the internet would basically be useless without seeing U.S. sites.

I may be somewhat exaggerating, but the basic idea is that the U.S. holds all the cards (for now at least), and the other countries don't really have any recourse.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Rzso]

How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?
This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the would wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).

You're right about the origin of the Internet. But that doen't mean it belongs to the USA! I think today the Internet is becoming the part of the basic infrastructure (like water or electricity) and it belongs to all of us.

If any invention would belong only to its "original" country, nobody could use steam engines outside England, get vitamin C outside Hungary, etc. After a while inventions become international.

I don't like that US controls all of root DNS servers. But I also wouldn't like it in the hand of the EU or any other country. A fully distributed system would be a good solution. Or DNS controlled by an independent, international organization. Country independent DNS controll is our only hope to preserve the Internet as a free media.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Carewolf]

That _is_ what they are doing. They _have_ build their own and connected it to the US network. If the US insist on maintaining control, there will be two internets. The one in the US and the one in the rest of the world. So yes, that would make the non-US one _The Internet_ and basically mean they have taken control over it.

So semantically you are full of crap.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[LWATCDR]

"That was the UN, and a VERY long time ago. For example, Germany was split into several zones. Conflict between the US and Russia later led to the creation of the Berlin Wall. The UK and US regions merged and became West Germany, in fact it was the "closeness" of these two zones that led to most of the conflict."
Wow your view of history is odd at best. The UN had no power that the US didn't give it. The UK was still getting Lend-Lease aid for years after the war. The rest of the western Europe was in shambles and living off the Marshal plan. The US had nothing to do with the building of the Berlin wall except that it kept at least part of Berlin free. I suggest you look into the history of the Berlin Airlift.
I had no idea that Europe had done as much "revisionist" history as you seem to indicate. Your fears of the US are grounded in your own actions and history. As you said the rebuilding of after WWII was totally self interest. Yes. The US felt that free and independent nations where more in the US's self interest than slave states.
It is understandable really. The countries in the EU do not want to remember that they owe just about everything they now have to the power and honor of the US. It is upsetting so they change history. Play down the importance of post war aid, ignore the huge number of people that did nothing or helped the Nazis, and inflate the importance of their own "freedom" fighters.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[hamilton76]

Funny how you conveniently forget that we're talking about the Internet, not the Web.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[maxpublic]

Then the US can wall off their own little Internet, and pretend the rest of the world isn't out there.

Most of the rest of the world seems to be fine with things just the way they are. The only people who object to it are a few politicians and their brain-dead supporters. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a poll conducted pretty much anywhere in the world would indicate that the vast majority of folks don't even know this "issue" exists. The internet works just fine for them, and I doubt they could see any reason for changing things, or would even care.

It will stop all the spam from mouthbreathing Comcast users

As opposed to the mouth-breathers who use other ISPs, both in the US and Europe? It's painfully obvious to anyone with a few neurons to rub together that Europe has just as many idiots as America does; stupidity isn't a specific national trait.

The US will wall itself off more and more

Riiiight. You mean a few spoiled little brats who can't have ICANN will wall themselves off from the rest of us, to the great anger of their own citizenry (excepting the Chinese, who're already doing it). Good call, that; let's see how long the English, or Danish, or Hungarians put up with politicians grandstanding when it means they can no longer reach any of their favorite sites. That'll put an end to this crap right quick.

the UN has to come in and sort it out.

That would be a first for the UN.

Max

Re:what drives this controversy?

[nmb3000]

Thanks for post those interesting documents. Some excerpts for those scared of PDF and DOCs:

From the first one (China):

Our government is planning to make new relevant policies and legislations, and making its
efforts toward carrying out more practical and effective ways by using its legislative power
and jurisdiction to create a healthy, stable and sustainable developing net atmosphere.

What kind of legislation? Blocking sites with the word "democracy" in it? China's apparent desire to make the Internet "healthy" is a joke.

To sum up, Internet governance is a system engineering, which need to construct an integrated
system via the efforts from various layers of management in the whole human society. It needs
the participations and support from all the people to protect Internet ethics and develop
Internet civilization. Only in this way, could the Internet information society serve human
being on economic, social, cultural and other aspects.

What in the world? I've got a shiny nickel for anyone that really understands that. "Internet eithics" indeed. This paper contains absolutely nothing of any value. How applicable to the UN.

The second document is almost as good. You can sum it up with the following:

1) Wah wah wah. The US has control over the DNS root servers.
2) It costs a lot to build an infrastructure.
3) Spam is bad.
4) IPv6 is good.
5) Too much English on the Internet
6) The Internet will break any second if the UN doesn't step in.

I have yet to see a valid argument for the UN control of the root DNS servers. Documents such as these are a perfect example of using a lot of words and not saying anything at all.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[BrokenHalo]

What drives this controversy?

This (from TFA):

"Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today," said California Republican Rep. John Doolittle in a statement.

If anybody fails to see the irony there, I can't help.

Time to begin

[technoextreme]

Obligatory slashdot argument about which countries have the best freedoms.

Re:Time to begin

[janoc]

And equally rabid American comments from people who forgot to realize that civilized world doesn't end at Pacific or Atlantic shores of the U.S.

I really do wonder what people want to achieve by this pissing contest of insulting each other. The original network may have been developed by DARPA and U.S. universities, but internet in today's sense would not exists and have the importance that it has without the international participation. Compare that with the original closed networks of e.g. AOL or Bitnet or Compuserve (if you even remember what it was like). However the governance of the network is still (mainly for historical reasons) in the hands of one country, even though others are contributing at least an equal or even larger share than U.S (remember, internet is not only the English-speaking part hosted in the U.S.). This is the problem.

The fundamental issue is that the internet as we know it may stop to exist because of political decision. It is not an attempt to usurp control from the U.S., however ICANN was source of too many controversies in the past and especially the non-American networks were always getting the short end of the stick - guess why. It is used as a club to stifle the competition by the large American network operators, e.g. Verizon. Why would they allow somebody else to operate a root nameserver? They could lose the very profitable monopoly for doing this. Of course that they would block any attempt at doing so through ICANN or lobbying in Congress.

Add a fundamentalist administration which pulls out strawmen such as China or North Korea being able to control internet and in the name of democracy the basic democratic principle of fairness gets trampled. This "patriotic" flag-waving has of course nothing to do with the real issues, but it gets presented as a reason why not to do anything to change status quo (and upset the profitable business of the large telcos).

great

[Anonymous Coward]

if there is anything stupider than the (EU + UN)'s ignorant attempt to take over the existing DNS root, it just might be the US's attempt to maintain control of it.

what we need is to get some momentum behind a decent decentralized DNS-type system. there have been various proposals out there for a while, but there was never a strong reason to try switching... until now.

why the double standard toward globalization?

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it that the administration wants control over the Internet. But when it comes to trade and the economy they want to "liberalize" it and actually give up control.

U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of $WHATEVER

[Wesley Felter]

Film at 11! Is there really any news here?

Stop This "Control The Internet" Nonsens

[Anonymous Coward]

Having the US keeping the root DNS servers doesn't equate to meaning they "control the internet". Exactly what can the US do that will so harm non-Americans in using the Internet? They can setup their own DNS at any time.

This "control of the Internet" is just inflammatory rhetoric to drive the US vs. the world posts. If you stop the hyperbole, it's obvious this issue isn't going to really affect Internet users much.

Zonk, stop baiting for pagehits on this topic. Your motives are so clear, it's sickening.

Re:Stop This "Control The Internet" Nonsens

[Anonymous Coward]

Having the US keeping the root DNS servers doesn't equate to meaning they "control the internet". Exactly what can the US do that will so harm non-Americans in using the Internet? They can setup their own DNS at any time.

What sort of harm could they do to non-Americans? Forgetting for a moment that fragmenting of the DNS system would harm us all lets take a look at a recent post about Estonia using online voting in their latest election as an example. If you read this article you'll see that their government has moved much of their infrastructure online. Imagine what could happen to a country like Estonia if someone pulled their root server plug. Sure, they could set up their own DNS, but that would take time and when much of the civil infrastructure has been moved to the Internet time is a luxury you don't really have. Then of course there are the commercial concerns. Banking, airlines, telecommunications, pretty much everything has become dependant on the Internet... and Estonia is just one example. Major infrastructure is moving online in almost every country. Use IP addresses you say? Quick, without looking it up, what's the IP address of your bank's web server?

Controlling the root servers gives the US a mighty big stick to weild should it ever be tempted to do so and the current administration's handling of foreign affairs hasn't exactly instilled the international community with confidence. Even long-time allies are right to be concerned, after all if the US isn't going to weild its big stick why is it so anxious to hang on to it?

Global Control of the NETWORK!!

[Jormundgard]

It's phrases like "control of the global computer network" that make this whole issue so stupid.

Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Rob_Ogilvie]

One reason why businesses are alarmed is the lengthy list of suggestions that have been advanced by nations participating in the U.N. process. Those include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access," and folding the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) into a U.N. agency. The United Nations has previously suggested creating an international tax bureaucracy and once floated the idea of taxing e-mail, saying in a report that a 1 cent tax on 100 messages would be "negligible."

(from news.com)

Yeah, let's pay a little extra to give each of the Billion people in Africa a laptop with wireless Internet access. And who uses the Internet the most? It's the US, is it not? So we'd be forced in to yet another form of foreign aid. Lovely.

We *did* invent the damned thing... it is ours, there's no good reason to give it away!

I don't get it

[BortQ]

When they say "control of the internet" are they just talking about the root DNS servers? There's nothing the US can do to stop other countries from designating some root DNS servers of their own, right? The only issue is whether or not they will share data with the current root servers. I'm not sure on the details, but all the root servers share data with each other now.I don't see the problem with more root servers being put up. Even if one of them didn't resolve some addresses based on nefarious ideas the other root servers would still be available for people to use.

Re:I don't get it

[Jeffrey Baker]

They aren't even talking about the root servers. They are only talking about the root zone file, a file of plain text. The USA doesn't control the root servers, and neither does any other single nation or organization. The root servers use the ICANN root zone out of sheer practicality. For anyone to claim that the US controls the Internet is to understand both the technology and the fundamental nature of power.

So when "journalists" say "the Internet's core infrastructure" they really mean a few lines of ASCII text. And when I say "journalists" I really mean "bunch of asshats".

Black hole calling the kettle black

[palfrey]

Quoting the article: Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices

• problematic human-rights records
• muted free-speech laws
• questionable taxation practices

I think you've already got a full set there.

It's about policing thought

[wheelbarrow]

Remember that the UN is the global organization that allows Libya to be a key voting member of the UN Human Rights Commission. The US is far more tolerant of dissent and free expression of ideas than most of the nations that make up the UN. As an individual who values freedom, I feel safer with the US in control.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[Dogtanian]

The EU can poison all the DNS servers they want. It will hurt them more than the US because the simple fact is that more Europeans do business with US companies than American's doing business with European companies.

Poison is a pretty emotive word, and I'm not convinced it applies here. Unless you see everything in black-and-white with yourself as the fearless defender of God's own American values against the heathen Socialist cheese-eating Europeans.

My guess is that in the short term the US will win this one, simply because it isn't currently worth the hassle to set up an alternative DNS system.

However, I expect that behind the scenes- or away from the present "controversy"- if the US maintains its current position, then other countries will make moves to create their own root DNS server system anyway. This will almost certainly mirror the existing root servers, and be used in conjunction with them.

Only if US control grows too great will they fully switch over to use of "their" root servers and stop mirroring. In short, people will be migrated to the "new" systems with no noticable effect on their use of the Internet, whilst allowing government X (rightly or wrongly) to control the servers better.

Personally, I think that this story is way overdone. There was nothing to stop this happening before, and if places like China felt like doing it for reasons of repression, they'd have done it anyway. That's not to mention the vagueness of the reporting; the BBC basically said "The Interweb is going to split/break", and didn't go into more detail.

Let the sanctions commence...

[oliverthered]

If the rest of the world ganged up on the US in the form of heavy trade sanctions it may result in the US being a little less bigheaded about... well... everything.

Erm, vs. the rest of the world??

[LadyLucky]

I'm from New Zealand. The UN no more represents me or my opinion than it represents the US and its opinion. The rest of the world is far from united behind this UN resolution. I for one think the US has done a fine job and I would much rather it be controlled in the US than in some wholly undemocratic institution where repressive governments would get a say in governance.

Bush is irrelevant

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Bush won't backdown. I predeict the US is going to win this battle

The thing is, whether Bush backs down or not is irrelevant. Despite the views apparently held in the White House and among a disturbingly large proportion of US citizens, the US has no authority over anyone outside its own borders. If the rest of the world wants to run its own alternative DNS system, then realistically there is pretty much jack the US can do about it, and if it tries to play the isolation/fragmentation game, it's going to miss the rest of the world a lot more than the rest of the world misses it. The only constructive thing the US administration can do is try to talk/bribe them out of it diplomatically and/or hope they decide that it's not really a good idea after all and drop it.

Personally, I have mixed opinions on this one. On general principles I think the US should be forced to relinquish absolute control, particularly since it has demonstrated a willingness to abuse the position by effectively vetoing the .xxx TLD. However, I maintain a healthy scepticism about the UN, which lots of US-based people seem to assume is the only option on the table here despite at least four serious proposals having come out of the EU already.

Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[PontifexPrimus]

Man, whenever I hear stupid drivel like this I'd like to remind the poster that the Otto internal combustion engine, the Diesel motor and the Wankel engine all were invented by German engineers, funded by German money and patented in Germany. So please, do stop using them, then you're allowed to complain.
Or better yet, force the designers to include remote control kill-switches that allow the German government to shut down each one. Don't worry, we'd never abuse that.

Are you behind the London Hilton?

[NigelJohnstone]

"The UN no more represents me or my opinion than it represents the US and its opinion. The rest of the world is far from united behind this UN resolution. I for one think the US has done a fine job and I would much rather it be controlled in the US than in some wholly undemocratic institution where repressive governments would get a say in governance."

UN ITU is just a meeting place for government technical people. If they don't meet there under the UN, they'll meet at the London Hilton, or the Savoy but whereever they meet and whoever books the meeting room, it will be the same governments and the same technical people. It's not a *UN* resolution or *UN* control, since a UN is just a bunch of governments in a meeting.

You might not like some of the Governments sitting at the meeting table, but they're just one voice each in a big table, and some of them feel the same way about you!
That system works in all other telecoms, including the wires that carry the internet, so why wouldn't it work for DNS?

US blocking .xxx TLD, but not .xxx.${cc}

[The Monster]

Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years.

And yet, via the ccTLD mechanism, we have federated control of domains to every nation on earth, including some with policies we don't much like.

So, for example, if those wonderful bastions of free speech, the French, wanted to, they could make an .xxx.fr domain. Whatever interference is exerted by USGOV to prevent .xxx, there also must be hundreds of other countries preventing .xxx.$(cc) as well.

I personally oppose .xxx, but not for the reason you might expect. I think people (including my own brother) who demand that the Internet be made safe for the Precious Children<tm>, perhaps by ghettoizing 'adult content', have it backwards. The Internet was built by and for adults, and the presumption should be that a site is for adults unless otherwise specified. I'm all in favor of .kids or other mechanisms to 'whitelist' G-rated content, but want no part of a system that requires consenting adults to do anything to keep kids out. That's their parents' job.

Nor should we.

[Jetson]

Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years.

Nor should we. Every country in the world has been assigned a 2-letter top domain, and we should be using them. Rather than creating new 3-letter TLDs we should be adding ".us" to the current ones. Those ".com"s that are not in the USA probably already have a matching address in their own country's TLD anyway. Sometimes it redirects to the .com (microsoft.ca redirects to microsoft.com/canada) and sometimes the redirection works the other way (google.com redirects to google.ca if you try to connect from Canada).

Once the whole world isn't fighting over the same TLD there won't be any call for the USA to give up control because it would only control the ".us" domain anyway.

This fight is about who gets to profit from issuing and owning "vanity plates".

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[Afaflix]

You really don't get it.
The "smut" is already on the web ... under .com
if you have all the smut under .xxx it is much easier to filter stuff out.
lets assume .xxx comes to be; many of the companies that provide that kind of smut will use the .xxx because then they are easy to find.
easy to find means dollars
the entities(liraries, schools, families) that DON'T want that smut on their computer screen can easily filter that out and sowith protect the innocent eyes of those they want to.

cheers

Don't be so effing arrogant.

[iworm]

So, let's apply the US logic:

- Television standards should be controlled by the Scottish Parliament.
- Postage regulations are controlled by the British parliament.
- Ballooning is controlled by the French (even in the US!)
- ...and so on.

Stop being so fucking paranoid about the Internet. So DARPA funded it years ago. Big fricking deal. We've moved on since then. Get over it and deal with it.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[maxpublic]

if you have all the smut under .xxx it is much easier to filter stuff out.

And what exactly are you going to do. Force everyone who serves up porn to move the .xxx domain, under penalty of law? If so, then who gets to decide what's porn? The U.S. religious right? Iran? Me?

The .xxx domain solves nothing, and serves only as a potential tool to oppress others - especially the owners of sites which aren't pornographic, but which certain religious groups would like to classify as such in order to drive them off the 'mainstream'.

Max

fear of the other

[Dot_Killer]

Some times I sit back and think do these conservative or Republican or ultra-patriotic Americans believe the crap they say in the vain of never saying anything against US policy.

"Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today"

The US has one of the most REGRESSIVE tax systems in the developed world, tax cuts to the wealthy with giveaways to companies that do not pay taxes while public programs get cut like HUD. Plus I guess we can forget the whole firehoses and attack dogs thing since that was in the past, no human-rights issues there. Prisons for profit filled up with minorities as street-sweeping by the police, yadda yadda.
And for free-speech, in the US it isn't free and it has already been bought by those who own all the major media outlets.

We don't want to turn over internet speech over to the Chinese but do we want to turn it over to the US Christian Right. They exchange the idea of censoring ideas from the west for censoring sexual material. I'm sure the very moral people can make that choice easily but have we put them in charge of our speech.

If the people who actually built the internet we making the decisions of its future I would be OK with that, but I cannot turn it over to politicians or companies that have bought up all the votes to do whatever they want.