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?

[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?

[hamilton76]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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