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?

[Homology]

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).

You are aware that the present administration has totally squandered any goodwill due to the horrible 9/11 incident? The US has very little credibility with regards to human rights and international law!

Even staunch European allies of USA are deeply concerned about the present US direction. Potential enemies are scared, so they have no choice but to develop WMD to pretect themselves. Very, very bad for all of us!!!!

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Philip K Dickhead]

In Wales, we'll build our own, Cymru internet! Called HarlechNet. It'll be a finable offence to use enlish language nameservers - or to call them "nameservers", for that matter!

Re:what drives this controversy?

[LWATCDR]

"It has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with not letting the most aggressive nation on earth have control over a critical resource."
Yea right the US is the most aggressive nation on Earth. The fact that you can make that statement with a straight face is funny.
The US has a long history of setting up democratic free nation after they defeat them. I guess the US did a great job at keeping Germany, Italy, and Japan as slave nations. What bastards.
Get a grip. I think most of the fear that other countries claim to have of the US in really a fear of themselves. They look and see how much power the US has and know how they would abuse it in the US's place. Yep the very statement that the US is the most aggressive county on earth says it all.
It really doesn't matter. The US isn't going to give it up the EU will do nothing to stop the commerce on the Internet and life will go on.

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?

[Bobzibub]

Um, self determination and control of commerce were, I thought, principal reasons for the US to come into being.

Other countries are in the same situation: The 'net is a major part of these country's economic infrastructure. The US having absolute control of that much economic infrastructure would give them the same willies that your fore-fathers got. It could plausibly start messing with venezuela trade for instance.

This dispute is indicitive of the divergence of interests between US and the rest of the world. The US is going it's own route in so many ways that this dispute will be par for the course.

Cheers,
-b

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the US is the most aggressive nation on Earth for standing up to tyrants and generally working toward freeing people around the world, then us Americans would take that as a compliment and a badge of honor.

The US is the most benevovent superpower in history. The fact is that we did invented it, and nobody else did. Going into hypotheticals is pointless because China was dirt-poor when the Internet was invented, and North Korea is starving now. There's a reason so much invention and ingenuity happens in the US.

It's sad to see the jealousy on slashdot. It's almost like you wish the Internet or anything else hadn't been invented by Americans, just so you couldn't see our satisfaction over it.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[whathappenedtomonday]

How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work?

Interesting point of view that actually qualifies as flamebait; suggestion: you keep the DARPA network and the rest of the Internet will disconnect, ok? No more controversy. That was easy.

Seriously, if you really don't understand what the controversy is about, maybe you should rather read than post. [/reflame] ;)

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Anonymous Coward]

so the US didn't abuse it's powers in places like Chile, Guatemala, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Indonesia, etc?

Get a grip, millions of people have died from these actions.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Shihar]

would America (and by america i mean the right wing and left wing traitors to the constitution) like it if say China controlled major aspects of the internet? how about North Korea?

No, and that is kind of the point. No, the US does not want two nations famous for their censorship of the Internet to have any more control then they already do.

Oh... what is this fine gem from the UN? http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/docume nts/APCITY/UNPAN016881.pdf
Is this China asking for more control over the Internet?

And lookie here.
http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.doc
The original report on Internet governance. Hrm, who signed this merry little report... China, Cuba, Egypt, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to name a few. Now, I now the US is the great Satan and all, but do you really want those nations to dictate internet governance? Me personally? I'll pass and take my chances with the nation that has seemed to have done a marvelous job keeping their hands completely off of ICANN.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[aitikin]

So a single power that just happens to have been "stable" for 50 years means leaving that single power in charge is a good idea. Amazing how America has turned around. We used to think having a single power a thousand miles away controlling things was a very bad thing, now we seem to want to keep power in a single body that is easily a thousand miles away from some people who need it. The "democracy" America has (which is actually a democratic republic) is, in some respects, a "rule by committee" enviroment. So we shouldn't treat the DNS servers with the same respect we treat ourselves?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[frank378]

This is pretty much the same thing I wanted to reply to the FP. Only thing I think is missing is for us to notice that what the Internet is today is far different than what it was in its infancy. It's become a valuable, viable conduit for communicating ideas, socializing and social commentary, and even a new channel for business, and more.

In my opinion, if it is going to be used by everyone, and affect everyone to varying degrees, we should probably think about letting everyone have some input. Also I think the UN might not be the best group to give more control .

Re:what drives this controversy?

[jadavis]

You're talking about the moral justification, not the actual reason. If the E.U. or the U.N. wanted to, they could easily fabricate some moral justification for taking over the internet. But they would then run into the actual reasons that the U.S. has control:

(1) The U.S. has a unified language
(2) The U.S. is an economic powerhouse, especially on the internet

The moral justification is orthogonal to the actual reason. It happens that they point at the same country this time.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[blincoln]

The US having absolute control of that much economic infrastructure would give them the same willies that your fore-fathers got.

Then - like the US - they should declare independence and build their own.

I hate the current US administration, and the uselessly inoffensive Democratic party is a close second. But I love my country, and this is something we made. No foreign bureaucrat has the right to decide it's not ours anymore.

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?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yea right the US is the most aggressive nation on Earth. The fact that you can make that statement with a straight face is funny.

While the fact that you can't see it as anything but a joke is tragic. To a lot of people on the outside, that's exactly how the US is seen right now.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[mi]

it has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with not letting the most aggressive nation on earth have control over a critical resource.

Your entire post confirms grand-parent's observation on the real reason behind the controversy. Anti-Americanism. I'm not even going to go into off-topic rant on whether or not the anti-Americanism is justified. But that is the reason...

[...] say China controlled major aspects of the internet? how about North Korea?

Both of these are members of UN. China even holds a veto in the Security Council. By letting the control of Internet out of America's hands into any "international body", China's and North Korea's share of control will only increase.

the problem is, the internet shouldn't be under the control of any one nation or organization, ideally.

It already is not -- each country can firewall itself, and/or redirect DNS traffic to its own servers. Countries and other entities can join each other's firewalls and share their DNS servers. Most seem to currently prefer America's, though.

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

Sounds like the proposed law is trying to prevent any screwing with, what is not broken.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Minupla]

The UN != the EU.

For one thing the US is a member of the UN, and therefore would be giving up control to an organization that it is a member of.

Min

Re:what drives this controversy?

[glesga_kiss]

Yea right the US is the most aggressive nation on Earth.

Global military spending. You also started an unwise war of agression on an oil rich country. And as the grand parent poster said, you have been undermining democracy in South America for decades. No one trusts you any more.

The US has a long history of setting up democratic free nation after they defeat them.

That "history" only exists in Hollywood. Go get a history book.

They look and see how much power the US has and know how they would abuse it in the US's place.

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 "closness" of these two zones that led to most of the conflict.

The USA that helped rebuild Japan and Germany is long gone. We miss her. Since the sixties, your country has behaved vastly differently. It still amazes me how the US population is still under the impression that your persuits abroad are part of some sort of idealistic crusade. The facts suggest that it's 100% self-interest. Seriously, put down the Brukheimer DVDs and pick up a book.

Just because your country was started on admirable beliefs, it doesn't mean that there is some sort of genetic safeguard ensuring that dishonest and greedy men cannot take control of the system.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[ericdano]

Prove your points or STFU. What is worse some naked pictures of people in prison (done by a handful of soldiers), or beheading civilians on TV?

The US is not perfect, but we don't behead people, nor blow up crowds of people. What would you propose we do, bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there are some insane people in the Middle East who want to bring terror to the states. Do you want something like Israel going on in the States?

No, that is why you take the fight to the enemy.

WMD are not going to be used by a country against another country. It would have happened in the 60's. What the real threat now is the technology and materials being available to radical groups to build their own bombs, or these groups getting a working bomb from a nuclear country.

Take your leftist, black and white view outta here.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the USA being attacked by a sect of Islam that does nothing but dishonor the Religion and name of Mohammed, have to do with George Bush?

Oh yeah, I forgot... silly me... "It's George Bush's Fault!". Pardon me for forgetting Slashdot's motto.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[LWATCDR]

Yes it did interfere. But compared to the historical abuse that has been done by many EU nations like France and Belgium in Africa not to mention the old Soviet Union and China's aggressiveness. And lets not forget the French sinking a Greenpeace ship http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/rw/pkbomb.html
And that happened in a country "New Zealand" that has historically been a friend of France!
No one said the US was perfect. Just the most benign super power in the history of the planet.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[conradp]

How did this get modded as "Insightful" when it's more like offtopic flamebait?

Back to the topic at hand, let's keep in mind that

(a) the article poses this as "control of the internet" when in fact it's only "de facto control of top-level domain name registration". (By de facto I mean that the only thing that gives the body authority is the fact that people think it has authority - anyone could independently create a new TLD, you'd just have to convince all the world's nameservers to support it, and this is the only body that has the clout to do that.)

(b) it's a California non-profit body that's keeping this de facto control, not some U.S. government agency.

(c) who really cares if we get more TLD's anyway? everyone pretty much uses .com or country codes anyway.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[TouchyFeely]

>>>I think most of the fear that other countries claim to have of the US in really a fear of themselves. They look and see how much power the US has and know how they would abuse it in the US's place.

Damn straight! Look what Germany, Britain,Italy,France etc. all did when they were superpowers of their time - World Wars, Massice opression and slavery far larger in scope than anything America ever did. All this nonsense talk about America being so agressive is a joke.

  If were were truly so aggresive, we would have conqured everyone by now and places like Japan would be American colonies. Instead we had to go and get sucked into shit like Bosnia becuase the Euros couldnt even solve THAT pipsqeak problem on their own. How pathetic. If not for our nukes in Germany, the whole thig would be moot becuase they would all be part of the Soviet Empire now.. Its easy to talk shit when someone like Amercia spent 50 years protecting your ass from the Soviets. Same thing in Korea.. if they want us out so bad.. fine - lets see how you fare against North Korea by youselves. Worked out really well for the South Vietnamese when we left right?

America needs to wake up and stop doing all the heavy lifting in the world if all they do its bitch and whine. At least a few Euros like Blair have their heads on straight. Chirac and Schroeder are pathetic.

I have no inherent ill-will towards Europe - my ancestors are from Germany and Scandinavia, but shit all they seem to do is whine and complain. booh hoo

Re:what drives this controversy?

[ericdano]

So you propose that the EU is better suited to run it? HA!

You are right, it is completely SUBJECTIVE. When you can prove that the US is inept at running the internet (IE: the domain servers getting massively messed up or something), then you can resubmit your claim that we can't run it.

Till then, STFU. The EU trying to take control is purely political right now, and it would cause nothing but problems.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Seumas]

Your arguement is completely irrelavant. Everyone knows that the French would just give it up if forcefully asked to do so. :)

(I kid, I kid - I have nothing against anyone from any country. I swear.)

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?

[Red Alastor]

Correct. The Internet is, fundamentally, an invention of the United States.

Funny how you conveniently forget that the web is not an invention of the United States. Without it, nobody would have been interested in your Internet in the first place.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Homology]

WMD are not going to be used by a country against another country. It would have happened in the 60's. What the real threat now is the technology and materials being available to radical groups to build their own bombs, or these groups getting a working bomb from a nuclear country.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Hint: august 1945. I don't think you are aware that USA is the only state to have used atomic bombs in war, and just for testing the effect in the first place.

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?

[NathanBFH]

Hmmm... interesting link on global military spending. I noticed that if you take the same stat as a fraction of GDP the United States is 27th at less than 2.4% behind some real winners such as Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and North Korea which spends more than 13% of it's GDP on it's military. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fi g_gdp

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Lonewolf666]

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).
These days, the US part of the internet is only a, well, part of the net. And other nations don't want to have their activities on the net controlled by the US anymore.
Unless the USA are willing to compromise, the rest of the world could set up its own root servers and apply its own policies for these. That would end US control of the World Wide Web without stealing anything from the USA.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[sedmonds]

By virtue of having not been invented for another 28 years, I suppose you're right that DNS has been stable since 1955!

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?

[conradp]

Glesga, you seem to have a pretty good understanding of history and world affairs, but like much of the world, your charicatures of U.S. behavior show a recently rising anti-American bias.

You long for the USA that helped rebuilt Japan and Germany, after wars in which we helped topple brutal dictatorial regimes and install democracy. But you dismiss Iraq as "unwise" and make allusions to oil, without even considering the fact that what we're doing there - toppling a brutal dictator in order to install a democratic system - is basically the same thing. Yes, it's currently a big bloody mess, yes it's possible that it will not become peaceful for years, yes, in retrospect it may have even been "unwise", and we might even eventually not succeed - especially if the rest of the world has its way. But to point to a war in which we've toppled a brutal dictator and installed a democracy as nothing but aggression is a pretty biased world-view.

What do you think of Afghanistan? Should we have left the Taliban in charge there? Is toppling an oligarchy that made women wear sacks and prevented them from getting an education just another indicator of our aggression?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about that. The Internet was quite popular before http came about. SMTP, NNTP and FTP were very popular. In fact, that's how I heard about (NNTP) and downloaded (FTP) Mosic for the first time. At the time, I thought it was a lot like gopher. Sure, it was a little more functional, but it seemed like a natural progression to me.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

A more accurate statement of the issue is that some US citizens recognize that other democracies in the world as not as free as theirs.

It is indeed the case that other democracies in the world are more democratic than the US. That's the problem with democracies; it is entirely too easy for the people (and their elected leaders) to vote away their freedom, as every pure democracy has done throughout history.

Freedom in the US has survived for 229 years precisely because its founders created anti-democratic institutions whose purpose is to prevent that from happening.

Put another way: democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for lunch, and freedom is when a well-armed sheep contests the vote. The effective outcome in the US is that the wolves decide that mutton is not at all tasty; and if Brother Sheep wants to eat grass by himself, that just means more venison for wolves.

With respect to the issue of Internet governance (other other international governance issues), the American people have an extremely well-founded suspicion that the inevitable outcome would be the deprivation of their freedoms, all democratically voted on by other nations of the world.

As matters stand today, any vicious murderer can escape the death penalty in the US; all he has to do is get to Canada or any EU country, since these countries will not extradite until the death penalty is waived. Worse, countries like France lionize American murderers such as Ira Einhorn.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[ericdano]

Oh please. You are a moron. We were at WAR, and the alternative was 500,000+ dead on both sides with a LAND invasion. Go beef up on your history.

If the US has not used atomic weapons since. We could have used them a number of times, but we have chosen other ways to fight wars.

But I stick by my statement. The threat now is not that a country would use an atomic weapon, but some sort of radical group, which is hard to pin down where they are out of, would be the likely culprit. Any country that uses a nuclear weapon would face total destruction by other countries.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Gordonjcp]

it has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with not letting the most aggressive nation on earth have control over a critical resource.

Fuck it, let them have it.

Then the US can wall off their own little Internet, and pretend the rest of the world isn't out there. We'll let them keep using HTTP, and the general concepts of the World Wide Web (a European invention). It will stop all the spam from mouthbreathing Comcast users, for the rest of us. I don't really see a downside.

The US will wall itself off more and more, making it harder to get in and out of the country. Eventually it will make itself entirely irrelevant to the rest of the world. There will be occasional showy displays of power that it can't affort, until its own economy collapses in on itself and it breaks up into lots of unstable little countries and the UN has to come in and sort it out.

Now I come to write it down, that sounds a bit familiar...

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Xarius]

What is worse some naked pictures of people in prison (done by a handful of soldiers), or beheading civilians on TV?

At least other dictatorships make no pretences about themselves. And the USA is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in Iraq, at least several British soldiers due to sheer incompetence, not to mention the hypocritical bullshit spouted by the leaders of that country.

You want to talk about leftism? How about you stop justifying the horrendous actions of your country by taking the childish "yeah but they're doing worse, miss!" stance on things.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Xarius]

I think they're being defensive because DNS is one of very the few things America has ever made.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[GamesNET]

I suppose this will help U.S. corporations with their fight against domain theft. Although the U.S. attorney's offices don't like taking domain theft cases. i.e. http://www.gamesnet.net/ As useless as ICANN is, I do agree it would only be much worse if it ended under the likes of an international body such as the U.N.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[KDR_11k]

WW2 had the US in the defense, there's a difference between defending yourself or your allies and attacking some country because you happen not to agree with their political system (official reason). Sure, there was the "we are definding ourselves from WMDs" claim but Hitler also claimed to be defending. Both the WMDs and the Nazi defense were lies and rather thinly veiled ones at that. What other countries do is essentially their business until the UN decides it's an international affair (or it crosses borders). When you hear of a CEO exploiting his workforce you don't go over and shoot him, you let the legal system handle that. There are international laws, disregarding them will obviously make the rest of the world hate you.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[drew]

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.

No kidding. Anyone with half a brain can see that this is really about money and control. Jealousy! Pfff!

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Pinefresh]

what does 911 have to do with this?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[VJ42]

As matters stand today, any vicious murderer can escape the death penalty in the US; all he has to do is get to Canada or any EU country, since these countries will not extradite until the death penalty is waived. Worse, countries like France lionize American murderers such as Ira Einhorn.

Well on the flip side the US could become more civilised and abolish the death penalty. The rest of the Western world's democracies abolished it for a reason. It was done here in the UK against public opinion, but slowly public opinion has moved against the death penalty, and since the initial vote in parliment, every time somone has tried too revive the death penalty the minority of supporters has decreased. Why Americans seem too believe the rest of the world should take lectures (like yours) on freedom and democracy from a reigeme who keeps this barbaric practice going is beyond me.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[dajak]

No, and that is kind of the point. No, the US does not want two nations famous for their censorship of the Internet to have any more control then they already do.

This is a straw man argument. China and North Korea do not expect more control. They are happy if the US has less control. I don't expect the rest of the world to decide that the alternative root servers are to be placed in a UN bunker in Beijing, to be administered by a committee of ineffective UN bureaucrats from Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

I'll pass and take my chances with the nation that has seemed to have done a marvelous job keeping their hands completely off of ICANN.

Even if they did keep their hands off the DNS root servers completely - they didn't - this argument is no more convincing than saying that country X has had nuclear weapons for a long time and never used them, and therefore that country can be trusted to have them. The US only has latent control of Internet by way of the DNS root servers, and that control can be easily taken from them without their cooperation by any individual country that sets up alternative root servers. They can abuse this control only once in a major way, and therefore have to keep their hands off ICANN. In the past nobody noticed, but now increasingly governments have cybercrime and cyberwarfare advisers to explain to them that the US controls things like DNS and GPS.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Sinus0idal]

In where?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[KDR_11k]

As matters stand today, any vicious murderer can escape the death penalty in the US; all he has to do is get to Canada or any EU country, since these countries will not extradite until the death penalty is waived.

Well, the US won't implement gun control or abolish free speech either. In those countries the right to live is inalienable and it's unconstitutional to extradict someone when that would mean their death.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Bobzibub]

True, the competition is fierce, but "most benign" award probably not apt one. That's too much like also-flopped "featherweight elephant class" or "congenial axe murderer award".

btw, here's an incomplete list of US military interventions. I know that this is not a complete list because there were many covert ones. Some are justifiable, some are not. Some should have been there that weren't, like Rwanda. France and Belgium were evil but that was before my life time, and I suspect yours (unless you're 200).

The point being is that there are *many* and one can argue about specifics in this or that case, but the shear number should make all ponder what it is that make humans such war-like creatures. And the role of a military.

"This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes...."
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

Oh, and the list continues to grow: Afganistan and Iraq. Haiti again. etc....

Cheers,
-b

Re:what drives this controversy?

[KDR_11k]

Most people, especially those that never learned to speak English, couldn't care less about the loss of the US sites (US companies with subsidiaries in other countries will set up sites for both parts, anyway). What would most definitely suffer is opensource software since a lot of developers would suddently be shut out of their project.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[killjoe]

"Oh please. You are a moron. We were at WAR, and the alternative was 500,000+ dead on both sides with a LAND invasion. Go beef up on your history."

No the alternative was to accept their surrender and let them keep a little face.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>We could have used them a number of times, but we have chosen other ways to fight wars.

yes, such as cancer-causing depleted-uranium shells and the development of "tactical" nukes.

but then, at least it's a small step up from agent orange and napalm.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[oh_bugger]

we sould not give it to the EU

Learn what you're talking about. The EU wants the internet to be in the hands of more multinational body, the UN. Did you not read anything about this story? As the US is part of the UN we'd have a say too. Personally I think there's no need to change control just yet. Also, your anti-UN/EU/Whatever-you-think-you're-talking-about comments are just stupid.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[KDR_11k]

Disclaimer: I post this without knowing exactly what "control of the Internet" means!

Replacing ICANN. Handing out the control of TLDs and AFAIK resolving domain name disputes in the non-country TLDs (e.g. if Microsoft thinks www.mikerowesoft.com infringes upon their trademarks they are supposed to complain to ICANN). What the EU wants to be put in the hands of the UN is the handling of TLDs, so ICANN can no longer decide who gets to run some country's TLD.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[A beautiful mind]

I'd like you to pay my internet bills, since i started using the internet in the mid nineties. No? I keep hearing that the USA built the internet, pays for it and invented it so they have every right to do what the fuck they arrogantly want to do. Ok. Pay my internet bills, the price of my computer, of my router, and the 20m of cat5 cables, because as you know, my computer is part of the internet too. So, I'll wait your government to contact me with a gracious offer of paying my involved costs since 1996, interests included.

What? You don't agree? Then don't claim ownership over something which you didn't pay for.

Oh, you mean you were talking about DNS servers? You know what they are? They are an agreement from historical reasons. The USA is very nice to have covered the nominal costs of running the DNS servers compared to their value, which is that people use those ip numbers as dns servers traditionally. It's like a company buying another company which had 200k users. The users are value too! Guess what, who wouldn't like to have more than 3 billion (just a wild guess) users in their control, if even the control is limited? Pretty much everyone would volunteer to pay the fish and chips costs of keeping DNS servers online for having the power that historical fact represents. So, no. You're not doing anyone a favor by maintaining those servers, since the main benefits fall in your government's hand. You don't own the root dns servers either, since they are just ip addresses, apart from the nominal costs the physical servers represent which we discussed earlier. IP adresses by convention. Just like a well known brand name. In itself, it has value. Who are the costumers? The internet users. Who owns the brand? Noone. And everyone using the internet. The owners of the physical infrastructure.

With this congress vote, I think the USA lawmakers are acting like lemmings, or like in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, burning down the bridges behind themselves. It's a gamble. You only do that sensibly if the stakes are high, when you're sure you can win, and even then no sane people would do that. Well, i've got newsflash for you all, the USA might be the #1 country in the world atm, but that is just not enough if you got the rest of the world against you. Ignoring and using pure force, well, you'll be given your own medicine soon that way and i bet you won't like it.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Burz]

National Prisoners Per Capita.

National Executiions Per Capita. Notice where U.S. allies rank on that chart.

Now, you were saying something about black-and-white? Or was that pot-kettle-black?

-

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Hydrogenoid]

Actually, the biggest american sites (the only ones that have a chance to be consulted by mainstream non americans) do have different versions for other countries (google.co.uk, yahoo.fr, etc) and in non English speaking regions, most people only check things in their language.
And I guess if the US was disconnected from the rest of the world, most of the spam would disappear... And I do not mean in the US, but about everywhere else; at least 99% of mine is targetted to american people, even on domains that clearly aren't on the same continent.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[KarmaMB84]

If you actually had read the list, you'd know that most of it is completely irrelevant ;p

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Pad-Lok]

Oh please. You are a moron. We were at WAR

Al-Quaeda and the lot seem to think they are in war, are they not? So if they are in war against the USA and, well, rest of the western civilization, it would by your definition be ok if they used WMD against their enemy at war?

War is allways a fscking mess I say.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[LWATCDR]

"France and Belgium were evil but that was before my life time, and I suspect yours (unless you're 200)."
The Rainbow warrior was in 85. I doubt that would be classified 200 years ago. France and Belgium's activities was in the 50s. Gee and people claim Americans have no clue about history.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Shiriki]

The United Nation Organization != (In words IS NOT) The Europian Union. Period.

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?

[maxpublic]

France and Belgium were evil but that was before my life time, and I suspect yours (unless you're 200).

How is this relevant? The Third World is the mess it is today because of European oppression, slavery, genocide, and centuries of brutal misrule. Are you saying that your country bears no blame whatsoever because your ancestors, who perpetrated abominations against people all over the world, are dead? You're absolved from your national sins because there aren't any living examples to point fingers at?

Great! I'll use that as an excuse for why the U.S. bears no blame for what was done to Native Americans. Why should we, since the folks who actually did the murdering and the raping and the pillaging and the forced relocations are all six feet under?

Max

Re:what drives this controversy?

[sznupi]

"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)."

Or perhaps look at it this way: The US created neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until someone from the world made on top of it the thing that everyone used and that grew larger and larger...until it became what people call "the Internet" (not correctly of course)

It's not about giving away control, it's about sharing it.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[sznupi]

...said pot to the kettle.

And US doesn't owe anything to some European countries? (especially those which are despised most among US citizens...)

Re:what drives this controversy?

[maxpublic]

Apparently it's okay to topple a brutal *European* dictatorship and restore freedom to Old World powers, but the moment we try to do the same in what used to be the oppressed colonial states of those Old World powers we're somehow evil, or at the very least misguided. I guess if Britain had gone in and deposed Saddam it'd be okay, 'cuz, like, they once brutalized that region of the world, and therefore they have some nebulous claim on it.

Not that I support the war, but that's simply because I could give a rat's ass over who's in charge in the area. Nor do I want to waste American lives toppling the other 80+ dictatorships in the world, as it seems that no one else cares to do the job and it'd be entirely up to us. Me, I'd rather return to a pre-1917 form of isolationism and let the world hash out it's own troubles, while we sell to whoever happens to be buying.

As an American, I'm damned tired of getting blamed for everything we do, then getting blamed again for everything we *don't* do. So why don't we just say "hey, fuck you all, we're going home" and let them deal with their own messes? Or at the very least let Europe take responsibility for the creation of the Third World in the first place, and give them a shot at fixing what they broke? Well, assuming they'd even try, since they weren't terribly interested in that whole Serbian Fourth Reich thing a few years back, and that was in their own back yard.

Max

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Bemmu]

> Many people in the U.S. would hardly notice if other countries started dropping off the internet

Who cares as long as irc-galleria.net works!

Re:what drives this controversy?

[maxpublic]

The US having absolute control of that much economic infrastructure

Which lasts as long as it takes for twelve geeks in your country to decide that they're now the root servers, and to convince everyone else to point to them. Or have your government force everyone else point to them, if your government is a dictatorship.

The only reason the U.S. has control is because other people allow it to have control. You can always decide to start your own game elsewhere. And really, sometimes I'd rather wish you would.

Max

Re:what drives this controversy?

[maxpublic]

Ignoring and using pure force, well, you'll be given your own medicine soon that way and i bet you won't like it.

It's time you started taking your medication again, boy. The US isn't going to be invaded by your fantasy conglomeration of righteous nations, now or at any time in the future. That's nothing more than the stuff of schizophrenic delusion.

Max

Re:what drives this controversy?

[AbraCadaver]

I'm a US Citizen, and I don't despise anyone. Is there a memo I didn't get?

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?

[TomRitchford]

Let's start with Afghanistan.

The United States utterly failed to achieve its stated and rational objective, which was to catch the international criminal Bin Laden. The country was unable to respond in a timely fashion to the greatest terrorist act the world ever saw -- it took almost four weeks for the first troops to arrive, and later they delayed at Tora Bora and allowed the criminal to escape. Thousands of Taliban were killed but so were tens of thousands of innocent people, far more than died in 9/11. Americans are still dying in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is free to act and has apparently killed hundreds of people and caused billions of dollars in damage to the economies of our allies -- the damage to the economy of Indonesia alone from the bombings is considerably over a billion dollars.

This problem was never resolved and the government has expressed no interest in resolving it.

Yet President Bush stood up in front of the nation and knowingly lied, told the nation that Iraq represented an immediate threat to safety and took the country, unprepared and with no clear plans, into a war that's killed almost two thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, which has seen American military personnel exposed as murderers, torturers and sexual perverts in pictures in front of the entire world, which has left the US military dangerously overextended and unable to respond to other enemies or natural disasters, and that has personally enriched his own Vice President to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and left bills for the American taxpayer that your children will still be paying for in twenty years.

Open your eyes and look around. American has seen nothing but calamity and failure since Bush took office. 9/11, Iraq, New Orleans... what will be lost next?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[ScrewMaster]

Uh ... when did Europe become a single nation? You have a bunch of corrupt, irrational overlords that you deliberately put in power (and I've still not heard a good reason as to why) but you're still a pretty fractious bunch. Not a single nation by any means, so saying that the EU outproduced the US is rather unfair. Kind of like me saying that Mexico, Canada and the United States displaced Germany or France or whoever.. What you're really saying (and this doesn't sound as good from the European perspective) is that it took the combined economic power of the entire European Union to displace the United States. Even now, not one of you could hold a candle to California's economic output, much less the whole country. All I'm saying is, compare apples to oranges.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[TouchyFeely]

Wow your resoponse was just filed with evidence to support your position. The fact that the likes of Iran, Iraq, France, Germany, North Korea, etc. dont like us I take as a sign that we are doing something right. Like I said.. its easy for the Euros to act all smug and enlighted when we've had your asses covered for 50 years and they know that when the shit hits the fan our nuclear carriers, subs, and bombers will be around to bail them out. If China were to advance on Taiwan I'd love to see how many European countries would denounce the action then shrug away and let America and Britain do all fighting. Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes...

Re:what drives this controversy?

[StrawberryFrog]

But I love my country, and this is something we made

And what part of say, England's internet infractucture did you (you plural or you singular, whatever) make? So the basic ideas came from some americans decades ago. Big deal. Is every technology used in the US invented tere? There's no reason to have England's DNS systems American-run now.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[sznupi]

Of course what I've said is a gross generalisation, even worse: I'd assume it really doesn't even include over half of Americans, just the most vocal ones. But...you really don't remember waaay overblown bashing of France?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Burz]

They can abuse this control only once in a major way, and therefore have to keep their hands off ICANN.

I doubt their imaginations can reach that far yet. But don't worry, they'll catch up, if for no other reason that the neocons will become bored with manipulating PBS.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Attaturk]

But I love my country, and this is something we made. No foreign bureaucrat has the right to decide it's not ours anymore.

Dodgy logic. Tim Berners-Lee is British. He invented the Web while working at CERN (that's in Europe by the way). Can we have our web back then please?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[koko775]

But the ICANN *DOES* take international input, and is mostly independent of our government, anyway. What's your point? I think that if it comes down to it, the US is more trustworthy and effective than a international committee, despite my support of the UN in other aspects.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[TouchyFeely]

and by the way.. the fact that I express an "attitude" should come as no suprise - Americans are getting sick and tired of the seeinly endless European condescension and elitist snobbery. Of course when you people act arrogant and obnoxious and appease dictators then its ok right, becuase you Euros are SO evolved and wonderful... give me a break..

Re:what drives this controversy?

[qatm]

And why should politicians rule the Internet in the first place ?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[gedhrel]

A handful of soldiers? You're talking about institutionalised abuse sanctioned by Rumsfeld. But that misses the point; the question is not, "what is worse?" - I think, rather, that you should be asking: if the US holds itself up as the yardstick of freedom and democracy for the whole world, should we not expect higher standards of behaviour? The country is essentially a Christian one. You might ask yourself "what would Jesus do?"

As to blowing up crowds of people: Falujah.

My views, too, are leftist: liberal, to be precise - but over here, that's not an insult :-) And I don't think the world is black-and-white. I simply offer a reason why people might be concerned about Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, the recent reports from Afghanistan, etc.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anything in the post that you are responding to saying we, the US, don't owe Europe anything.

What we are tired of is out supossed alies betraying us. Yes I am referring to France (as you brought up in a later post). I consider it betrayal that when an ally disagrees with something we will do that they manuever with out enemies behind our back. (France did a lot of negotiating w/ Syria in the lead up to the Iraq war). I consider that betrayal. An ally can disagree - fine. But an ally should never take the step of actively working with another ally's enemies. (And yes I am sure given history the US has done that but the level of back stabbing since 9/11 is too much)

Another betrayal... after 9/11 all our allies started saying "ask yourself why they hate you" "it's all your fault and you deserve it" etc...

True friends would say, ya you probably screwed up but what can we do to help. They would wait to lecture us until the problem was solved. Instead our friends just wanted to use this as an opportunity to lecture. I wouldn't have those friends.

And finally, a personal story. Germans visting, guests in my home... You think they could shut up ONCE, just for a fucking minute, about how evil the US and George Bush are. I had no ideas Europeans were so rude. I thought US citizens were the ones with no class.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[sznupi]

Let us see...what about CIA jeopardasing weapons inspectors job? Really, don't pretend you're in the sole position to have moral stand in this world, that's what turns people/countries away.

(not to metnion that I'd like to know on what good crack you're on - since you're saying EU nations said US "deserved it". And don't you dare pretending hat France didn't help - actaully, France was one of your most active allies in Afghanistan campaign. But in case of Iraq, they've seen you're wrong, they warned you how it can end and look at the mess now that they've envisioned then. That's what freinds do. That's what allies do.

But of course you would like them to just be puppet states...

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Zerth]

Hate to say it, but the internet was a much nicer place before the Europeans cluttered it up with http.

Less visually impressive, but nicer.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[BgJonson79]

I thought the worst thing that ever happened to the Internet was the web getting all the Muggles involved?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[glesga_kiss]

but like much of the world, your charicatures of U.S. behavior show a recently rising anti-American bias.

A side-effect of your actions, sorry.

But you dismiss Iraq as "unwise" and make allusions to oil, without even considering the fact that what we're doing there - toppling a brutal dictator in order to install a democratic system

No, if that were the case, I'd agree with the intention but not the method. Assuming democracy was the intent, you've still killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam did. The country is now going to fall apart, and we get to watch it from our armchairs. Capturing Saddam was actually bad, it turns out. Many in Iraq were fearful that you'd pull out*, and Saddam would return to power. With him out of the way, the more agressive groups that he surpressed were free to start attacking collatition troops. Whatever happens, Saddam is gone. Removing him ironically is going to be the thing that destroyes the country.

* in the first Gulf War, we dropped leaflets that said rise up against Saddam and we'll support you. Many did, however we stopped once we restored the Kuwait dictators to power. Those who stood up were massacred. Many were fearful this would happen again.

The intent to attack Iraq predates 9-11. It has NOTHING to do with defending yourselfs in any way. Nor was it done for the Iraqi people. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. The USA economy is 100% reliant on this oil, changes to the price affect everything. Now, peak oil dictates that the "easy" oil is running out, and the price will rise as more adventurous oil reserves are tapped. This price rise would topple an already faltering economy.

With Saddam in power, Iraq's oil was off the map, unavailable to US markets. With him gone, it's flowing freely. Billions upon billions of dollars have been made. Companies with representation in The Project For a New American Century (official website) (e.g. Harliburton/Cheeny) have gotten wholely rich from this. The US is in a far stronger strategic position WRT to access to oil. Don't forget, much of the worlds oil belongs to Saudi (9-11) and Venesuala (socialist). Your "enemies". The US now has direct influnce on the price of oil, as well as having private access to vast quantities.

It WAS NOT done for the Iraqi people, and it saddens me that people believe that. It proves that propaganda and nationalistic tendencies are not a thing of the past.

What do you think of Afghanistan? Should we have left the Taliban in charge there?

Well, you were quite happy to deal with them for many years. For example, in 1997 a Taleban delegation visited Texas for talks on a huge deal to build a pipeline through the country. It was only after that deal went to an Argentinian group that we suddenly started hearing about the evil Taleban. We have always been at war with the Taleban.

Is toppling an oligarchy that made women wear sacks and prevented them from getting an education just another indicator of our aggression?

Only when it happens after big business says so. By the way, the people involved in that 1997 deal have moved on. They are in the Whitehouse now. The pipeline's coming along nicely.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

"hey, fuck you all, we're going home"

Don't let the door hit you on the ass as you leave.

Best regards,
The rest of the world.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[superflyguy]

actually I do remember that... the vocal ones bashed france, and everyone else sarcastically immitated bashing france because it was so stupid the whole 'freedom fries' thing and whatever... Yeah it was excessive from the beginning, but mostly it was treated as a joke, that could have applied to any country with their name in a lot of american foods. Hence, france was an unfortunately good canidate, besides the fact France never wins wars except against itself or when led by someone who is not a Frenchman. So France would have been in good shape led into war by Bush... wait, no, nevermind, sorry, nobody is in good shape led by Bush. jk. Except not kidding about the bush part.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[glesga_kiss]

The UN had no power that the US didn't give it.

All of the member states gave it power. Our cultural difference is we don't see "power" as having a big army.

As you said the rebuilding of after WWII was totally self interest.

No, I said anything after WW2 was self interest, really mostly from the 60s onwards. Just because you were the good-guy in WW2, it doesn't absolve you of all further actions.

The US had nothing to do with the building of the Berlin wall except that it kept at least part of Berlin free.

Wrong. Each for the territories in Germany had their own currency. The US and UK ones merged, which was not in the agreement. It completely changed the balance of power. This is one of the many factors that led to the wall. ALL sides were responsible for it.

The US felt that free and independent nations where more in the US's self interest than slave states.

Hollywood bullshit. The USA creates slave states. Look at the history. E.g. Cuba was a slave state until the revolution. You subvert democracies all over in order to install US-friendly governments. You are still at it right now. The history of South America is full of it.

Your world view of America is completely wrong. I suggest you get a history book.

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.

Look, you did good in WW2. NO ONE IS SAYING OTHERWISE. However, if you check the scorecard since then, it's not all that rosy.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[frank378]

Ah sorry, I should have used the word control rather than input there. Thanks for catching that. The ICANN should be overseen by a multinational group rather than the United States Department of Commerce.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[glesga_kiss]

Per-GDP doesn't mean shit on the battlefield. There is absolutely no need for America to spend more than the rest of us combined.

Besides, per-GDP calculations are designed to reflect relative wealth. You have way more cash available than most of these small nations that rank above you. OK, the per-GDP table shows that many countries spend a higher portion of their wealth on arms. But it's not really a relevant stat to use when discussion military spending, unless you are comparing it to other government expenditure within the same country. For comparing countries for their militaristic nature, the total spending is a much more relevant statistic, though per-capita is also useful as it accounts for the relative size of the nation.

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.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[williamhb]

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 think the reason this has come up now is the opposite - there seems to be a gradual realisation happening that there are no longer any world superpowers, not even the US, and the rest of the world has decided it does now have the economic and political muscle to wrest notional "control" of the internet away.

That's not to say the US isn't still the biggest player on the field, just that as the world economy has become so interdependent, the US has become more vulnerable than superpowers were in the past, or perhaps its tolerance of economic pain is lower than superpowers in the past. (Even militarily it appears it is painful and expensive now for even the world's biggest and most advanced military to maintain an occupation in a single medium sized foreign country where it finds resistance.)

Re:what drives this controversy?

[amliebsch]

No, I said anything after WW2 was self interest, really mostly from the 60s onwards. Just because you were the good-guy in WW2, it doesn't absolve you of all further actions.

The Cold War was a long, dirty, fight, and it's sad that Europe seemed so unwilling to fight, except to the extent that they would tolerate Americans preventing the Soviets from rolling through the Fulda gap. I suspect that the value of this conflict, and perhaps even its eventual outcome, are the source of much of the dissatisfaction with the United States in Europe. But you would understand our actions better if you simply give us the benefit of the doubt that are motives in that conflict were not from evil, but to promote and protect our way of life.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[stdarg]

I was really surprised to find this in the report signed by a representative from China:

32.    Civil society. The roles and responsibilities of civil society include:
        Awareness-raising and capacity-building (knowledge, training, skills sharing).
        Promoting various public interest objectives.
        Facilitating network-building.
        Mobilizing citizens in democratic processes.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[TrappedByMyself]

Dodgy logic. Tim Berners-Lee is British. He invented the Web while working at CERN (that's in Europe by the way). Can we have our web back then please?

Slightly offtopic. I notice you mention Britain and Europe, then follow it up with 'we'. Being from the US, I obviously ignore the rest of the world. Is the European Union really becoming a single entity? In the US, people have a slight allegiance to their states, some stronger, like Texas, however we usually identify ourselves as Americans. Is Europe following the same path?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[koko775]

Well, the US gov't is the nightmare of my choosing, since it does not get actively involved in ICANN and its operation. The UN, or rather the countries in whatever committee would govern ICANN, would add a layer of bureaucracy that would hamper ICANN's ability to do anything in addition to possibly leveraging control over DNS' operations. Rather than splittingcontrol of the DNS servers, why don't they just make their own national DNS system and ask other countries to uphold them in their servers? As far as I know, such a peer-based system is certainly feasible, and certainly much closer to the UN's ideals of respecting national sovereignty.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[bbc]

"Correct. The Internet is, fundamentally, an invention of the United States."

Nowadays when you post here, you must take into account that there is an editor called Zonk who barely has enough braincells to keep breathing. He continuously gets tiny things wrong, such as "is this at all interesting?" and "what is this story about?".

The story is not about control of the internet, it is about control of one small internet service, and a fairly insignificant one at that, called DNS. Invented by one Paul Mockapetris, who I assume was an American. I don't know how that should mean that the USA should control my DNS servers, but I guess some justification could be made up.

Anyway, I hope this all blows up in our governments' faces: I have always disliked the way the DNS was controlled, and I will be glad when we need to start thinking of alternatives, and much more diverse naming systems will emerge. Several ones that will not be governed my grey men in grey suits.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I will give you two much more plausible motivations:

1) taxes
2) censorship

Re:what drives this controversy?

[frank378]

Admittedly part of my reservation about having ICANN overseen solely by the US is the problems that could arise if you had an administration that was, oh I dunno, let's say they were decidedly hostile to anyone who disagreed with them for example.

Not all regulation and beauracracy (sp?) is bad, right? I'm no expert on the UN but I tend to feel they are probably not the right group for administering this. There could actually be a group that was comprised of a variety of countrys/viewpoints, and in my ideal scenario this would allow for bigger and better things, not just unilateral decisions like ".xxx is bad" and suddenly ICANN "decides" to hold off on implementing it for an indefinite period of time.

The (your?) idea of each country controlling their own DNS is interesting too and I think exploring it further would be prudent.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[synthespian]

No, and that is kind of the point. No, the US does not want two nations famous for their censorship of the Internet to have any more control then they already do.

The problem is that whole attitude you've just displayed of "we are righteous, fair and unblemished, and everybody should just do as we say, because we're so right", when in fact, it's all just alienation, lack of self-critique, and cultural isolation. Because, looking at the US from the outside, and looking at things like the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo, I'm not so sure China is so terrible by comparison. Sure, you don't have a single party regime. You have a two party regime! :-) Wow :-) Oh, and you're brain washed by a bad educational system and by violent video-games and movies that have portrayed large groups of brown-skinned individuals as hate-mongers and evil-doers, to be terminated by Soldier Hero. That, my friend, is called Indoctrination. And you had it in China. And you have it in the US. Face it. Look at it. Admit it.

The argument that the US invented the internet is riculous, and therefore, it has "more rights over it" is ridiculous. It is like saying all doctors can't use the scalpel because some guy, from some country, invented it.

Consider that neither do the peoples of the world want a crucial technology like the internet to be in the hands of a nation that arrests journalists that don't kneel to the government, that schemes against and slanders the UN on a periodic basis, and does that as a policy, that promotes pre-emptive wars based on lies, disrespects basic human rights (including kidnapping people abroad, turning them to torture, and abusing prsioners), and that creates some ill-begotten evil thing like the Patriot Act, etc. The fact the Bush administration is worried about this issue already shows which side to choose.

The US is widely mistrusted, for all the right reasons. For instance, if you read the 2002 World Bank World Survey on Trust, conducted with 36,000 people around the world, you'll find that people trust leaders of the U.N. much more than they trust the leaders of the U.S.
Also, in 2003, Time Magazine conducted a poll with more than 700,000 responses with the question: "who poses the greatest threat to world peace?" Options were: 1) North Korea; 2) Iraq; 3) The United States. The US was the answer chosen by 86%. (See here).
In another international poll, in 2003, the BBC found that 60% of the people "had a very unfavourable, or fairly unfavourable attitude towards the American President."
And more up to date, two new world polls from 2005 show the same phenomenom: A poll from here and here show thats the U.S. is "broadly disliked." The last poll, (see here and here), with 23 countries and 23,000 interviewed during 2004, shows that the U.S. comes out last in "positive contribution". And we're not even talking about countries that nest the majority of terrorists. Can you imagine what those feelings are in, say, the Middle East?

The US has a bad reputation, image, and track record. And North-Americans wonder "why"? How about playing along with others, respecting global decisions, promoting health and education (instead of war) and promoting democracy through peace and social change, the only everlasting change. The internet is a crucial asset to the 21st century, and like the printing machines, it's a technology that belongs to mankind. Sorry. Live with it.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[GeekyMike]

why don't we just say "hey, fuck you all, we're going home" and let them deal with their own messes? This political party would strive to do just that. Why do for others when we are struggling with our own issues. Let's get our own house in order.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[qzulla]

Dodgy logic. Tim Berners-Lee [w3.org] is British. He invented the Web while working at CERN [wikipedia.org] (that's in Europe by the way). Can we have our web back then please?

Sure. Take your web and go home. The web is not the Internet.

qz

Re:what drives this controversy?

[kmartshopper]

What in God's name are you talking about? Of course the Internet belongs to the United States... everyone knows Al Gore created the Internet!

Re:what drives this controversy?

[glesga_kiss]

Many argue that the Cold War was simply another instance of politicians using fear of a distant enemy to keep the population in check. The theory is that if the people are rallying for a common cause, they are less critical of their leaders. It gives the leaders power and in turn those who believe in the enemy rise to the top as their rhetoric is stronger. This theory was written about many many decades ago, but I cannot remember the name of it.

It's covered in the very interesting documentary The Power Of Nightmares, though most of the documentary covers the imaginary fear of terrorism that is being used today to move the public in whatever direction is desired. The cold war was a real threat, but it was blown out of proportion, especially in the Regan years. It's mentioned in the documentary as it is in fact Donald Rumsfeld who deliberately misinterpreted inteligence in order to justify extending the cold war.

On the question of whether America "saved" us in the cold war; I'm not convinced. We didn't get "duck and cover". We never got the fear of communism drilled into us at a basic level at home and in school. The question is; were the Soviets invading Europe a credible threat? I don't think so, but in all honesty I'm glad we never had to find out. Personally, I thank the likes of Kennedy, who was just about the only one who kept a straight head during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Objectively, neither of the two superpowers wanted war, and that was probably most likely due to the M.A.D. aspect of the nukes. So, yes, it could be argued that the US kept the peace during the cold war.

I would not say that Europe did nothing. You had nukes in the UK pointing at Russia. The whole NATO thing. That also includes your missles in Turkey, which were ironically the precursor to the Cuban Missle Crisis. You had allies in all of NATO, as well as facilites, standardised armaments and lot's of other co-operation. Many NATO soldiers were stationed in Berlin for decades. Of course, as in every country your leaders have downplayed other countries roles in your successes, so it's not surprising that you probably believe that the cold war as simply USSR vs. USA.

Of course, none of that matters right now. Dice have no memory, and neither do most people and that includes politicians. As I've said repeatively, previous good deeds do not excuse future bad ones. The America of the past 40 years has genuinely been the enemy of democracy in many countries. Anywhere that the democratic choice was not a US-friendly capitalist government. Socialism != lack of freedom.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[S.O.B.]

The examples you cite are no longer the case today. Europe was able to evolve and become more civilized, why can't the US.

Canada abolished capital punishment almost 30 years ago and despite being next door to the US and having a similar culture the murder rate in Canada is dramatically lower than in the US.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[QuantaStarFire]

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.

I dunno. If I were another country, I could, I don't know, take everything I've invested in the United States thusfar and send those resources elsewhere? Now sure, one country hardly matters, but imagine it's the whole European Union. Then Korea. Then Japan. China. Taiwan. The list goes on.

Despite what you may believe, America is only at the top because it stands on the shoulders of everybody else. Now, it worked to get there, and worked hard, but if it wants to stay at that point, it's gotta learn to be nicer to the other countries of the world, otherwise it'll get dropped, and then stare with envy as Canada or China or some other country is now number one.

Of course, that's only a guess as to what COULD happen...

Re:what drives this controversy?

[arminw]

.....They simply don't want to be dependent on the US in something as important as this network is......

Neither you nor anyone else here on /. has explained how *any* other country is dependent on the US running their portion of the internet. Any country can put up servers and point all their users to those rather than the ones here in the US. Other countries run their own phone systems, radio and TV stations etc, so why couldn't they run their own computer network also? This all has the makings of a tempest in a teapot.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[rs79]

"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?"

Yes, and the old Mercedes in my driveway owes a lot to Henry Ford, but you'll note Daimler bought Chrysler not the other way around; Detroit doesn't get to tell Stuttgart what to do just because mass production was invented in Detroit.

Now, what do you think your average German will do when Germany itself suggests a different root cache (that despite the FUD, doesn't give you a different answer for the same domain) ?

Note that this bill is sponsored by the representatives from the states that ICANN and Netsol reside in.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[apraxisof]

Its not "the rest of the world" is is certain rather scary member states of the UN.
Its not driven by jealousy, but by, you guessed it! Money and power.
Here is an Australian opinion that is probably what most people in Aust IT and pobably most sensible folk think.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/breaking/the-net-is- anarchy-keep-it-that-way/2005/10/23/1130006004185. html

Re:what drives this controversy?

[zardo]

Killjoe, I think you need to read up on your history, like the man says. You don't know what you're talking about. Japan wasn't anywhere close to surrendering. Even after dropping two bombs, the military dictators still wanted to carry on until there was nothing left of Japan. Look at the Kamikazi pilots, they represent the nationalistic pride of MOST of Japan. If it weren't for an emperor with SOME sense in him, we would have had to kill many, many more. Had we developed and used nuclear weapons on Germany, before D-day, we probably wouldn't have ever had to deal with Japan at all!

You, like much of America, aren't capable of seeing the bigger picture.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Gavin Rogers]

(1) The U.S. has a unified language ...except in those places where they speak Spanish.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[amliebsch]

Socialism != lack of freedom.

I can't speak for all Americans, but I think that you would not find general agreement with that premise. Why? Because as soon as you do not bear the costs (and benefits) of your actions yourself, but are forced share those costs (and benefits) with others, then those others have a material basis for controlling your behavior so as to minimize your costs and maximize your benefit.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[stevesliva]

That's what happened with GPS/Galileo, man. Everyone else decided they didn't want all their GPS eggs in the US basket. That's what should happen here. Let everyone else figure out a technical way to build a redundant system, not a political fiat.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[jadavis]

They could also launch a nuclear strike against the U.S., but that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

I think it was implied from my comment that they really had no internet-related recourse. For example, it would hurt Canada much more than the U.S. if Canada cut off the U.S. from their network.

Any reasonable person would have picked that up from my comment. It looks like you, on the other hand, were just looking for an opportunity to say that the rest of the world combined is more powerful than the U.S., which isn't all that insightful.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[zardo]

At least other dictatorships make no pretences about themselves.

What the fuck is this nonsense? Ever heard of the Iraqi information minister?

And the USA is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in Iraq, at least several British soldiers due to sheer incompetence

Awww, cry me a river. My brother died in a car accident due to the incompetence of some truck driver. It happens.

not to mention the hypocritical bullshit spouted by the leaders of that country.

What is this hypocritical bullshit you speak of? If you ask me, you're the hypocrite, giving everyone a lesson in horrendous actions while ignoring the horrendous action (or INACTION) of others.

Plenty of people feel that inaction can be just as bad as agressive action, depending on the situation. It would seem as though you are completely unaware of the current situation, you know, violence in the middle east, terrorism, ruthless dictators, all that. AND, you're an idiot.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[mjtg]

In any other country, the internet would basically be useless without seeing U.S. sites.

What complete and utter bullshit. Obviously, this comment was written by some kind of ignorant, arrogant American who thinks that the whole world revolves around his/her country. I can't remember when I last read a sentence that was so ... so ... what's the word ? Arrogant ? Stupid ? Narrow-minded ? Ignorant ? Stereotypically-American ?

Right now I'm browsing this US website called slashdot.org. A few minutes ago, I was looking at a couple of sites here in Australia for a birthday present for my wife. In a little while, I'll probably browse over to the BBC website to check out the news, then maybe send emails to friends in South America and central Europe.

Internet useless without US sites ? Well, it would be a shame to see all US sites disappear, I'd miss some of them. But I wouldn't miss them any more than if, say, all the sites in the UK were to disappear, or Germany, or whatever.

Americans may spend 99.99% of the time they are on the Internet visiting American websites, but - I hope this doesn't come as too much of a blow to your pride - people in the rest of the world (you know, us 95% of the earth's population who live outside your country) probably don't spend more than 10-20% of the time we are on the web viewing sites in the US.

If all Americans think the same way as this one (who I see was modded "5 - Insightful"), then its pretty obvious why they can't figure out why 95% of the world doesn't want a global resource to be controlled by 5%.

(BTW, I'm not anti-American, some of my best friends are Americans, but gee I wish you guys could widen your horizons realise that there is a world beyond your borders, full of people who are pretty much the same as you.)

Re:what drives this controversy?

[bungo]

I think your American perspective doesn't seem to give you a good idea on how the rest of the world uses the internet.

There are only two US based sites I normally use, this one, and Oracle's.

Every other site I use is outside of the US.

I order stuff from amazon.co.uk and amazon.fr - yes, it is a US parent company, but the UK and French sites belong to their UK and French companies.

When I order dinner over the internet, what, do you think I order from somewhere in Plano Texas? I think I might be a little cold by the time it get's here.

If the US internet was cut off, I might miss /., but I've still got theregister.co.uk. And I'm sure that Oracle would quickly more their support services access to be distributed around the world.

You know, maybe the rest of the world would be better off is the US lost control and decided to split. Business would work around it, and US spam would be contained.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[jadavis]

2 points:

(1) I said I may be exaggerating. Obviously the internet wouldn't be completely useless. The point is, other countries need U.S. sites more than the U.S. needs any other single country's sites.

(2) If what you said was true, there would be no debate. The rest of the world would just not use U.S. DNS servers and routers. But they do.

My original post's point was that control of DNS has to do with economic power on the internet, not who "invented" the internet. But rather than notice my point, you latched onto an explicitly declared exaggeration (your quotation of my post certainly didn't include that "exaggeration" bit, did it Mr. Enlightened-pants?) in order to classify me as an "ignorant, arrogant American".

You certainly come across as anti-American, regardless of what you call yourself.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[werewolf1031]

"those places where they speak Spanish" are well integrated into the rest of the nation, which speaks Americanized English. Also, most Spanish-speaking Americans have little to no trouble with English, which is still spoken by the vast majority of the nation. Language alone does not a barrier make, and so far the U.S. seems to be adjusting just fine to having Spanish as a second language.

What was your point again?

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Zemran]

You certainly come across as anti-American,

What is this 'anti-American' tag that some Americans try to apply to anyone that argues with them? Sounds pretty paranoid.

I agree with what he said, in that /. is the only site I would miss if the US was cut adrift but given the amount of xenophobic rants that I have to wade through I would not miss it that much. The US sites too often forget that readers may not live in the US so anyone that wants a global view or market, even if they live in the US, will tend to look elsewhere.

Up until your last paragraph I supported your response to his post but I get so bored with that 'anyone that is against me must be a racist' b.s. I was even glad that you quoted 'invented' as it was a multi-national project which many of my old collegues worked on at the Royal Military College of Science in the UK. It does get tedious listening to so many Americans claim so many things that were never really theirs.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[carsamba]

I for one "nationalizing" access is VERY bad for everyone concerned. Governments are afraid of the net, and rightly so. Even though TLDs are based in the U.S. it is the most international stage anywhere, anywhen.

The UN is an impotent congregation, mostly existing to legitimise power grab maneuvers. The body of nations it is supposed to represent are mostly for show, it dances to the whim of the permanent veto power carrying nations.

That would be a first for the UN.

Much as I hate to say it, I must agree..

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Xrikcus]

The figures I've managed to find put California's GDP at 1.54 trillion USD and the UK's at 1.78 trillion. Now I admit that per capita California wins hands down... but then, that's like comparing the GDP per capita of the home counties to the UK as a whole, the population distributions are not comparable.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[OneIsNotPrime]

3) Most of the technologies behind the net were primarily developed in the U.S. 4) The world wide web grew in the U.S.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[imogthe]

I don't really like feeding the trolls so I'll keep this short and sweet.

If you cast your mind back a few years you'll find that it does not take a "fantasy conglomeration of righteous nations" to ram a plane or two into a building. The US will not be invaded for the sole reason that it's too bloody well protected by the seas (just like the British isles actually), and unless Canada or Mexico decides to invade it's likely to stay that way. The grandparent did not, however, suggest that the U.S of A would be invaded by a hostile force (as in D-day style landings and so on). In my opinion the grandparent stated that if the US continues to ride roughshod over other peoples pride and values you will find an increasing number of individuals willing to do whatever it takes, be that pamphleting or suicide bombing.

Please note I'm not advocating violence or an attack on the US, I merely seek to clarify as there seems to have been a gross misunderstanding.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[sznupi]

The thing is - it doesn;t matter if you, internally, thought as a whole that this was joking. It didn't appear like that from the outside, and that's all that matters.

And France did won on several occasions...for example in 1781 there was some important naval battle that you should know about...

Re:what drives this controversy?

[fbg111]

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.

Hate to break it to you, but the Internet already does that, and without the guiding hand of government, thank you very much. So keep your grubby little, power-hungry, censoring, self-important, controlling mitts off our internet, thank you very much.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Attaturk]

No it's not, but as another poster pointed out, the Internet would still be an under-funded geek toy if it wasn't for the web. OK I'm paraphrasing.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[bornbitter]

Oh, that's rich, really rich. Good idea, Einstein, invade the country that the entire world depends on for their economy. Brilliant. As for your 'bill' that you would like the US to cover... when you rent a car do you own the car, or does the rental company? You still have to pay for gas, (and sometimes insurance), but not for taxes, maintenance, or the full cost of the vehicle or the roads. Just like mine, your analogy and argument is flawed. (Oh, by the way, you sound just as arrogant and the profanity only makes you sound uneducated.)

--Disclaimer-- The rest of this post is a response to many posts, not just yours.

I said this before, and I'll say it again; this is nothing more than a political game to see "who can stand up to the super-power." Nations have been trying and trying to make the U.S. 'cow-tow' since WW2, and now the only difference is that the general world populace doesn't like the U.S. anymore. Does anyone remember what happened just this last century?

In the beginning of the 1900's, the US was very isolationistic, (left the world alone), and what happened? World War 1. We answered 'the call,' financed the armament of allies and restructure of the Eruopean economy, and Eruope left the US holding the debt. We again told the world where to go and left everyone alone. What happened? Another world war. Again we decided the outcome, (of WW2), and financed the restructure of economies -but this time we stayed in world politics. What happened? Not another world war. Amazingly better record than Europe. We created, house, and largely finance the UN - which I am not proud of - and stood against communism, (which may have been the wrong choice, seeing how socialistic most of Europe has chosen to become - but at least they had the choice). If your country had this resume, (regardless of the bad spots), and was known as the 'super-power' whose economy and government had decided two world wars, landed the only men on the moon, (and developed the internet), educates or educated the world's experts, doles out billions in humanitarian aid, created Silly-Putty (tm)- that's gotta be worth somethin' - and all-in-all is still the world authority on weapon technology, not to mention the hundreds of things that I haven't listed... would you be arrogant?

So, like we have discussed before... political presumptions and international bigotry aside; what is wrong with the internet now? Honestly? I have yet to hear a real reason why the internet needs this change, (Other than the 'fact' that you 'don't like or agree with the US' on issues related or unrelated to the internet.) But, if the internet doesn't work now, why would changing 'control' over to those who, lets admit it, would be more likely to exercise control, (one way or another), fix our problem?

Now weigh the decision. Understand that the UN is not a stable governing body, and is fraught with corruption. If you think that the Internet will not be bound and gagged in the red-tape of an international political quagmire, you had better take another hit from whatever you are using, because that hallucinated fairy world is about to disappear.

As for Congress looking like lemmings... what about the rest of the world? From your point of view -- a righteous rebellion against a tyrant. From our point of view, you are the lemmings - the screaming toddlers who are never content with what they have already been given. Maybe it is time we all 'grew up.'

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Attaturk]

Slightly offtopic. I notice you mention Britain and Europe, then follow it up with 'we'. Being from the US, I obviously ignore the rest of the world. Is the European Union really becoming a single entity? In the US, people have a slight allegiance to their states, some stronger, like Texas, however we usually identify ourselves as Americans. Is Europe following the same path?

Given that you admit to ignoring the rest of the world it'd take me quite a while to explain the fundamentals of human cooperation and peaceful coexistence in spite of considerable outstanding disagreements. Indeed I think Europe is currently probably more unified (yes including the U.S.-controlled province of Britain) than the so called 'United' States at the moment. As I understand it there's a red state/blue state rift in your home country that's about as close to civil war as it's been since its last one. In fact I think I'd go so far as to say that the U.S. is currently closer to civil war than the European nations are to internal international war.

Anyway I'll grossly oversimplify things by answering your original question with a straighforward 'yes'. Frankly, most of Europe would rather be doing business with China right now. What does that tell you about the views of 'the rest of the world'? Now I have to get the disclaimer in before I get nailed for simply being flamebait. I'm not anti-american etc. etc. In fact it's because I'm really rather fond of many Americans and a great deal of America's culture that I feel quite so frustrated by the direction that the nation has taken since WWII - particularly in the last few years. IMHO your own stated 'ignore the rest of the world' attitude combined with a general culture of arrogance and supremacism is unwarranted, inappropriate, irresponsible and downright dangerous.

A bit of a rant there I know and I really do apologise but as I say, my anger is that of a disappointed friend; not an enemy. These subtle nuanced relationships are common on a continent like ours that has been ravaged by hundreds of years of serious wars - all fought over and on home territory, which is an important factor many USians easily overlook.

As for me personally, I don't want a tri-polar world with a Chinese bloc, a European bloc and an Oceania^H^H, I mean U.S. bloc. What I want is for the U.S. to put the gun down and come back home to humanity, which is actually the only alliance I really give a damn about. It seems that sometimes there really is no avoiding cliché. ;-)

Re:what drives this controversy?

[mjtg]

To jadavis: I've re-read your post in the context of the article and I realise now that I mis-understood the point that you were trying to make. I humbley apologise. Your point was quite correct, and I took it out of context. I thought you were talking about websites, not DNS.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[glesga_kiss]

How does centralised healthcare mean that I cannot speak my mind about my government. Does the welfare state affect my religious beliefs?

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Americans are led via a constant barrage of propaganda stating that socialism is close to Stalin's nightmare. It's simply not the case. Just as there are free socialist states, there are totalitarian non-free capitalist states. Economic theory has little to do with personal freedom.

The crux of the matter is that all political theories are just the upper-class elites telling the downtrodden that their system is better. Some are more equal than others, that sort of thing. In either socialism or capitalism, those at the top will abuse the system to further their own goals. It's human nature; we are capitalistic at a base hunter-gatherer level.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Decameron81]

"Neither you nor anyone else here on /. has explained how *any* other country is dependent on the US running their portion of the internet. Any country can put up servers and point all their users to those rather than the ones here in the US. Other countries run their own phone systems, radio and TV stations etc, so why couldn't they run their own computer network also? This all has the makings of a tempest in a teapot."

Because other countries depend on the current DNS system as much as the US does. And on top of that this split you talk about is what will eventually happen if the US doesn't let other countries have a voice. Avoiding the split would be better, of course.

But if that's what it takes I suppose I will be more than happy to support those who choose go for a system that is not as prone to abuse.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[amliebsch]

How does centralised healthcare mean that I cannot speak my mind about my government.

It doesn't. But, suppose, for example, that I like to smoke. Or drink. Or eat fatty foods. Or have unprotected sex. Now, if I am responsible for my own health care, then society can allow me to make those choices, since the negative consequences hurt only me. But if, as under a centralized health care system, the negative consequences of my actions hurt other people, those people are going to demand that I stop smoking, drink less, eat healthy and exercise, and wear a condom - and they will have the power of the state on their side.

Economic theory has little to do with personal freedom.

On the contrary, it is at the very heart of the issue.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[glesga_kiss]

That's an interesting point. I'd be lying if I said that here in the UK there aren't campaigns to "stop smoking, drink less, eat healthy and exercise, and wear a condom". However, I define "freedom" as political and religious beliefs (even though I'm an athiest), as well as government accountability and openness (e.g. freedom of information act). There are no laws saying that should (or shouldn't) do any of these things. Smoking is going to be banned in public places soon though.

However, surely in more capitalistic countries, there are also movements to inprove health? New York banned smoking long before anyone else. Surely the war on drugs falls foul under this premise of personal freedom? If I want to shoot up H all day, surely I should be allowed to in the USA? I think the problem is that people are led to believe every issue is black or white, true or false. In reality, everything is a spectrum. So, by your definition of freedom, you may percieve others tp have less. It doesn't mean that they live in a non-free societly.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[arminw]

....I will be more than happy to support those who choose go for a system that is not as prone to abuse.....

What abuse? Oh you mean the Nigerian scams or the Russian phishing sites and all the porn and gambling on WORLD wide web? So far, the Internet has been working just fine for everybody. What needs fixing that is broken? Have you not been able to e-mail your uncle in Afghanistan of cousin in Rumania? You may have had trouble communicating with friends behind the great China firewall, but then that would go away if the UN or EU wrestled control of the DNS system away from the US. The US does let the other countries have a voice. They can yell at the top of their lungs as long as they want to about OUR Internet or OUR GPS system.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[arminw]

.....I will be more than happy to support those who choose go for a system that is not as prone to abuse......

What abuse? Oh you mean the Nigerian scams, the Russian phishing sites and the widespread spam, p0orn and gambling on the WORLD wide web? Under the so called abuse by the US you cannot communicate with your uncle in Afghanistan or your cousin in Rumania? Maybe you DO have trouble communicating with some friends behind the Great Firewall of China? That problem of course would disappear if the UN or EU wrestle control of the DNS system away from the US.

The US lets other countries have a voice. They can jump up and down, have a tantrum like a three year old and yell as loud as they want to and maybe even pound a shoe or two in the UN. The US will even allow them to make their own DNS system and tax the H*** out of their own internet users. Nobody is forced to use neither the DNS nor the GPS systems we make available for free to all.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[jadavis]

What is this 'anti-American' tag that some Americans try to apply to anyone that argues with them? Sounds pretty paranoid.

He said it. I merely said he came across that way, i.e. that he would most likely be percieved that way by someone who only read his one post.

I put "invented" in quote marks for a few reasons. First, it was a quotation. Second, it's not really clear to me that the internet really classifies as an invention. It's more like the Trans-Continental railroad or something; it's an accomplishment. Maybe someone invented TCP/IP, or the DNS protocol, but nobody really "invented" the internet. And of course you're right, the accomplishment was world-wide.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[stanmann]

Did the UK finally get suckered into the EU? Last I heard, they were resisting with all they had since they didn't want the leeches to destroy their economy.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[ScrewMaster]

I made no such argument whatsoever, so please don't put words in my mouth. I simply complained that the parent poster was in error. Your argument can be summed up with: "The Internet should be globally controlled because, well, it just should be that's all." Sounds all nice and warm and just friendly somehow, doesn't it. Of course, there's the question of who would exercise that control, and for that matter the larger question of how anything can be "globally controlled" in the first place, if by that we mean "every nation doing what it wants to their part of the system", because that's what would happen. Forget worldwide access to knowledge: the Internet would become little more than a bunch of old-style Compuserves so far as the average user is concerned.

Getting back to the issue of money ... we have the most to lose by Europe screwing DNS up: that gives us little motivation to give up control of those servers. Matter of fact, Europe has a lot to lose if it screws DNS up. Furthermore, considering that it is Europe that wants to confiscate our root servers, I think your comment would better be phrased as follows:

"If the European Union wants their own EUNet, then they can cut the wires to the rest of the world and go back to their isolationism. The United States will generally be happier that way."

Matter of fact, prior to World War II the United States was remarkably isolationist. We were a lot happier too, I think. Maybe this Global Economy thing isn't all it's cracked up to be. And if the rest of you hadn't jumped on the bandwagon and decided to run the Internet around the world, I personally would have been perfectly happy with a USANet.

Truth is, it is the EU that is threatening to "cut the wires" (in a virtual sense, by risking damage to, or applying politically-motivated control of, the Domain Name System) and take that which doesn't belong to it. The root servers aren't EU property. They belong to a U.S. corporation, so taking control of them unilaterally is simply wrong. Sugar-coat it any way you like, but it's still a matter of confiscation. Stealing, even, for political gain. Chew on that for a while, and see if you still feel so virtuous.

The Internet simply gets packets from here to there, and the United States has little control over that. The DNS protocols themselves are just a convenience layer, but they've become an important layer and it was the U.S. that put it there. We've never said that Europe couldn't build it's own Domain Name System, nor could we stop that if we wanted to, but everybody was happy to make use of what the United States (as always) provided for free. The EU leadership now wants control of this particular system because it's the one everybody uses, and to own it is power. To that I say ... tough. We never made any guarantees whatsoever regarding those machines, we let everyone use them for any purpose, and never placed any limits on who could use them. We still are not, I might add. But if you foolishly built your economies and business methods around them ... tough again. Like I said, no guarantees. You're free to duplicate them at any time and go your own way, but ripping us off while simultaneously crying "it's for the common good" is hypocrisy at best.

But when you get right down to it, the DNS systems that service Europe are already in Europe. So the question of who ultimately controls them is obvious: the nation that physically possesses the equipment. The "who controls the Internet" baloney that the EU's leaders are spewing is just political posturing of no real consequence in terms of the Internet's usability or reliability, unless they follow through with this stupidity and manage to fragment the system. I hope they do. When the day comes that you get a permanent 404 trying to get to Slashdot because some censorious governmental busybody somewhere found the content objectionable, maybe you'll realize just how bad an idea this really is.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[archeopterix]

Right now I'm browsing this US website called slashdot.org. A few minutes ago, I was looking at a couple of sites here in Australia (1) for a birthday present for my wife. In a little while, I'll probably browse over to the BBC (2) website to check out the news, then maybe send emails to friends in South America (3) and central Europe(4).

Some fun facts I found on Google:

(1) A country, occupying a continent of the same name. Continents are big, big (even bigger than USA) pieces of land, usually surrounded by water.
(2) B in the BBC stands for 'British'. Britain is a country in Europe (see 4).
(3) A continent, not to be confused with the southern part of USA.
(4) A continent, most of the white (caucasian) population of US has roots in Europe.

Re:what drives this controversy?

[Xrikcus]

The UK's been part of the EU for many years. Presumably you're talking about the EMU, and indeed the UK is not a member. Germany's GDP is higher than the UK's anyway, so my minor factual correction still stands.

Wth congress' backing...

[CDPatten]

Bush won't backdown. I predeict the US is going to win this battle, but I wonder what they will give up in another area to let the EU save face?

I suspect we will wind up giving them money, but in what area? Maybe we will back off the Airbus stuff at the WTO? Anyone have any thoughts?

Re:Wth congress' backing...

[matgorb]

You seem to forget that the Airbus stuff has its own little battle against the Boeing stuff... Anyway I do not see why it is a problem for the US, what we call the Internet is just a standard of Inter connected Network, now historically it has its root in the US, but now non US network connect to it, and they could stand on their own. What would happen if it goes this way is that non us network will start to have their own Internet, no hard to to do, the only thong is that I wont be able to read Slashdot...

Re:Wth congress' backing...

[KarmaMB84]

I think you've oversimplified thing...

Time to begin

[technoextreme]

Obligatory slashdot argument about which countries have the best freedoms.

Re:Time to begin

[TheRaven64]

I don't really trust the US government to run the Internet.

I don't really trust the UN to run the Internet.

I don't really trust the EU to run the Internet.

Maybe we should just set up our own one, and not let idiots or politicians (but I repeat myself) join in.

Re:Time to begin

[killjoe]

Actually....

The US is the most capitalistic nation on earth.
Capitalism is about the love of money.
The love of money is the root of all evil (God says so anyway).

So maybe you are right.

Re:Time to begin

[DigiShaman]

Hear hear! I agree. Dispite that I love living in the US, I still hold the motto "trust no one" to my heart. What we need is some sort of P2P domain system AND make it so changes are enacted via global vote ratios. I'm not sure how it technically could be done, but the idea sound fair IMHO.

Re:Time to begin

[Kafka_Canada]

I don't know if you've noticed, but capitalist societies tend to grow exponentially over an indefinite period of time, so you don't have much hope of overturning the system or eliminating it by coming up with some "new" more "idealist" or "fair" system, moron. Better people than you have tried, and in a world where capitalism exists they end up in the cesspool of history, or as demented autocracies that wind up in the cesspool anyway.

Good luck!

Re:Time to begin

[killjoe]

So? Does that make it any less evil in the eyes of God?

Is that all capitalism has got going for it? It's better then a cesspool? That's a great motto for capitalism isn't it? "Capitalism, it's better then a cesspool!".

LOL.

If you don't believe in god, or if you believe that god is wrong when he says love of money is the root of all evil then capitalism is not evil. If you believe in god though then capitalism is nothing less then the codifications of the seven deadly sins into law.

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).

Re:Time to begin

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory whiney defense of every American action since "we saved your asses in WW2", coupled with some delusional diatribe that those actions were intended in the spirit of the greater global good.

Re:Time to begin

[maxpublic]

If you believe in god though then capitalism is nothing less then the codifications of the seven deadly sins into law.

While socialism is the expression of those sins at the hands of government.

Max

Re:Time to begin

[Kafka_Canada]

Just lay off it already... whatever it is you're smoking.

Re:Time to begin

[killjoe]

What's the matter? Your ideology conflicting with the word of god too much?

Re:Time to begin

[killjoe]

So once again we are reduced to the "at least it's not as evil as X" argument.

I should say however that socialism is the only govt that seems to work. Even the US which is very pro capitalist spends the majority of it's funds on socialist programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, free education for children, subsidies for farmers and every other industry known to man. So far no purely capitalist state has been able to survive more then a few years.

Socialism always seems to win out in the end.

Re:Time to begin

[Kafka_Canada]

Just because I disagree with you, I'm not a God-fearing right-wing conservative Republican (TM). Believe it or not, most sane people don't share your fucked up beliefs -- disagreeing with you makes them pretty much normal, not some jackbooted religious icon of all you believe is evil.

Re:Time to begin

[Kafka_Canada]

Do you realize how dumb you sound?

First of all, "it's not as evil as x" is a pretty good reason to embrace capitalist democracies, when x equals literally everything else anyone's come up with. Of course, you even screwed that up -- when I (and the other poster) pointed out that capitalism's "not as bad as x," it was just to point out how screwed up the ideas that are not capitalism are; that's not to say capitalism's actually bad, in fact if you examine all the wonderful things it's done (including for you), you'll see that it's actually pretty damn good.

Even the US which is very pro capitalist spends the majority of it's funds on socialist programs

Erm, no. For some reason, retards like you seem to confuse society with government. That's what the American government spends money on, but Americans typically spend most money on important things -- i.e., things they deem worthwhile. They're free to keep and spend most of their money as they wish, which is what makes it capitalist and successful.

Keep dreaming, but having taxes at all doesn't make a society "socialist," no one (but a few "anarchist" fucktards) advocates absolutely zero government, and your idea of socialism is absolutely not "the only govt that seems to work" -- it is, in fact, a form of government that doesn't work at all except in a few tiny resource-rich states, and even then, not well.

Socialism always seems to win out in the end.

Read a bit before you spout off, idiot.

Re:Time to begin

[killjoe]

"Believe it or not, most sane people don't share your fucked up beliefs -- disagreeing with you makes them pretty much normal, not some jackbooted religious icon of all you believe is evil."

Err it's not my belief, it's the word of god. God said love of money is the root of all evil not me. God said it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, not me.

Re:Time to begin

[killjoe]

"First of all, "it's not as evil as x" is a pretty good reason to embrace capitalist democracies, when x equals literally everything else anyone's come up with."

IF that's true then why don't you compare it against finland or something instead of iraq?

"Erm, no. For some reason, retards like you seem to confuse society with government."

So socials security, medicare, welfare, medicaid, free k-12 education are not socialist programs then huh? BHAHAHAHA.

Re:Time to begin

[Kafka_Canada]

Do you even read what you write?

Even the US which is very pro capitalist spends the majority of it's funds on socialist programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, free education for children, subsidies for farmers and every other industry known to man.

The US does not spend the majority of its funds on such "socialist" programs (the word you're looking for is social), pretty much every American spends most of his money on more important things.

And if you're trying to make some point about the U.S. being socialistic because its government spends money on social programs, that's just retarded. What, do you think capitalism would be the government spending lots of money on non-social programs, like porn and TV? The whole point of capitalism (or free markets) is that it's not the government that does most of the spending -- not to do with the nature of government programs.

And, go ahead and compare the U.S. against Finland or Canada or France or Germany, etc., I think you might learn a little something.

Re:Time to begin

[Krach42]

Pure capitalism requires no social programs. This is because having a social program goes against the "invisible hand of self interest." In a purely capitalist enconomy it's argued that each person will do what is in their best interests, without restriction by the government, and as such each person will be as well off as they can be.

This fails though, as many people don't save enough money to be able to live effectively once they are unable to work; same also for when they get sick, many people are unable to afford medical expenses on their own, without at least having saved up for them in the first place. People don't do that sort of thing.

Pure capitalism also requires that anyone anywhere can just up and make a business and sell goods. You can't do this in the USA, you can though, in Japan. For instance, in the USA you can't (legally) just walk off a plane as a foreigner and start selling T-shirts at a mall. In Japan, you can.

As for the majority of US spending, after taxes, we also have various bills, let's look at something which is covered under socialist governments: health care (Oooo, there's a biggy). In a socialist government you don't have to put extra money into healthcare, because in general, you're already putting money into these programs in your taxes.

Also, as an interesting asside, Germany automatically withdraws your religious donations for you, for either the Evangelical or Catholic church. This can't be done in the US, because of established doctrine by the government and interpreted into the constitution that no government money will be spent on ANYTHING having to do with religion, (also the reason why the US census doesn't ask you what religion you are.)

So, let's add this stuff up, a.) taxes (of which your company matches your social security payments if they're withdrawing your taxes for you, so if we didn't have this social program, your paycheck would have to be even larger in order to cover that half of your taxes, which leads to an "opportunistic" loss of income) b.) health care.

I don't know about you, but if I were to bundle everything together that I would otherwise already have as a result of taxes in a socialist government; I'd expect the values to converge, rather than diverge. Unless, due to ridiculous pricings in the United States such as say, in perscription drugs, the values were to grow even larger than that given by a socialist state.

The US has numerous social programs, and they all pretty much started at around FDR in order to repair the nation after the Great Depression, which by the way, is exactly what the invisible hand of capitalism leads you to. Everyone trying to make a quick buck at the cost of sanity.

Re:Time to begin

[Krach42]

"Believe it or not, most sane people don't share your fucked up beliefs -- disagreeing with you makes them pretty much normal, not some jackbooted religious icon of all you believe is evil."

Ad hominum attacks aren't necessary. You're right that disagreeing with him makes you normal, everyone disagrees with everyone about at least something. That doesn'tm mean you have to equate Christianity with facism.

Err it's not my belief, it's the word of god. God said love of money is the root of all evil not me. God said it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, not me.

God doesn't make things evil, our societies' opinions of them make them evil. The Japanese word for money is mostly likely given as "o-kane", but it's actually "kane" because the "o-" at the beginning is an prefix given to objects that are traditionally considered "unclean" or "evil". This "o-kane" was in use long before Christianity came to be an issue in anyway in Japanese culture.

And considering the words of Jesus, before you go off and quote something to prove something, "money is the root of all evil because Jesus said... camel through the eye of a needle." This rich man came to Jesus to ask what he had to do to enter the kingdom of Heaven, he was told that he had to sell everything, and give give the money away, and leave his wife and family and follow Jesus alone.

Have you givne up your worldly goods to follow Jesus? Have you taken up your cross to follow him? Which, by the way, this phrase wasn't meant just pick up a burden, or anything like that. The only people who carried crosses were those who were to die, and it was a sign of shame. Only in modern times has this changed since we stopped crucifying people. It was being said that one must be willing to die for their beliefs, but more so than that, but to give up everything and everyone, to go out, be active in their evangelism, and if people weren't arguing with you, you were in too safe of company. (I come to put son against father, etc etc etc).

Now, again. Things aren't wrong just because God says so. They're wrong because we already know that they're wrong, and God is just affirming that which we already know.

Re:Time to begin

[Kafka_Canada]

Yeah, made-up gods say lots of things. So fuckin' what? You want a cookie?

Re:Time to begin

[killjoe]

"'God doesn't make things evil, our societies' opinions of them make them evil. "

Evil is a biblical term and a biblical concept. If you believe in God then God indeed has the final say on what is evil and what is not.

"Have you givne up your worldly goods to follow Jesus? "

No I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Jesus.

"Now, again. Things aren't wrong just because God says so."

I am afraid this doesn't wash with a christian.

Re:Time to begin

[Krach42]

Evil is a biblical term and a biblical concept. If you believe in God then God indeed has the final say on what is evil and what is not.

I don't have time to explain over slashdot why Evil is not defined by God. Go speak with any philosophy professor, or grad student. They'll explain to you logically, and soundly why Evil is not defined by God. (Short answer: God would never tell you to kill a Baby. What if he did? Well, he just wouldn't because it's evil. But God had told you to do it, so it would have to be good. No, because God wouldn't tell someone to do something evil.)

No I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Jesus.

This explains some things. You're playing devil's advocate, or trolling. Either way, you're misrepresenting Christianity.

"Now, again. Things aren't wrong just because God says so."

I am afraid this doesn't wash with a christian.

Um... I'm Christian. And again, see above statement about why things are evil even if God were to tell you to do them.

Mankind has a sense of right and wrong (good and evil) apart from God, it's called Morality. And even though many Christians would initially put on the plate that things are Good because God said so, give me five minutes with them, and they'll either agree that God doesn't dictate right and wrong; he just afirms it. Or they're irrationally holding to their beliefs (which surprise, most Christians aren't.)

Re:Time to begin

[killjoe]

"Mankind has a sense of right and wrong (good and evil) apart from God, it's called Morality."

No that's called Mores, Morality comes from God. You need to crack open your philosophy book again.

Re:Time to begin

[Krach42]

Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is innately regarded as right or wrong. However, the term is often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans subjectively determine whether given actions are right or wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

You are incorrect in saying that Morality is defined by God.

Also, to touch on the topic, according to the Bible Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which instilled upon us knowledge of what was right and wrong. They immediately noticed that they were naked, and they were ashamed. Why were they not ashamed before? Because at that time God hadn't told them that being naked was wrong, but once they ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were able to decide on the rightness and wrongness of things apart from the justification of God.

To presume that God is the sole and individual source of Morality to Christianity goes against the Bible.

Not only that, but if you insist that man has an incorrect view of Morality, and that only things God would have told us were wrong before we had had the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil were to be moral, and thus that only God's standard of Morality applied (apart from those in-built notions of right and wrong that we have) then you would be saying that it were moral to be naked, which just about everyone would not accept as being moral.

Morality is not dictated by God, is says so right there in the Bible. God has a will that he may direct us towards, but this eventual goal of "good" is something that a person even apart from God would self-determine to be a better outcome than were they to have not ended up at that goal. So while God directs us towards what we find to be good, we can recognize that good, even without God telling us that it's good.

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.

Re:great

[DanteLysin]

A decentralized DNS root. Fear!

It's easier to trust 1 authority than to trust hundreds or thousands of authorities.

Re:great

[Tinik]

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.

Agreed. What most of the world doesn't understand is that the internet, the real internet, is not controlled by any goverment or agency. It's controlled by us, the geeks and nerds of the computer world! The DNS system only continues to work so long as we continue to use it. If we all start using a different system to find our pron, the companies of the world will follow us to keep our buisness. Then the rest of the world will follow them.

We don't have to keep DNS around. There are other ways of finding information on the internet. If we put our heads together and came up with a replacement, then used it, we can put this whole messy business, and any future similar problems, to rest.

Re:great

[mOdQuArK!]

It's easier to trust 1 authority than to trust hundreds or thousands of authorities.

I take it that you don't trust your local governments to assign things like street addresses, street names, landmark names, etc. It would throw the world into total confusion if there wasn't one central authority responsible for naming all of those things - you might end up with different cities reusing the same street names and stuff, and nobody would EVER be able to figure out where they were going.

Re:great

[Lifewish]

There are other ways of finding information on the internet. Maybe so, but finding specific information can be something of a challenge without a hierarchy for it to have a fixed place in. Say I want to find about company X, for example. What I generally do is go search google, but this is dependent on being able to find google in the first place. If I want to go visit slashdot, I'm reliant on slashdot.org still being occupied by the same people.

I've heard a lot of people say "We don't need DNS". What's the alternative? Non-hierarchical systems are intrinsically disorganised, which in many cases is a strength, but it really doesn't help if you're trying to locate something specific. I have the same trouble with my room.

Re:great

[DanteLysin]

When I look at my street sign, I will see the same thing my neighbor sees. If we look at the same sign and I see Pennsylvania Avenue and my neighbor sees Wilson Drive, that would be a problem. Thus, I do not think your analogy really holds. When 2 people look at a street sign, they shouldn't see completely different street names. In terms of digital data and the Internet, this possibility is greater.

[And btw, in your example of naming roads, there are some local governments that have named 2 roads with the same name. Simply asking someone "what road do you live on?" becomes insufficient. "What road do you live on? Is it north of the tracks or south?" Two roads with the same name and over 3 miles travelled to go from one to the other.]

In terms of root level DNS, I can be relatively sure that my query for "update.microsoft.com" is being directed from my DNS, to the root level DNS, to Microsoft's DNS. If my "root level DNS" was handled by any Joe Admin or Joe Company, I would be less confident that "update.microsoft.com" is being routed to Microsoft's DNS.

In today's world of "autoupdate services" for OS, Anti-Virus, etc, we (as users of these technologies) place a certain level of trust that these services will update from the right service provider.

And, yes, you can accuse me of paranoia.

Re:great

[ericdano]

You know, that is a great point. And a great comparison to what is going on in this "battle". Who would want UPS, FedEx, USPS all to have a different address for the same place?

Re:great

[Tinik]

Oh, I'm not saying we don't need DNS as things are now. I'm saying we have the ability to change they way things are. The current structure of the internet requires DNS, but there's nothing to stop us from changing the structure. Or at the very least, find another way of determining what information is on what server.

As for alternatives, I'm not smart enough to figure one out. But there have been many advanced in the computer sciences over the last decade, and the internet itself can help those who are smart enough to bring about its change.

Re:great

[Xarius]

Geeks constitute a very small minority in todays internet. If we started using something else, no one would care. Mum still goes to ebay.com, Dad still uses google.com, granny still goes to blogspot to post about her latest cross-stitch.

It's the plebs that make up the majority of users, and have the majority of power over decisions like this now.

If what you said is true, then everyone would be running Linux on AMD. Not Windows on Intel.

Yours was just another post attempting to make geeks seem more powerful than they really are. Which is not very.

Re:great

[Jeffrey Baker]

You mean, like the DNS system we already have? The one operated by dozens of independent parties all over the world?

I agree, it is neat.

Re:great

[istartedi]

Excellent idea. We should start posting DNS records on Kazaa and Gnutella, and streaming larger DNS caches over bittorrent. Whooooah! But let's wait until after the politicians have "won" the DNS prize before pulling something like that.

Re:great

[richcoder]

what we need is to get some momentum behind a decent decentralized DNS-type system.

No, what we need is to remember that the Internet is not some sort of gift given to the world and instead is a evolved network developed by the US military and then educational institutions. This argument that we should have the RIGHT to control it is bunk. It is what it is. Stop trying to claim control over something you don't have the right to control.

Re:great

[Lifewish]

I'm saying that we don't have the ability to change to a non-hierarchical system and still be assured of finding what we're after. Having an authoritative place to look demands an authority to define that place.

Political?

[wlan0]

You know something's wrong when they have to bring Congress into this.

Re:Political?

[ScentCone]

You know something's wrong when they have to bring Congress into this.

But that's exactly the way to preface a controversial and important action. You know, so that later, there won't be any whining. You know, like how Congress saw all the same intelligence, and then voted for the action in Afghanistan and Iraq. That way, no one can complain about it only being the executive branch that... oh, wait. Never mind, people will whine no matter what we (with or without congressional activity) do about DNS authority. Since we're going to hear it anyway, we might as well take the opportunity to solidify our position on the matter, and make sure that at least most of the pieces of the 'net that we care about continue to function. Without some UN sub-committee, chaired this week by the technical experts from The Sudan, deciding that Allah doesn't the ".com" TLD should be used by women, etc.

Re:Political?

[Lifewish]

The UN sure as hell aren't perfect, but can you point to any decision of theirs anywhere that was sexist/racist to the degree you just described? Or was that just made up on the spot? Hey, if we're playing that game I'm sure I can come up with a few relevant scenarios regarding the US.

Feel free to point to as many specific, real decisions of the UN as you like in your attempt to prove them unfit to control the root server. But making decisions up just shows that either a) you're too lazy to do the research or b) there's little enough to find that your argument from anecdote falls down.

Re:Political?

[ScentCone]

decisions of the UN as you like in your attempt to prove them unfit to control the root server

Hmmm... like having Iran heading up a UN disarmament conference? Or assigning Libya to chair the UN's Commission on Civil Rights? You know, the commission that found that Castro's Cuba (having just immediately executed three of them, and then sentencing 79 other people trying to flee that country to decades in prison) should, as punishment, "receive a UN envoy" so that they could apologize. Such bracing discipline! Such reinforcement of liberty! You know, liberty: the very thing that the internet (and its name servers) need in order to be worth a damn.

Or, you could just look at the UN's humiliating non-response (even verbally!) to the slaughter and systematic rape (of villages, figuratively, and women, literally) by Islamic militants in Sudan. No need for me to link to sources there, since presumably you watch the news once in a while.

Or, you could take the behavior of the General Secretary, Kofi Annan. When a UN high commissioner (Ruud Lubbers) was accused of sexually harassing a subordinate, an internal investigation was launched. That investigation found the woman's complaint to be legitimate, but Annan dismissed the result in order to avoid censuring the man involved. As with so many other cases, the administrative leadership in that organization will let miserable things happen to individuals and to entire countries in order to avoid upsetting delegations.

When an entity like the UN, dealing with an actual shooting-at-planes-every-week and ignore-the-post-invasion-of-Kuwait-treaty charmer like Saddam, allows a stunningly corrupt thing like the oil for food operation to both enrich both the person it's supposed to control and buy blocking votes in the security council... imagine what sort of influence peddling will go on over non-hostility-related operations like DNS?

Do you really think that China's (with its permanent position on the UN security council and considerable other powers) influence on such governance will be favorable to open and free communications, especially as it relates to human rights and democracy? The UN's decision to make a brutal totalitarian country like China a permanent SC member is exactly the sort of thing that suggests what a mistake it would be to give the UN any influence on the root of the net's name space. But in most cases, it's not the citable UN decisions that prove their craven and capricious nature - it's their lack of action on countless fronts, and unwillingness to actually recognize the corrupt nature of so many of the member countries that makes it so obvious. You want sexist? Look at the UN's unwillingness to call sexist regimes what they are. You want racist? Look at the UN's unwillingness to talk out loud about one race slaughtering another because of race, or to allow ethnic cleansing in villages right next door to UN peacekeeping emplacements in the Balkans. Expect the exact same (totally hollow) commitment to freedom and equality by any UN group that starts to get involved in the most important global communications system ever seen.

Re:Political?

[Lifewish]

You're probably right about a lot of that, and maybe we shouldn't give power to the UN. On the other hand, I'm not happy about having my nation's information infrastructure under the ultimate power of the US Dept. of Commerce. Can you suggest another international organisation who should be entrusted with said power?

(For the record, I'm a Brit - we're probably the last country the US would screw over if it didn't need to. I'm still really not comfortable with it, especially after the .xxx thing. And I can't imagine that countries like France, despite their popularity in the US, would be any happier.)

In a shock move...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US backs the US.

-RadioElectric

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.

Re:why the double standard toward globalization?

[Shihar]

The US has already taken the 'liberalized' approach to the Internet. The US handed it off to a not-for-profit company to manage it under some strict 'keep your damn hands off' guidelines.

This stupid battle over "control" of the Internet is at best the EU and UN trying to compare dick sizes with the US to see who is the bigger man, and at worst an attempt by some UN nations to exercise higher levels of taxation and censorship on the Internet. Chances are it is probably a little bit of both.

Personally, I am not interested in who has the bigger cock, and I am even less interested in the UN's attempting to tax and censor the Internet. ICANN has done a fine job running things as they are and has had a strictly hands off policy. Things should remain as they are until ICANN does something wrong.

Re:why the double standard toward globalization?

[Kaemaril]

The US has already taken the 'liberalized' approach to the Internet. The US handed it off to a not-for-profit company to manage it under some strict 'keep your damn hands off' guidelines.

So ... how's .xxx coming along, then? :)

Re:why the double standard toward globalization?

[williamhb]

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.

You might want to talk to third world farmers about the issue of US agricultural subsidies, and ask them whether they think the US really wants to give up control of trade. (Of course the EU is just as bad)

As always in politics, it's not a double standard, it's just the ignoble single standard of "what's best for us".

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

[LucidBeast]

The whole consept of US controlling the internet is just silly, pretty much like trying to push with a rope. US can control internet on its territory, but the truth is that outside of that it is international agreements that steal the show. If EU with help from rest of the world decide (foolishly I might add IMO) to have their own DNS system nothing prevents them. Even existing .com .net etc. domains could be taken over. It would be crazy to do this of course.

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?

Re:Stop This "Control The Internet" Nonsens

[Shotgun]

Imagine what could happen to a country like Estonia if someone pulled their root server plug.

If they have set up there DNS servers correctly, noone but a few sys-admins would notice anything at all. The response of the sysadmins would be, "Well, would you look at that?"

Please learn SOMETHING about DNS before posting hysterical drivel. Domain resolution is a hierchal process. A TLD going down should have no immediate, and very little longterm impact. Why didn't Estonia reference a backup server located France, India, ? Estonia already has complete control over the Estonian CC domain (es? Sorry, I don't have the cc domain for every country memorized), and could set their servers to simply not resolve anything except CC's for countries they liked. An Estonian admin could do it all in less time than it would take to eat lunch.

In short, this whole brouhaha is a symbolic 'chip-on-the-shoulder' pissing match between some politicians, with absolutely no real world consequence except some pompous strutting for the local constituents.

Lawmakers?

[shine-shine]

Shouldn't that read "U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet" ?

Re:Lawmakers?

[Jesus_666]

No, Congress makes the laws for the entire world. You see, laws are America's #1 export good. This is also the reason for the EU's progressively worsening legal situation. *g*

Global Control of the NETWORK!!

[Jormundgard]

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

Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet?

[Daath]

Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet?!
I am quite sure that if you ask some of the lawmakers in Europe, they will disagree with you :P
Makes it sound like they only make laws in the US.

Define "control".

[khasim]

Really, no one is talking about taking the Internet away from the US.

What is in question is what nation/organization should have the final say over the domain assignments, creation and so forth.

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

Re:Define "control".

[Wyatt Earp]

Well if the UN Security Council for example controls it, you think China, France, UK and Russia will be more in favor of a xxx TLD? Or lets say Iran, China, US, UK, Tunisia, Thailand and Cuba are deciding, you think it'll happen then?

The nation/organization that should have final say at this point, is the one that does have the final say right now.

Re:Define "control".

[teh kurisu]

I guess some countries (France, say) could be worried if the US decides to pull its control over the .fr TLD as a political measure (for say, refusing to support them in other wars of questionable legality).

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!

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Anonymous Coward]

And Europe invented HTTP. If you have a problem with that, feel free to cease all use of it.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Hope Thelps]

And who uses the Internet the most? It's the US, is it not?

Do you have any supporting stats? (I don't have any to contradict you; I'm genuinely curious as to whether there's any support for your claim).

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[LordEd]

And who uses the Internet the most?

Greetings and love to you in the name of the most high God, from my beloved country Nigeria. I am sorry and I solicit your permission into your privacy. I am Barrister Richard Okoya, lawyer to the late Ibrahim Abacha eldest son of the late former head of state of Nigeria late General Sani Abacha.

My former client late Ibrahim Abacha died in a plane crash in the year 1994. Upon the death of my former client and unknown to the family that is currently under house arrest and undergoing prosecution in the hands of the present administration as a result of human right violation and looting of the country's treasury by the late head of state General Sani Abacha.

Before the death of my client he had deposited the deed to the world wide Internet in a secret safe deposit box, and I am the only authority to this property which he was to transfer out of the country few days after he died in a plane crash.

In order to sell the deed, I must transfer it along with other valuable property to another country. As a sign of good faith, I will transfer a suitably large amount of money to an account of your choice in order for you to make security arrangements.

With this information I will immediately commence all necessary documentation for a successful shipment of the trunk box and money to your country of choice as all the modalities have already been worked out by me. I will also give you full details of this whole transaction which I have already perfected in due course.

Please note that you are to treat this with utmost confidentiality willing or not willing to assist me in this transaction as nobody knows about this deed and I am still an active lawyer in this country.

Remain blessed in the name of GOD.
Yours faithfully Barrister Richard Okoya

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[mah!]

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

OK, so let's follow your logic this way:

• you (?) invented the DNS, so you keep control over it.
• somebody else invented the Web elsewhere, so you'll have NO control over it.

It seems that we have a deal.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Rob_Ogilvie]

No, I don't - but I thought it sounded good. :-)

It's not a necessary part of my argument, though.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Hope Thelps]

No, I don't - but I thought it sounded good. :-)

*Grin* Thanks for the straight answer.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Rob_Ogilvie]

The US isn't talking about taking away the Internet from the rest of the world. Indeed, I don't think we have the resources to do that. The US merely wishes to continue controlling this vital asset to our economy and day to day lives... that oh by the way we invented and have controlled since its inception.

You can hardly compare the hypertext transport protocol with The Internet. There's no need for a central governing body for HTTP, deciding who can use what parts of it. Your comparison of HTTP and the Internet is akin to rubber and automobiles. Somebody needs to manage laws regarding automobiles... and oh by the way, they use rubber. If you're going to control automobiles because you invented them, then I shall take away rubber, which I invented!

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Rob_Ogilvie]

Does the US control the "World Wide Web" though? I don't think anybody does... similar to how nobody really controls HTTP. DNS is centralized, it needs some control... comparing it to "The Web" is comparing apples to oranges.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Anonymous Coward]

A "BAD idea" is an understatement. 1 cent per e-mail is "negligible"? We're talking billions of dollars here, and the bigger issue is the UN collecting taxes from private citizens. This is a VERY dangerous road to go down.

Oh, and when did the need for "universal access" to the internet outweigh the need to eat, or the need to survive malaria, or the need to remove corrupt governments? This is a power play by the UN; plain and simple.
~Arik

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Hope Thelps]

Does the US control the "World Wide Web" though? I don't think anybody does... similar to how nobody really controls HTTP. DNS is centralized, it needs some control... comparing it to "The Web" is comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed. However, perhaps that does help draw attention to the relatively sensible issue of 'DNS needs some control, so what is the best structure to provide that control' and away from 'we built it so we have the RIGHT to control it', which some people seem to be focusing on while giving the impression of much frothing of mouths.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[headLITE]

You might find the following link useful.

CERN on WWW

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[VJ42]

For the majority of non-technical people, http\the world wide web is the internet. See how far American (or any other) bussinees and commerce would get on the internet without it.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[mah!]

Tim Berners-Lee indeed wrote the first browser. The Web, URLs, HTML and HTTP have all been invented at CERN, by Tim Berners-Lee and others. See for example:

• The original proposal of the WWW
• HTTP, HTML and URLs
• History of the WWW

Therefore, following the logic shown by the above author when saying We *did* invent the damned thing... it is ours, there's no good reason to give it away! CERN should not have 'given away' control over WWW right?
Perhaps they ought to have patented the whole thing and prevent others from using it freely?

What about telephone? Who maintains world-wide numbering?

I am actually curious to see what yet another narrow-minded, self-serving isolationism will do to further the widening drift between the world and a certain country.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[Zerth]

The internet was a much nicer place before the Europeans cluttered it up with http.

Less visually impressive, but nicer. /posted with telnet

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea

[fallen1]

If, for some reason, the U.N. did try and tax the internet and/or e-mail my suggestion would be simple: revolt. Create alternate DNS servers that are not under the control of the U.N. and use them. Then use civil disobedience and tell them to stuff their fucking bill for my "taxes" on the 'net up their collective ass. If the U.N. wants to collect taxes from me, let them invade the United States and collect it from me. Have fun with that!

Look, I may not like a lot of the things my government has done lately but the one thing I have never really complained about was control of the DNS/Internet/etc. since ICANN is strictly HANDS OFF, completely laissez-faire (hey! the French should side with us on that point alone :-p) and it has worked - for the most part. There are wide-ranging bastions of free speech on the web, adult websites doing thriving businesses, Nazis, neo-Nazis, devout Christians, Islamists, Hindus, and many, many others out there on the web saying what they want to say to anyone who will read their site. Generally without restrictions. Isn't that one of the major reasons for the web today?

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".

Re:I don't get it

[dajak]

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?

Not if the US recognizes the sovereignty of other peoples in this matter. There is nothing the US can do to stop other countries developing the same WMD the US has, right? There is nothing the US can do to stop other countries from legislating patents and copyright however they like, right? There is nothing the US can do to stop other countries from trading resources in whatever currency they like, right? As a matter of fact the US does claim jurisdiction on many issues it has no prima facie jurisdiction over.

Other nations are simply worried about the latent potential the US has for exercising control over the Internet, given the current way root DNS servers are administered. Taking away that latent potential is trivial on a technical level. By actively asserting 'control of the Internet' - meaning that the US apparently does NOT accept the freedom of other nations to regulate their communications infrastructure as they like - the US government proves that they are right to be worried.

If I share my internet subscription with my neighbour, over his phone line, and we get into a major conflict because I want an independent connection, then I do have reason to be worried about what he is doing with the Internet traffic I generate, right?

Re:I don't get it

[Sloppy]

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

It's not the text that they want control of; they want to control what the default/unconsidered content that the text refers to. They want packets that are addressed to the machines in that are already listed in that text, to be routed to machines that are under their control. There's no point in establishing a new root if the only people who use it, are people who care. They want the people who don't care to use their root.

If people would actively participate in democracy (and by that, I mean if sysadmins would actually stop and think, "What root do I want to use?") then political maneuvering of this kind, would be useless.

Re:I don't get it

[FhnuZoag]

That's like saying that anyone who dislikes the currents US admin should just emigrate.

The point is that in the long term, the current way of things is untenable. If nothing is done, then the situation will indeed degrade into small, fragmented national internets, with everyone living in their own information bubble. The EU/UN plan is to build a compromise that will hold things reasonably close to the status quo, and make it unlikely for nations to break off the internet entirely.

Re:I don't get it

[NotoriousQ]

Finally, at least one person gets close.

In reality this squablle is all about which country gets to select the company gets to manage the .com .org and .net.

This apparantly provides a giant source money to the company. What this means is Europe is highly jealous that ICANN is used as a giant kickback machine to Verisign, and they want a piece of that.

Frankly I am highly disappointed in Slashdotters who apparently have no clue how the internet works, and are willing to make an issue of political profiteering into something that apparently matters to the average geek. I see the US side going -- we invented it, so we get to keep it. And the EU side claiming that since the US has a bad human rights record, it should not administer the DNS root.

WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE!

Nothing is happening. The internet is not fragmenting. No one is blocking anything. The only thing that happened is that someone in Europe decided to get a piece of the root domain pie.

Fine. EU, get yourself a bunch of DNS roots, and run your own root file. I do not care. I will simply have an automatic resolver that lets me add .us if I want to use USDNS and .eu if I want to use EUDNS...and most everything will be as it was.

Every single comment I read, I cringe. Slashdotters need to get a brain.

Re:I don't get it

[the eric conspiracy]

This apparantly provides a giant source money to the company.

Not that giant. $4.25/year per address. Maybe on the order of $100 million per year.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[michaelzhao]

Don't be ridiculous. China will have absolutely no control of the Internet. As for China being the "next" empire. That is dubious, according to the CIA 15 year report, it will be the EU that will become the next superpower, economically, and militarily.

This is why this is issue is so significant. The US does not want to the EU to have anymore power than it does now. This classic showdown highlights US foreign policy. The US will win because of simple facts. The sheer amount of Tier 1 ISP's as US companies, Akamai is a US company, the ICANN is still in the US. And many major websites are US owned.

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.

A Non-US Opinion

[NewbieV]

Quoting from a recent editorial in The Ecomonist:

America has offered olive branches to its critics. This summer, it acknowledged that other countries have sovereignty over their national addresses, and said it would never disrupt the system (ie, kick France's .fr address offline). And, at the meeting last week in Geneva, it supported the idea of a forum in which all governments can discuss these matters in an "evolutionary process". That sounds like an excellent scheme: just as startling as the speed of technological development is the slowness of decision-making in international forums. If this move works, it should succeed in parking the issue harmlessly for many years.

Re:A Non-US Opinion

[malsdavis]

I agree entirely.

The whole issue seems a bit pointlessly theoretical now, however it would be naive to think the issue won't arise in the distant future (i.e. sometime over the next 50 years). Particularly in the case of emerging superpower like China and the EU.

I think the U.S. lawmakers are missing the point of the technology and of international politics entirely. There is nothing the U.S. can do to stop these Countries/Unions just using there own alternate servers/protocols which would in the long run be bad for everyone.

Such fragmentation is in a sense the one flaw with the internet which could destroy it as the international network we currently know. Just like other international treaties, internet control should therefor be handed to the U.N. so that no country can shout 'Foul play' at the U.S. and try and split the internet up which is surely the most likely scenario (over the distant future) with the current setup.

Re:A Non-US Opinion

[Agripa]

I do not particularly disagree with you on these points but do have some comments.

There is nothing the U.S. can do to stop these Countries/Unions just using there own alternate servers/protocols . . .

If this is the case, why do they need permission? If they believe that they should be maintaining their own DNS servers then maybe they should start doing so. They could even make the use of their servers manditory by their citizens. To me, it sounds more like they want excersize direct control over how U.S. citizens use the internet.

Just like other international treaties, internet control should therefor be handed to the U.N. so that no country can shout 'Foul play' at the U.S. and try and split the internet up which is surely the most likely scenario (over the distant future) with the current setup.

How does handing control over to the U.N. prevent this problem?

Re:A Non-US Opinion

[malsdavis]

If this is the case, why do they need permission?

This is the very point, they don't need permission!
But if countries like China setup their own systems without the "permission" of the U.S. it is unlikely that the competing systems will interact the way they do now. With the example above of .tw domains, it would be bad for taiwan and the entire world if half the internet (i.e. the west) see one set of .tw domains and the other (the middle and far east for example) see another set.

"How does handing control over to the U.N. prevent this problem?"

It may not be a failsafe, utopian solution but the U.N. has maintained peace among the world's most powerful nations/unions for 60 years now. Historically that is pretty much unheard of. The U.N. has for decades been dealing with far more contentious issues than root server control and so should be quite equipped for the task of overlooking ICANN.

Re:A Non-US Opinion

[Canuck_TV]

it acknowledged that other countries have sovereignty over their national addresses, and said it would never disrupt the system

because american politicians have never been known to flip-flop on this sort of thing when the going gets tough. Its a trust issue, and right now there isn't any.

Re:A Non-US Opinion

[lifer_red]

"Parking the issue harmlessly" ... except for costing all of us some more tax in debating the thing between expensive lawyers and civil servants!

Re: A Non-US Opinion

[sparre]

If USA hadn't kicked a whole country's DNS off-line before, the promise in the Economist might be credible. But since but ".dk" has been taken off-line once by USA for not paying for the domain, I don't really trust such a promise.

/Jacob

PS: No, the countries do not pay for their domains.

Re:A Non-US Opinion

[malsdavis]

The whole U.S. - Iraq thing is quite small pants for the U.N.

Sure it receives a lot of english-speaking media attention (just like everything to do with the U.S., take hurricane Wilma which has just destroyed parts of Mexico yet the media focus is on its approaching Florida!) but it is really just another case of a bigger country picking on a smaller country which sure, the U.N. doesn't really do a good job at, but such is quite an impossible task.

If it were a conflict between Superpowers like the U.S. and China or Russia now that would be a war the U.N. would be expected to prevent, and over the past 60 years it has done so qutie well I think.

Re:A Non-US Opinion

[malsdavis]

well duh, its the international standards and definitions and the contents of that all important 'text file' that everyone is talking about when they refer to the DNS servers.

Re:A Non-US Opinion

[malsdavis]

Right, so how exactly would China redirect .tw traffic if the U.S. did not agree to do so?

And how exactly is an internet "split" not a technically realistic scenario? China (soon to have more internet users than anyone else) and many middle-eastern countries already block many western sites.

Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[Nova Express]

How will we ever do without the UN's vaunted, impeccable integrity running the Internet? You know, that vaunted UN integrity displayed by their flawless management of Iraq's oil for food program. Or the great work they've done defending defenseless Africans in their care. Or the work of the UN Human Rights commission. Or their work preventing genocide in Sudan and Rwanda.

How can we possibly be safe without the UN controlling the Internet?

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[Jeff DeMaagd]

WorldNetDaily appears to be a fundementalist magazine, with editorials from Jerry Falwell and the like. Falwell was a racist and segregationist for a very long time if he still isn't and spouts quack stuff like trying to make a controversy like outing the "gay" Teletubby.

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[Troglodyt]

I was going to post a reply about the US in the same fashion, but I got a memory overflow when I tried to paste it...
Seriously, it's really silly when you post these things.

The UN does a heck of a lot of things, and only the US seem to be the ones not seeing they do a lot of good.

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[sfurious]

Slightly off-topic, but I still don't understand the US take on the UN. I mean, they are aware that they are part of it, yes?

The UN has made plenty of mistakes, I accept that. However, break the name down: "United Nations". It isn't an us and them thing, it's us and *us*. No, that doesn't mean that you'll agree with everything the rest of the UN says, or that the rest of the UN will agree with you. But current behavious looks approximately like the state of California deciding that the US government isn't worth paying any attention to.

Each UN member should feel free to disagree with the rest of the UN, and to reflect that in policy. I don't believe the UN has ever been about denying the sovereignty of its constituent nations. But for don't forget that each UN member, in conjunction with the rest *is* the UN, until they make a decision to leave.

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[drew]

While you have a point, the fact of the matter is that the U.S has 'controlled' the Internet up until now, and the worst complaints that anyone can levy against them so far is that they refuse to tax it and they refuse to block access to sites that some people deem unnacceptable.

Along the same lines as "If it's not broke, don't fix it," the argument isn't whether the U.S. has demonstrated that it has impeccable integrity, but rather whether there is any other country or organization out there that has demonstrated that they would do better.

Of course it's popular to bash the U.S., even among many Americans, but doing so doesn't answer the real question that people against the current status quo need to address.

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[jadavis]

You assume the U.N. is representative of the people it claims to govern.

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[Rayonic]

How will we ever do without the US's vaunted, impeccable integrity running the Internet? You know, the vaunted US integrity displayed by their invasion of a sovereign country under false pretences? Or the great work they've done in helping combating racial poverty in their communities? Or the work of their high ranking politicians? Or their work in preventing the spread of fatal disease in Africa?

Wait, so...

• The U.S. resumed the Gulf War, after the decade-long ceasefire was repeatedly broken.
• Some people constantly look for racism where none exists.
• A politician is going to trial instead of bribing his way out of it.
• Abortion has nothing to do with stopping AIDS, so record-breaking anti-AIDS funding shouldn't go towards it.

Add that to the fact that the U.S. has been running the Internet's DNS since its inception, and you're both petty and wrong.

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[linguae]

Oh please, anti-American socialist troll. What does war, "racism," and the US not giving money to a country that isn't even in their control have to do with the US and the Internet?

I'm really getting sick and tired of all of these anti-American trolls coming out of the woodwork saying that the US is the most evil thing since Satan.

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity

[sfurious]

In the same way an approximate assumption is made that the US government is representative of the people it claims to govern.

If the US people wish their country to pull out of the UN, they should make that view clear. For the moment though, they don't seem to be doing that, because they'd first have to recognise that they are a part of it.

Re:History

[firegate]

Wrong.. even when they give us foreign aid, they still don't like us.. but that's no reason for us to be a bunch of pussies and give away control of something that we built..

HAhahahahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my gosh... where to begin. Yes, Iran and North Korea suddenly decided to develop WMD's because of the Bush administration... years before it began. They must have good psychics over there.

Re:HAhahahahahaha

[Homology]

Oh my gosh... where to begin. Yes, Iran and North Korea suddenly decided to develop WMD's because of the Bush administration... years before it began. They must have good psychics over there.

Yeah, sure, Iran has as much WMD as Iraq had. But hey, you only watch Fox "news", right?

Re:HAhahahahahaha

[Homology]

Yeah, Iran needs a nuclear power plant because they're not sitting on a ton of oil as a cheap energy source.

Oh my God, even for an AC you're not that bright. WMD != Molotov cocktails.

Re:HAhahahahahaha

[CDPatten]

Well actually JAckass, unlike Iraq, Iran public states it has a nuke program. They claim its only for energy, and they must be telling the truth, seeing how they sit on the worlds second largest oil supply.

Re:HAhahahahahaha

[DesireCampbell]

Wow, great job being an asshole. and CNN is much better now than it was a few years ago, but FOX still puts Bill ORilley on TV.

Re:HAhahahahahaha

[jadavis]

I don't think it's in dispute that Iraq had WMDs at some time. The dispute is about whether there was a credible threat at the time we invaded.

Re:HAhahahahahaha

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

By the time US invaded, Iraq had not had WMD for 10 years. They where destroyed after the first Iraqi war.

Re:HAhahahahahaha

[IgnoramusMaximus]

They claim its only for energy, and they must be telling the truth, seeing how they sit on the worlds second largest oil supply.

Perhaps they know something about the state of their oil reserves that you don't. Perhaps they feel that in the upcoming peak oil scenario their best bet is to a) have alternate sources of energy for themselves as to make maximum use of exportable black gold, b) have nukes to defend themselves from the inevietable, desperate attempts at grabbing that oil by the addicted and suffering from severe withdrawal effects, junkie Western countries and China to boot, c) are afraid of their Israeli and US enemies who have both nukes and have been proven beyond any doubt to be regional aggressors, complete with use of the utterly prepostrous, Hitler-like excuse of "pre-emption". Not to mention the past history of US encouragement of Saddam's war on Iran and to begin with, CIA's destruction of the democratic government of Iran and replacement of thereof with the Shah. Just you ponder this wee, little, and quite incomplete list before you start calling people Jackasses, you uninformed troglodyte.

It's spelled LEGISLATOR

[55555 Manbabies!]

Thanks.

IT'S A LITTLE FUCKING LATE FOR THAT!

[blair1q]

America spent a trillion dollars building the internet economy, and then this Congress and President shipped it to China and India.

Fuck them.

Trying to kiss our ass by keeping control of the root servers is not going to save their jobs in 2006 and 2008.

What a surprise!

[whathappenedtomonday]

Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet

Of course they do, they are U.S. lawmakers. Ask a different Government for different results. D'oh!

No new arguments here, just another "We want it all and We deserve it" statement. Not very helpful.

Free spech...

[marcosdumay]

It is interesting to see that U.S. says that it is defendding free spech, while U.N. says exactly the same, that it is defending freedom of expression (check here)...

Very interesting, because freedom of speech for U.N. seems to be: "We want a rich public domain and no government looking into our conversation.", and for U.S., it seems to be: "If they make racism illegal, the next one will be porn.". I can see why U.S. government is concerned by the U.N. idea of free speech, but I can't see how U.S. people can't realize that the second argument is a non sequitur.

Also, I loved that phrase:
"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"

Let's forget that the U.S. viewed today as exaclty a country with problematic human-rights records and questionable taxation practices! Let's blame the rest of the World for those thigs.

Re:Free spech...

[McSmithster]

I think your missing a huge point. The UN does not seem to care about what China does but yet the Americans drop a bomb on the wrong house and the world freaks out. There are some serious double standards when it comes to America.

  -Iraq commits genocide, barely makes the news.
  -US soldier kills innocent people by accident; whole world hears about it and screams at the US.
  -China censors its Internet; UN does nothing nor says anything.
  -US invades a country for invalid reasons and people flip out; they have good reason too.
  - However, France has hundreds to thousands of troops in the Middle East for even less reasons then the US; barely even heard about.
  -France was almost charged with genocide, and is the reason why they stopped their nuclear testing; barely makes the news.
  - Women stoned to death in Iran because it is believed she cheated on her husband; not a single word of it reaches anybody.
  - US troops die in a bombing and the whole world tells the US, "hey thats what you get"
  - China imprisons/kills someone who attempts free speech on the Internet; no one even knows his name.

No country in innocent. Countries all across Europe and Asia do evil things everyday. The difference is that those countries will imprison reporters who say anything about it. In America, the government doesn't do that and when they do the public freak out on them. See the difference. Europe has done just as many horrific things as the US you just never hear about them. Socialism is a wonderful thing no?? Your country could be killing hundreds of innocents right now and no one would no. The US does it and the whole world knows. That seems a bit unfair, no?

Re:Free spech...

[VJ42]

Your country could be killing hundreds of innocents right now and no one would no[sic].

I think you'll find that most Europian countries have as good as if not better human rights records than the USA*, hell we won't even extradite murders to the USA if they're charged with the death peanalty; every western democracy apart from the USA has abolished it and considers it barbaric. We still have a free media here in the UK, and if my country was killing its civilians I would have heard about it. We have a robust democracy here, the judicary still stands up to the executive; just see how pi$$ed the government was when recent anti-terror legislation was considered unlawful (it was our equivelent of Guantanimo, just look up Bellmarsh detainees on google)

*in modern times, i live near a pub that's older than your country, so I'm sure unsavory things can be brought up from our history.

Re:Free spech...

[McSmithster]

Umm, sorry, I wasn't talking about the UK. I was more referring to mainland countries. You do know youre like one of the few British that thinks themselves actually European. Every British guy I know does not consider Britain to be part of Europe. By the way I'm not American. I just find it odd that so many Europeans use human rights against America when it can be used against them as well. I agree with you in that human rights are not really a valid argument to be used in this circumstance but yet both sides bring it up time and time again. The politicians are just using human rights issues as an excuse to gain support of their citizens. In truth, its utter bullshit because in no way can the EU, USA or China claim human rights as a valid argument when each are guilty. I have a feeling the reasons behind this are not so clean cut. Whether it is censorship, taxation, or some trading agreement. You must remember that the EU was late to the game on this one so its kind of odd that the EU would choose to back up China, Iran, Egypt and North Korea for no reason. The EU didnt even want to get involved originally, save France. Sounds kind of fishy to me.

Re:Free spech...

[trynis]

The UN does not seem to care about what China does but yet the Americans drop a bomb on the wrong house and the world freaks out.

That's because we hold you to higher standards. When the U.S. doesn't live up to it's standard, it's newsworthy. Lately the U.S. has been in the news alot.

Re:Free spech...

[BgJonson79]

If everyone is equal, why hold the US up to higher standards? Or is the US better than most?

Re:Free spech...

[i_am_not_a_bomba]

I live in Australia and have heard of most of the things on that list through our mainstream media.

I hardly think you can blame Europe or whatever for your own countries ignorant & impotent media coverage of the world.

Not to mention that for the last 40 years the American propoganda machine (hollywood & media) have been screaming to the western world that America is the 'leader of the free world' the 'freest and fairest country in the world' and 'better than your countries', etc ,etc (of course before the internet most of the people i know thought that was just a fabricated attitude and the actual citizens of America would be more pragmatic about their position in the world, fuck were we wrong). So when the self proclaimed leader, the 'god of all countries', starts doing fucked up shit, then yeah people will talk about it.

Btw nice tactic associating the idea of press cencorship with socialism and European countries without actually saying it, learn that from your current political administration? The press is just as free to report on the government in France as it is in Australia, the US, New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Sweden and most of the other western coutries in the world.

It saddens me that you actually seem to believe the words you speak, the pooor US gets bullied so much in the big bad world, boohoo. Seriously, can't you see why the things are the way they are? If someone continually carries on about how they are the greatest person in the world, better than everyone else and makes disturbingly ignorant arguments about other people and why he is better than them, normal people will think that person is a wanker. See what i'm getting at? That person is the US for the last 40 years.

This line is probably the best:

"your country could be killing hundreds of innocents right now and no one would no"

You mean no one in the US right, because the US media wont give it air time? Please dont take this the wrong way but get it through your thick bloody head that there is people outside the US that *will* know, and that it's not other countries fault if *your* insipid whorish media won't give world news more air time.

Your entire argument is that because *you* don't hear about world issues that means every other country must be living under some jackboot of oppression. I should feel annoyed at such stupidity, but i've come to accept it as just typical American IgnoranceTM.

Re:Free spech...

[phok]

I think it's important to note that when the world/media/whoever stops finding problems with the US government, then we will have a serious problem. The government will never be perfect, and there will always be someone that starts parading against it. If this does stop, there's a problem with free speech somewhere. Although I do wish that everyone would get off their high horse when pouncing on US transgressions: it happens to even the best governments.

Re:Free spech...

[trynis]

If everyone is equal, why hold the US up to higher standards?

Everyone isn't equal. We (people in other democratic states) hold the U.S. to higher standards than e.g. China, Cuba, Iran, etc. Bad behaviour by bad states is just what we expect. Bad behaviour by good states is news.

Or is the US better than most?

Many used to think that the U.S. was better than [insert your favourite rogue regime here], but recent events has made many of them reconsider.

On the other hand, as long as bad behaviour by the U.S. is headline news, there is not too much to worry about. As soon as that behaviour is so commonplace that it doesn't make the headlines, then it is time to be really worried.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[Anonymous Coward]

the simple fact is that more Europeans do business with US companies than American's doing business with European companies.

So American companies have more to lose than European companies in any trade conflict? Somehow that doesn't seem comforting.

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.

Re:Black hole calling the kettle black

[Gibsnag]

Do neutral sources for anything exist?

Re:Black hole calling the kettle black

[the eric conspiracy]

I call bullshit. Amnesty International issues reports like this on every nation in the world. Most are far worse in content that the ones covering North America.

Re:Black hole calling the kettle black

[palfrey]

So? They still have a problematic human-rights record, and it's getting *worse* not better. Most of the major injustices (Guantanamo Bay for example) didn't exist 5 years ago, and so far every new break of international law isn't getting fixed later on. The biggest problem is that the USA is getting away with a lot of this stuff, mainly because it's the 400 pound gorilla right now.

Replacing the USA's role in the internet with an impartial UN-backed body would also avoid the problem of global choices being made here according to the opinions of a vocal minority of US citizens, as opposed to by the bloody committee that's meant to decide these matters.

Re:Black hole calling the kettle black

[the eric conspiracy]

The biggest problem is that the USA is getting away with a lot of this stuff

And what nation doesn't get away with this? This sort of finder pointing is baloney.

Replacing the USA's role in the internet with an impartial UN-backed body would also avoid the problem of global choices being made here

More baloney. All it would do is replace one set of masters with a different set, and since the primary agitators for this are countries like China and the Middle Eastern theocracies there is no way you can legitimately state that things will be getting better. Not to mention the UN proposals to tax email and domain names to fund universal connectivity (or corruption).

What should be done is to take the approach of diversity rather than centralized control. Divy up the IPv6 address space and let every nation have a piece. Grandfather the existing non-country TLDs with the US and then let the countries that want the the UN to pick TLDs make their own bed to lie in. Others would be free to continue with the US or to roll their own. The result will be a diversity of choices and a redudundancy that will do more to insure the free flow of knowledge than any central authority could.

Those that play nice will prosper, those that don't won't.

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:It's about policing thought

[headLITE]

If the UN allows Libya to be a voting member and you think the US is better than that because they wouldn't, I'd say the UN is more tolerant than the US regardless of the attitudes its member nations.

Re:It's about policing thought

[grimJester]

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.

You see no contradiction here whatsoever? Yeah, fine, mod me down. But do it in a tolerant way.

Re:It's about policing thought

[wheelbarrow]

Yes, you are right. The UN is more tolerant of a system of government where it is a capital crime to advocate free and open elections. Try moving to Libya, starting a newspaper, and write daily editorials advocating the replacement of Ghadafi with a freely elected president.

It's bizarre to me that you think tolerance means that we must embrace intolerance.

Re:It's about policing thought

[linguae]

That's the problem with the UN and democracy. People care so much about "tolerance" and "fairness" and "the principles of democracy" that they forget the most important thing for people: freedom.

Democracy doesn't do any good when you can't say what you want or read what you want on the Internet because China and Cuba are controlling the thing, just because "we have to tolerate diversity of ideas." No!

I want a private corporation or private organization to control the Internet, and not any governmental organization. Not the US (even though their control has been great), not the EU, and definately not the UN or China/Iraq/N. Korea/{insert other communist/totalitarian country here}. The Interet is about freedom of expression, freedom of ideas, and freedom of speech. I will not give that up in the name of "tolerance," "democracy," and other political buzzwords that democracy-lovers throw at me.

Remember, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for lunch. Do you really want the wolves guarding the sheep pen? Or do you want the sheep to be able to be free? We need freedom, not evil totalitarian countries deciding what free people should do.

Re:It's about policing thought

[wheelbarrow]

I agree completely. You have exposed headLIGHT's argument as ridiculous junk without backbone or moral value. He will not reply. Nay, he will not because he knows he is defeated.

Re:It's about policing thought

[wheelbarrow]

I don't see a contradiction. Please point it out to me.

Re:It's about policing thought

[headLITE]

Actually, I don't want anybody controlling it. It is entirely possible to remove all dependencies on centralized control structures from the internet as it is now. Even IANA as an authority that assigns IP addresses to regional authorities could be dropped. Maybe some of these changes aren't feasible until IPv6 is in widespread use, but they're definitely not out of reach.

Information wants to be free..

[klang]

..or that doesn't apply today?

The important thing is to have a DNS root Server everybody in the world, no matter their political point of view, can trust. When politicians (and especially presidents) starts to be interested in the "universal guidebook", no wonder people start loosing faith in the system.

Today, The Internet is not DARPA it is not American. It's international, global, something more that we all need in our daily lives.

The more US politicians, US lawmakers and US presidents tighten their grip and insists on control of The Internet, the more likely it is, that they will loose.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[H_Fisher]

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

And just think of all the fun Internet content we're missing out on because of that:

www.WaffleHouseWaitresses.xxx
www.JanetReno.xxx
www.OverweightDeerHuntersFromAlabama.xxx
www.Skin nyMetrosexualsWhoThinkGirlsAreImpressedByHomemadeP orn.xxx

If it keeps THAT kind of smut off the web, then by God I hope we keep control for a long, long time!

Re:U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of $WHATEVE

[myowntrueself]

Is there really any news here?

Nothing to see here, move along please, or Officer Bar-Brady will have to execute you with a gunshot to the head.

Next the news will be 'congress approves US bombing brown people', well *duh*.

;)

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.

The genie is out of the bottle...

[dpbsmith]

...and Congress isn't going to be able to stuff it back.

U. S. control of the Internet is about as likely as U. S. control of the atomic bomb was during the fifties.

The U. S. can certainly mess things up, and, along with other countries, partially fragment the Internet. Usually it is undemocratic countries like China that do things like this. The main effect will be to partially deny U. S. citizens access to the rest of the world, and restrict the ability of small and medium-sized U. S. businesses to do business overseas.

It is a negative-sum game, the opposite of synergy; it will hurt the world a bit and it will hurt the U. S. more than it hurts the rest of the world. But if the U. S. prefers a chaotic Internet to a harmonious Internet it is certainly capable of achieving that result.

WWTBLD?

[Slashdiddly]

No really - what would Tim Berners Lee do?

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[ericdano]

You forgot HillaryClinton.xxx, and MonicaLewinsky.xxx ;-)

Re:U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of $WHATEVE

[merdaccia]

perl: warning: capitalization of name main::$WHATEVER implies constant value

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.

Re:Let the sanctions commence...

[killjoe]

You don't have to wait for that. You could simply stop buying US made products. That would get the message across. Imagine the phone calls the CEO of coke and nike would make to the president if their overseas sales fell off by 20% or more. You can bet your ass the US govt would behave differently after getting spanked by their corporate masters.

So just reach for the localy made soda instead of coke and locally made shoes instead of nike. You will be helping your local companies grow and you will be helping to get US policy changed.

It's not that hard people, how you spend your money is more important then how you vote or how you protest.

Re:Let the sanctions commence...

[James_Aguilar]

The parent is an exercise in futility. It will never happen; why bother talking about it?

Re:Let the sanctions commence...

[lifer_red]

Wow - Oliverthered drinks 20% of Coke overseas sales - all hail!

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[Jesus_666]

Why poison DNS servers? We'll just use our own. I can very much imagine the DNS network being replaced by multiple regional, separate DNSes. This won't be good for the Internet, but it's not like there's anything to keep it from happening.

Wheee. And life goes on.

[ichigo 2.0]

Anyone else think all this useless diplomatic handwrestling about the "control" of the internet is quite utterly useless (if someone starts to censor things or whatever, I'm the first in line to start my own linux boxen to take care of all my home network DNS needs)?

Wish the opensource community developed a distributed system so we could all give the finger to the man trying to bring our internets down. :P

Indeed. BUILD YOUR OWN!

[renehollan]

Everying to build an internet is out there, in the open. (Well, some of the protocols used over it might be patented, but still).

Build your own!

But, this is really mostly about the DNS name to address mapping though and, to a lesser degree, about traffic filtering.

That's rather like France complaining that the international dialing prefix for the U.S., Canada, and a few other North American countries is a convenient 1, or that they can't assign me a telephone number or even an area code because I live in Washington state.

Nothing stops any other country or consortium of countries from setting up their own root DNS servers and, if they want, mapping some TLD understood by their servers to he "U.S.-centric" name space, stripping thair funky TLD (though it ceases to be a distributed name service, then, as they'd have to proxy that mapping -- serves them right -- or not interoperate at all.

What's really scary is the degree to which the politicos "just don't get it".

If anything, base internet technology is the most free form of information out there: not kept secret, and not encumbered by patents.

Argument

[salmonz]

"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.

Don't you think that will include the USA as well? (US soliders burning Iraqi bodies, police beatings caught on tape, journalists being prosecuted, IRS taking almost half of anything). An the Internet is not exactly a thriving medium. It's only in the infancy stage where the true potential is still yet to be unleashed. With all that fibre unlit, beaurocacy really speaks loudly there.

Re:Who's got the Nuke?

[scottv67]

Ha ha ha! Excellent post. I wish I had not wasted all of my mod points earlier today on that "light the boat on fire with mirrors" story. :^) -s

Is anyone surprised?

[Junior J. Junior III]

If US lawmakers could seize control over meatspace through legislative fiat, they'd be in favor of that, too. The real question is, how are they going to enforce the rest of the world not forking the internet into a disparate, regionalized network of networks with borders?

Re:Is anyone surprised?

[Junior J. Junior III]

It wouldn't bother me terribly to see that happen, and we might even see a dramatic drop in spam at least for a while. But my point was, it's pretty arrogant for US lawmakers to think that they can tell the rest of the world, "No, OUR internet!" when their servers and their wires are all in their jurisdiction. How do we expect to be able to enforce that we're going to maintain control of DNS when that is the case? There's nothing to stop other countries from doing whatever the hell they want, and most of them probably will sooner rather than later if we try to push them around.

How surprising!

[A.K.A_Magnet]

New flash! US lawmakers want to keep US Internet control...! As do US administration and government! And for all those "ARPA is American", well, the Web is European. I wonder where the Internet would be today without the Web as we know it (there would be some kind of replacement, for sure, but would it be open and free? And maybe it would just have appeared).

Get your facts straight. The Internet is an international progress and profits to everyone. I haven't participated a "DNS control" topic yet, but I'm posting now since I find it really childish that American slashdotters are so reluctant to ONLY let countries manage their own ccTLD, and let ITU manage the gTLD (for the better interest of everyone, since for now the Bush administration is completely corrupted by VeriSign for .com and .net TLDs.. And we all remember the dreadly wildcard).

The ITU managing root DNS servers doesn't mean that the U.N will get to decide everything and that Chinese will have a say. And even if they did, why not? The U.N. privilegdes democratic thoughts, e.g Free Software (FOSS) is recognized by UNESCO, an U.N. branch? ITU has already managed discussions on IPv6 and is a very prominent actor in the world of networking and communication.

All in all, the US letting the U.N. manage the Internet won't change what we love in the Internet, but it will prevent bad political choices (e.g VeriSign having gTLDs that are supposedly ran as Public Service), and it is just the way it should be. And stop those redundants "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's not about fixing it, it's about making things equal. The Internet was made by all (maybe not by country still in development who couldn't possibily help, but does it mean we should say fuck to Africa when it wants to have some input in the future of our great *HUMAN* network?). Oh, forget it, Slashdotters are sometimes so conservative I don't know why I'm posting. Certainly going to burn some karma and getting tons of replies of how wrong I am and how we should just cut the transatlantic optic fibers so we won't bother each others anymore. Sorry, but I enjoy the American Internet. And I enjoy the European Internet. And without those peerings, it would feel like cold war. Think about it: Back in 1991, Linux would have had to be sent to the US by traditionnal mail (yeah, it was developped in Finland). Now that would have been bad for all of us, wouldn't it?

I don't care much about the issue. The US have not managed the root DNS servers too badly, except for the VeriSign crap (but the .org is now managed by SPI, a great German ISP really "for the public interest"). So now let's get a big hug ;) And hope nothing bad happens, I'd hate not to be able to read Slashdot, and for sure, everyone here would miss my INSIGHT ;) (HAHAHAHA).

Re:How surprising!

[grimJester]

All in all, the US letting the U.N. manage the Internet won't change what we love in the Internet, but it will prevent bad political choices (e.g VeriSign having gTLDs that are supposedly ran as Public Service), and it is just the way it should be.

It will prevent unilateral political choices, but as every Slashdotter should know by now "managing" the Internet is not possible. Only the DNS system can be controlled by a central authority. Censorship only works if every single country in the world agrees to crack down on ISPs hosting the stuff to censor. This will only work with child porn and (hopefully) spam.

Re:How surprising!

[A.K.A_Magnet]

It will prevent unilateral political choices, but as every Slashdotter should know by now [wikipedia.org] "managing" the Internet is not possible. Only the DNS system can be controlled by a central authority. Censorship only works if every single country in the world agrees to crack down on ISPs hosting the stuff to censor. This will only work with child porn and (hopefully) spam.

And you found out by reading my message that I knew, else I wouldn't have been talking about the root DNS servers. Anyway that was a shortcut to speak of the Internet control, of course. The problem here is that people seem to forget how bad ICANN management was/is. The only thing they did great was their battle with VeriSign, but VeriSign did sue them. They don't have the shoulders to keep the DNS system clean. That's why I'm all for an ITU managed ICANN. Nothing would change, except that countries could manage their ccTLD and gTLDs registries would be decided without polical affiliation or money (see VeriSign money in Bush campaign) but because it's the obvious choice for the public interest.

All the "Internet is American" post push us away from the debate. The computer was designed by an english (Alan Turing), and the first computer was french! Even if people don't know. And we would be nowhere without Greeks and Arabs for their maths. The Internet is an international achievement. It seems normal it is internationally managed.

Re:How surprising!

[Zerth]

> Web is European. I wonder where the Internet would be today
> without the Web as we know it

There would be a lot less idiots using it.

Re:How surprising!

[A.K.A_Magnet]

I get it is a joke (at least partially). Certainly, I too miss the good old days of the free and ads-free Internet (and the early days of the Web). However, with all these idiots came good people too, and for example, the Free Software movement wouldn't be where it is without the Web, which is still an extraordinary medium (people got to discover so many things thanks to the Web). An the idiots would have come anyway. I think the Web is made so that you can choose what you see and read, so we can ignore idiots, but get insight from people who wouldn't have come on a comfy but reserved to a pseudo-elite Internet. It's much more difficult to ignore stupidity on TV and get only insight, without shutting it off completly.

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.

This is so funny....

[Rooked_One]

before, all incidents boiled down to "We, the united states have more nukes that you, so you do what I say!"

What's the US gonna do now? Nuke the enternut?

Paranoid? Yeah, right!

[SanityInAnarchy]

In terms of root level DNS, I can be just as sure that my query for "update.microsoft.com" is being directed from my DNS to the root level DNS as I can that my ISP is trustworthy and secure. And their ISP. And the root level DNS. And Microsoft's ISP....

And I feel very, very bad for anyone who's autoupdate works solely through DNS. DNS is subject to man-in-the-middle, as is HTTP, so you better at least have some signing happening. And if you have that signing, what exactly are you worried about that'd be worse without root DNS?

It is their job :)

[aepervius]

They are elected to give as much support/control as they can to their country/citizen.

Now a senator NOT supporting that the control of DNS server remain in the US hand, now that would be newsworthy.

Re:Who's got the Nuke?

[The Hobo]

Who's got most of the oil? <Insert Arabic country or Canada here>, not you.

                  --Ackbar

(Just pointing out how asinine the PP is, the Cold War is over)

DNS is NOT the Internet!

[Saggi]

The discussion is in regards to the root of the DNS. This is NOT the Internet! The Internet is composed of many technologies, where the DNS is only a minor one.

The most fundamental is the wire! This is not made by the US, but mostly telecompanies around the world. But also some WIFI and other free networks has been build.

The core technology is based on the TCP/IP. This is like telephone numbers. These are distributed all over the world as we speak and it would be close to impossible to break this up.

In regards to who made the Internet, it was based on some ideas made by the US army many years ago. But the net was not build by the US. It was mostly universities who had local networks that over time got connected to each other, slowly building the Internet. It is not the US who went to every country and implemented it locally. If the rest of the world disconnect from the US, US will be alone.

The most common feature of the Internet; the World Wide Web, was not an invention from US at all. It started in CERN, and was made to provide scientific results out to a large audience.

So what is the fuss about? If the DNS goes offline (or I chose to use my own), all I need to do is to find the IP's I'm looking for. Well that's what I did before the DNS was invented. And there is no one who can prevent me from distributing my own phonebook (DNS) today, ignoring the US root.

So control of the Internet? It's a joke! The Internet is extremely difficult to control. Anyone who thinks its possible doesn't live in the real world. They are probably more political orientated than having technically knowledge.

The Internet is fundamentally a collection of networks that various people, regions and countries has decided to connect together.

Re:DNS is NOT the Internet!

[Xarius]

The discussion is in regards to the root of the DNS. This is NOT the Internet! The Internet is composed of many technologies, where the DNS is only a minor one.

Excuse me whilst I cough into my hand and mutter the word bullshit. DNS is one of the most critical parts of the internet for everyday folk, and probably non-everday folk too. Do you really think anyone is capable of remember the IP addresses for 10 websites? How about 100? No?

It's a vital part of the internet. Sure everything would still work without it, although no one would be able to get anywhere without a big list of IP addresses that they need to maintain, with a description of what they are. Oh, wait. That's what DNS is.

Re:DNS is NOT the Internet!

[killjoe]

"The discussion is in regards to the root of the DNS. This is NOT the Internet! The Internet is composed of many technologies, where the DNS is only a minor one."

How sure are you that your senator understands the difference? Maybe they are indeed advocating controlling the internet and not just the DNS servers.

Re:DNS is NOT the Internet!

[IIH]

The core technology is based on the TCP/IP. This is like telephone numbers. These are distributed all over the world as we speak and it would be close to impossible to break this up.

They are exactly like telephone numbers. A phone number has (international access code) + (area code) + (local number). Within a country, you can dial a local number, but when using the internet all addresses are usually FQDN, which is the phone equilavent of having a +(country code) in front of all calls, even if it's local. Would the UK be happpy if the US had the power to redirect all calls to +44 to a completely different country?

Yes, be like phone systems, have whatever numbers within your own borders, but the numbering of country codes (i.e. root DNS) should be outside any one countries power)

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.

Re:Bush is irrelevant

[maxpublic]

and if it tries to play the isolation/fragmentation game

Then it'll win, as 99% of the world's population doesn't know shit about this issue, nor would care about it even if it were explained to them. *Their* internet works fine, and having it fucked up because their local politicians decided to do a bit of dick-measuring is going to go down about as well as a cupful of axle grease after a meal of nachos and grits. Of course this won't matter to the dictatorships of the world, but I'm pretty sure that the members of European nations would be inclined to toss out the current idiots in office and replace them with new ones.

it's going to miss the rest of the world a lot more than the rest of the world misses it.

Close to 80% of all commercial web sites are American. More than 60% of all personal websites are American. Somehow, I think you're mistaken. If the entirety of the EU were to set up their own root servers, Europeans would notice it a hell of a lot more than Americans would.

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.

No, the easiest way to prove the point is to tell them to go screw themselves, and build their own root server system. Then watch as their own citizenry gets righteously pissed that their "internet thingy" doesn't work because of what their politicians have done. Shake, stir, wait for new politicians to be elected, then - game over.

On general principles I think the US should be forced to relinquish absolute control

The US has no "absolute control", and anyone claiming the contrary is just plain technically ignorant. Your country can, at any time, set up its own root server system. Not that anyone else will give a shit, and I doubt you'd be able to convince even your own ISPs to point to those root servers without threatening them with force, but hey - you can do it if you want. Go right head, we Americans can't stop you - literally, we CAN'T stop you. We don't have this "absolute control" over the system you seem to think we have.

by effectively vetoing the .xxx TLD

The .xxx domain was proposed by religious fundies and other assholes who want to tell their neighbors what they can say and where they can say it. Funny, our own government - the one so many Europeans claim is devolving into a fundamentalist quagmire - though that this was a *bad idea*. Imagine that.

Max

Re:Bush is irrelevant

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

First point: what on earth makes you think any politician who goes ahead with an alternative DNS plan will ever suffer for it? Unfortunately, most of the electoral systems in places like the EU are almost as undemocratic as that in the US. If going to war with Iraq despite the protests of literally millions of UK citizens didn't get Blair unelected, how much impact do you think this will have on the career of some EU Commissioner who isn't even directly elected anyway?

Second point: I know the US can't force everyone to let it keep absolute control. Perhaps you missed the first half of my previous post, where I said that? At present, however, it can exert absolute control over ICANN for practical purposes; it just usually doesn't.

Third point: What's your problem with the .xxx domain? It isn't stifling free speech, it's just saying that if you're going to talk about subjects only suitable for adults, you have to be upfront about it. If you have a problem with that, then I have a problem with your idea of what's important about free speech.

Re:Bush is irrelevant

[maxpublic]

If going to war with Iraq despite the protests of literally millions of UK citizens didn't get Blair unelected, how much impact do you think this will have on the career of some EU Commissioner who isn't even directly elected anyway?

And how, exactly, would this be a US problem? Hell, Europe is pissed off enough over the fact that we invaded a proven dictatorship with a track record of committing regular atrocities; imagine how much more pissed off they'd be if we invaded a country simply because their representatives don't care to, well, actually REPRESENT them.

At present, however, it can exert absolute control over ICANN for practical purposes; it just usually doesn't.

Which doesn't mean jack, because ICANN can't exert any practical power over the root server system. Hell, there's no law which requires even *American* root servers to recognize the authority of ICANN; they do so simply because the alternative is worse.

The US government could seize control of ICANN and proclaim world mastery of the root server system tomorrow, complete with maniacal laugh, and it would mean absolutely nothing. Twelve respected geeks with decent server systems could have an alternate root up and running in 24 hours, with anyone who chooses to do so pointing to them instead of the current root. Or the current roots could simply tell ICANN to take a long walk off a short pier, and that would be the end of that.

What's your problem with the .xxx domain?

I've already made that point abundantly clear. Everyone and their brother is going to have a different set of standards for what belongs in the .xxx domain. Those standards will vary from country to country, from community to community, from neighbor to neighbor. The only point of setting something like this up is so that idiots with poles up their asses can banish anything they think is 'pornographic' off the mainstream.

It would make far more sense to set up a .kids domain, as a previous poster pointed out. That domain would be for children, everything else is adult by default. But this wouldn't satisfy the righteous, who're only happy when they have the power to make the rest of us conform to their own narrow views on how things should be.

it's just saying that if you're going to talk about subjects only suitable for adults

We have a place for that; it's called "the internet". If you want a kiddy-safe domain, then champion .kids. The internet as a whole is NOT for children and was never developed for children. Letting kids run rampant across it is just poor parenting.

If you have a problem with that

Of course I do. I have a big problem with YOU setting moral standards for ME. Tend to your own affairs and keep your nose out of mine.

Max

Re:Bush is irrelevant

[stevesliva]

You're perfectly right--what the US government does should be irrelevant. Like they are planning with the Galileo system for GPS, the rest of the world needs to say, "to hell with the US!" and engineer a redundant backup for whatever internet functions reside solely in the US. This should be solved by engineers, not politicians.

Why would the US relinquish a veto power it currently has? So we can all start typing slashdot.org.us? Giving up what we've got now with DNS makes no more sense then letting NATO take over GPS. Ain't going to happen.

Re:Bush is irrelevant

[will_die]

Please don't let your hatered get in the way of the facts.
It is generally agreed that the .xxx domain was pushed by ICM Registry.
Thoses mean, old "religious fundies" were actually against its creation for a varity of reason, all of them easy it find.

Re:Bush is irrelevant

[Shotgun]

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.

You need to get those emotions unmixed. As an American who is a staunch Bush supporter, I can say clearly that the US should NOT be forced to relinquish absolute control, because I DOES NOT HAVE absolute control!!

I view the people claiming such to be much like the dog in the electric shock experiment. After enduring the shock for endless hours, they finally just accept it and will not attempt to evade it, even when a exit is clear.

The Internet and the DNS system in PARTICULAR does not allow for any entity to be in control of another. The structure simply does not support such control. Anyone who claims otherwise does not understand TCP/IP or hierarchal systems.

Economic disruption? BULLSHIT! The worst that would happen if each country took control of their own CC (like they damn well should) would be that Frenchmen would have to type in Walmart.fr instead of Walmart.com (and Walmart would have to spend another $30 or so for the French domain registration).

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.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[yagu]

Oh boy, I seem to be taking lots o' heat for my original post. I didn't mean it as flame, nor was I trying to impugn anyone's ability to help manage the internet. I mostly was trying to say that in the larger picture of things needing fixing, I don't see this as something broken, and I cringe when I see unbroken things fixed.

And, re your analogy, the rest of the world seems to continue to use the internet unencumbered (reasonably). Is there something seriously awry with world access to the internet?

Anyway, not meant to inflame, probably a bit more pithy than I should have been.

regards, yagu

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[PontifexPrimus]

No offense, but I've read lots on this topic in the last couple of days, and I just don't like it when people use that sort of argument. I did not mean to offend you personally, sorry.
I know that it would be easier to leave it as it is, but you have to take into account that an America First argument doesn't hold a lot of water with the rest of the world. The US has lost a lot of trust and political capital in the last few years, and there seems to be no change of course in sight.
What if your government decides to unilaterally change the current status quo? Don't tell me that that would be improbable, politically stupid or unjustified - that goes for some other ventures I could name, too. The aim behind distributing the servers seems to be to guarantee a continued functioning in case of a... let's say "hiccup". The internet has become very important for states other than the US, and an attitude of "you are allowed to play with it, but the toy is still mine and I can take it home with me whenever I want to" just doesn't adequately reflect the current situation.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[jadavis]

The problem is, of course, that every nation is susceptible to that kind of problem. There's no magical group of enlightened people that are immune from conflicts. And if there is, it's certainly not the U.N.

People sometimes think of the U.N. as a representative of the world, and therefore more impartial than the U.S. But many countries that are a part of the U.N. aren't even partially democratic. When you call them the "U.N." it sounds great. When you start naming the members, it doesn't sound so good after all. And it's certainly not representative of the people of the world.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[yagu]

Good comment and good insight. I didn't intend my original post as flamebait, and I didn't mean it as "America first". I have received heat on my post, probably after re-reading my original post, deservedly.

I stand by my thoughts I don't see the internet as it run today as being broken. I would stand hand in hand with complainants if the United States were to do something stupid unilaterally with the internet "configuration". I would hope it wouldn't but as you validly point out it wouldn't be the first time.

I do think the internet is a unique animal though in that it has become such a prevalent environment that to mess with its status quo could do more damage to the United States than would be worth any changes.

I guess ulitmately I don't see the situation as broken and I cringe to see unbroken things fixed.

Thanks for the comments (and I don't take them personally.. :-) )

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[fuck_this_shit]

It's as close as you can currently get to a representation of all people in the world, more so than the US is. The UN is also a least common denominator. DNS services would certainly not advance anymore, but it is also unlikely that any single nation would have an as easy way to do as they please anymore. Beyond that The only feasible approach is to decentralize or put parallel structures into place akin to what the European Gallileo positioning system is going to be to the US GPS, also to not have situations again with the US taking unilateral action and degrade service of a critical resource. I personally have no deep insight into the innermost workings of the DNS system but surely do hope that my country has all measures in place to pull the plug on the US servers being authoritive and instead being able to run the service independent on current local servers.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[fuck_this_shit]

the US already made it less free for its citizens due to DMCA and anti terror law induced censorship.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[TheRaven64]

The problem is, of course, that every nation is susceptible to that kind of problem. There's no magical group of enlightened people that are immune from conflicts.

Here's a magical solution:

Let other countries run their own root servers. Actually, you don't need to let them - they can already. Then add their servers to BIND's hints file. Next, modify BIND so that it will query n random root servers, run by different groups, when it needs to get a result[1]. If, at any point, there is no clear majority result, return NXDOMAIN.

The result of this is that any one country / organisation that screws around with the root servers just gets ignored. Any small group gets ignored. Any largish group can cause a DoS, but can't spoof addresses - and if a large enough group is playing silly buggers then it is a good idea for people to notice and do something about it.

[1] As an optimisation, this is only really needed when it returns something other than NXDOMAIN - less than 10% of the time. Cycling the default root server more often might also be good.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[jadavis]

The other countries can pull the plug on the U.S. anytime they want. They can make their own internet, and even combine it with every internet in the world except the U.S. internet.

However, what you're asking is for the U.S. to change its internet, rather than you changing yours. You want this, of course, because the U.S. internet has billions of users and is a wildly successful standard.

If you can do better, create it, and let it compete for users in the open marketplace.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[fuck_this_shit]

I wonder what that internet you are talking about actually is. WWW? not US. IRC? not US. Shortly China will overtake with most users as well. Really, insisting on the DNS servers being US only is getting a bit laughable.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[jadavis]

Interesting plan. May have some security details to work out.

Also, who makes the list of root servers? Does each ISP just pick the top 50-100 that they trust? Obviously, you can't have one person with 10 entries in the list, and then an entire country with only one entry in the list. The servers would have to be somewhat representational. I'm assuming that an organization like ICANN would need to have a multiply factor next to it to give higher weight.

If you extend your idea to it's logical conclusion, each person on the planet could have their own registry, which would be representational, but pretty much defeat the purpose.

Seems almost like it could work, but I think there are a lot of things you'd need to sort out. And it doesn't really sound very deterministic. If you're a new company trying to get your name out, how do you make sure you're on all the "good" root servers? If you're a new root server, how do you get yourself on all the lists? If you get yourself on only a few of the "good" root servers, than someone can domain-squat you by getting on the rest and essentially DoSing your domain. Big companies would need to buy hundreds of domains for each name just to make sure that a worldwide audience could view their site.

To me, it sounds like the beginning of a good idea. But there's a lot of mess to sort out.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[jadavis]

Really, insisting on the DNS servers being US only is getting a bit laughable.

It's not laughable to suggest that U.S. DNS servers be controlled by the U.S. The rest of the world is connecting to U.S. DNS servers.

When/if China becomes more of an internet power, people will connect to their DNS servers. But obviously, that hasn't happened yet.

Oh, and IRC really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about host names and host addresses. That means DNS and IP allocations. The U.S. set up DNS servers and routers. Other countries are now connecting to them. Now some of those other people (you) are saying that we should change the way our routers and dns servers behave.

It doesn't sound noble at all to me. It sounds like jealousy of the success of the U.S. internet and it's users.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[fuck_this_shit]

to me it sounds like the best interest of countries to not rely on a country which is known for irresponsible actions in regards to services offered world wide as mentioned above in regards to gps. Having just read up on it a bit it appears decoupling my nations DNS system from the US system is implemented and can be done at the flip of a switch, so I apparently don't have to care what weird stuff the US government comes up with.

And you should really just talk about the DNS aspect of the internet when you mean it and not call it the internet.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[Bandraginus]

I stand by my thoughts I don't see the internet as it run today as being broken. I would stand hand in hand with complainants if the United States were to do something stupid unilaterally with the internet "configuration". I would hope it wouldn't but as you validly point out it wouldn't be the first time.

I would just like to point out Verisign's DNS "hiccup" in 2003. I posit that it falls exactly into the category "something stupid unilaterally with the internet configuration". ICANN only buckled on this one after such community pressure.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[dBLiSS]

Canada wants hockey back!

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[Carbon Copied]

Well said. "The United States is uniquely positioned in the world to protect the fundamental principles of free press and free speech, upon which the Internet has thrived," Goodlatte said in a statement. Is that guy on crack? Wouldn't somewhere small and neutral, say SWITZERLAND, be better for something like this. They are in possesion ALOT of the worlds money and have very liberal (as in leave everyone the fuck alone kind of liberal) laws.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[jadavis]

Having just read up on it a bit it appears decoupling my nations DNS system from the US system is implemented and can be done at the flip of a switch, so I apparently don't have to care what weird stuff the US government comes up with.

Exactly my point. The U.S. DNS servers and routers are an opt-in system. If the U.S. does anything too weird, it would lose it's authority in the blink of an eye. But in the meantime, we're not going to mess with our system and just turn it over to some other government, which may be less trustworthy.

After all, the current system works pretty well.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[TheRaven64]

If you're a new company trying to get your name out, how do you make sure you're on all the "good" root servers?

You don't. The root servers only hold a small number of records - .com, .net, .org etc. and the country code domains. Everything else is delegated. You simply ensure that you register your domain with an ICANN-approved reseller, and make sure the correct SOA records on the .com (or whatever) server are updated to point at your nameserver.

The correct contents of the root servers would periodically be published by ICANN - they only change once a year or so. A large ISP might even wish to run its own root server.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[arminw]

....What if your government decides to unilaterally change the current status quo?.....

Then your government and any others could set up their own servers and be happy. The same can be said of the GPS system that everybody gets to use for free even though it belongs to the US.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[Just Another Poster]

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.

And then the people who patented these engines presumably sold the rights to build them to various manufacturers, including American manufacturers.

Since the patents expired long ago, no American manufacturer owes shit to any German.

Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines

[Just Another Poster]

Sorry, under your new All-American Forever Patent (tm) laws, they own your soul.

As written in Article I, section 8, paragraph 8 of the united States Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Therefore, any such "Forever Patent" laws, as you so eloquently put it, are unconstitutional, and hence, un-American.

In fact, U.S. patents have a term of 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date, or 17 years from the issue date. Given that German patents enforced through international treaties are probably subject to the same terms, your claim about "Forever Patent" laws is nonsense.

Re:History

[RobinH]

Get over it the rest of the world has -never- liked us unless we were giving them foreign aid.

Just so everyone is on the same page, here are the relative numbers on how much foreign aid various countries give, in absolute dollars and as a percentage of GNP:

Chart

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?

Re:BULLSHIT!!!

[Decameron81]

"This is just simply not true. Some slashdotters here wish that was the case, but repeating it enough times doesn't make it fact. The core foundations of the Internet were invented in the US and is still being used today.

Here's one short history.

It's politically correct and nice to say "oh the whole world and everyone helped to invent it" but it's just PC bullshit. The lion's share of the credit goes to the US."

Quite the opposite. As I said the Internet is based on the work of the US government on ARPANET, but ARPANET is hardly the Internet. The key word here is "evolution", as the Internet is not what it was ARPANET, even though some of the structures may still be in use.

In any case the creation of the Internet is not the topic under discussion here, but rather what the Internet is today. No matter how much you twist it, it's not an US network any longer, and has not been for quite some time already. Even the name is a simple demonstration that this network is the whole world's network.

In any case take it easy. This is not about being cooler or more powerful. It's about sharing control of something that's too big for ANY single country to control. I would like to see how much you'd like to depend on some foreign country yourself on a similar matter.

So, what the hell is what?

[quantax]

I am trying to understand here, how much of this is pure politics (ie, maintaining control), and how much of this is a technical issue. As a rule of thumb, if it ain't broke, you dont fix it. This isnt to say that the current setup if optimal, but this seems like a rush to remove control of TLDs from the USA without actually addressing any technical issue or problem? My other problem is that given how long it takes for the UN to do anything at all, giving them control of this seems like a potential mixture for problems down the road. Throw in the EU as a controlling party, and the mixture becomes more complicated further since its composed of member states that need to agree on this stuff as well as a whole.

I definitely agree that the process should be more international, but not a moment before there is something there that would make the transition as smooth as possible. Right now, this smells of "first we'll take control, then we'll think of what to do with it", and it will hang in limbo for a couple years while everyone is asking, "why did we do this in the first place, shit worked before?"

Re:So, what the hell is what?

[NotoriousQ]

AFAIK, it is just politics. EU wants to have some say about which TLDs exist, as well as appoint companies to manage them.

The appointment of management companies can probably be useful for kickbacks, which is probably the reason why we are having this discussion now. And the TLDs is just a giant clusterfuck anyway; other countries having input will not fix the system.

The only good thing taht I hope comes out of this due to necessity and stupidity is a distributed DNS. Once no one can manage the names, people will stop arguing about hits.

Freedom

[Easy2RememberNick]

Wanting freedom to choose, free from another's control, freedom on your own soil to choose and do what you want to do.

  Damn that's silly of us, the non-US people of the World, to want that isn't it?

  You keep control I'm sure you know what's best for the rest of us Internet Pilgrims.

Re:Freedom

[Easy2RememberNick]

Well that may just happen. Here on Slashdot where open source and do-it-yourself are considered superior to anything closed or controlled, I'm sure nobody would not think otherwise. Ironic if not.

Re:Freedom

[the eric conspiracy]

That's fine, except the countries pushing hardest for this are China, Iran, etc. They are the ones most threatened by the current free exchange of information, and have the most to gain by bringing it under greater government regulation.

Internet Bill of Rights

[The Master Control P]

I think that if the USA isn't going to retain exclusive control of DNS, then any nation that wants a part in control of the authoritative DNS servers (USA/ICANN included) should have to sign an 'internet bill of rights' acknowledging the following:

• A primary purpose of the Internet is freedom of speech. All signatories agree to never attempt to censor the Internet (Yes, France, that includes speech you find detestable like Nazi artifacts on E-Bay). Will be opposed by America's Religious Right in their crusade against evil internet porn, countries that hate freedom like China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, and possibly France (see above).
• The Internet is a tool for communication. Signatories will never disrupt DNS or Internet service to anyone as a form of retaliation or attack (Yes, USA, that means no breaking Iraq's DNS when you invade it). Will be opposed by the military who want to do exactly that.
• The Internet is a tool for peace. Signatories will never engage in 'cyberwarfare' to disrupt services (No, North Korea... BAD dictator... BAD!). Someone get Kim Jong Il some anti-paranoia and anti-psychotic medication...
• The Internet is a democratic endeavor. Signatories and nonsignatories alike are free to establish their own DNS service if they wish, without fear of retribution or attack, physical or electronic (If you really hate freedom so much, China, set up your own DNS and leave ours alone). Will be opposed by USA because we like our monopoly.
• Signatories who violate the above rules will forfeit their say in control of DNS for a time deemed appropriate by other signatories, not less than 6 months and not more than 10 years.

Although I think that the USA/ICANN have done a good job handling DNS thus far and don't see any reason to change the status quo without a reason, I find that sharing control of DNS is preferable to fracturing DNS.

Re:Internet Bill of Rights

[IdleTime]

When was the last time you took a good look at your local ISP's news-server? If you do, I think you'd discover things that you would think were impossible on US servers.

U.S. concerns

[Auraka]

I think a lot of people are missing U.S. concerns. My main concern is that the corrupt organization known as the U.N. will tax the internet beyond anyone's imagination. This international body has been working for decades on how to tax U.S. citizens and now they have finally found out how. I personally believe that if the U.N. "controls" the root servers that there will be massive taxes on domains and whatever else they can think to tax. I think the root servers should be left in the control of ICANN. ICANN should become an autonomous organization that reports to no country or no international body, problem solved.

Re:U.S. concerns

[nagora]

This international body has been working for decades on how to tax U.S. citizens and now they have finally found out how.

Spot the loonie.

TWW

Re:U.S. concerns

[Auraka]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/summit00/0 901un.htm
Ya you are right they have never tried to setup a tax organization *roll eyes*

Re:U.S. concerns

[nagora]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/summit00/0 901un.htm

Ya you are right they have never tried to setup a tax organization *roll eyes*

The loonies have got a website!

The idea of the UN being organised enough to be able to collect their OWN membership dues is amusing - raising worldwide taxes is hilarious.

TWW

Re:U.S. concerns

[nagora]

Raworth said that the UN would be in no position to enforce the tax, and that the proposal was merely a suggestion.

The UN couldn't find its arse with both hands, a guide-dog and a fucking map, let alone enforce a world-wide tax, so wise up, you twat.

TWW

TBLWTYTSTFU

[vonsneerderhooten]

'Nuff Said.

43 countries are more free than the US

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005 the US (44th) is slipping, falling more than 20 places:

Mainly due to the imprisonment of New York Times reported Judith Miller and judical action that is undermining the privacy of journalistic sources. Federal courts are getting increasingly bold about subpoenaing journalists and trying to force them to disclose their confidential sources.

Re:43 countries are more free than the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Snicker. In other news, the Mafia reports that the USA is really bad for business.

Nobody forced anybody

[Jesus IS the Devil]

At issue is the control of the DNS root servers. Nobody forced anybody to use the current root servers. It was all done by choice, and it just so happened that those who innovated first and did it right got the pie.

Now suddenly all these other countries are crying foul and want control of it like little children squabbling in a school yard. Here are a few thoughts:

1) It has worked well so far, so why re-invent something that already works? Seems to me nations are just doing this for EGO (yes the U.S. has equal amount of it).

2) This entire setup is VOLUNTARY. If any nation sees the U.S. as abusing it, they're always free to set up their own and force their citizens to switch.

3) When you come late to a movie, you have no right to cry that you have no seats. Sit on the aisles and make sure that for the next movie, you arrive early.

Hugely important

[rbanffy]

IIRC, what is being debated is who is responsible for the root DNS servers TLD creation and IP range assignment.

As I see, there is no good reason (except George W. Bush-style stupidity) to insist in keeping control of those. The TLDs and IP assignment should be managed by a supranational body. These guys are trying to make some headlines and get credit for "defending the Internet". I doubt they even understand what they are signing.

Besides, if all other nations decide to create new root DNS servers and reassign some unused IP ranges that are currently in the US, what exactly will the US government do about it? Sue them? Invade the UN building? Invade all other countries? If the US governent decides to sabotage the internet by doing something with the root DNS servers, it will take about... er... between 10 minutes to a couple hours for the rest of the world to restart functioning.

This is so much of a non-issue...

Re:Hugely important

[rbanffy]

Replying to myself... This is ugly.

Would it that big a problem to reprint business cards to say president@whitehouse.gov.us instead of president@whitehouse.gov? ;-)

Idiot?

[Sr. Pato]

I read that first paragraph and, upon coming to a conclusion about your lack of intellect, decided to not finish reading the rest of that post. Let me put your logic into a different, yet similar, situation:

Cars. That's it. You're telling me that because a company (or organization), invented this magical horseless-carriage, that the parent company has the right to dictate and control speed limits, road-laws, licensing, taxes, and everything else that goes with the car in every country in the world?

Sorry to spoil it for you, but the internet is the internet, and every country has jurisdiction in its own area. Now, if *all of the internet* was hosted on servers in the U.S. and the rest of the world were just clients connecting to it, then I might agree. But as it stands, I don't.

Re:Idiot?

[yagu]

Hmmm, I read your first paragraph and see that your method of discourse includes ad hominem attacks.

I won't question your intellect, I assume you are plenty intelligent.

Your cars analogy is an interesting one among others that have been suggested to me (in varying levels of animosity). But the internet is a trickier entity to define and label the same way as cars.

You are correct the internet is the internet. But I'm not getting the point (and since you're indicating this is from a lack of intelligence) maybe you could educate me as to how the DNS servers dramatically (or at all) as running today limit or hinder other sovereignties from effectively using the internet. How are others stopped from doing business on the internet?

Ultimately I don't really care who controls the DNS servers as long as they're run reliably. I guess in that sense I could argue I don't understand why the United States cares if others control that.

To your point, the internet IS the internet, it is larger than the United States, it is an electronic fabric connecting e-communications. No matter WHO would exercise stewardship over the DNS, doing so in a way that hindered internet progress and use would create such a backlash, I don't think it would make much difference who owned it.

As for me being an idiot... sigh.

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.

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

[maxpublic]

I'm all in favor of .kids

While a good idea, you have to remember that the folks lobbying for an .xxx domain are doing so precisely so they can tell the rest of us how to think, and speak, and act. They aren't having any fun if they can't use force against the rest of us. And they're absolutely certain that their own moral superiority will qualify them, and them alone, to decide what is 'pornographic' and what isn't - which I'm sure includes a good dose of insanity, e.g., banishing any and all nudes painted by Renaissance greats as 'smut'.

Max

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

[The Monster]

I'm all in favor of .kids

While a good idea, you have to remember that the folks lobbying for an .xxx domain are doing so precisely so they can tell the rest of us how to think, and speak, and act.

Well, that's my point, really. If they want to go off and make a .kids domain where everything has to meet their standards, more power to 'em. They'll have no power over .com, .net, .org, .mil, and .edu, which were the original domains set up by adults for adults. OTOH, the implication of setting up an .xxx domain is that its existence somehow affects the rules for the existing domains. And that's where they're wrong. The Internet is not Mayberry. It's more like the analgamated metropolis in the horrid Babe: Pig in the City that juxtaposes famous landmarks of the world. If you want to go create Mayberry, fine. Just don't insist that the whole internet be Mayberry.

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

[geminidomino]

How about the law prohibiting muslim girls from wearing their hajib in school

Not to mention that, like Germany, they've codified into law bans on hate speech, Naziism(sp?), etc.
That sure doesn't sound like Freedom here. You might want to know what you're talking about before deciding it might be a good place for your anti-American rant.

You fail at life. Please insert 25 cents to reincarnate and play again.

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

[linuxrocks123]

"The Internet was built by and for adults, and the presumption should be that a site is for adults unless otherwise specified."

Not all adults want to see all or every one of those sites either. Just because a library is built by and for adults doesn't mean that when I walk in there I expect to see people having sex. The .xxx TLD is a good idea because:

1. It's voluntary - no fascist government is defining pornography. The owners of the pornographic sites do.
2. It would provide filters with an easy, foolproof way to block a lot of sites with zero false positives.

A benefit for the pornographic sites is that lawsuits would be more likely to fail since the .xxx TLD would be an explicit "brown bag".

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

[rs79]

"While a good idea, you have to remember that the folks lobbying for an .xxx domain are doing so precisely so they can tell the rest of us how to think, and speak, and act. "

An intersting hypothesis, but factually incorrect.

DNS is just a way to find computers on the network. it is not a mind control protocol. If you think otherwise, raise my arm.

The creation of a new network resource does nor force anybody to do anything. Presumably some people will want to buy .xxx names and appreciate the option.

What exactly is wrong with that? Choices are good, no? In other words, should we listen to YOU instead of THEM? Or are we all grown ups that can decide and act for ourselves, making choices as we se fit?

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

[Conanymous Award]

You might also want to know what you are talking about.

Separation of religion and state is very strict in France, maybe even stricter than in the US. In both countries this derives from the time of enlightenment and the respective revolutions in these countries.

And I'm sure you know enough of recent history to understand why the Germans are a bit sensitive about hate speech and ideologies like Nazism. I wouldn't like to hear the screaming and whining if Germany suddenly started to ignore the problem called Nazism (which, unfortunately, is alive and well all over the world).

Sure, both of these examples are extreme cases, but perfectly understandable when you know where these nations are coming from. It's not like Europe is on the verge of collapsing into some dark age where free speech is suppressed. I'm starting to get really tired of Americans who cling onto their naive worldview where the only place with freedom is the US of A. Heck, you have your own restrictions, we have our own. In some cases you have more freedom, in some cases we Europeans are freer. Big deal, I can assure you both you and I would feel quite free in both places.

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

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

You fail at life. Please insert 25 cents to reincarnate and play again.

Hahah, ah this would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. Please see adjoining argument for your 0wnz0rship. Tnx.

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

[geminidomino]

Where exactly was I "0wnz0red?" He gave excuses for WHY they have less freedom of speech. Nowhere did he demonstrate that they DO value freedom of speech the same as Americans (ostensibly) do.

In other words, everything he posted supported the post that prompted his anti-american froth.

Do try again.

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

[orcrist]

Nowhere did he demonstrate that they DO value freedom of speech the same as Americans (ostensibly) do.

Nobody values freedom of speech the same as Americans do... but a lot of countries value it as much as Americans do. Just one example: There is hardly a country in Europe (maybe none, I'm not sure) where the exposure of a single nipple would have led to massive fines (see Janet Jackson), or the use of 'swear' words can lead similarly large fines (see Howard Stern).

Here in Germany everyone was laughing their asses off about the Janet Jackson 'scandal', while I could only shrug my shoulders in embarrassment. Typical European statement to incidents of this sort: "So much for Americans' Freedom of Speech."

-chris

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

[geminidomino]

I'll be the last one to defend the asshats' shrieking over Janet's jugs. However, unless the can spouted a mouth and decided to deny the holocaust, I don't see how it's the same thing.

Europe is Nanny-state PC-ism, America is puritanical sexual repression(And heading towards the former, too).

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

[orcrist]

However, unless the can spouted a mouth and decided to deny the holocaust, I don't see how it's the same thing.

Oh, I agree with you in principle, I was just pointing out that it's not as cut and dry as many Americans represent it. In any case, one must allow for the fact that in Germany's case the relevant laws were written by the occupying powers after WWII; And we all know who one of those allies was...

I've been living here for 10 years, and I still believe complete freedom of speech would be better -- at least in theory -- however I do feel it's hypocritical for Americans to criticize this aspect of German law since we were among those who insisted on it.

-chris

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

[The Monster]

A benefit for the pornographic sites is that lawsuits would be more likely to fail since the .xxx TLD would be an explicit "brown bag".

But you're missing the big picture. Once such a domain exists, sites that don't join the .xxx TLD have a greater risk of lawsuits and criminal actions against them. A site that offers information about health issues that impinge upon sexuality can be deemed too dirty for the regular intarweb. Their failure to move to the 'red light district' will then be used against them.

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

[linuxrocks123]

"Once such a domain exists, sites that don't join the .xxx TLD have a greater risk of lawsuits and criminal actions against them. A site that offers information about health issues that impinge upon sexuality can be deemed too dirty for the regular intarweb."

That's a good point, and it points to a larger issue of why free speech should be interpreted extremely liberally. Even so, these site could move to ".xxx" as well. They would then have two arguments against being shut down:
1. We're not pornography.
2. Even if we were, we're in the "dirty zone" anyway.

All in all, I still think a ".xxx" TLD would help rather than hinder free speech.

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

[geminidomino]

I've been living here for 10 years, and I still believe complete freedom of speech would be better -- at least in theory -- however I do feel it's hypocritical for Americans to criticize this aspect of German law since we were among those who insisted on it.


A agree with you, but don't feel hypocritical. The thing that so many of the /. America-bashers seem to forget is that not every American is guilty for the sins of the others, least of all the scumbags in the government. At best, we're only responsible for the ones we voted for (which, in my case, is none. None of my guys were elected.)

Re:BULLSHIT!!!

[VJ42]

Actually, I'd say a lions share of the credit of making the internet what it is today should go to Tim Berners Lee and CERN, imagine if he had patented the hyperlink, the world wide web (all most non-techie people know of the internet) is down to him. The internet may be a US invention, but the World wide web, probably the most important part of the internet, is a Europian one, or to be precice a British one. What would you be saying now if the UK had kept control of hyperlinks?

Okay.

[mindstrm]

Let's quit calling it "Control of the Internet". NOBODY controls the internet. Those organizations that seemingly are in a postion of authority, such as ICANN, ONLY have such authority because the individual networks on the internet choose to acknowledge them. I'm not even talking about countries here.

We are talking about DNS, something that can and will be routed around should it stop doing it's job to the satisfaction of all.

Analogies: Global road network & radio spectru

[Jim Logajan]

Here's a couple of analogies that I think may highlight some of the absurdities and some of the hazards. Consider these two restatements of a line from the summary:

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 road network.

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 radio frequency spectrum.

And guess which organization handles international conflicts and allocations of the radio frequency spectrum?

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:Nor should we.

[TheRaven64]

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.

Except, as the status quo stands, the government of the USA[1] controls the servers that decide which server has the authority to handle requests for country code domains. Why should the US government decide who handles requests to .uk (for example)? In theory, there is nothing stopping them from deciding that France should have backed them in the Iraq war, pointing the .fr SOA record at their own server, and redirecting all traffic for .gov.fr IPs via their own service. The current administration probably wouldn't do that. The next probably wouldn't either. What about the one after that? Or the one after that?

In my estimation, this entire `problem' could be significantly reduced if every DNS entry contained an embedded signature, allowing the entire chain to be verified back to the original root entry. This would allow anyone to run a root server, as long as they kept it in sync with the official root entries, and allow anyone who trusts ICANN[3] to trust the results. Of course, Verisign would hate this, since it would make signed SSL certificates worthless - you could just embed the key in the DNS record, signed with the private key associated with the public key in your SOA record.

[1] Previously they had agreed to hand over complete control to ICANN - hardly my favourite organisation, but at least one which pretends to be international and impartial - an agreement that they recently stated they no longer intended to honour, which sparked this whole debate.

[2] Possibly not the best example of a trustworthy organisation.

Re:Nor should we.

[abreauj]

In theory, there is nothing stopping them from deciding that France should have backed them in the Iraq war, pointing the .fr SOA record at their own server, and redirecting all traffic for .gov.fr IPs via their own service.

If that came to pass, there is nothing stopping France from setting up their own alternate root servers. Or the UN from doing the same.

It would be a shame to see the Internet balkanized like that, though.

Wikipedia - Alternative DNS root
OpenNIC

Re:Nor should we.

[Random832]

DNS space becoming "balkanized" wouldn't be the end of the world - people could find a way around it.

IP space becoming balkanized _would_ be the end of the internet. film at 11.

Re:Nor should we.

[commodoresloat]

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.

So is that when all your base will belong to .us?

Re:Nor should we.

[Stormy Dragon]

There is a .us domain. Try http://www.state.pa.us/ for example.

Re:Nor should we.

[Jetson]

There is a .us domain. Try http://www.state.pa.us/ for example.

That was my point. There *is* a 2-letter TLD for every country. This fight is over 3-letter "vanity plate" TLDs that are not directly associated with a country. There is no reason for a (hypothetical) family-owned diner in the middle of the desert to engage in an international dispute over "eatatjoes.com" when "joesdiner.desertville.az.us" is more relevant in terms of geography and significance.

I can see an argument for multinationals to want a generic TLD, but as I said in the grandparent post, they usually have country-specific sites anyway and can always forward to a parent server.

Re:Nor should we.

[Jetson]

In theory, there is nothing stopping them from deciding that France should have backed them in the Iraq war, pointing the .fr SOA record at their own server, and redirecting all traffic for .gov.fr IPs via their own service.

Which is yet another reason why each country should control their own domain. If the government of the USA wants to prevent people from accessing servers in France they already have that technology whether or not they host the .fr SOA. China didn't need to hack the root DNS servers to block access to objectionable content outside their borders.

The problem here is that the USA can keep people in Canada or Europe or Asia from connecting to France's servers if they have a 3-letter TLD simply by de-listing them. That would probably be considered an act of espionage/war and is therefore unlikely, but it's easy to understand why France would rather not be in that position.

Hence my original suggestion: convert all ".com" domains to ".com.us" and host the ".us" domain on a DNS root inside the USA. Foreign companies will have no choice but to reregister in their own country if they want to have guaranteed access from citizens of countries not currently favoured by the USA government.

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:Don't be so effing arrogant.

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

The problem is that what people are asking for is control of an already existing infrastructure being run in the US. It would be like the UN demanding control of all balloon flights world-wide, including those currently occurring in France.

My opinion is that what should be done is simple - split up the IPv6 address space and grandfather the part the US already runs. The UN or whatever other world wide organization can use another IPv6 address space and set up its own set of TLDs and publish its root name server hints file. The technical infrastructure to do this should not be a problem except in repressive countries who certainly won't want to see this.

The result will be diverse and redundant, which is really good for the freedom of information flow. And we will shortly see who is right in terms of who can best run the thing.

May the best root file win.

Re:Don't be so effing arrogant.

[stdarg]

The French don't make balloons for us, we don't use the Brits' postal system, and we don't watch Scottish TV. Wow, in all of your examples, countries keep control over their own systems rather than let them be internationally governed!

It's really weird. Reading your post on its own, I would have dismissed it. But there are sooo many people who share your ideas, it's like some huge segment of the world is blind. Reminds me of some kind of crazy religious fundamentalism that is beyond a normal person's understanding.

For laughs let's apply your logic to your own examples.

Every country depends on its postal system! The British MUST give up control of their postal system and allow it to be internationally governed! After all, the Brits invented it but face it, we've moved on since then. Stop being paranoid. Your postal quality will only go up, we promise.

Every country uses television standards originally invented in Scotland... therefore the Scottish Parliament must rescind control of Scottish television standards! Yes! It will henceforth be controlled by the UN.

etc.

Re:Don't be so effing arrogant.

[bug1]

"Every country depends on its postal system! The British MUST give up control of their postal system and allow it to be internationally governed! After all, the Brits invented it but face it, we've moved on since then. Stop being paranoid. Your postal quality will only go up, we promise."

Every country has given up control of international mail delivery, they retail control of domestic delivery.

If you dont trust an international body to run the internet, do you trust it have control of phone an fax lines... is internat dat any different ?

How can you trust international banks to transfer money for global trade if you dont trust international governance.

Global co-operation is important and we should work to common standards instead of trying to leverage existing power to take power over others.

The UN is the only democratic organisation that can perform this task.

Re:Don't be so effing arrogant.

[James_Aguilar]

I'm over it. I'm completely fine with control staying at ICANN. That is what will happen and I am totally unworried about it. No paranoia here . . . it just doesn't seem that useful to give control over to an international body when it can be kept at home. I think that that is the reason why ICANN will maintain control of the root servers, more than anything else.

Re:Don't be so effing arrogant.

[Silicontoad]

Lets not forget who created the hyperlinks

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That is dubious, according to the CIA 15 year report, it will be the EU that will become the next superpower, economically, and militarily.

That's interesting. I'd come to the conclusion that this might happen myself, though I suspect underlying tensions in the EU will mean it's always very much a collection of nations who come together when they have a common interest, rather than some sort of United States of Europe, at least any time in my lifetime.

The US will win because of simple facts. The sheer amount of Tier 1 ISP's as US companies, Akamai is a US company, the ICANN is still in the US. And many major websites are US owned.

<shrugs/> I use exactly one US-based web site with any regularity, and you're reading it. How long do you think it would take for either international subsidiaries of US companies or independents based outside the US to come up with their own Amazon, or eBay, or even Slashdot?

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[StillAnonymous]

"In related news, the average man engages in twice as many one-night-stands as the average woman."

Heh, that's only incorrect if you assume all men and women are heterosexual.

You seem to have confused the past with the presen

[hackwrench]

1. America is the most aggressive nation right now.

2. What America does after the aggression (i.e. independent nation building) is irrelevant.

3. Independent nations are neither here nor there. The capacity of a people to be and remain free however is.

4. Just cutting a long enslaved people loose from their captors is not enough to make them free. A mindset change is required.

5. Agression upon an immoral opponent is still aggression.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[krist0]

hmmm, so EU needs US for trade more than the opposite? Really?

The US seems to be the one cutting itself off from most of the middle east/asia, not to mention most of south america

Looking at americas import/export partners from the link that was posted below I would say that if EU/US had a spat and ceased trade, US has fewer options with who to trade with than the EU does unless america spits the dummy and tries to use force.

A world where the US is against the EU/China/Middle East/South America and most of asia is going to be a very lonely and unprofitable space.

And anyways, core infrastructure can always be replaced. Each global region could run the root for their own TLDs and go from there, sure some local authorities may mess things up/censor, but then whos to say that isn't possible from the americans/english anyways.....

anyone can offer an alternative dns system !

[free2]

I think the point of the grandparent was that anyone can offer or use an alternative dns system. Such systems already exist. Most of them can easily copy a lot of the IP addresses and names from the current system.
And if some governments unite and offer their own dns system, and tell their ISP do use it , then this dns system will be a main one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
http://european.nl.orsn.net/
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/

Re:anyone can offer an alternative dns system !

[Big_Al_B]

Unless they are 100% fully compliant with the existing public "I"nternet namespace (i.e. no non-ICANN gTLDs and all ICANN namespace intact), alternative roots will corrupt their users' namespace and cause horrendous resolution problems, outright failures, and phishing/fraud nightmares.

In otherwords, ORSN is a reasonable alternative if you're bent on one, as they fully respect the existing namespace. But the others are utter lunacy if your purpose is to be present on, do business on, or even just surf the public "I"nternet.

We all must have one root naming authority and we all must have unique public-facing numbers, if we want to communicate with each other reliably and securely.

We can absolutely, vigorously, and freely debate ad nauseum who "the" authority will be to control "the" namespace and "the" numberspace. But, in the end, we all must agree on one authority, and there is no debating that.

The medium and its applications simply require it.

But it says in this here bible ...

[FishandChips]

There are plenty of ways out of this other than a "showdown". And the fact that it should even be seen as coming to a showdown is a sad comment on the Bush administration's grasp of foreign policy, considering all the other far more important issues troubling the USA and the world. Some ways to take the heat out of the issue were mentioned in the article in the Economist.

In any case, you can't have it both ways. If the internet is just another utility as many proponents claim, then it is about as interesting as gas, plumbing or electricity. By this argument, moving some aspects of internet regulation to an international body isn't remotely controversial and not much different to the international postal and telephone agreements that have been in force for years. These work well and so unremarkably that no one gives them a second thought. Why should the internet be any different? No one is suggesting that the internet be given away or placed in the hands of a cosmic villain.

On the other hand, if the internet is a some kind of special case and qualitatively different by an order of magnitude from simple utilities, they let's hear some reasoned argument from the US establishment instead of jingoism (and a lot less hype from the big IT companies about a global inforamtion economy).

Alas, it looks as if this is developing in a way all too typical of the current Administration. We begin with intransigence and hostility. This gives way to bad-tempered haggling which eventually results in a sour US withdrawal from its position. Eventually there is a compromise. Everyone is left feeling crap and the US, most likely, is left with less than it would have achieved had it been a little more thoughtful and subtle in the first place.

Some form of international settlement for the regulation of the internet is absolutely inevitable, imho. Unless you are a flat-earther, the only next question is how best to achieve this. Unfortunately it looks as if the US Administration is settling for flag-waiving. I don't think this has yet been backed up with fire-breathing quotations from the bible, but it probably will be. It ain't gonna fly.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[KarmaMB84]

Who is going to force all those porn sites to go to .xxx? If there's no enforcement then the .xxx domains will just have a second .com address pointing to their IP so they won't be filterable by domain anymore.

Couldn't have said it better

[p51d007]

Amazing all the U.S.A. haters on the web....first time one of them gets bombed/invaded by someone else, "who they gonna call"? Russia? France? Spain?, nope, since the late 1800's, anytime there has been a major war, it's usually the U.S.A. that eventually comes to the rescue and cleans up the mess. And this drivel about no WMD's being found. Those that think this way need to quick watching the Clinton News Network and do just a little research.....It's been proven for months that some WMD's were found. Not to mention the BURIED in the desert aircraft....The rest are probably hidden in Syria.....we'll get to them later!

Re:Couldn't have said it better

[redzebra]

>Amazing all the U.S.A. haters on the web....first time one of them gets bombed/invaded by someone else, "who they gonna call"?

Actually it's not so strange. If you're being bullied by someone who do you call for, who could help you ? An even bigger bully. And will he help you ? Yes as long as that one has a personnal interrest. The current United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than China's, which places second. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_budget )

Who do you call US. haters ? Every one puts out some critisism ? Wouldn't a friend be the first to accept some critism ? And don't you think that the base for most of the real hatred encountered, is based on some real fear of the US, fear of the biggest kid in the class which could help you but als from time to time abuses its power just to satisfy its greed ?

Re:Couldn't have said it better

[p51d007]

Fear the US? That's a joke.....we don't push unless some group does something to us. War of 1812: Britian invades Civil War: Harpers Ferry, Ft. Sumpner Spanish American War: Blowing up of the U.S.S. Main WW1: Sinking of the Lusitania WW2: Pearl Harbor Cold War: Duh Gulf War1: Invation of Kuwait War on Terrorism/Gulf War2: Sept11,2001, and ENFORCING the current U.N. Resolutions We normally do not strike, until someone tries to bloody our nose, then we kick their butts

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

Oh no! not religon?

[p51d007]

Oh no, you can't have any news organization that has any relation to religion can you? Oh not the "media"...can't have that......No bias, can't have that! LMAO.....the mainstream media has been so left wing'd socialist for the past 40 years it isn't funny. The news execs can't figure out why their ratings are sinking. DUH! There are A-L-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-V-E-S to them now!

Means Vs End

[oddsends]

Your Kantian viewpoint ignores the fact that the end result does matter. Don't get me wrong, the means is important, but it is not the only factor. (and in my opinion less important than the end result in many circumstances)

Freedom or Permission?

[serutan]

Maybe a better place to begin a discussion would be the question of which governments have the most control over their citizens. When someone's in position to take away your "freedom" whenever they want, then it isn't freedom anymore, it's permission.

why pay dues?

[p51d007]

We shouldn't pay dues......heck, the stupid UN is on USA soil, the amount of money "given" (stolen) by the UN is criminal. Plus, I wouldn't give 2cents to the UN in dues. They are an anti-Capitalist organization if there ever was one. And the "human rights" crap is just utterly amazing! Putting such countries like China, Lybia etc on the human rights campaign is just one of the stupidest things in the world.

Re:why pay dues?

[p51d007]

Ummmm.......the USA was a charter member of the UN.......which, grew out of the FAILED league of nations......yep, that was successful. Look how the LON stopped Hitler from starting WW2

Re:why pay dues?

[p51d007]

The HEADQUARTERS is based in NYC......

Let em!

[p51d007]

Personally, I'd like to see the USA cut off the rest of the world for a while. Stop bailing out all the countries that STILL owe us tons of money. Ok, let the rest of the world start trade sanctions and you'll see the USA cut off the rest of the world from the $$$ we give to all these countries. Plus, we'd freeze and take any assets they have in any of our banks.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[utnow]

First get the plank out of your own eye...

That 'smut' dosen't WANT to be filtered out. There are millions of non-businesses using the .com TLD because that's the one that is notable. If it was on .xxx you can put a large bet on it being porn, but there would be no less porn on .com because it's dot-com. Also because people would depend on porn being .xxx making it easier to 'pop-up' un-announced.

Honestly... can you see a line of porn-sites lining up to be filtered out of 90% of computer screens?

How many businesss's use .biz other than as a compliment to their .com?

All .xxx will do is make it easier to find porn, and give funny people a whole slew of word-play domain names to play with. www.than.xxx www.ha.xxx www.getthefa.xxx the list goes on i'm sure. How many days before there is a www.goatse.xxx ?

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[stwrtpj]

The real reason that the US government asked for postponement of the .xxx domain is because some lawmaker realized at the last minute that instituting a .xxx domain specifically for adult content effectively legitimizes it. It would give defense lawyers for those accused of violating "obscenity" laws new ammunition, allowing them to claim that the government effectively gave its blessing to adult content by granting this domain for that use. By preventing this from happening, the government eliminates this potential defense.

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.

life sure is getting monotonous

[Anonymous Coward]

bla bla bla.... dns != internetbla bla bla bla bla...... we invented the internet we are teh k1ngz0rs!!1blablablabla.... human rights..... blablabla..... dumbass UNblablablabla bla bla americanz0rz r teh n00bz0rz 3ur0p3 r0xxxx!111blablabla china in charge of the internet oh noes!blablabla another post about dnsblablabla bla can't we all just get along?bla bla etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

In short, I don't think I've ever known a topic cause the same ground to be covered so many times that I memorise every single angle, and I'm including the age old Linux-on-the-Desktop argument in that as well. I wish there could be some mass slashdot boycott of this story. Not for any hugely idealogical reason, it's just boring. Maybe just you karma-rich moderator types, who are the most likely to read some random AC post anyway - you guys could just stop moderating these stories. Sure, they could probably tweak some balance setting to keep a front of normality, since slashdot runs like a puto mmorpg, but with a bit of luck it would bother them too much and they'd tire of the story.

Lets keep something we invented for once!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Is the internet about to become yet another great American invention that gets handed over to the rest of the world to control and dominate?

We invented the dam thing, we should be in control of it. If they want to split off and make their own nets so be it. Everyone wants a peice of America. Actually everyone wants to chip away a peice of America. We've lost so many other industries... why not hold on to the one tech industry giant that we invented?

No, it doesn't

[hackwrench]

It doesn't ignore the fact. The fact isn't true. There is no such thing as the "end result". We are still here. There is no eternal balance sheet that closes at the end of the world. There are repercussions being felt from things that happened more than 2000 years ago. The Gregorian calendar is a testament to this fact. Our very dependence on oil , oil being something that is the result of a process that takes a long time, testifies to this fact.

Re:No, it doesn't

[oddsends]

I was making a reference to utilitarianism vs kant. The end result vs means argument is just one small argument between those two ideas.
FYI: I was referencing points 2 and 5.
There is a difference between the means to an end result, and the end result itself.(case: everyone wants to cure cancer, but what if you have to kill someone to gain that "end result" of curing cancer) You are putting words in my keyboard and twisting my argument. You know quite well that there is an end result that occurs within our lifetime. I never stated that there were not other effects down the line as well.
Going back to your Point 2: The aggression is the means, independent nation building would be the "end result"

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

It has nothing to do with hating europeans. I have nothing against them and most dont. Those that do are generally ignorant asses whom have probably never interacted with any.

The bigger point is, we invented it, we started it... so they have to plug into it. Its just how it works. To simply hand over control makes no sense when we are the inventors of it.

Should we hand over control just because they want it? Thats silly! Of course they want it. We created something and control something that is extremely important in todays world. You bet your ass they want a part of it.

Airbus isnt stopping their developement of airplanes because it might put Boeing out of buisness and we dont want that.

We created it, we control it. They're free to invent technologies and split off if they want but i have a feeling they want to stay connected to us in the US :)

The world loves to bleed us dry, and our corperations love to help them succeed by allowing them for quick profit and slave labor wages.

He'd make a plan, and he'd follow through,

[mechsoph]

That's what Tim Berners Lee would do.

Am I the only American who opposes this?

[digitalgimpus]

Am I the only American who opposes this? Sometimes I feel like I am.

IMHO the US is a bit to posessive of it's own IP, but when it comes to someone else... "you can't own that!".

/tells government to go f*** itself.

Who is complaining then?

[stock]

For Europe RIPE always has functioned ok, sofar. Ditto for Asia's APNIC the America's have been covered by ARIN . These three bodies have made the Internet what it is today. The only one complaining seems to be the White House itself. Why would that be ? Because today press organizations still can publish stories like these ? :

"Waiting For The Valerie Plame Wilson Grand Jury: The Big Question Is Whether Dick Cheney Was a Target"

"2 Brits nabbed with $3 trillion in fake US fed notes"

Robert

++funny

[dajak]

I would give you a mod point if I had any and wasn't the parent of your post.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[Jace of Fuse!]

Amen.

Best "I wish I had Mod Points" post ever.

We won't be affected

[Deliveranc3]

We won't be affected if the U.N. takes over, things might move more quickly and domains will probably be cheaper and not get stolen by big companies quite so easily but other than that nothing will be diffrent.

If the U.S. keeps it nothing will change they will probably re-evaluate who is in control and maybe make some cosmetic improvements no bigie...

However if the net splits that will be interesting, will the U.S. force 'it's' sites to stay in their registry? Will they be allowed to double dip? How will new allocation be handled? When they are eventually remerged will there be conflicts?

I'm pretty concerned because I'd like to be part of the global web not the U.S. web and I live in Canada. I'm pretty sure most major backbones run through the U.S.

What will Slashdot do?

And how will this all influence the upcoming transition to IPv6?

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[Dogtanian]

The bigger point is, we invented it, we started it... so they have to plug into it. Its just how it works. To simply hand over control makes no sense when we are the inventors of it.

I sympathise with you up to a point, but the fact remains that the Internet infrastructure (computers and networks) outside the US don't (in general) belong to the US. The US may have allowed the rest of the world to plug in to "their" network once upon a time, but the Internet is no longer a US-based network with appendages from other countries plugged in to "your" network. It is truly worldwide.

To simply hand over control makes no sense when we are the inventors of it.

I don't want this to come across as ungrateful, or as if I'm trying to disparage the US. The fact remains that your invention of the Internet gave you that advantage to start with. Fair enough; the world is generally run on the way things "are", not what happened before. So the position is this; the US has the power. The rest of the world is using a system over which they don't have (what they consider to be) a satisfactory level of power.

So... you could perhaps more accurately say "To simply hand over control makes no sense when we have the upper hand". That's politics.... that's life.

It's also a fact of life that the rest of the world won't like this as much as you do, and that they'll exert control over *their* parts of the Internet to their advantage.

Should we hand over control just because they want it? Thats silly! Of course they want it. We created something and control something that is extremely important in todays world. You bet your ass they want a part of it.

Of course; it's all politics. I wouldn't expect your government to give up that advantage without good reason. And I wouldn't expect the rest of the world to grin and bear it either. :)

Bottom line; everyone uses the Internet now. You can say "but we let you connect to *our* Internet so it's only fair that we should rule it". But it isn't "your" Internet now, and it's arguable that if the US had imposed far stricter connection terms that it wouldn't have been a success (many would certainly have thought twice about using it for critical business infrastructure), and so you would have lost more than you've gained. It cuts both ways.

The reality is the situation today; an international Internet, whether you think that's fair on the "inventors" or not. The reality too; your politicians have an advantage- regardless of where that came from, it's their nature to play that advantage to America's (and their) gain. And the rest of the world will equally look after their own interests.

And as to what I think will *actually* happen.... well, I mentioned that in my previous message.

Re:Please...

[Decameron81]

"The core of the internet and it's underlying technology was largely developed in the United States. Even most of the hardware is created by U.S. based companies. Other than infrastructure, other nations did little to "create" the internet - although you could argue that the infrastructure is the internet - but then we wouldn't be arguing about the US keeping control of it, would we?

In any event, if there was a flaw with the current system, or it was broken for other nations, I could understand such action. But as it currently stands, their sole reasoning for wanting control is because 1) America "controls" it (despite it ICANN being an international group) and 2) The Bush administration doesn't like .xxx or .sex TLDs (note that not liking them is NOT the same as saying you can't have them). If France, Germany, or England was running it as well as it's being run right now, *I* wouldn't care. China, or say, North Korea, running it would be another story entirerly."

The point is that who created it is not in discussion here. We are talking about the Internet as a whole. And DNS is a big part of that. You are afraid of other countries controlling the internet just as much as the rest of the world is afraid of the US doing so, with the difference that the US would not have anyone to tell them not to do it, while the rest of the world would take care of regulating each other in that respect.

The question is: will the US take into account my rights as a foreinger when they make their decisions? Or would they promptly ignore them if my rights collided with the rights of some american or with the government? Is freedom only important when US citizens are involved: why shouldn't the rest of the world be free to choose wether they want an .xxx domain or not?

Seriously, this is not about making decisions for Americans. We don't care about censoring you... we don't want you to censor us. IMO we have the tools to bring forward a decentralized DNS system in which each government has the right to filter what they don't want for their citizens, while not having any power at all when it comes to other countries. How can this be bad for you?

After all the US government is not sovereign where I live, so why should I live by their rules.

Just sit down for a second and think about it. You even agree with what I'm saying to some extent when you declare that you don't want other governments messing with what you do online. Guess what: we don't want that either.

"As for other nations not being as democratic as the United States, that is in a sense true. Other nations certainly don't enjoy the freedoms that American's enjoy (despite their continued non-sensical bitching about the Patriot Act)."

Care to explain this to me? Seriously, I fail to see what makes a US citizen "more free" than I am, but it seems like you know better... so I guess you can give me some examples that clearly demonstrate your point.

I am unfamiliar with the utilitarianism vs. Kant..

[hackwrench]

situation. I would read Kant, but I keep running into various problems when reading philosophers.

A. They don't seem to use definitions that are common use.

B. They build on unreferenced previous work in thier area.

Then there are desired end results vs. actual end results. One may see something as a way of achieving a end result, that does not mean that the desired end result will naturally flow from it.
Apparent progress towards a given end result is also not actually achieving that end result.
Plus, correlation is not causation.

In 2. and 5. the point was that what they do after the aggression is orthogonal to the question of whether or not they are in fact agressive.
3. and 4. was an attempt to consider the utility of the suggested end result because it was a precursor to the case that Europe should ignore the United States' aggression to the extent that it provides a utilitarian function.

3a. By "independent nation" I mean a nation to some degree free from the influence of the U.S. and not the independence of its citizens. However, when it really comes down to it, those "independent nations" aren't actually as free from U.S. influence as the U.S. government likes to promote.

Furthermore, while the U.S helped the countries that were long-established after WWII, there were a bunch of countries that were created with the sole purpose of making sure they were not a threat to the long established countries, which was a primary causation of Bosnia and contributed to our current problems in the Middle East.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>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?

You are jumping to a conclusion, and if you think about it, you might admit you are wrong/

He said it would be EASIER to filter out. Do you have ANY IDEA how large a memory table it takes to filter out KNOWN .COM porn sites? It takes a LOT of memory.

Along comes a new TLD and you can match it with *.xxx. You will STILL be using a bunch of memory blocking .com and .net porn sites... but those domains are anarchy.

Doesn't this sound EASY? You're talking 1 rule. Perhaps you would block a non-porn .XXX domain someone set up as a joke, but oh well.

No one said that the creation of .XXX would force people to stop using .COM for porn... you just want to believe that is the reason, without any supporting facts.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[SeaFox]

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?

Well... since we have control of the master DNS servers couldn't we do that? Just take away the domains from all the "adult entertainment" sites and give them new .xxx ones to use if they wish to continue business, allow forwarding to the new domain for a transition period as well?

If it's a foreign domain, people can just choose to filter any webistes from outside the U.S. TLD's, so those countries can run hand out their domains as they wish. I'm sure there are many people who don't even visit websites outside the .com and .net domains, and wouldn't be bothered by filtering them out.

Not saying we should, be we have the ability, no?

Why should anyone have the final say?

[Sleeping Kirby]

I personally think that no one should have the final say about what domain gets what. Whenever countries like China whine about things like how' they're not involved enough in stuff like this, I have to take their argument with a grain of salt. Really, a communist country should have no right to talk about... well... rights. I thought as it is now, people are on the first come, first serve basis. I personally don't mind that. (with a few exceptions, of course, i.e. registering someone's name, squatting on it, and force them to buy it from you.) But I don't think the internet should be something that any country or a group of country gets to regulate. It should be regulated via agreement from the netizens, you know, the people that actually run webservers and contribute to content on the internet rather than some politicians that want to control it for their own purposes. That's my 2 cents. If any facts I stated needs correction, I'd greatly appreciate it.

What the rest of the world wants.

[chris_sawtell]

What the rest of the world wants is for dear, doddery, old Uncle Sam to nurture his delinquent creatation and put it back on the rails by:-

1. Stopping spivs stealing TLDs from small, and naive states.
2. Stopping spivs hoarding domain names thus creating a very expensive market for what should be an administration-cost only resource.
3. Stopping organisations hoarding many millions of unused IP numbers.
4. Stopping the registration of Out-of-Country servers and email addresses.
5. Stopping the largest supplier of software foisting insecure by default machines on innocent customers who then use them on the 'Net, thus allowing the creation of million machine bot-nets to be used for criminal purposes.
6. Stopping the broadcasting of billions of spam messages which are mostly used for criminal purposes.
7. Controlling the veritable flood of revolting, depraved, and offensive images and film clips.

Once the addressing of these issues has at least been attempted by the US Government and its co-conspirator the ICANN, the rest of the world might agree that the Internet is being properly administered. Until that time, so sorry Uncle Sam, but you are a failing parent.

Strongly put maybe, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned that's what the issues are all about. In a word, shared Sovereignty over what has become an internationally shared resource.

I don't get it

[patternjuggler]

How is the U.S. congress going to pass a law that requires the non-U.S. portions of the world how to operate their portions of the internet? Is national security or the U.S. economy threatened by this issue?

What does DNS have to do with the ability of repressive countries to repress usage of the internet in their countries? Aren't those countries already doing things to restrict internet usage? (heck, aren't U.S. companies selling them the software to do it?) It's probably time to stop thinking of the internet as a technological trojan horse that will magically set the people of world free despite efforts of their local governments to prevent it.

Why do so many posters get so worked up in defending the U.S. right to operate DNS or whatever for the benefit of the entire world, and why do they get moderated so highly? Can somebody please tell me what the change here actually threatens?

Actually, the web is also a US invention...

[msauve]

...if the claim is based on the nationality of the originator, Ted Nelson. I believe he was associated with Brown University at the time.

http://www.xanadu.com/

Tim Berners-Lee's HTML (which not coincidentally uses Ted's term "hypertext") implemented a small subset of Ted's vision. It was of course based on SGML, the offspring of GML, which was also created by a US national, Charles Goldfarb.

http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/roots .htm

Action needed from across the pond!!!

[oddsends]

A. You are correct that it seems obscure, but people make the same arguments everyday not knowing that is their origin, which is not a problem.
Case of everyday use: Should i sell the drug knowing that it will help 90% of people, or should i not sell the drug knowing that 30% will die.

B. N/A

Desired vs. Actual: In the case of regime change, would the rest of the world prefer that a dictator or communist stays in power instead of someone acting? You will never find out if you never try, we don't see much trying going on over on the other side of the pond. That is a problem, the rest of the world wants have free control of the root servers when we:ie the US, started this network as ARPANET with US taxpayer money. We need to see some trying, lets see someone across the pond take down the great firewall of china.

An "independent nation" with some promotion of American ideas is better than a dictatorship or communist regime, don't you agree? If those across the pond took some action there would be promotion of everyone's ideas.

If those across the pond want to complain about how we reach the end result, they need to take some initiative and take action according what means they believe are necessary to reach the end result instead of sitting on their asses and complaining. Also, If those across the pond figure out a better method of regime change to take out communists and dictators, more power to them, this is getting a bit expensive for US.

Re:Action needed from across the pond!!!

[hackwrench]

Desired vs. Actual: Sometimes the proposed cure is worse than the disease. Furthermore, the proposed cure is seldom the only cure.

When I hear "You'll never find out if you don't try" I am reminded of WOPR's closing statement in War Games: "An interesting game, the only way to win is not to play." On top of that, there are methods that don't involve making an attempt that can indicate the likelyhood of success of the attempt.

You do not want to find out that the only way to win a game is by not playing after you've already started playing.

You seem to think that dictatorships and communists are self-sustaining. If this is true, well then, we have no need to fear from them, and if not true, then they will soon go away.

An "independent nation" with some promotion of American ideas is not necessarily better than a dictatorship or communist regime. There are degrees of good, bad, and ability to sustain themselves within all three groups.

The internet is based on ideas developed in the production of ARPAnet, and the former ARPAnet is a member network. Those ideas however are no longer unique to a small group within the United States, however and the internet has grown to the point that it can be used by one nation to manipulate others.

In my opinion Europe should demand that the United States pull its bases out of Europe, but demanding that the United States relinquish control of the internet is a good first start. How can you demand that Europe grow a backbone and then when it tries to do something requiring a backbone you cry foul. Ever heard of starting small?

If we were to simply start a gradual evacuation of bad regimes, the regimes would slowly collapse due to lack of human resources.

There are numerous ways of contributing to either the fall of a regime or the improvement of conditions within that regime that aren't as obvious as sustained aggression. Furthermore, those whose main tool is aggression are also more likely to not notice such activities.

Re: .KKK TLD...?

[RentonSentinel]

You fool... using your logic, we should create a .KKK domain for the neo nazis who want people to know about them. And supposedly, just telling your Internet Explorer to filter .KKK will keep your internet experience free of nasty thoughts. Yeah Right.

Re:Oh no! not religon?

[handslikesnakes]

Well that and I don't trust any news organization that thinks Saddam Hussein is in league with Satan.

This dispute has been blown out of proportion

[simmiethemonk]

The dispute over who has ultimate control over DNS is of very little practical consequence, given that the US has barely exercised any control over ICANN, and if some other body (the EU, the UN) gained that control, I would wager they would exercise no more control than the US has.

What this is really about for the countries involved is more the principle of the thing, flexing their muscles against the US, demonstrating their independence from US dominance. In particular for the EU it is a demonstration of their commitment to the building of international institutions instead of the US' go it alone, "no one is going to tell me what to do attitude".

That said, while the way this dispute plays out will certaintly have significant implciations for international and especially transatlantic politics, whatever happens will likely have little effect on the commercial or technical worlds.

The attempt of some parties to paint this dispute as having some dire practical consequences ("Watch out, freedom-hating totalitarian dictatorships take over the Internet!") is just a way for those parties to play the transatlantic political game.

Re: .GUN TLD...?

[RentonSentinel]

OK... so guns and violence are bad. We create a .GUN TLD and force all the "pro gun / pro violence" content into that system. Then supposedly just filtering .GUN TLD will make sure you don't see anything violent on the internet? Are you really that naive?

Does the .xxx subject just make you so emotional you lose focus?

Re: .GUN TLD...?

[SeaFox]

OK... so guns and violence are bad. We create a .GUN TLD and force all the "pro gun / pro violence" content into that system.

Uh, yeah. There's the slight difference that providing access to pr0n to minors is illegal, whereas showing pictures of firearms is not.

Does the .xxx subject just make you so emotional you lose focus?

Speaking of losing focus, the last line of my post said that I didn't support forcing a system like that, just that it was technically possible given the current control situation. But that's for the hamfisted reply, dumbass.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[TummyX]

Yeah, I can't wait for certain countries to band together and demand that all sites that use unsavoury words like "sex" or "democracy" be boxed into the .xxx TLD.

Can't it be split?

[Tablizer]

Why can't it be split such that different countries control different portions, such as domain names for their country and pre-designated blocks of IP addresses based on population and usage size. I suppose "generic" names like .com are a problem, but otherwise just make the Internet a bunch of seperate internets the can communicate with each other.

The .com problem can be resolved by having a country of registration for each one.

What are the technical obstacles to such?

Short Version

[Doc Ruby]

"two Republicans and one Democrat, aims to line up Congress firmly behind the Bush administration"

Everything else is noise.

We Drive the Controversy

[Doc Ruby]

The US also "invented" the constitutional democratic republic (as we know it). These days, that godfatherhood is used as a club to enforce dangerous US foreign policy. We're reaping the harvest we've sown. Most other countries don't fear US invasion as much as US spying or crippling their Internet dependence. We're viewed by many people as a rogue state, and are much more easily cast as such by our enemies. There are serious consequences to destroying our reputation for integrity and leadership. I hope this kerfuffle over Internet governance is the worst that happens, but I have no reason to believe that the way Bush and Bolton handle it will make it anything but worse.

How about you don't be so arrogant

[Sycraft-fu]

We are talking about DNS here. The root zone is administered by ICANN, a US orginization. All but two of the roots are run either by the US government (DOD mostly), US universities (paid for by US tax dollars) or private US firms. The two roots that are not run by a US intrest (K and M) still choose to use the ICANN root file. Nobody is making anybody litsen to the root servers, you can modify your DNS server so it doesn't, and nobody is making those root servers use the ICANN zone, they do so because it's the defacto standard.

So here we have a system created, paid for, and run by US intrests that is purely optional. Nobody is forced to use it, in the US or out. In fact, there are rival orignizations such as OpenNIC. The US government does NOTHING to force people to use the ICANN set of roots. However, for all that, people still seem to think that some random other body should be given control.

What the fuck?

To me it sounds like a bunch of little kids. The EU likes to play with the US's toy, and so now they think they should have control of it. No, wrong answer. Feel free to setup your own root system, you can mirror the ICANN zone file if you like and thus have it compatible with ICANN domains or you can go your own route. Either is fine, the US will do absolutly nothing to stop it.

However don't whine and pretend that because you make use of something, you have a right to say how it should be run. You don't have any right to force the Slashdot editors to do anything a given way. You can suggest they change things, but if they ignore you, your choice is to either accept their decision and use it anyways, or reject it and stop using it. You cannot demand that they give you some kind of control just because you happen to use it.

Europeans miss the point

[obeseotron]

For all the things that you or I may hold against the US government, its administration of the Internet can't be one of them. The only thing we need from whoever controls the internet is for it to 1. not break and 2. not be censored. Until the US screws up either of these things I don't see how giving control to the UN will help things. I'm not some arrogant American who thinks that we're the only country on earth that respects freedom of speech, I wouldn't object to giving Europeans, Indians, Japanese or Brazillians or any other reasonable democracy a greater say. In case you guys missed it, 2/5 of the security council (don't anyone dare call Vlad Putin's Russia a democracy) and a very sizeable chunk of the general assembly are NOT democracies and have nothing approaching the same regard for free speech.

European Governments trying to be a bully

[Anonymous Coward]

I am tired of how Europe governments attack the USA for anything and then wants to kill off or limit US companies and now wants to control the Internet.
Anti-American, Anti-Christian, Anti-Jewish, Pro-Liberal crap from Euro governments. It's really sad.

Hardly a frightening prospect.

[dfenstrate]

If the US sneezes, the whole world catches a cold.

That's a very old saying and it plays out in economic trends time and time again. If other countries tried to fuck us with sanctions, it would hurt them far more.

The US is the worlds biggest, richest market. No one wants to cut themselves off from that for any significant length of time.

Re:Hardly a frightening prospect.

[retards]

Old like, what, 50 - 60 years? Doesn't sound very axiomatic to me. Before WWII the US was a pathetic nation of imigrants that no-one took seriously.

If other countries tried to fuck the US with sanctions, the US would be on it's knees in a month (or declare nuclear war).

The US is the worlds biggest, richest market for just a little while longer. There are over 2 billion Chinese and Indians that haven't bought cell-phones, SUVs, big screen TVs, etc., yet. Which market do you think looks more promising?

Re:Hardly a frightening prospect.

[carsamba]

Yah, and its deficit is so large, when it collapses it will take many with it. China which many here do not like actually is a big support to the US economy at the moment, boosting its ability to do international business (as well as Japan, South Korea etc). Obviously not out of love, but out of a need for a market that can owe them still more.
Sanctions usually are not necessary. The word is usually enough..

Re:Hardly a frightening prospect.

[Cro Magnon]

There's a reason why 2 billion Chinese and Indians haven't bought cell-phones, SUVs, big screen TVs, etc., yet. It's because they don't have the money! An IT guy in India, getting 20K a year is a rich man over there, but he couldn't afford a NY apartment over here. China & India might be growing fast, but they have a long way to go to catch up to us.

Re:Hardly a frightening prospect.

[oliverthered]

US is the worlds biggest, richest market.

No it's not Europe is.

re: I want to see what China Says/Europe? What?

[Unlikely_Hero]

He's not saying "poison" in the poetic sense you dunce, he's saying it in the technical sense. You completely misunderstood what the poster was referring to and went off on a sort of "You're an ignorant American" rant regarding "US Values" and the idea that Americans think that Europeans are all "Socialist Cheese-Eating Europeans".

Several things. First of all, look around in Europe, they have some of the most socialistically set up economies around, so that's a valid point. Also, the internet has nothing to do with values, or America, so please stop trying to turn this into an "Americans think they're so good, blah blah blah" argument. The simple fact is, it ain't broke, so stop tampering with it.
WE NEED DISTRIBUTED DNS. No government should have a control over DNS at all due to the threat of censorship. This especially applies to China, Governments with Religious Law sets (Sharia, et al) and other authoritarian regimes. My personal vote goes for Switzerland.
As for Europe, here's my issue. Just what have your countries contributed recently compared to the US? Not a threat, not an insult, just a simple question. Name some positive things you have done that come close to what the US has done. I won't even bring up the issue of WWII etc. Or WWI for that matter. What have you folks done lately?

Seriously
Anything?

News Flash U.S Lawmakes Vote To Keep Control of...

[linsys]

NOW this is NEWS... U.S lawmakes support the U.S control of (put in subject here). Go figure... now why would U.S lawmakers want to kee the control in the U.S?

Re:BULLSHIT!!!

[arminw]

.....It's about sharing control of something that's too big for ANY single country to control.....

Any country that doesn't like the way we have run the internet can opt out any time they wish and do it all themselves and there is nothing the US could or even wants to do about it. No country needs to use OUR GPS system either, we just allow *anybody* to use that for free, just as we allow anybody to use OUR DNS servers without them paying a dime. There are those who don't like the US controlling the GPS system either, but it is more difficult to argue that we don't have the right to control that. Anybody also can build their own GPS system if they don't like the way ours operates.

Re:Please...

[arminw]

....why shouldn't the rest of the world be free to choose wether they want an .xxx domain or not.....

Can anybody here on /. tell me that the US has mandated that China, Brazil or any other country can't set up a server system that allows for a .XXX or .YYY or any other domain for thier respective countries?

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[rs79]

"The real reason that the US government asked for postponement of the .xxx domain is because some lawmaker realized at the last minute that instituting a .xxx domain specifically for adult content effectively legitimizes it."

Nonsense. Cark Rove needed to get a religious group off his back by doing them a favour. Rather than delve into the stem cell issue or any of the other thorny problems on their shopping list, he glanced at their "stop .xxx" request, he made a phone call, and .xxx was stalled.

The whitehouse doesn't legitimize porn, the supremes do.

And it doesn't legitimize porn, it migtates it away from .com. Follow the money there boys and girls.

This is why it's bad to use the legacy root servers. Consider this: say in once scenario eveybody primaried the root zone for themselves; everybody was their own root server, that is they declare themselves authoritative for the "." root zone. Now their comnputer knows where all the tld servers are and can find the .com servers easily, and it caches them. (The root zone doesn't change very much at all) and so on and so forth. Notice there's no latency while you query the root servers to find where the nameservers for .com or .us are. This information is local to you now.

Under this scenario, how would the US government block a tld it didn't like? It can not. Nor can any government.

Under the current scenario, if thew USG shut off the legacy root servers (which it *can do* and no argument to the contrary changes this fact) the internet goes away, worldwide.

Before DNS was invented, everybody downloaded the "hosts.txt" file and your computer in that day knew the names and addresses of all the other computers on the network.

When DNS was invented, the notion of your own compter doing your own nameservice was absurd - about 5 guys worldwide had working nameserver code, so it was a great convenience that DARPA ran a half dozen nameservers that resolved the root and everythings else. And it was great that the NSF paid for these servers, deployed at the most robust points around the network. Through 20 years of sheer laziness and lack of innovation (with a good measure of subterfuge, graft and greed thrown in) we still, for some reason not well understood by me, rely on those 13 IP addresses for all names. Biz-zarre. It's *convenient*.

But, as a citizen of a country not the US I think now the convenience of the US controlled root servers is somewhat diminished.

Let my Master be the one to control it...

[MrSnivvel]

It seems a lot of comments here are nothing more than slaves wanting their slave-master to be the one controlling the DNS servers. Do I need to say that it sounds completely pathetic? Here's an idea, I don't want any MoFo government agency, real or quasi, controlling the net in any way. If it's the tyrannical US or the tyrannical UN/EU government controlling, we still end up with an organization that gives about "two shits and fuck" about your individual opinon on how things should be ran. For those who can't handle a little crude language, it all boils down to CONTROL. Some may have noticed that across the globe Thought Crime legislation, aka Hate Speech, is either being proposed, quietly slipped in and enacted, or already enacted law. Those laws coupled with the so called debate over who controls the DNS servers spells the death of easy access to alternative news sources and any that goes against the gain of the the offical propoganda line from your respective government. Nothing screws up a good thing like a overzealous, pompous beaurocrat.

Re:It was your choice to join

[carsamba]

This has nothing to do with democracy or morality, those words are just hollow argument points, internationally speaking. Just who will have stewardship over domain names etc will be determined by who wants it most and who has the heaviest clout. The U.S. having possesion is a strong position, as "possesion is nine points of the law".. The E.U. being labeled as whining ladies is apt :)
It can be easily argued the U.S. has supported/partaken in at least as many atrocities as any other nation one might care to name. Please don't badger me with accusations of being anti-American, I am not. I am not blind either.

Re: I want to see what China Says/Europe? What?

[Dogtanian]

He's not saying "poison" in the poetic sense you dunce, he's saying it in the technical sense.

What? Did you think I was imagining him cackling and holding a small bottle with a skull and crossbones on it?

Of course I meant the technical sense, and I'm still not convinced that "poisoning" is a good description of what the EU (or whoever else; let's be honest, this isn't just an EU thing) would be doing. "Splitting" or "forking" are more accurate.

"You're an ignorant American" rant regarding "US Values" and the idea that Americans think that Europeans are all "Socialist Cheese-Eating Europeans".

"Poisoning" implied wanton destructiveness on the part of the EU. This didn't describe the reality of the situation (see above).

No, I don't think that all Americans view Europeans that way. But I'll bet a notable minority do; and I wasn't necessarily assigning this view to the guy I was replying to.

First of all, look around in Europe, they have some of the most socialistically set up economies around, so that's a valid point.

I don't think any country in Europe is especially socialist, except in comparison with America, perhaps. Which ones did you have in mind?

Anyhow, the example was a deliberate caricature (and not especially exaggerated) of how some Americans see Europe; and how anything smacking of "socialism" is Godless and basically just communism by the back door.

Also, the internet has nothing to do with values, or America, so please stop trying to turn this into an "Americans think they're so good, blah blah blah" argument.

*I* didn't say that. However, use of a similar argument has been used by Americans elsewhere in this thread. If you disagree with that, please take it up with them.

No government should have a control over DNS at all due to the threat of censorship.

So you're saying the US government don't have a disproportionate influence over the current set up?

As for Europe, here's my issue. Just what have your countries contributed recently compared to the US? Not a threat, not an insult, just a simple question. Name some positive things you have done that come close to what the US has done.

The World Wide Web?

It's sure as hell more usable than gopher. :)

I won't even bring up the issue of WWII etc.

You just did. The EU didn't start that; actually, the EU was set up to avoid things like that ever happening again. If you want to start blaming the Axis powers specifically, be my guest.

Would not work...

[hummassa]

Maybe we should just set up our own one, and not let idiots or politicians (but I repeat myself) join in. The problem is, the moment we do set our own one up, we become both (idiots and politicians).

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[Afaflix]

look .. no perfect solution but I don't believe that a xxx site "wants" to be read by 14 years olds .. they don't spend money on this stuff. the guys that do spend money on this are going to be the driving force ... capitalism at its best. prohibitions dont work cheers

Re: .KKK TLD...?

[Afaflix]

yes
keep them where you can see them
instead of make them hide .. so you can pretend it's all not happening

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[Afaflix]

well .. .biz doesn't really define anything IMHO.
let's assume they come out with a whole slew of new TLD's ... .sex .xxx .groceries .books .blogs .egosites .hardware .u-name-it
wouldn't that make internet search easier

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[Afaflix]

I actually buy that one

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[Capt James McCarthy]

One persons "Smut" is another persons "Art." Who are you to decide which is which?

Only a matter of time

[Horus1664]

While I do understand the US reticence to permit the UN to 'control' aspects of the Internet, particularly as the UN does not come across as particularly efficient/pro-active/effective, it is surely inevitable that either a global body is created to administer dispute resolution etc or one day the network will fracture.

When China, India etc become fully connected and their economies overtake that of the US, which they inevitably will, probably within our lifetimes, they will have little need to allow the US to control such a key resource.

I hope that a middle way can be found before then otherwise I can imagine rival networks emerging.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[JohnFluxx]

> Do you have ANY IDEA how large a memory table it takes to filter out KNOWN .COM porn sites? It takes a LOT of memory.

Since you asked, I created a ternary tree of 1 million words/phrases - that took up 30MB.

Re:BULLSHIT!!!

[Decameron81]

Right. "It's either our way or no way."

Until, of course, the situation is reversed and it is YOU who need help. Then the world is supposed to either be with you or against you.

Other countries going for their own DNS system is much harder to implement than you imply. It will eventually happen, the way things are going. But it's in the best interest of everyone that things do not go down this road.

By the way, nice concept you have of democracy in the US.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[ciggieposeur]

Don't be ridiculous. China will have absolutely no control of the Internet. As for China being the "next" empire. That is dubious, according to the CIA 15 year report, it will be the EU that will become the next superpower, economically, and militarily.

Is this the same CIA that swore Iraq had WMD? Or the CIA that swore it didn't? Could the White House, which has had a vested interest in downplaying the role of China for the last twenty years, possibly influence the CIA's assessment of China's importance?

Re: I want to see what China Says/Europe? What?

[Unlikely_Hero]

Definitely a good response. I'm sorry I didn't see that you DID know the technical term. I've just seen a lot of people ask "How do you poison DNS? Its a computer!"
I guess the socialistic comment is more of a "by comparison" issue. For instance, I see the european setups as EXTREMELY socialistic. And again, my apologies for erupting, I'm just sick of the "americans are ignorant brutes" comments I hear on here so much. Forgive me ^_^
I wasn't just referring to the internet however when I asked what Europe has done lately
Referring more to economic developments, inventions etc.
Yes it was shameless to bring up WWII. Sorry.
as for what I said about no one should control DNS, I stand by that statement. Ideally I don't think the US should either. However, the US has done quite a bangup job basically leaving ICANN alone.
well, sorry I misunderstood some of the stuff
Cheers ^_^
----- There's something you don't see often, someone on /. admitting he was wrong!

Re:BULLSHIT!!!

[arminw]

....Other countries going for their own DNS system is much harder to implement than you imply.....

There is no reason right now for anybody to roll their own DNS. All I am saying that they may do so if they WANT to. There is no reason to fix something that isn't broken and that has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. All the spam and p0rn can travel all over the global internet just fine still and by and large it is still tax free.

Name me some other nations that have had a peaceful succession of governments under a single constitutional framework for the last 229 years.

DNS Control

[DynamicPhil]

It's a issue of democracy. The US has to hand over the power to a international democratic body, any other action is per definition UN-Democratic (no pun intended). I'm sorry, but arguing anything else is just moot.

I'm sorry, but Cencorship, Control, Taxation, History or technical "we-do-it-best" doesn't affect the above.

It's the US responsibility to participate and to try to affect the outcome of voting on these issues in the UN. That, my friends, is how democracy is supposed to work.

that's why the world must agree on one authority

[free2]

We can absolutely, vigorously, and freely debate ad nauseum who "the" authority will be to control "the" namespace and "the" numberspace. But, in the end, we all must agree on one authority, and there is no debating that.
It seems the US lawmakers don't understand the "we all" in "we all must agree on one authority".
If they persist, there will be a major DNS fork.

Re:that's why the world must agree on one authorit

[Big_Al_B]

It seems the US lawmakers don't understand the "we all" in "we all must agree on one authority".

Seems so. :^/

Leo Laporte should run it

[elrous0]

Not only would he be an informed leader, but a polite and upbeat one as well.

-Eric

Historic parallell is GPS

[maggern]

This conflict is really about the control of infrastructure. Every country wants control of it's own (important) infrastructure.

I'd like to draw a parallell to the GPS-system. It was developed by the US and shared with the europeans. After some time the GPS became an important part of the europeans' infrastructure. However, since US would not give up controll, or even share it, the europeans was forced to build their own system.

As far as I remember it was feared that the USA would turn the systems off in case of an emergency. ...and that would've been the excact moment where the europeans would've needed it the most.

Seriously...

[drg8000]

Seriously though....I'm from America, but what right to we have to control the internet. It shouldnt belong to anybody, if one country controls it, they can choose to block out whatever doesnt tickle their fancy. It shouldn't be owned by any country but by the whole world!

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[smindinvern]

who says that religious groups are going to be in control of what goes on the domain. The switch .xxx would be _volintary_, meaning that, as mentioned previously, pornographic sites could move their site to .xxx in order to be more easily found, or simply out of general courtesy. No one is going to _force_ anybody to use the domain, for opression or otherwise.

Re: .KKK TLD...?

[RentonSentinel]

So which TLDs should we assign necrophilia? Which TLDs for infanticide? Which TLDs self mutilation?

Your domain system will become a laundry list of every deviant or objectionable activity known to man. This is why slashdot kids don't run ICAAN...

Re: .KKK TLD...?

[RentonSentinel]

You would reward the KKK with recognition that they do not deserve. You would enshrine their organization in the servers. You would mark their logo in the source code of every browser.

And all for naught. Because the hate would still be said in .ORG and .COM. People would STILL log onto slashdot and say "I hate blacks" "I hate jews" or whatever the objectionable content you were trying to block. Back to square one, except, now the KKK's name is in neon lights.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[n3g471v3 z3r0]

i had always agreed with the .xxx domain, but reading your comment i had a thought...
if .xxx sites are easier to find, then the illeagal (and typically much worse) porn will stay in the large dark corners of the .com domain

Re: .KKK TLD...?

[Afaflix]

You would reward the KKK with recognition that they do not deserve.

Yes, you are probably right on this one ... on the other hand, it gives the haxx0rs a DOS target :o)
maybe .scheissnazi would be a better one

[snip] ... or whatever the objectionable content you were trying to block.

I have made my mind up about the world I live in and there is very little that will change that. But I personally don't need to see pages like goatse.cx, so I can simply put that filter into MY browser and can assume that I now filtered out "most" of that kind of content

Back to square one, except, now the KKK's name is in neon lights.

And you, as a conciencious parent, can now point your finger at it and teach your kid(s) that these are ideas that are no longer fit for current society.
Or would you rather have your repressed kid, that isn't allowed to do or see anything controversial, to find that info somewhere in some dark night at the keyboard and think those ideas might actually have value?

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Whats the opposite ... Prohibitionism? ... yeah, that worked so much better.

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[Afaflix]

this is probably the most compelling argument against the .xxx
I guess leaving it under one, uncensorable umbrella is the only solution to keep free information going.
(free as in free-thought, not no payment)

but it could still be offered, then ... oh never mind

end of thread

Re: I want to see what China Says/Europe? What?

[Dogtanian]

Yep, no prob.

Not always illegal

[jbang]

Uh, yeah. There's the slight difference that providing access to pr0n to minors is illegal, whereas showing pictures of firearms is not.

That's not entirely true. It may be illegal in the US (I'm assuming you are from the US), I wouldn't know since I'm from Denmark. But it's not illegal everywhere, which just proves the point (at least the point I read) of the original discussion: No one country should be the governing body of the web, since no two countries agree about everything.

A comment like yours, that states as a fact that something is illegal, without moderating it with 'in the US', just helps to strengthen the image of the americans as a peolpe that (either by choice or because they waven't been taught better) is totally ignorant about the world outside the US. I know this image is not true (a lot of my friends are from the US [sic]), but your comment just doesn't help.

And before this degrades into a mudslinging contest about pushing porn on minors: It's not because I think that minors should be subjected to porn, without protection/guidance. But there are several points to think about:

• I think a kid's/minor's parents are best suited to regulate when the minor should be allowed to be subjected to porn. Partly because they know him/her best, and partly because they are in the best position to advice and guide the kid about the porn.
• When is a minor a minor? The age where we legislate about adult/minor sexual relations in Denmark is 15. My guess is that it's 18 in the US, and something else somewhere else.
• What is porn? *)

*) Some would say that a girl in a bikini, but striking a sexually insinuating pose is porn. I wouldn't. Some might not think that a still picture of a naked couple lying next to each other, and almost touching each other genitals is porn. I might think it is, depending on the context. In 1972 a lot of people thought that the sex-scenes in "Last Tango in Paris" were pornographic. Today I'm not so sure you could get the same across-the-board agreement. What I'm trying to say is: One man's smut is another man's art. And if we try to cater to the least common denominator, we might end up with all pictures of females covered from the neck down, so we'll have to guess if they are dressed, because otherweise the picture is porn.

I know that in the US, the word 'bang' is slang for an activity not discussed in polite conversation, but in Denmark it is either the sound made by a firecracker or the name of a famous Danish author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Bang, whom I don't think I'm related to.

-- Jens Bang

Re: .xxx TLD...?

[utnow]

well yes and no...

It would make it easier to find the sites that actually use it correctly. Unfortunatly millions of porn-sites would register things like "havingsexwhilebuying.groceries" or "stickingitwhereever.u-name-it".

Anytime you give the power to the site itself to categorize itself, the sites will take advantage of that and screw up the system. This is exactly why meta-tags are generally ignored by search engines. They just become a tool to get to the top of the first page of results by scamsters.

Having a .xxx TLD wouldn't help this either. Granted .xxx would be ALL porn, but the rest of the TLDs would be no less infested with it.

It would be like building a whore-house in Las Vegas... You would expect to find whores in the house... but that dosen't mean they wouldn't be everywhere else too.

Bottom line... having a .xxx TLD would only make it easier to find porn, but no easier to avoid it.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this

[avanha]

Your comment prompted me to read the CIA report, and I have no idea where you got the impression that "it will be the EU that will become the next superpower, economically, and militarily."

Some higlights from the summary:

The economies of other developing countries, such as Brazil, could surpass all but the largest European countries by 2020.

Europe's strength could be in providing a model of global and regional governance to the rising powers. But aging populations and shrinking work forces in most countries will have an important impact on the continent. Either European countries adapt their work forces, reform their social welfare, education, and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations (chiefly from Muslim countries), or they face a period of protracted economic stasis.

The full report goes into detail and specifically talks about Europe's 1.4% birth-rate, Germany's (and to a lesser extent French and Italian) restrictive labor environment, and aversion to structural reform. It also goes into military spending, and talks about Europe's lack of it. It predicts China will have the second largest military budget after the US.