Slashdot Mirror
US Control of Internet Remains an Issue
Hugh Pickens writes "A UN-sponsored Internet conference ended with little progress on the issue of US control over the domain name system run by ICANN, a California-based nonprofit over which the US. government retains veto power. By controlling the core systems, the United States indirectly influences the way much of the world uses the Internet. As the conference drew to a close, the Russian representative, Konstantin Novoderejhkin, called on the United Nations secretary-general to create a working group to develop ''practical steps'' for moving Internet governance ''under the control of the international community.'' The United States insists that the existing arrangements ensure the Internet's stability and there's little indication that the US government and ICANN plan to cede their roles over domain names anytime soon. ''I think (there are) a small number of countries that are very agitated and almost don't care what the facts are,'' said Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, who stepped down as ICANN's chairman earlier this month. ''It's a very small vocal group bothered by this issue. ICANN has existed for eight years and done a great job with its plans for internationalization.'' With no concrete recommendations for action, the only certainty going forward is that any resentment about the American influence will only grow as more users from the developing world come online, changing the face of the global network. The next forum will held next year in New Delhi, India."
Many are quick to point out the question "Why does the United States deserve to control the internet?"
This quickly spins into a ridiculous flame war consisting of something along the lines of "We invented it" - (A claim contested by swedish apoligists), or some kind of line about how Libya is in charge of the UN council on human rights, whatever that has to do with it.
These points, and many other historical arguements, are irrelevant. The only issue here is that the United States currently has control, and is being presented with no good (or even clear) reason why it should give that control up.
It would certainly be nice for Australia to have some part of the infrastructure here. Everything on the net we use seems to come from the states :(
second post ?
could it bee?
A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.
As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.
I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.
Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?
I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.
I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.
I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.
Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.
I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.
I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.
I, for one, welcome our Internet controlling Seppo Overlords...
As a European, I do feel there is a need to do something with this issue. Not to be disrespectful, but I don't think that USA are the best people for the job. Just look at all the problems they have now (packet shaping, net neutrality, etc...). And as a spanish speaker, I feel that it has taken faaar too long to get the "ñ" in domain names. And we only have one funny letter!
Why don't we give the governance of internet stuff to somebody like Switzerland? They look like they could do a good job, they have the money and good reasons to do a good job on worldwide internationalization of internet.
A bit more seriously, I think that something that has grown as important as this, should be in the hands of the UN, as any strange move can have significant effects worldwide.
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
This is an issue of start positions. The US was the first country that embraced internet on a global scale - next were European countries like UK, Germany and, of course, Japan.
And as the old saying goes: first boy on the village bicycle has the longest lap. Of course, if that boy also happens to be the dominant Superpower, other villagers should just forget about their turn and go play with rocks or something.
Magazine 13 - We like to think its funny... sort of
Agreed.
I'm going to start requiring my traffic to be sent in Euro packets. These American packets don't hold their value across long ping times.
I personally do not believe there is really going to be any improvement by handing the reigns over to "The International Community", because that community is not truly representing humanity, they only claim to. I personally have to be grateful that Mr. Bush has not given the Internet already to Newscorp. That said it appears that the gift The US Department of defense gave to humanity is currently held by the best of all possible stewards. I believe that the most vocal chorus against the US veto role over the DNS Root servers comes specifically from political communities (Regional Government Administrations) that have absolutely no cultural track record of respecting freedom of speech and thought. I'd say that we really do not have much of a choice, if they give the Net to the UN the net will no longer exist as it came into being, which is the voice of humanity's ability to communicate with it's self.
In the last thread (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=356717&cid=21311105) when this came up I said rather than sit down and discuss what could be done, they'd just bitch. Well there you go. No talk about solutions to the problem of US control like, you know, actually setting up non-US groups to do this stuff, just whining that the US should "give up control."
To me this seems similar to a bunch of kids whining that the kid who owns a really nice toy that he shares and lets them all play with should "give up control" of it to the rest of them.
This is especially true since any sort of ceremonious handing over of control would do nothing to the reality of the situation. Sure the US could, in theory, tell ICANN they answer to the UN now (though there are limits to what they can legally make a private entity do). However it wouldn't change who really has ultimate control if everything remained in the US. If the government wanted to, they could still force ICANN to do what they said since, well, they have the guns.
It would be the same thing as if you used a server in my house. Let's say it was my hardware, hosted on my net connection, but I let you use it as you pleased. However you didn't have root to it, I maintained it for you. You demand that since it is your server, I "give up control" to you in the form of root. I do that. Ok great, but I didn't really give up anything. Why? I still physically and legally control the computer. So at some point in the future I decide I don't like what you are doing I tell you to stop, you say no. I just go and unplug the server and change the configuration offline. The "control" you had was an illusion, I was still ultimately in charge because I maintained physical control and legal ownership.
Hence for a real system that isn't US controlled, it requires other countries to set up their own services. Setup your own entity like ICANN, set up root servers that operate under it. Initially, have it just devoted to mirroring ICANN's zone file (there are some small DNS projects like this). However once you've got an established system that works well with good infrastructure backing it, then maybe you approach ICANN about splitting the zone. You take the TLDs relevant to your part of the world, they keep the rest, and you swap zone information. You might find they are quite open to something like that.
Now if that was done in a number of places all over the world, you'd end up with a real robust DNS system that nobody really controlled. If any of the top level entities flipped out, the others could just stop accepting updates from them and their roots would continue to work fine. There wouldn't be any way for a single group to mess up the Internet.
That's what I want to see, something where there really isn't ANY country in charge. However what all these idiots want to see is something where the US just pretends to give up control, we still have something the US retains ultimate control over, except that the day-to-day decisions become run by the UN and are incredibly bureaucratic.
The internet is designed to survive nuclear attack. There ARE no core systems. Surely if everyone else wanted to wrest control away from the US govt., all they would need to do would be setup a new system providing the same facilities, and then route traffic there instead.
There's a huge movement toward decentralization in technology. Some people like to apply that to everything including groups. The Internet by design is a free space. ICANN follows that basic principle religiously.
Take a look at every other world wide organizations and you'll see why this is a bad idea. It's moving the decision making ability away from competent individuals that believe in freedom of the internet to people who don't know what they are doing, who are easily swayed by buzz words and controlled more by politics than logic.
ICANN has done an excellent job. It continues to do that job incredibly well. Don't fix what isn't broken. Evaluate it, suggest reasonable fixes, and move on.
The last thing in the world we need is some politician directly controlling the internet. I'm referring more to countries that don't believe in freedom of speech that hold a tight grip on it's populace (See China, Chad, Zimbabwe... etc).
This is a political battle from a small group of power hungry individuals. If there was truly a problem with the current way things are, everyone would be calling for a change. That's not the case
I can't help but think it would be better off in the US as non-profit than the UN. The UN is political, not a technical organization. So any changes they made would be driven from a political source with ulterior motives. Think, if they messed up commerce because of poor decisions they could argue 18 months about it before making a decision.
And besides, there is nothing stopping any country from doing their own thing provided they are willing to pay for it them selves and not hide behind the UN. Last I checked every country does have their own 2 letter ISO code country assignments. I am not aware of any who are denied access to .com, net etc.
It must have been a slow day at the UN. As if the UN had their way, one must remember it is stacked with mostly poor countries with most of the votes. Why should these countries with the least to lose have more control? Most can't even manage their own .iso.
Well, I would say that the most vocal chorus comes mainly from other big powers of the world (like Europe, like China...) that think that it's a bit unfair the US is fully controlling a part of their economy as important as the net. Nowadays, the net is a hugely important asset of most of the developed economies in the world. It is hard to believe that the US ahs the keys to it.
Something similar happens with GPS. Now, at least in europe, there are many important things that rely on GPS signal to work. The truth is that the US has the power to turn that off, without previous notice. Obviously, at some point, the EU decides that enough is enough, so we are building our own GPS equivalent, Galileo, pouring billions into it, just so we don't depend on Mr. Bush not to do anything stupid.
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
You've hit where I believe is the core matter - yeah, there may be issues with big corporations and the internet, but those issues may not go away with someone else in control AND there would be some SERIOUS freedom of speech and access issues with even some moderate European powers in charge of the 'net.
It's a computer network. The US doesn't actually have any control. The UN goes on as if every computer in the world came hardcoded to obey ICANN's every whim.
Set up some goddamn hardware, and everybody will switch over to it. Everybody likes seeing the US take a kick to the teeth, so there won't be an issue with that. It'll be like a big worldwide "Fuck You" to America, and it'll be easy. Everybody will care because everybody either hates America or at least wants to be able to use the internet.
Stop bitching about this in meetings, and start signing some fucking cheques. Their lack of action in this matter makes me question if this is even about control of the internet at all.
Who originally thought it up, funded it, and deployed it? Damn right we did. :-)
So make your own DNS and your own interwebs and go forth and be happy.
Americans dont trust the international community to do anything right except bitch about Americans.
If you dont like it, no one is gonna stop you from going your own way. Make your own.
Just stop complaining about it.
These points, and many other historical arguements, are irrelevant. The only issue here is that the United States currently has control, and is being presented with no good (or even clear) reason why it should give that control up
The discussion started, as most discussions do, quite sanely and quietly with a good reason. The main reason why it should give up control is because it has control, and the world doesn't trust someone as crazy as the US with that power. Countries depend on the internet more and more, and it is truly international. That said, something international like that should not be under the control of one country. As a people, we elected a nut like George W. Bush, we invaded two countries on a whim, our CIA is taking people from other countries, hiding them in little rooms all over the world and torturing them, all in the name of "fighting terrorism," and the rest of the world simply does not trust us. Whether or not you agree with the obvious slant of my statements, that's how the rest of the world looks at the US. I'm an American and easily see that.
Now while giving up control is, in terms of the world, the right thing to do, do you honestly think that the US is giving up control any time soon? We have the power, why give it up? Of course the discussion degenerated, because you could present all the logical arguments you can come up with, the US simply will not give up power like that. Who knows when they'll need another bargaining chip, or need to shut down a TLD before invading another country, or whatever else the government comes up with.
That's why this degenerates into a flame war, because there's no where for the discussion to go. The US has all the toys, and when they were asked to share, they put their fingers in their ears and stomped away. Now the rest of the world is stomping right behind them demanding "it's not faaaaaaiiirrrrr!!!!" Welcome to international politics.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
$500 billion dollars.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
For the moment, the internet seems to be in fairly good shape, give or take - the biggest pains are usually software that is actively trying to block content (e.g. national firewalls, etc) and little details like spam and the never ending need for more bandwidth. I suspect most of the underlying issue here is that countries who already are mad at the US (not without reason) don't want a critical resource to be controlled by the US, independent of whether a good job is being done at the moment.
That's not an unreasonable fear, I expect (for those in the US, turn it around and ask yourself if you would be willing to have, say, China exercise the same power we currently do (in theory) over the internet). But the solution is known - when the US gets to be too much of a pain, someone will set up something more reasonable and the world will switch over. It's not the technical questions that make switching impossible, but the social inertia needed to actually MAKE that change. If people get riled enough, it will happen.
It works well. There are no problems with it. I dont want boards that can be clogged by china, russia, iran, libya or other crappy countries at the helm of internet.
and im no american. im turkish.
Read radical news here
If this is really the case, I must admit that I'm far from shocked. This sort of thing is seen in really life all the time ! Each "hot" issue needs a leader. Just get somebody who knows nothing whatsoever about the issue and put him in charge. In real life this is often called a MANAGER. Don't know if this idea would work out well where the Internet is concerned though. In my view it would probably be better if this were managed by somebody just ever so slightly knowledgeable on the subject ..... but this is only my opinion, of course. And my right to have such an opinion might well turn out to be a "human rights question"... (wanders off wondering if he knows any Libyans - nothing like a word in the right place).
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
If the rest of the world wants to control its "internets", all they need to do is set up their own DNS servers for their own countries and have people who want websites use those TLDs. Oh, and move to IPv6 for two reasons - breaking up IPv6 addresses regionally would be easy and, since the rest of the world doesn't like the US being in control of the 'tubes, it would force American ISPs and American interests to make a (somewhat expensive) move to IPv6.
Start with regulating the ccTLDs. Today nobody cares about unethical principes by ccTLD owners, take a look at Nunames that revokes good
How many millions of dollars did Kofi Annan's son get from Saddam Hussein's "Oil for Food" program?
Why is the IAEA only now admitting that they've known for at least two years that Iran had plans for nuclear warheads?
And if you want some really, really strange shit, just look into the behavior of UN "peacekeepers" around children. (And WTF is a "peacekeeper" anyway? An army of occupation? Because if the locals don't want to be "peaceful", the only way to "keep" them peaceful is by military occupation. If the locals want to be peaceful, "peacekeepers" are not needed....)
There are political issues on this between Verisign and ICANN, and unfortunately ICANN does not seem highly motivated. But (last time I looked, which is a few years ago) Verisign really wanted to push Punycode solutions, and was trying to deploy internationalization using the same mechanisms they were using to hijack DNS requests for non-existent domains to point them to their advertising web pages (which were very annoying if you were using some protocol other than HTTP: TCP:80.)
And of course there's not only the US Trademark Mafia trying to push domain name policy, but the US don't-trade-with-our-enemies people, and the Chinese government-censorship mafia, and various other governments that want to use this as an excuse for control or censorship.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"All of your Internet are belong to us!"
Well, someone has to do it.
IF they set up "some hardware", then "everybody" will switch over.
Yep. Everyone will automatically switch over to an unproven provider, right off the bat.
ARE YOU NUCKING FUTS?
If they want to do this, they need to start small, prove they can be stable, take on more responsibility, then eventually, when they prove they can handle their portion of the load, assume authority over PORTIONS of it.
What you're suggesting is akin to some kid on a cablemodem setting up a Linux box and then telling everyone they should move off Akamai and on to his "uber boxen".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Why don't some of these countries start their own WorldNet and stfu? I'm sure all these other countries have the talent and cash to do it and then peer the two networks if need be. They want control of something they can't handle in the first place or will sending dive bombing into the ground. The UN? That's a global body of colossus disaster who has a hard time drop shipping food in Africa, but they sure can line their pockets up with CASH for Oil. The UN is nothing but a gold-digger that siphons whatever it touches dry and moves on to the next sugar daddy.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
Never mind the fact that people don't trust ICANN to be in charge of things* then that implies they want it to be moved to some other central location.
If we put it under NATO or UN control or something then where do the main authoritative servers get put? The UN doesn't own any territory, which means it would have to put it in the territory or a member state. Either that or they put it somewhere completely neutral (middle of the sea?) at which point the connection is terrible.
So, while it might be good to have it under less potentially influenced control, where would it all physically go?
* which, TBH, if the US Government have a veto on them then I don't really, but that's not important
I love it when people reply snarkily to my snarky replies.
Hint: I'm American.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"It's a very small vocal group bothered by this issue."
- Vint Cerf
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead
-kgj
-kgj
Freeloaders of the world unite and learn to take care of themselves?
L O L
Putin's russia is every a bit as democratic as Bush's US.
Step1: Implement ipv6 , that pretty much ends the issue with regards to who assigns ip addresses, because there will be enough for everbody, making it a moot point.
.com address, then the cost will probably be lower than your accounting errors anyway, and if the name is taken just sue them under trademark violations ( because you DID trademark your company, right ? )
.xxx was rejected on technical grounds, but it certainly didn't help ICANN or its credibility to have some asshats try to have it rejected on "moral" grounds and what not. Yea it gets a bit tiresome, but you can blame you know who...
Step2: Register domain names under your country code. ICANN has more or less promised not to fuck around with countries TLDs, and quite frankly they wouldn't be that stupid. If you happen to be a major international company that MUST have a
The problem with non-latin characters is technical, not merely political, and moving to a UN organisation won't make the technical issues go away. You would have to come up with something which doesn't break existing implementations, but is simulataneously sufficient enough that you won't have to revamp it again in ten years time. When somebody comes up with a working implementation for this that won't break thinsg across the globe, and if ICANN rejects it on political reasons, then one could start discussing it.
Of course, it would help if the US government would just stay the fuck out of ICANN decisions.
USA, Russia, China pressure the UN to force OPEC to give up their control of Oil to a wider international body.
Russia, Canada, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway pressure the UN to force equatorial countries to give up their control of warm winters.
China, and other heavily industrial countries pressure the UN to force the pacific ocean to give up control of clean air.
America in that past 20 years has constantly been making policy based on trying to be a good guy, and that just pisses people off because that's such a holier than thou attitude about things. If American policy was "If you want the internet, Russians/European Union folks, do something about it besides whining", it would make people upset in the short run, but if this was always policy, our true allies (not-Russia) would be happier because they benefited more. To quote Thucydides: "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." No state maintains a status of power when it is willing to surrender authority to other states.
"the voice of humanity's ability to communicate with it's self"?!?!?!
Isn't the Net clogged almost to capacity with little besides penis enlargement SPAM, pump-and-dump stock SPAM, and both still and video images of jiggling bare boobies?
This may be a marginally better use for the Net than providing a redundant pathway to transmit the orders to nuke the entire planet, but... a gift to humanity??
Not for everyone.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The truth is that anybody can set up their own DNS servers and populate them with whatever names they want to.
I think it is telling that all these other countries have not gotten together and actually done so. If many other countries united and put together their own DNS system, lots of people would use it. They probably can't even agree and work together.
I feel your gratitude now go unplug your Ethernet, or say whatever you like?!?!?!
ICANN OBVIOUSLY needs to be put under the control of the United Nations. From its perspective, it has no leg to stand on for censoring and blocking access, the US DOES, and eventually the US will be censoring just like the Chinese. You cannot trust these the Christians. Control and ethnic cleansing is their plan for all of us. Do not believe me, head to Africa. Read this bible or go hungry mother fucker. But I digress.
The US may have built the internet, but they are not trustworthy enough to control it. I am an American and I can recognize this.
"Get away from my internet connection you damn dirty Christian!"
"America in that past 20 years has constantly been making policy based on trying to be a good guy, and that just pisses people off because that's such a holier than thou attitude about things"
Are you really dumb enough to believe that?
America has been paying lip service to being the good guy whilst screwing with other countries' regimes, selling arms into unstable areas, invading and destabilising all sorts of places and all the whole preaching to the rest of the world about "freedom", "justice" and the "American Way", which it makes clear by its actions it doesn't believe in and only applies to US citizens. Even then it begrudges every liberty it has granted its own people.
Stop worshipping that damn flag and look at the actions of your country around the world. It's disgraceful and it really grates when when all you ever hear out of US politicians is how fucking great and blameless they are in the troubles of the world.
I mean god-damn all the good and evil, us and them rhetoric is simplistic and childish, yet you guys lap it up.
If these turrist nations don't like the US running the intarwebs, then maybe the US should just take it back. In yer face, Johnny Foreigner! Seriously, though -- unless there's a genuine problem with the way it is being currently administered, leave it the hell alone. Mostly it seems like these countries are moaning because the US more or less gave the system to the world at no cost, and the fact is that this apparent gesture of techie altruism goes against their desire to paint the West as a evil incarnate. (ps -- I am not an American, but I've seen one on TV).
That lady was crazy, and misunderstood how human society works. We effect everyone, and everyone effects us, you can't shut yourself in a box and pretend you're alone.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
* Dictators who buy yachts, guns, planes while their people starve.
* Countries with out of control population growths living in self induced poverty
* Getting a solution to Iraq/Afghanistan
* International law and terrorists, making smaller countries comply
* Making the UN more constructive and productive so we don't think they are an expensive ineffective joke I have always wondered why the UN is located in the US. Now I get it. It's so simple when you think about it, put the potential solution to your problems next to the cause of your problems. Genius.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
USA is a Republic, not Democratic. We vote for representatives who vote and create laws. Often, very stupid laws that don't help the very people elected, but still laws.
Reading through this whole thread, there is clearly a vast gap between the American and non-American understanding of the problem (or non-problem, depending on your point of view). Here's a simple trick to help you understand the non-American viewpoint. Everywhere you read US, replace it with UN. Ignoring the detail of the arguments, the horror you feel at putting the UN in charge seems pretty similar to the horror I have of keeping the US in charge. Clearer now?
and pay you in euro's out of my wallet...!
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 hour, 10 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Crud, isn't it.
I'm not sure that we need the Russians etc. to make sure that the Internet works.
I'm a European, so no Bush fanboi, and I'm ashamed to say that we've got nothing better to propose. The EU, the UN? Hmmm...
I offer the only parallel I can think of, (a free, global system, originally developed by - and for - the military), namely GPS.
GPS is great - period. I travel all around the world, and my cheap GPS receiver always tells me where I am. Thanks to the Internet, I can even get maps/sat pics of 'forbidden' or 'unmapped' places beforehand, and find my way.
Russia's GLONASS and the EU's Galileo are not operational, (think 2010 earliest). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation_system)
The Internet works pretty well too. Except when I travel to....guess where! China, the UAE, Saudi Arabia....in places that have shitty oppressive regimes, esssentially.
So, tell me everyone, who do you want 'in charge' of the Internet?
Don't like ICANN? Start your own alternative DNS service. No one has a monopoly on DNS. Every computer can be configured to point to any DNS server you choose.
If you want to step in and take over what the US has built, then start talking dollars...because this stuff didn't come for free.
The real issue is that the U.S. actually has very little control. The rest of the world could do whatever the hell they want with it and there's not much we could do about it.
I've been arguing for a long time now that control over the DNS should pass to the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union. There's no real reason, IMO, why the United States needs to maintain control over the Internet. The Internet has become critical infrastructure for the entire world, and governance over telecommunications standards should be handled by an international agency. Coincidentally, we already have such an agency responsible for telecommunications standards. Why not allow the ITU to take over?
I have been talking quite a bit with an economist who was in Rio all this week at the IGF. His take is more of watching what the economic situation will be when artificial, monopoly based, scarcity is introduced into the system. I can't wait to hear his take on the brazillian brawl this week.
/16 you are using? It will cost you $BIGNUM/month in rental fees, or we give it to someone else. Those controlling companies will also use DNSSEC to control who has the right to announce a prefix.
Specifically, what happens to IPv4 address allocation when there is no longer any freely available netblocks. (Pay special attention to pages 27&29, and watch the accompanying video). New allocations will come from returned address pools, so a queuing system will have to be implemented at the RIR level. Starting up a new ISP, or expanding your customer base and need more address space after 2010, and your request will go into a FIFO queue.
Now, economists see two distinct futures for a market based on scarcity. One is where cooperation and fairness ensure that everyone gets along, which is the current internet model, and the other is known as the "University of Chicago School of Free Market Uber Alles^W^W^W^WEconomics" government enforced monopoly, where a few select companies are allowed to charge whatever the market will bear with no real competition or alternatives. Maybe a US government sanctioned company called IPbay will become the sole broker to trade netblocks.
In the first scenario, the internet continues to function as it does now, companies needing new addresses will have longer and longer waits and will have to adjust their business plans accordingly. Into a system like this, where address space could be traded, stolen, pirated or worse, RIRs have no real powers to stop it falling into total anarchy. Except, the IETB, IANA, the RIRs, have a new tool in their arsenal to combat anarchy, called DNSSEC.
In the second scenario, one, or a very few, private companies based in the US, of course, take over the entire market for buying and selling IPv4 address space. Want to keep that nice
For router engineers, those who work with BGP and AS numbers on a regular basis, things have been pretty quiet until now. A few bogon filters, and you just generally believe whatever gets fed to you. The internet is mostly "best effort" and if some traffic doesn't reach it's goal, there isn't much that can be done beyond some simple tuning. There is some routing data in the routing registries, but it's rarely up to date and the accuracy depends on whatever random person did the update.
But in a few years, when companies start to get desperate for IPv4 address space NOW!, and can't wait for a proper allocation, they'll steal or buy a prefix. Companies with a large allocation not completely used will renumber internally, and sell the right to announce half their prefix to they highest bidder. Or companies will just find part of an unused block and announce it. Total anarchy! The most conservative estimates for 2012 with rampant de-aggregation and without DNSSEC is that the routing table will exceed 2,000,000 prefixes. Not much routing equipment out there today will be able to cope with that.
With DNSSEC, there will be cryptographically signed certificates [pdf warning]for every allocation from an RIR[quicktime warning]. When you build your routing table in BGP, you will verify every prefix for origin and valid neighbors based on certificates stored in the RIR whois/routing registry. This will prevent the anarchy part of stealing a prefix and announcing it in the wrong AS. This wil
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I'll just repeat what many others have already said: don't fix what isn't broke. Do you have a TECHNICAL reason for wanting to change the current situation? Is there some problem that gets fixed once we move ICANN under UN influence?
damaged by dogma
That is the organization that is consciously manipulating the assignment of names, not the U.S. When an IP-enforcement organization has more power than individuals, then something is wrong with the system.
The US military, at that. But be careful - note that the US military funds, maintains, and retains control of the GPS network and in theory could shut it off or reduce its resolution any time they like. It was actually Ronald Reagan, beloved throughout the world, who opened the system up.
Over time that's less and less likely because of the number of civilian systems inside the US that depend upon GPS, but if someone is the kind of person who wrings their hands over ICANN control of DNS, they're probably not going to be happy with the US military controlling the GPS.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Many people here are asking why the "international community" is so opposed to US control of the internet through ICANN. The main reason is because they are concerned that the US will promote it's own commercial interests on the internet above those of other players. In effect, that control over the internet will give the US a competitive business advantage. And it does. ICANN clearly favors the US and US business interests.
the list is in alphabetical order. that's why the US is at the bottom. there's 3 categories, and France is listed in the same category as the US.
If the rest of the world stopped using our root name servers it wouldn't have much affect on us, they could even build their own internet if they wanted to. Seriously, we need to just stand up and tell the UN to fuck off.
There's nothing forcing anyone else in the world to use our domain name system. There are already alternative domain name systems that you can have your computer refer to.
The only reason that the Rusians or anyone else wants control of America's domain name system is so that they can censor the internet not just within their own countries, but globally.
I have a lot of respect for the UN and what it does, but it is important to remember that the UN is *not* a democratic institution and that many of the most powerful countries in the UN are communist or brutal dictatorships and have no respect whatsoever for the freedom of speech. Our friends as well as our enemies sit on the UN. So, while I respect the UN as an international mediator, any democratic country would have to be insane to allow the UN to interfere in domestic policy or allow them to have any authority over our national assets. The UN is not a "world government" and cannot be treated as such as long as countries like China and Russia sit on the security council.
Also, remember that calls to allow "third world nations" to have more say are essentially calls to allow the brutal dictators *running* those third world nations to have more say. I'm sympathetic to the plight of the poorer parts of the world, but one of the reasons they are still poor is that these countries have really crappy, corrupt, or dictatorial governments that we don't want interfering in our country's internal business.
ICANN isn't perfect in some ways, they've obviously allowed domain name parking to become somewhat obnoxious, but they have a good record on free speech. I can't even imagine anything the UN sets up not being routinely abused to censor sites that are unflattering to the security council members.
There is a system for subverting the system and you should use that system!
The U.S. is NOT a democracy (we're a republic, damnit, get your facts right)
Seeing as how a republic is "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarchy" a democracy can very well be a republic.
Philosophers as far back as Plato have warned against democracies and "majority rule"
Plato's teacher Socrates opposed democracy as well. That's why he was put on trial, today it would be called "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or "inciting to riot". Confucius also opposed anything like democracy, actually if you were to read Confucius's "Analects" and Plato's "The Republic" they say similar things.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The world can certainly make their own Internet but splitting the net in two will be to the detriment of everybody, the US included. Relaxing or sharing control over domain allocation can be preferable to forcing every American website to register an extra domain at WorldNet to do business overseas.
Ah, but would it stop there? Politicians and bureaucrats have shown repeatedly that they will grab as much power as they can. If the US gives into UN control how long will it be before China, Cuba, and North Korea start yelling about censoring the net? Heck Cuba, Zimbabwe, and other nations have already said they want to censor the net, with UN control it will only get worse.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Now, do you have an opinion of why ICANN shouldn't retain control of the domain registration? Or are you simply so one dimensional that the argument "American's suck!" is all you have? Please, give me a rational, intelligent reason for changing the process that's in place with regard to domain registration and I promise you that I'll pay it sincere attention.
Being born in California I'm neither a Rebel nor a Yanky. That's besides the point though. While I prefer ICANN to be a US organization what I don't like is the Commerce Department having veto power over ICANN. For instance I think Bush's Commerce Department veto of the .xxx domain was wrong. However I can only imagine it would be much worse with the UN in control, not just could porn be censored but political speech would be too.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Unfortunately this applies to the US as well.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The same reason Norway, Japan and Iceland will not cede control of their whaling to a body with land-locked countries with absolutely zero whaling history, I guess...?
Yet they're quite willing to give landlocked countries billions in aid if they vote the "right" way on whaling.
FalconShould there be a Law?
First of all, the word "democratic" is one of those nice-sounding words that people use all the time, and the US fits the vague concept of "democratic." However, our actual government is, and always has been, a Republic. Many states are democratic, but the US government is not.
The US is both a republic AND a democracy.
FalconShould there be a Law?
the US culture was famously isolationist before and during most of WWI.
The US wasn't really isolationist before WWI. The term Banana Republic comes from the early 1900s when the US, in supporting US businesses importing bananas and other fruits supported undemocratic methods of gaining control of Caribbean and Latin American nations. Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick comes in part front his sending US Marines to Tangier, Morocco to fight against Berbers who had taken US citizens in Morocco hostage. And about 100 years before that, Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines there to fight Barbary pirates.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Thats exactly why this can't be given to an international political body. They will just turn it into an unusable mess. I'm a Greek speaker, should Greek letters and accents be in domain names?
Greek is easier than Chinese, Chinese whether Cantonese, Fukienese, Mandarin, or any other dialect (which are written the same, and only spoken differently) has 66,000 ideograms and Mongolian has more like 86,000. Then there's Japanese which has at least 3 different methods of writing, one being Kanji.
FalconShould there be a Law?