An Argument For Leaving DNS Control In US Hands

An anonymous reader writes "Ariel Rabkin has a piece over at News Corp.'s Weekly Standard arguing that the US should maintain its control over the Internet. After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body."

Comments

Re:Seriously?

[vmbsd]

Dude. The US built ARPANet and the DNS system. The US has no obligation to hand it over to the UN. If the UN or other countries want a different DNS system, then go build it? What is complicated about that?

Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.

[Chas]

The Internet should be administered by an international body

Opinion. Nothing more.

The US built the current system. They invested the money in developing it. Try going into someone's shop and telling them that they should allow their business to be "nationalized" by an international body. Prepare for lots of derisive laughter.

There are ZERO technical reasons for relinquishing control to an international body.

There are ZERO legal reasons for relinquishing control to an international body.

The reasons (using the work "reason" in the absolute loosest sense) are social/political. Most consisting of a vague "I dislike/distrust America" vibe.

In short. Tough shit. Build your own.

Re:Seriously?

[sumdumass]

Every organizations has some form of corruption; the larger it gets, the worse it is.

And this is acceptable? From an organization that can change or ignore it's own charter at will without any serious repercussions like the effect of penalties of law?

Economic sanctions never work unless the goal is to destroy the general population.

I guess we will never know in this case will we? If they never work, then why were they used? Perhaps your suggestion of their futility relies more on the premise of them being defeated by other countries or actors then you realize.

The world did not have the belief that Saddam had WMDs. That may be a U.S. view. The rest of the world was listening to the experts. True, some states in Europe went along with the U.S. That had more to do with alliances and arm twisting than reality.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Quit fucking repeating that damn lie. Russia said he had them but they were confined. Germany said the same damn thing and added that it didn't pose a large enough threat for war. France Vetoed the actions or threatened to veto it because it was the primary beneficent of oil contracts made against the sanctions, the EU and the rest of Europe, at least from a political stand believed he had WMDs but wans't sure to the extent. Hell, even the damn UNSCUM quarterly reports questioned if Iraq was honest in their unverified disposals and frequently reported evasion tactics and civilian reports of mobile weapons labs. And most of this was reported under the direction of Hans Blix who later contradicted his own works stating that Iraq had no WMDs. Find a new fucking line but this one is old and tired and has been proven fallacious so many times over it isn't funny anymore.

here has never been a case where economic sanctions worked.

There hasn't? This paper seems to totally disagree with you and even suggested that the threat of sanctions are even more effective then sanctions themselves. Perhaps you could show where our getting your info from?

News flash, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs. And that was the consensus from credible sources (outside the Bush administration).

Actually, Iraq had much to do with 9/11. Iraq didn't physically participate in it but you have to understand the culture in the middle east. Iraq refused to do what he was required to do under the armistice that ended the first gulf war and even taunted it with impunity. That made the US and allied nations look week which gave Al Qeada the balls to attack. When the number 2 Al Qeada operative was questioned after his capture, he stated that they never thought the response to 9/11 would be the way it was because they got the impression we were all talk from our dealing with Iraq. Now here is a news flash, this is the words of the guy who plotted 9/11 stating that our weak stance in Iraq gave them confidence to pull off 9/11 because they didn't fear serious retaliation.

Now Bush and Cheney put forth some arguments that high level Iraq operatives were in contact with High level operatives for al Qaeda, including Bin laden. I don't believe they ever said Iraq was behind 9/11, rather that they were helping bin laden which was true. There is even convincing evidence that Iraq was harboring some of Al Qeada's operatives which became apparent with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Several other Al Qaeda officials received treatments from battlefield wounds and safe harbor in Iraq for injuries sustained in Afghanistan.

If your going to make a comment on the matter, at least underst