US Relaxes Control Over ICANN

An anonymous reader tips news that the US Dept. of Commerce has signed an agreement with ICANN to end their current oversight responsibilities and allow more input from the global community. "The move comes after European regulators and other critics have said the US government could wield too much influence over a system used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Those critics have complained, among other things, about the slow rollout of Internet addresses entirely in languages other than English." The US will still be involved; every three years, ICANN's work will be evaluated by a committee, one member of which will be from the Dept. of Commerce.

Comments

LOLINTERNET

[Anonymous Coward]

ICANN HAZ DOMAIN?

Re:LOLINTERNET

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the stupid europeans and asians think they deserve to have OUR internet? It's our invention. Fuck off and go make your own. If you cant, too bad.

We didn't spend our money on it for nothing. Are you freeloaders that only want to use what we made? USA has been a country for far longer than your stupid European Union thing. Go make your own things.

Re:LOLINTERNET

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If you've got the dough, Icann has the domain! Would you like a TLD with that?

Re:LOLINTERNET

[dintech]

You remind me of a prank call I once heard where the guy rings up an ISP and says, "I want to buy an internet."

EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for directives from EU politicians like "Create a .xxx domain!" that busts the whole web and costs tens of billions of dollars in economic damage.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ICANN under US oversight that has suggested the worst idea at all - allowing companies to create and run their own TLDs, that really DOES bust the whole web. Adding a .xxx domain doesn't break the web anymore than adding .com, .net, .org, .net, .info, .biz, .tv has.

This is the best thing for the internet, because it means the land of the terminally stupid (terminal because people would rather run round shooting guns there than have healthcare to help them live longer) no longer has full control, not that with the incompetence ICANN has shown it should really have any control at all.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[brainboyz]

It doesn't bust it any more than having companies running their own domain DNS does. It puts more load on the root servers, but custom TLDs don't bust DNS any more than domains running custom DNS servers to host subdomains.

Btw, good job on posting that opinion appropriately: as a coward. :D

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the original AC.

Please read -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[sopssa]

Good job for moderators to put this as -1 flamebait - He has a point and I completely agree with it. Like someones summary says, there's no -1 disagree mod point and flamebait/troll is not an alternative for it.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[ElectricTurtle]

You wanting it modded up because you agree with it is no better than modding it down for disagreement. It was modded down because he says Americans are all stupid and raises issues completely unrelated to the topic as "evidence". That's flamebait. Funny how the "terminally stupid" laid the whole foundation for the internet in the first place which is why everybody whines about how the US controls it.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[sopssa]

While he went a big aggressive with the saying, he does have a good point. I still dont undersant why ICANN is fully-usa company and has control over all of the internet, while it spawns over all of the countries.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, actually it can.

Please read -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[Nadaka]

I want to run around shooting guns and have working inexpensive health-care!

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[Grimbleton]

Do you also feel that other countries should take over parts of Walmart? McDonalds? Any other US companies you feel your country deserves to steal for... whatever reason you pulled out your ass?

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

... because it seems a better option than to have China, Iran, ... have an over 50% say in how it's run. Obviously.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[iamhigh]

What does "run around shooting guns" thing mean? I'll bet all (except that one asshole) 1.6 million of us here haven't seen a gun fired outside a range/hunting area/other safe place in the past year, or for many such as myself, ever. I just don't even understand.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[infolation]

In case people don't read that entire text, a salient point it makes is:

An adult top-level domain could have negative legal repercussions by endangering free expression... ...Privacy could be harmed by such a proposal. It would become easier for repressive governments and other institutions to track visits to sites in a domain labeled as adult and record personally-identifiable information about the visitor. Repressive governments would instantly have more power to monitor naive users and prosecute them for their activities.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones

[rs79]

Paul Vixie and Karl Denninger did a little study around 1997 or 8 that showed cache coherancy was still maintained well past the 10,000 TLD mark.

So saying new tlds will "bust" things is not really true. The same fear existed about one million names in the com zone, somewhere around 600,000 names poeple freaked out and predicted meltdown.

There are 80 million names in the com zone today, and about 150 million domains worldwide.

The sky isn't falling either.

But since you brought up .xxx, here's where thst's at: after jumping every hurdle icann put in its way and finally getting past that and finally past the "Government Advisory Council" it was rubber stamped "no" by the US Department of Commerce, who are supposed to rubber stamp it "yes", but, a Bushie called in a favour and it was killed. EU objections to .xxx had been met and accomidated.

So it's interesting timing as there is an appeal/review of this coming up very shortly. It's difficult to imagine what obstacles can be put in the path of .xxx now but I'm always surprised at the evil genius that is ICANN/DoC.

Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

We made the internet, it's ours. If you don't like, go get your own internet.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, you made the whole network, put all the cables and routers and networking systems in all the countries all around the world.

Oh wait, no you didn't.

The internet is a global network, connecting countries together. If you don't like it, stay in your own house and play alone, you close-minded xenophobic american.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If you don't like, go get your own internet.

And to think some people complained that English was overrepresented on the internet...

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[ElectricTurtle]

If my network is so awesome that my neighbor wants to spend his own money and time to connect to it that does not give him any rights or entitlements over what still remains my network. Why is that Americans seem to be the only ones who can grasp basic ethical constructs like this? Oh, that's right, because we design everything and the rest of the world just whines about how they're entitled to our work.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[nomadic]

If my network is so awesome that my neighbor wants to spend his own money and time to connect to it that does not give him any rights or entitlements over what still remains my network. Why is that Americans seem to be the only ones who can grasp basic ethical constructs like this? Oh, that's right, because we design everything and the rest of the world just whines about how they're entitled to our work.

Well said. Just quoting and posting at +2 so more people can see it before we both get modded down to -2.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's talk when your lobbyists and media organizations get out of my legal system, ok?

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Jesus_666]

So I take it HTML doesn't exist, then, as that wasn't really designed in America.

Besides, if you follow the "this is MY network and you do with it as I please" line of thought, the logical conclusion would be for the EU, China, India etc. all running their own DNS roots, complete with their own registrars etc. So unless you register your website with ten different registrars (or pay ten times the fee to your registrar), only people within your country and maybe a few bordering them can see it. Hilarity ensues when yourcompany.com is registered to two different organizations on various DNS roots. Or when they deicde they don't really need a compatible IP address space. While not being able to talk to China doesn't seem dramatic now, China is rapidly rising in importance.

In short, if you had wanted to make the internet your network, you should've worked harder to keep the rest of the world out. Apparently that wasn't what was intended.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[ElectricTurtle]

Of course HTML exists, and while it may have been developed in Europe by a British-born engineer, it was itself a second generation of work whose foundation began with the work of American engineers, Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart. Oh, snap!

Your attempt to invalidate my argument is very weak. Of course having many different roots/registrars is a bad idea. That's why nobody does it. Why do you think even huge countries like China never carry out their threats to create independent networks? It's not like there's some international law that says they can't. The US created the network, and more importantly, they created and/or host the bulk of the content for the network. When other nations around the world started thinking about computer networks, it was a stark choice. Either create a network from scratch at huge expense with little to no content that nobody would want to use and couldn't pay for itself (re-invent the wheel) OR connect to the network and loads of content that the US already had. So, duh, everybody wanted to connect to the US network because that was where they could watch webcams of coffee getting made.

And in your mind, if we wanted sovereignty, when those countries wanted access to our cool shit, we should have said 'ha, ha, no, that's just for us, go fuck yourselves!'

Yeah, whatever. We have no problem sharing our coolness, but that doesn't mean that whoever gets a piece gets to dictate terms for the whole thing. That still makes ZERO ethical sense.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

He was referring to the Internet (invented in the US in the 60s); not one of the many protocols that run on the Internet, although the most famous. Without a platform on which run run, HTTP would have been pointless. The OP's point is valid; it was this country's network before it was the rest of the worlds... sharing is one thing, but why the hell do we have to give up control? What makes another country any better, especially those that monitor their citizens' every move?

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Jesus_666]

Of course HTML exists, and while it may have been developed in Europe by a British-born engineer, it was itself a second generation of work whose foundation began with the work of American engineers, Ted Nelson and Douglas Engelbart. Oh, snap!

You mean Paul Otlet. Who borrowed from established practice in encyclopedias, who in turn borrowed from older sources. Just because something was first done electronically by someone doesn't mean they came up with the idea.

Plus, I don't think that the content found in the early internet was the important reason to connect to it. English content is primarily useful to English-speaking users. The important thing was being able to cost-effectively communicate with companies (or with branches of oneself) and the internet facilitated that.

As for your last paragraph... The question still remains why everyone else should bow to America when things America isn't even involved in are concerned? Yes you're involved with the internet. You're also involved with the planet and we still don't ask you for permission if we want to build a highway in Europe. You can police your part of the network, true, but why anything else?
If "it was developed there so they get to control it" was valid, Germany could dictate how car manufacturers would build their cars. That notion is obviously absurd. So why should the US DoC have control over things like, say, whether the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic gets a ccTLD?

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[ElectricTurtle]

I am familiar with Otlet's work, and while he was visionary, you're now attempting to put DaVinci over the Wright brothers. The vast difference between electronic and mechanical is as important as the distinctions between powered flight and gliders, the modern era and the Renaissance. You might as well argue that whomever caveman invented language itself is the one who deserves credit.

I'll grant that access to the early internet was more communication than content driven, but that may be ultimately a meaningless distinction. Communication, as social networking has recently demonstrated, IS content. The internet not coincidentally grew like the phone system, and the most developed nations were at the center, adoption crept outward. English has just happened to be the lingua franca (such an ironic phrase) of world commerce since roughly the mid 19th century. Consequently, everybody with significant business interests spoke (or hired translators for) English regardless of where they were geographically.

In case you haven't been paying attention, national laws effecting actions taken by organizations and individuals exist everywhere. While the US may disapprove of China's internet laws/regulations/policies and may voice that disapproval, it has not tried by some technical means to overthrow them.

Your example of ccTLDs shows your ignorance of the issue. Guess who decides who gets a ccTLD? The Swiss entity ISO. LOL. That's because when IANA was still part of ISI at USC the division's director didn't want the ISI/IANA to have the responsibility of deciding what was a valid country and what wasn't.



(German car manufacturers DO dictate how manufacturers build THEIR cars. Or perhaps you've never heard of 'manufacturing under license'? But that of course isn't what you meant to say. Too bad the idea you were trying to form doesn't make any sense in terms of the reality of patents and manufacturing and is a terrible analogy.)

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Vidar Leathershod]

You say this as if you want to be able to bootleg various products without someone trying to stop you by appealing to your governmental and justice systems. So, again, his original point stands that you and others are whining about how you are entitled to the work of Americans.

Note that I do not have any great love for our Media companies, as I think there are market solutions to their problems that they overlook. But that does not justify people pirating their products.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Jesus_666]

I am familiar with Otlet's work, and while he was visionary, you're now attempting to put DaVinci over the Wright brothers.

I am aware that there is a treadmill. However, I maintain that you got on it first - it's fairly pointless to declare some invention to really be from another country just because it's based on prior work from that country. If we did that we could reassign virtually everything as most inventions have been made possible by other inventions. Hypertext was used by people before Tim Berners-Lee, but they used it in a different context, making it just as tangential to the internet as Otlet's work.

Communication, as social networking has recently demonstrated, IS content.

Yes, but the early users created their own content; they didn't come to the internet looking for it, especially as social networking-style content generation didn't take place until much later.

In case you haven't been paying attention, national laws effecting actions taken by organizations and individuals exist everywhere. While the US may disapprove of China's internet laws/regulations/policies and may voice that disapproval, it has not tried by some technical means to overthrow them.

Yes, that would be an excellent argument as to why a single country is unfit to run an organization governing an international resource.

Your example of ccTLDs shows your ignorance of the issue. Guess who decides who gets a ccTLD? The Swiss entity ISO. LOL. That's because when IANA was still part of ISI at USC the division's director didn't want the ISI/IANA to have the responsibility of deciding what was a valid country and what wasn't.

So it's the ISO and not the ICANN that keeps .su around? While they shouldn't have the power to mess with ccTLDs, they certainly can.

German car manufacturers DO dictate how manufacturers build THEIR cars. THEIR cars. Or perhaps you've never heard of 'manufacturing under license'? But that of course isn't what you meant to say. Too bad the idea you were trying to form doesn't make any sense in terms of the reality of patents and manufacturing and is a terrible analogy.

I apologize for the imprecise use of the word "their". I do think, however, that my analogy makes as much sense as your position, which has to face the harsh reality of international politics. Yeah, it's great you guys invented this. Pat yourselves on the shoulder. But don't expect everyone to happily assume you'll never abuse your control over it.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a Moron!
The whole concept was created by the department of defense, to link schools of higher education and the military so information could be moved quickly with out the use of snail mail or talking over the phone.
So no I DIDN'T run the cables per se but My Freaking Tax Dollars absolutely paid for the development and deployment of said internet in it's infancy
The awesomeness of internet is so great,that we the people chose to share it to further the collective minds of all human kind
Do yourself a favor, modern history course. Of course you should do this after you remove your head from your ass

other countries too

[sopssa]

This is only a good thing. ICANN with it's power has been too US based for long time already, while internet is global.

As an EU citizen I'm happy and even surprised to see this happening - US actually caring about other people too and giving some control to people elsewhere.

To begin with Internet was a distributed system that couldn't be taken down at one point.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

The US invented the Internet though so whatever... Do you really want the UN to manage the policies? If you think changes on slow now then you haven't seen anything.

Re:other countries too

[brainboyz]

I disagree. The US put the majority of the work into establishing it, so why should they share control with anyone else? The tech has been spread world-wide, so there is absolutely no reason other communities can't develop their own network and route DNS requests accordingly similar to how the phone system works. It's just that everyone wants to piggy-back into the original system because it's the default, there's already so many people using it, and it'd be a ton of work to setup another system.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

So we're giving more control over the internet to total surveillance societies like Great Britain? Not that I'm against sharing control, but I also don't see how it's automatically a good thing.

Re:other countries too

[tverbeek]

This isn't just taking control away from the US government, it's putting that control more firmly into the hands of a private organization. "International" doesn't automatically mean "better" (witness the WTO and IMF). All it means is that US citizens will be just as easily ignored as EU, AU, OAS, ASEAN, and ETC citizens are today.

Re:other countries too

[sopssa]

You do understand that US as a nation haven't been going for long in historical scale? Most of what US has been based on now we're developed in europe before england shipped there (and robbed the land from native americans).

So if you're gonna come up with the "US developed it and it shouldn't be used elsewhere", atleast think about where US tech has come from.

Re:other countries too

[TheRaven64]

I can't believe this crap gets moderated up every time. The US put the majority of work into establishing what, exactly? Into designing TCP/IP? More or less true, although it was reviewed internationally and a number of the contributors were not from the USA. Building the infrastructure? No. Within the USA this is true, but outside (you know, where most of the Internet is)? Not so much. Hosting the root DNS servers? No, sorry, the majority of them have been hosted outside the USA for quite a few years now. Services that run on top of the Internet? You mean like that protocol designed by a Brit in Switzerland that you're using to troll Slashdot?

Re:other countries too

[Bralkein]

there's already so many people using it, and it'd be a ton of work to setup another system.

Well that sounds like a good reason just by itself, and you don't really give any reason for the US to maintain control other than some strange possessive instinct. The internet is a global system now, so it makes sense that ICANN should be accountable to global interests. Even though I'm British, I don't actually have a problem with the way ICANN has been run by the US, but the last thing I want is for everyone to start coming up with their own crazy system because of the kind of pointless, divisive behaviour which the US is thankfully avoiding with this new decision.

In fact, you mention the telephone system, but I bet it's a pain to have to parse all of the different crazy international phone number formats! Maybe a global system would be better for that too, if we could start from scratch :)

Re:other countries too

[sopssa]

Yes, I'd rather see UN manage the internet than a single country (US). Then it would actually have opinions of other countries on it too.

Re:other countries too

[Tablizer]

Rather than bicker over who has the "right" to control it, a more important question is what's the practical implications of control. If other countries grow upset at US control, eventually they'll circumvent it. As soon as one country does it and tests the approach, it may create a domino effect where everybody does it, leaving the US on a digital island. Ultimately any given country can control whatever comes in over their wires, and if they don't like the US's approach, they'll usurp it when needed.

Re:other countries too

[commodore64_love]

I don't believe in re-inventing the wheel. The organization that regulates the assigning of telephone numbers has done a competent job since 1865, and I'm sure they could do an equally competent job over IP assignments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITU-T

Re:other countries too

[RotateLeftByte]

Absolutely 100% correct.

Lets take an example of the sorta tech used in the internet. Fibre Optic Cables.
If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber#History
you will see that the work to develop the tech was made from contributions from all over the world.

Re:other countries too

[CannonballHead]

I may or may not agree with you about US-made-the-internet or whatever. However: define "most of the internet."

This seems like a very interesting idea. Most of the internet is outside the US? Does that mean most web servers are outside the US? Or most internet users? or what? citation?

Re:other countries too

[R2.0]

Aside from your blatant paternalism (the US has existed a lot longer than the EU has), you're happiness translates to me as "Good - now the EU can have a shot at exerting control."

As a US citizen, I'm completely unsurprised by the EU claiming to care about other people while consolidating power in itself.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more internet users in China than there are people in the US. QED.

Re:other countries too

[nomadic]

As an EU citizen I'm happy and even surprised to see this happening - US actually caring about other people too

Considering the history of Europe in the 20th century, as an EU citizen you should be one of the last people to be "surprised" at the US helping others.

Re:other countries too

[clickety6]

Hmmm...which is worse? "Total surveillance societies like Great Britain" where the people know they are under surveillance as opposed to total surveillance societies like the USA where the people don't know they are under surveillance?

e.g. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70910 ;-)

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Internet has been common everywhere for ~20 years already. It's not something US should control.

Re:other countries too

[sopssa]

This seems like a very interesting idea. Most of the internet is outside the US? Does that mean most web servers are outside the US? Or most internet users? or what? citation?

I dont think that as so far possibility. If you've ever visited or learned an another language, you'd see how large local internet they have too. USA does count for many sites that people from other countries use, but in total count its probably 10% of the websites.

Of course it's harder to see for people in USA since the websites are in other language. But both China and Russia have more people than US does.

Re:other countries too

[EvilBudMan]

I thought the US military still had the largest block op IP addresses though. Who exactly contributed on TCP/IP outside the us? I'll grant you, that the WWW and a whole host of other things were developed outside the US but TCP/IP? I believe that goes back to 1957.

http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_darpa.htm

What we did or did not do, is not the issue, but were sharing, so be happy.

Re:other countries too

[sopssa]

(the US has existed a lot longer than the EU has)

Quoted for funneh.

Maybe take history classes again?

Re:other countries too

[ElectricTurtle]

You do know that the opinion of other countries like China, Bahrain, Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North AND South Korea, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, UAE, Yemen, etc. is 'censor it for any reason that might potentially undermine the state or social norms.' Yeah, we really need their input.

Re:other countries too

[Ash Vince]

Who exactly contributed on TCP/IP outside the us?

A quick look on wikipedia confirmed that University College London were involved from fairly early on. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Suite

Re:other countries too

[zach_the_lizard]

I think having the Internet controlled by politicians in any organization is not a good thing. I would rather see it in the hands of something like ISO or something along those lines. Probably more like "along those lines."

Re:other countries too

[ElectricTurtle]

You're basically arguing the merits of Boeing vs. EADS as a way to discredit the Wright brothers. It doesn't matter so much who invented which protocol as who networked computers in the first place. Not to mention that hardware vs software/firmware/protocol is not a chicken vs. egg matter. Hardware always comes first, and those designs come from the US. (IBM, Cisco, 3Com/USR, Intel, AMD, etc. etc.)

Re:other countries too

[brainboyz]

He's right. The European Union (established by the Treaty of Maastricht on November 1, 1993) hasn't existed as long as the United States (July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence).

Re:other countries too

[nomadic]

You do understand that US as a nation haven't been going for long in historical scale? Most of what US has been based on now we're developed in europe before england shipped there (and robbed the land from native americans).

It was the Europeans who started robbing the land hundreds of years before the US came into existence. And please let us know what enlightened country you've come from.

So if you're gonna come up with the "US developed it and it shouldn't be used elsewhere", atleast think about where US tech has come from.

Most of it has come from the US, actually. But let's be honest here, nobody is trying to prevent internet technology from falling into other country's hands. You're not understanding the difference between the technology used to build an infrastructure, and the infrastructure itself.

Re:other countries too

[ElectricTurtle]

Your assumption is, at least according to Nationmaster, upside-down: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/int_hos-internet-hosts The US still hosts the majority of websites in the world.

Re:other countries too

[rastos1]

You do know that the opinion of other countries like China, Bahrain, Burma, Cuba,...

You forgot to list Spain, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, ... . Why?

Re:other countries too

[R2.0]

"Maybe take history classes again?"

The OP stated that he was an "EU Citizen". In making such a claim, and by taking such a paternalistic attitude, he opens himself up to an observation about the relative maturity of the 2 political entities in question.

Or, maybe you should take reading comprehension classes again?

Re:other countries too

[shutdown -p now]

So we're giving more control over the internet to total surveillance societies like Great Britain? Not that I'm against sharing control, but I also don't see how it's automatically a good thing.

Ideally, we'd want to set up some sort of committee, and pack it with so many members that they can never agree on anything, so they never get to the stage where they decide to control or censor something for "greater good". UN sounds like a perfect foundation for this kind of thing.

Re:other countries too

[ElectricTurtle]

Australia is introducing filters too as most /.ers know. They just didn't fit my more extreme parameter of 'anything' that undermines the state or social norms. I don't like any level of censorhip, but I wanted to focus on those countries who have policies that are the most irredeemable.

Re:other countries too

[Shakrai]

Because the UN has done such an upstanding job at managing everything else. Why if it wasn't for the UN we might have seen genocides in Africa wherein millions of innocent people died. We might see countries like Libya sitting on human rights commissions. We might see aggressive states like Iran and North Korea flaunting international law and getting away with it.

Yep, the UN is a fine upstanding institution. We should hand the keys to the internet over to them. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:other countries too

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

It's simple. The internet is a tree. It grew from a seed. Who planted the seed ? The US military, DARPA, to be exact.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

Best I can remember, The USA has been around for around 230 years, and I believe the EU is something that formed within my life. But let me go look . . . 1993: The Treaty of Maastricht establishes the European Union - found at http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/lesson_2/index_en.htm.
Granted, the site says the direct precursors go back to just after WW2, but I seem to remember from my history classes that the USA came in to being before that. Perhaps you mean Europe, and not the EU? And even then, many of those countries have changed governments or even gone in and out of existence since 1800.
Everything aside, I really don't think that the length of existence of a country has any necessary bearing on how suited they are to give input on the administration of the internet.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize the US, as a government, is one of the oldest governments currently around. While our nation is young, almost all other governments (as opposed to nations) are younger.

For the record, wikipedia says "The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787" and ratified on June 21, 1788.

Re:other countries too

[denobug]

I've heard of enough arguments from either pro-US control and anti-US control I hereby present this solution:

I, as an US CITIZEN, has the sole control of the INTERNET. My sole PLEASURE determines if certain protocols or features are available. This way, the US government is no longer in direct control, I can be bribed into and sweet talked into deals by other governments with proper incentives, and US won't feel a sense of loss of control some are feeling right now. If I died for some reason the control is passed on to the person I designated.

Sounds good everyone?

Re:other countries too

[ElectricTurtle]

Users are users. They just access what other people make. Meanwhile most of the websites are hosted in the US.

Re:other countries too

[Binary Boy]

Can you please provide any example where the input of other countries was ignored by ICANN, leading to a negative outcome? Just wondering.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

True, seems that the US is just plain better at it.

Re:other countries too

[Jesus_666]

Yeah, and then they have to discuss something actually useful and things like IPv6 won't get used for more than a decade after it's been introduced. Wait...

Re:other countries too

[CannonballHead]

This is exactly my thought. Yes, there are tons of users out there... but how many sites are HOSTED in the US, even those that are in different languages?

The current "internet" network model is a client-server model. It doesn't matter where the clients are - they aren't part of the "Internet" really. It matters where the servers are. That's really the "Internet."

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

Shows what you know, the natives were using OSI.

Re:other countries too

[j00r0m4nc3r]

At it's core it all runs on electricity, and we all know that the US invented electricity.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

it may create a domino effect where everybody does it, leaving the US on a digital island

AWW CRAP!! You mean I won't get any more spam from Russia and China??!! You mean my server logs will no longer be page after page of break in attempts from China?? Say it ain't so!!

Re:other countries too

[rastos1]

Australia is introducing filters too as most /.ers know.

Yes, it is. Germany bans hate speech and Britain has surveillance. What I'm saying is that for each flaw that US points out in other countries I can point out a flaw in US. They are a topic on /. almost every week. Picking countries such as China, Cuba and Libya is unbalanced, just like leaving the power in hands of US is unbalanced. Moving the control to international platform where also other advanced democratic countries can balance out totalitarian undemocratic countries is a step in the right direction.

Re:other countries too

[insertwackynamehere]

No but you see the US sucks and stuff because of colonialism and the middle east and africa and every country in the world right now that's still recovering from occupation and furthermore,

Re:other countries too

[TheRaven64]

Given the choice between 'random guy on the Internet' and 'group of world governments' my vote goes to 'random guy on the Internet.' Unfortunately, I don't think this is a democratic process.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

So first you mention how Germany and Britain even have questionable positions on internet freedom, and then you suggest that "other advanced democratic countries can balance out totalitarian undemocratic countries"? That's some real good reasoning right there.

Re:other countries too

[Zerth]

You know, any time they wanted to, any country could've just started up their own dns, in their own language, supporting whatever characterset they liked. It isn't like it would have conflicted with the old low ASCII set.

Instead they just complained and now ICANN covers all of it, they can't pull away without causing a split.

But they still could, and ICANN would probably roll over and start replicating from the new ones instead of causing a netsplit.

Re:other countries too

[blackraven14250]

Especially when, as it started out, there was no totalitarian country on it, just one, highly advanced quasi-democratic country in total control. Now, there could be a mix of both, which will be highly disruptive when the democratic countries start fighting with the totalitarian countries on yet another front.

Re:other countries too

[blackraven14250]

We might see aggressive states like Iran and North Korea flaunting international law and getting away with it then using the UN itself to propagandize themselves as important to the world.

FTFY

Re:other countries too

[blackraven14250]

pointless, divisive behaviour which the US is thankfully avoiding with this new decision

Wait until you see the divisive behavior that ensues when the countries used to taking total control don't get what they want. You think that the Arab world, when they get a say in ICANN, is going to stand for porn being on the internet? How about Jewish material? What do you think China will do about the Dali Lama's twitter and website, and Taiwan having access to the internet? These are only 4 examples off the top of my head.

You think they avoided divisive behavior; they avoided a tiny amount in the small term, and by the flap of the butterfly's wings, they're going to make an utter shitstorm of clusterfucks for politicans to deal with.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

> The US put the majority of work into establishing what, exactly?

You must be new here. (To the net). Let me explain how it was in the early days (and yes, I was on it in the late 70's, and all through the 80's, so I know first hand).

For many, many years the net was essentially 100% American. In the 80's you started seeing the occasional person from Canada or the UK, but that was still quite rare. For all practical purposes, the *entire internet* was in the USA. All the UUCP email routing was going through US machines, and so on. Before the web, all the gopher nodes were here. FTP was developed here. The email protocols were developed here. In the 80's some nodes started appearing elsewhere, but the vast, vast majority was in the US. All the early RFC's were written here.

Of course this slowly change over time, and yes, these days it's a very international thing. But if you had been around in the early days and saw first hand just how US-centric it was, you wouldn't have had to ask your question. The web is very new compared to the net. For a long time, virtually everything related to the net came out of the USA.

I hope that answers your question about what the US put the majority of the work into developing. It's a *new* thing that folks from other countries are around on the net at all, let alone to complain that the USA didn't give control of everything away fast enough.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

ITU and IPU.

They manage quite well regardless of those countries you mention. (And I don't know why you think that the USA is so wonderful.)

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

New Zealand too!

Re:other countries too

[rs79]

"Yes, I'd rather see UN manage the internet than a single country (US). Then it would actually have opinions of other countries on it too."

You'd think that wouldn't you? I mean it looks right on paper. But in fact the opposite of what you'd expect is what you really want.

Go back to when Network Solutions ran the InterNIC, domains were free, or rather they were subsidized by the National Science Foundation - NSI was it's contractor for the DNS stuff.

Want fuck.com? Fuck no. "It you can't get it on a license plate then you can't have it as a domain".

But then when NSF aegis stopped, suddenly you could register any name. Free speech. In what country did this happen? The United States. I'm not a yank but I hear they're big on that free speech thing.

I can't say I'm impresses with ICANN and think the USG should turn that thing off before it embarasses uitself to death - policy can go to the FCC ("This is not your fathers FCC") while the actual physical maintenance can go to NIST; they both do these things already.

But in this way these functions are now subject to the Administrative Procedures Act which is how you get the checks and balances America is do good at (no, really) into the game.

Give it to the UN and you now have ideology as one component to any decision making, from a disparate mass. A political compromise is no way to run a naming system for computers on a network.

Re:other countries too

[ElectricTurtle]

So first you mention how Germany and Britain even have questionable positions on internet freedom, and then you suggest that "other advanced democratic countries can balance out totalitarian undemocratic countries"? That's some real good reasoning right there.

(I don't know how my anon box got checked, but I wrote this earlier.)

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

The first two nodes of the Internet, and many of the nodes after were all in the US. What exactly is your definition of "distributed system"? To me it seems like while it was distributed, it was in he US to begin with.

Re:other countries too

[rs79]

"Moving the control to international platform where also other advanced democratic countries can balance out totalitarian undemocratic countries is a step in the right direction."

Modulo the bloody obvious which is that government doesn't need to be in the loop in the first place. It's not liked they helped build it and knew what they were doing, ney, the DoC in charge of this now are the same bunch that mandated OSI protocols when talking to the government. When the Internet had reached near ubiquity and OSI still didn't have any networking code they relaxed that rule.

Now these guys are in charge of ICANN and jus handed the keys to an unelected bunnch of clueless government wonks who are already being lobbied hard by the trademark people, one of the most powerful lobbies in America... and the ones that don't leave fingerprints.

Re:other countries too

[sumdumass]

Actually, the UN is universally known for fucking things up. They don't do anything until it's too late then they exploit it for personal gain or react totally incorrectly. Hell, they put totalitarian dictators on the humans rights panel as if having a voice in your government isn't a human right.

I like your approach but don't like the UN as the solution. Maybe a league of 30 year old virgins still living in their parents basement across the world would be better. Perhaps they can use their WOW accounts to meet bi-monthly.

Re:other countries too

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, the UN is universally known for fucking things up. They don't do anything until it's too late then they exploit it for personal gain or react totally incorrectly. Hell, they put totalitarian dictators on the humans rights panel as if having a voice in your government isn't a human right.

If you look at the widely circulated lists of "things UN does wrong", most of them actually have to do with inaction - not surprisingly, given that over a hundred quarreling nations divided into several antagonistic camps can't really get much done.

Even your mention of human rights issues in UN context proves my point - so there's, say, both Finland and Syria on the UN human rights commission - end result is likely that they won't get anything done, good or bad.

Do you have any examples of the opposite (i.e. whenever UN actually did something that could be perceived as negative).

Re:other countries too

[sumdumass]

An example would be the UN oil for food program and the UN sanctions on Iraq. UN parties exploited those (even the secretary general's family was involved) and made them completely ineffective at their intended goals. As a result, years more of Iraq's unverified disarmament and conditions that lead up to the US going to war with Iraq.

Now I'm not saying the oil for food corruption caused the Iraq war, but it prevented the clear satisfaction of several armistice agreements as well as resulting UN resolutions which created a condition that could later be exploited by Bush when going to war. It's not certain that the UN sanctions would have worked but exploiting them for personal gain is an act that taken the certainly undermined those efforts. When agreement is little more then opportunity to exploit, little good can come of it.

Re:other countries too

[rastos1]

So first you mention how Germany and Britain even have questionable positions on internet freedom, and then you suggest that "other advanced democratic countries can balance out totalitarian undemocratic countries"?

You assume that by combining the position of Germany and Britain we get banned hate speech with high surveillance. However there is also the option of combining the positive policies of both countries and not only the negatives. US has a questionable policy regarding SW patents while Germany and Britain do not.

Re:other countries too

[Xest]

Yes, and there's an awful lot of other countries that don't want censorship.

Changes need consensus in international organisations, this is a stupid argument, because you'd never get international consensus on this sort of thing so it wouldn't happen.

Whilst you have one country controlling it however, you get shit like this:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/0058002578.shtml

http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/02/us-judge-censors-wikileaksorg.html

Yes that's right, judges in single US courts being able to unilaterally order the effective take down of overseas sites for which they should have no jurisdiction over whatsoever.

Don't try and pretend the countries you list would magically get their way over Western nations if control was shared, and don't try and pretend the US has never done anything wrong whilst in control of the internet.

When you have opposing views sharing power, stupid ideas get blocked indefinitely so the sort of situation in the above two articles would never happen, neither would censorship. Stuff like security issues that need urgent attention would get passed because everyone would agree they're a problem.

Effectively just as in hung or proportionally represented governments, the only stuff that gets blocked is controversal shit that half the people don't want, the only stuff that gets through is stuff that's agreeable to everyone. That's much better all round than having a single entity unilaterally imposing bad ideas on everyone else.

Re:other countries too

[Anonymous Coward]

How about their resistance to an .xxx domain?

Re:other countries too

[TheRaven64]

Perhaps you missed the fact that the Internet is an internetwork; a connection of networks joined together by a common protocol. Yes, many of the first networks to be joined together were in the USA, but they are not now. The protocols that were originally funded by ARPA have since been modified and improved as a result of worldwide collaboration. The Internet is now no more American than the computer is British.

Re:other countries too

[ElectricTurtle]

Software patents, while also objectionable to me, are not directly related to censorship on the internet. Unless you want to equate/conflate intellectual property issues with censorship, regardless of how different the motivations are. I would see that line of reasoning as disingenuous.

What I have learned in all my years of study of socio-political changes through history is that good things come slowly and bad things come quickly (exceptions exist). Could other democracies add positive elements to internet policy? Yes. However, it will be the negative elements that come first, and they will be worse in the near term. I for one am not willing to gamble on the chilling effects such changes would have on the closer, more immediate future.

Re:other countries too

[EvilBudMan]

No, we just discover it.

Re:other countries too

[rtb61]

It is much more accurate to say the US acknowledged that it had no real control at all. The domain name system is nothing more than database entries matching a name to an IP address and as such it is very easy to break up. So either control was surrendered or taken, it was simply more convenient to pretend to surrender control. Otherwise if the international domain name system was broken up with each country maintaining it's own semi-mirrored version, you can bet all those .gov and .mil would all end up pointing locally and put an end to the delusion of the US government and military being the worlds government and military.

Personally I still prefer the idea that each country establish it's own domain registry and mirror or substitute as they deem appropriate and the end users or the typically the ISPs can point browsers at whatever domain registry their prefer much like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root.

Re:other countries too

[brettz9]

Certain activities should be done, for example, jointly only between such regions as American states and Europe (e.g., the European Union is right not to set its standards too low in just allowing anyone to join, though I hope such like-minded unions progress across the Atlantic and Americas and into other like-minded regions).

However, in other non-critical areas, such as ICANN and membership on the United Nations General Assembly itself (since the General Assembly resolutions are currently not binding), I believe the most effective policy is, at this point in time, to deny only the most egregious deniers of human rights the right to participate, while allowing most voices to be heard until such time as standards improve (The U.N. charter does not give an unequivocal right to stay in the U.N.; it can be revoked). If a country wants to block traffic to a particular domain, they can already do it, so I'm not sure that the repercussions would be so serious if oppressive regions provisionally get to deny certain domains assigned under their country's specific top-level domains. In non-critical cases where widespread participation is reasonable and beneficial even with somewhat oppressive regimes (it defuses perceptions of American exceptionalism for one), you can exercise more influence when you pick your battles wisely and engage, rather than being quixotic (and no doubt inconsistent) in throwing all problematic countries into one lump and failing to have any influence at all on human rights because the net was cast too wide.

But it is a good impulse to recognize there need to be certain standards, especially if effort is made to apply them progressively.

Re:other countries too

[Malibee]

When you have opposing views sharing power, stupid ideas get blocked indefinitely so the sort of situation in the above two articles would never happen, neither would censorship.

When you have opposing views sharing power, you get deadlock. In my experience, most sides in most conflicts have very valid reasons for taking the position they do. Note that I'm talking about genuine conflicts of interests here, not some miscommunication. In such situations, there is no resolution until somebody is more forceful than the other side(s).

Shitty, but that who ever said life was going to be fair?

ICANN??

[cjzlducls]

ICANN = Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ...did not know what ICANN was.........

Re:ICANN??

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess ICANN remember that.

Re:ICANN??

[Anonymous Coward]

ICANNHAZCHEEZBURGER.

Re:ICANN??

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "Understand Criteria for Assigned Names and Numbers Thinking" (UCANNT).

speed?

[twotailakitsune]

Have you seen how slow the UN is at things. If it was under the UN we would be talking about roll out in the year 2500 if it is put on speed. not that I don't want ICANN to look at the world, but I just don't want ICANN to slow down just to be under the whole worlds control. If it works great, don't fix it. If it works ok, fix it without braking it, or slowing it down.

Re:speed?

[AnonymousIslander]

Have you seen how slow the UN is at things. If it was under the UN we would be talking about roll out in the year 2500 if it is put on speed. not that I don't want ICANN to look at the world, but I just don't want ICANN to slow down just to be under the whole worlds control.

Tell that to certain UN member states (*cough*US*cough*) that use their influence to drag out/water down important decisions, if they don't simply ignore them completely (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or Kyoto, perhaps?)...

If it works great, don't fix it. If it works ok, fix it without braking it, or slowing it down.

But is ICANN actually working ? It's been a source of debate for some time. With these changes comes a good opportunity to speak out about what changes we would want to see, not just to ICANN but your local politicians and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or whatever your country's version is called) as well before our friends in Hollywood et al try to get creative...

Re:speed?

[AnonymousIslander]

Let's try that link again: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/governance/icann.html :-)

Re:speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

fix it without braking it, or slowing it down.

Aren't those the same?

Re:speed?

[twotailakitsune]

bureaucracy works well at slowing it self down. Bureaucracy is the best at recursion.

Can anyone tell me...

[dsginter]

Can anyone tell me why it costs nearly $10 to register a domain for a year? What is the profit margin on this? Who keeps the profit?

Re:Can anyone tell me...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is 4k to apply for a registrars license, then 2500 a year (USD). Then it is .20 cents a domain. Your company must have 70k in working capital and I believe 500k in assets to become a registrar.

Re:Can anyone tell me...

[morgan_greywolf]

It is 4k to apply for a registrars license, then 2500 a year (USD). Then it is .20 cents a domain. Your company must have 70k in working capital and I believe 500k in assets to become a registrar.

Many small businesses would qualify. $70K in working capital on $500K in assets is pretty close to average for established, moderately-sized small IT business with around 20 employees or so.

Re:Can anyone tell me...

[FsG]

This actually isn't quite true. If you become a com/net registrar, most of the money goes to VeriSign (who controls the com/net registry). The registrar has to pay VeriSign roughly $7 per domain per year that they register. The 20 cents per domain you're thinking of is the ICANN fee, which definitely exists, but isn't the biggest cost. org/info is similar, but the money goes to PIR instead of VeriSign.

The registrars' profit margin is quite thin.

Source: http://www.verisign.com/domain-name-services/become-registrar/com-net-registrar/index.html

Re:Can anyone tell me...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Can anyone tell me why it costs nearly $10 to register a domain for a year? What is the profit margin on this? Who keeps the profit?

Well frankly, I profit from not having any domain name I want snapped up as part of a bulk script that buys a thousand names for a penny. Zero cost didn't work out so well for usenet, email and blog comments. What the hell makes you think that the magic of the market is going to find a better solution to the one we have now.

$10 a year is bargain.

So who is ICANN accountable to?

[Attila Dimedici]

I skimmed the article and this looks like it decreases ICANN's accountability to anybody. So when ICANN does something bad, who can hold their feet to the fire to get them to fix it?
ICANN is an organization composed of human beings, sooner or later it will do something that is evil.

Re:So who is ICANN accountable to?

[damn_registrars]

ICANN is an organization composed of human beings, sooner or later it will do something that is evil.

Too late. They have already agreed to sell gTLDs. As if the spam enforcement wasn't horrendous enough (it terms of registrar obligations), it is about to get a lot worse since with the gTLDs will go the registrar TOS.

In other words, for some time ICANN hasn't cared about not doing "evil", as long as it makes money.

Before U.S. Cedes Control To

[Anonymous Coward]

"The US will still be involved; every three years, ICANN's work will be evaluated by a committee, one member of which will be from the Dept. of Commerce."

who will serve as a proxy for Walmart, Inc..

Good luck in the new Gulag.

Yours In Ashkabat,
K. Trout

No!

[geekboybt]

I'm of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" persuasion. I'm also a fan of doing away with committees when a group of people have proven that they can do a job well. If the only complaint is that some things are slow, how on earth is bringing it to a committee going to make things any faster?

Re:No!

[Tablizer]

If the only complaint is that some things are slow, how on earth is bringing it to a committee going to make things any faster?

We'll all ponder that for a while, produce a draft study, and then get back to you at a future committee meeting to be scheduled at the Scheduling Meeting.
     

Re:No!

[eln]

But it IS broke. ICANN regularly makes decisions based entirely on its ability to make money from them, even though it's supposed to be a non-profit organization. It has little regard for what its decisions mean for the long-term health of the Internet, and it's consistently espoused policies (such as domain tasting and ultra-cheap domain names) that make life easier for spammers and scammers at the expense of regular Internet users. It's also vastly increased the gTLD space for no apparent reason other than to generate more registrations, and therefore more money in its pocket. I don't know if a worldwide consortium could do any better trying to fulfill ICANN's charter, but it certainly couldn't do any worse.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/08/escalating-penalties-bring-domain-tasting-to-a-crashing-halt.ars

Re:No!

[eln]

I realize domain tasting isn't really done anymore, but it was encouraged for a long time. ICANN is still engaged in their other shenanigans like selling gTLDs, though. It's all about generating more registrations to get more money.

Re:No!

[Trepidity]

If anything, freeing ICANN from US government control, and moving it to nebulous control of some squabbling mess of countries, seems like it'll have the opposite effect: give ICANN carte blanche to do whatever it wants.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously kidding?
ICANN are AWFUL.

They have been coming up with ever-more INSANE ideas over the past few years.
The mess with opening up the TLD system being one of the more recent things.

Obama is a Good Manager

[RobotRunAmok]

As an EU citizen I'm happy and even surprised to see this happening - US actually caring about other people too and giving some control to people elsewhere.

Obama is a realist. He knows that he's got to give up some control over the international ventures if he's going to expand his micro-management of every fuckin' US citizen's personal life.

Re:Obama is a Good Manager

[osu-neko]

Obama is a realist. He knows that he's got to give up some control over the international ventures if he's going to expand his micro-management of every fuckin' US citizen's personal life.

His predecessor thought it was the government's job to tell me who I could or couldn't marry. I've actually never seen much in the way of micromanagement of people's lives from the D's, but the Republicans make it a point of making the most personal decisions in my life for me. If Republicans have their way, I can't even make personal decisions controlling my own body.

Re:Obama is a Good Manager

[Grimbleton]

Tell me more about how Obama has granted homosexuals the ability to marry, and how he's a strong supporter of gays and lesbians.

I'll be waiting!

Re:Obama is a Good Manager

[jmac_the_man]

Here's an example of attempted Democratic micromanagement. Say you're thinking about health insurance. The Republican plan is "Well, you can buy it from any company within your state.Each company covers different things, so pick the one's that's right for you. And we're trying to make it so you can buy it across state lines. If you are poor enough to qualify, there's Medicaid. If you're old enough, there's Medicare. And if you don't want insurance at all, well, no problem." The Democrats are trying to push through their plan, which is "There's going to be one plan. Everyone's going to be on it. If what you need isn't covered, it sucks to be you. And if you don't want it, it also sucks to be you. You can pay for it or go to jail."

This is just one example, but there's numerous others.

Re:Obama is a Good Manager

[Anonymous Coward]

Except of course that that is a lie, for so many obvious reasons that you must either be [ad hominem attack removed].
I am sure there are valid examples of Democratic micromangement, but that isn't one.

I'll accept your version of the republican plan, although I suspect they could mention "oh, and it will cost you 60% more of your income as it did under clinton, for no better outcome*" (*=please replace with appropriate statistics for your income group and state).

(a) AFAIK they are not planning to ban private health insurance, which would be silly anyway. UK private health insurance is much cheaper than US because it is "top up" on top of the state scheme.

(b) everyone on it? Obama says not illegal aliens. I would guess not tourists either. So tourists will still have to pay twice the price for travel insurance for "World including USA and its price gouging" compared to "World not including USA". But that is fair enough. I do think it would be sensible for illegal aliens to be vaccinated etc. since it is crazy that you have so much third world infectious disease that could cheaply be stopped before it gets expensive, but that would probably not get on the plan easily cos of politics.

(c) if your need is not on plan sux to be you. Yup i'll give you that. That applies to all the other plans too though.

(d) If you don't want to be pay taxes sux to be you - well true, that applies to everything the us spends money on though. If you are a normal income person it *should* reduce total of what you (on average) spend (tax+insurance) if the plan is sensible but (i) on average you are not sick and (ii) any bill that goes through congress gets seriously mutated with pork (have you read what congress put in the bailout bill? 500 pages of pet project gunk from both sides).

Re:Obama is a Good Manager

[Grimbleton]

How is this flamebait? My point is OBAMA is anti-gay. There's no comparing him with Bush to show a difference here.

Obama supports the same restrictions on their freedom as Bush did.

This is a bad thing

[geekoid]

Expect to ahve about 100,000 TLD within the next 5 years.

Plus, who need accountability~

Re:This is a bad thing

[Yvan256]

Oh yeah, I can already see it...
---

Dear client,

we have been made aware that there might be a problem with your bank account. Please log in and verify your personal informations including credit card numbers and expiration dates.

You can log in into our secure site at the following address: WWW.BANK.C0M

Internet Addresses in Other Languages?

[divisionbyzero]

I can only assume the submitter means domain names in other languages. Internet addresses are either decimal (v4) or hexadecimal (v6) numbers.

Re:Internet Addresses in Other Languages?

[BlueKitties]

I'm pretty sure anyone who says "Internet Address" does not mean "Internet Protocol Address." Most people who mean Internet Protocol will specifically say "IP Address."

Re:Internet Addresses in Other Languages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet addresses are 32 (ipv4) or 128 (ipv6) bits of raw binary data. Not some cuddly "hexadecimal" or "decimal".

Re:Internet Addresses in Other Languages?

[dazjorz]

Yeah, probably domain names. My first thought was related to IP addresses too: maybe they mean allocation of subnets to countries where English is not an understood, let alone spoken, language. Such communication problems would make the process slow... But then again, that thought was probably just stupid :P

Re:Internet Addresses in Other Languages?

[divisionbyzero]

Why would you think that?

Prediction

[R2.0]

The chorus calling for the "end to US control over the Internet" will morph into the "end of ICAAN control, because they are not subject to oversight." Withe the "solution" being the same - UN oversight.

They are not looking for more freedom - they want more control.

Re:Prediction

[y5]

The chorus calling for the "end to US control over the Internet" will morph into the "end of ICAAN control, because they are not subject to oversight." Withe the "solution" being the same - UN oversight.

They are not looking for more freedom - they want more control.

+1 Insightful. Alas, I have no mod points now. =/

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

And I already blew all of my mod-points before I got down here, damn

Re:Prediction

[Reziac]

I think you are absolutely right. And as a wise AC says somewhere down below:

"So we're giving more control over the internet to total surveillance societies like Great Britain? Not that I'm against sharing control, but I also don't see how it's automatically a good thing."

Re:Prediction

[5KVGhost]

Exactly. And even as it's now envisioned, the multinational committees will likely be stocked with the same luminaries of free speech that sit on the Security Council. And it'll go far beyond just making new domain names. After all, someone has to enforce who is allowed to which TLDs, right?

Frankly, I don't give a damn what China, Lybia or Iran think when it comes to running the Internet. And, if it comes to that, I don't want things like the German, French, or Canadian "hate speech" laws going international either. That sort of feel-good censorship can be even worse than the jackbooted variety, as the authorities choke off dissent while insisting it's all for our own good.

Honestly, I can't understand how any serious observer of world affairs, whatever you may personally think of the United States, can maintain that UN control is preferable to the current system. Not by any standard.

Re:Prediction

[Rising Ape]

You mean like how the ITU act as censors of the telephone network?

Except they don't.

Re:Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that telephone networks haven't changed in EONS.

The Internet is still evolving, and is home to spam the same as whistleblowing email.

If someone wants to spam or break the news over the phone, its either costly and prohibitive, or you have to know who to call. On the Internet, billions of emails can be sent out for fractions of pennies, and important news can come from twitter the same as the BBC.

How silly to think they're comparable.

Re:Prediction

[R2.0]

You mean like how the ITU act as censors of the telephone network?

Except they don't."

From Wikipedia:
"The International Telecommunication Union is the second-oldest international organization still in existence (the oldest being the Rhine Commission), established to standardize and regulate international radio and telecommunications. It was founded as the International Telegraph Union in Paris on 17 May 1865. Its main tasks include standardization, allocation of the radio spectrum, and organizing interconnection arrangements between different countries to allow international phone calls -- in which regard it performs for telecommunications a similar function to what the UPU performs for postal services. It is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, and has its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, next to the main United Nations campus."

The UN inherited an already existing organization with a limited mandate. They set standards. They can't censor the telephone network - they don't control any infrastructure. But what is being proposed is to GIVE them control over some infrastructure.

So the proposal is to give infrastructure and control to an organization that has never had such responsibilities, which is part of a larger organization which is manifestly unsuited for a "hands off" approach. All because of a fear of the US exerting control in a manner that would be ill suited to the purposes of nations that have far more restrictions on freedoms of speech and expression.

This isn't about the idea that the US Government could "take control" of the internet - it's about the fact that other nations can't take control of the internet.

Re:Prediction

[ElectricTurtle]

That's like comparing two people on the street to a newspaper. It's virtually impossible to monitor all phone conversations in real time and act instantly on any one of them. It's not at all impossible to crawl the internet and censor at will either decisively or automatically to a filter (and eventually by request to the hosts themselves). Phone censorship is not simply infeasible technically, but individual person to person calls are inconsequential compared to a page that gets millions of hits.

Re:Prediction

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Saying that the ITU doesn't censor the telephone network is like saying that a spy satellite doesn't spy by itself. It's the guy sitting behind the spying device that does it. The device is designed, and supported by the ITU, but they don't deliver the guy sitting behind it. So "they don't spy". It's a beautiful flawed argument : it gives a horribly wrong impression, but it is technically, and logically correct.

So the ITU does help governments censor "their" telephone network. Obviously they don't have any surveillance in place themselves, and Iran would never trust them to do it either. Nor would any other country. But they do help them.

Obviously a technical standards organisation does not censor themselves. They design equipment and make it interoperate. They do not operate equipment. ICANN, on the other hand, does operate equipment and will probably be approached to implement censorship. Almost all members of the board come from countries that do indeed censor at least part of the internet.

Re:Prediction

[Rising Ape]

The basic administrative functions controlled by ICANN are quite comparable to the role that the ITU takes for the telephone network.

The basic technical structure of the internet hasn't changed too much either. We still use IP and DNS, which are the main things that ICANN deal with and are analogous to telephone numbers and standards.

Re:Prediction

[bug1]

Honestly, I can't understand how any serious observer of world affairs, whatever you may personally think of the United States, can maintain that UN control is preferable to the current system. Not by any standard.

The world is currently facing Climate change and a Global Financial Crisis, and you think people want individual countries to continue to decide the worlds fate ?

You dont think people would rather it being decided by the most globably representative body that exists, the UN ?

Re:Prediction

[rs79]

You mean like how the ITU act as censors of the telephone network?

Except they don't."

Dude, these are the clowns that tried to shut down tcp/ip and make is use x.400 email addresses. You ever try to fit 200 character addresses on a business card.

They thought the internet was for stoned slackers and wanted it killed.

Oh wait...

Re:Prediction

[Xest]

Why do you assume it'll be the security council that'll get involved rather than say the International Telecommunication Union?

What's that? You didn't realise the UN already does pretty much what ICANN does in another area very successfully?

"Frankly, I don't give a damn what China, Lybia or Iran think when it comes to running the Internet. And, if it comes to that, I don't want things like the German, French, or Canadian "hate speech" laws going international either. That sort of feel-good censorship can be even worse than the jackbooted variety, as the authorities choke off dissent while insisting it's all for our own good."

But you think it's okay for a single US state to be able to impose censorship for our own good I suppose?

http://www.freepress.net/node/45158

Eventually the appeals court realised this was stupid and overturned it, but the fact is a single judge in a single state of the US whilst US has full control of ICANN could censor whatever they wanted and did so for a damaging period of time for a web based business, and they did. More than once:

http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/02/us-judge-censors-wikileaksorg.html

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2008/03/us-interferes-with-travel-to-cuba.ars

"Honestly, I can't understand how any serious observer of world affairs, whatever you may personally think of the United States, can maintain that UN control is preferable to the current system. Not by any standard."

Your answer lies above, it is because any "serious observer of world affairs" who is not ignorant to the reality of US control of ICANN realises it's been doing a really, really bad job in recent years with everything from gTLDs to censorship of foreign domain names being.

I guess you weren't aware of what ICANN has done wrong in recent years which is fair enough, but if you're going to defend an organisation and speculate on what an alternative organisation would do wrong, you should at least make sure the organisation you're defending wasn't guilty of doing exactly what you're so concerned about- censorship.

Oh noes!

[neokushan]

This all sounds like Socialism to me!

ICANN relaxes control?

[damn_registrars]

You must be thinking of a different ICANN. The one I know sold their control some time ago.

Excellent news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Saudi Arabia to govern content.

What can possibly go wrong?

UN slow?

[MosesJones]

Is the UN really that slow?

Look at UNHCR which are just about the quickest set of people to react when a disaster strikes

Look at the Climate Change pieces which brought together the whole world and came to an agreement (sans one little country called the US)

Now what you might mean is that it takes the UN a long time to crack down on other countries who do things that your country doesn't like, that is certainly true. These are the people after all who refused to rush into Iraq, the slow-coaches.

The UN is an organisation that works by getting people to agree. ICANN should be the same. Having ICANN as an extension of US policy doesn't mean that things happen quicker (look how long its taken for the US to get a decent health service or a policy on climate change that makes sense) but it does mean that they are open to accusations of prejudice.

The UN does a good job, having people like Bolton, Bush and Cheney knocking it alongside people like Qadaffi complaining about it really just underlines what a good job it is doing. If it can piss off Cheney AND Qadaffi it must be doing it right.

Re:UN slow?

[brainboyz]

Far more countries than just the US declined to participate in the Climate Change issues. As for healthcare and the US climate policy, perhaps the US' view of these topics is different from your own? Just because their policies are different from what you'd want doesn't mean they don't make sense from a different perspective.

Re:UN slow?

[CannonballHead]

Look at the Climate Change pieces which brought together the whole world and came to an agreement (sans one little country called the US)

Yeah, it's a good thing manufacturing giants like China are working so hard to protect the environment. Why can't the US follow its example!

Re:UN slow?

[MosesJones]

Very few countries didn't accept the UN findings on climate change, China and India both did for instance. Now in terms of signing up to doing something then that is a tougher argument, but getting people to agree on the problem was the first step and there the UN did well.

On Healthcare, you are right the US might have a different opinion. Most other countries would think that having the highest per capita spend on healthcare and having lower life expectancy, 700,000 people a year forced into bankruptcy and 1/6th of the population not even covered is a bad thing. I mean some mad people might think that a system where you ended up paying less, covering everyone and increasing average life-expectancy was better... but unfortunately those systems don't deliver 30% profits to insurance companies, which is of course the american way (apparently).

Re:UN slow?

[commodore64_love]

>>>takes the UN a long time to crack down on other countries who do things that your country doesn't like, that is certainly true.

So in other words the UN does a lousy job of performing its primary objective - to bring a ceasefire to warring nations via the "war on one member is a war against all members" philosophy. So instead they get into internet regulation. Hmmm - I don't recall reading that in the original charter. (shrug). I always find it amusing how organizations start as ONE thing, fail to accomplish that goal, and then mutate into some other beast in order to justify its continued existence.

Europeans have probably noticed this with the Common Market which somehow evolved into the EU and is only a few years away from becoming a centralized pan-European government with tentacles in every facet of their lives.

Another example is the U.S. Federal Communications Commission which was just supposed to stop radio stations from broadcasting on the same frequencies, like a mediator, and now they think they can regulate content too, including banning nudity on private cable channels and private websites. What the heck? Nudity is the only reason to buy cable. ;-)

Back to the UN - I hear the latest scheme is to directly tax citizens. I say - no taxation without direct representation.

Re:UN slow?

[Hadlock]

Google "UN Nuclear inspections stalled again" or "UN sanctions unenforced" or...
 
Don't get me wrong, the UN provides a useful dialogue for nations, but as for it's capacity to deal with and defuse major international crises, it's difficult to point to any situation where they weren't almost completely impotent to the crisis at hand.

Re:UN slow?

[Trepidity]

Now in terms of signing up to doing something then that is a tougher argument, but getting people to agree on the problem was the first step and there the UN did well.

Isn't this actually the main complaint about the UN? Nobody denies that it's good at getting people to agree on problems. Everyone wants world peace, the eradication of poverty, and so on. The hard part, which the UN has a much more mixed record on, is doing something about it.

Re:UN slow?

[SBrach]

Half of that 1/6th make over 50 grand a year and 1/4 of that 1/6th are foreign nationals. I, along with many Americans, do not believe in forcing insurance on people who can afford it but don't want it. I also don't see why we should pay for citizens of other countries. That leaves around 10 million people who are not covered and make less than 50 thousand a year. Sounds like we need to expand state and federal aid to include these people rather than turn over the entire apple cart and force socialized medicine down everyones throats. Another fun fact is 80% of Americans are happy with the health care they currently have. As far as the paying less....what percentage do you pay in income taxes again?

Re:UN slow?

[brainboyz]

Healthcare isn't the problem. The problem is most of my fellow Americans are fat lazy-asses. That's why costs are higher and lifespan is lower on average. Think about it, if your fellow countrymen were not at all concerned about their health and you were in shape with minimal healthcare costs, would you want someone to mandate that you help pay for everyone else?

Re:UN slow?

[mdarksbane]

People keep mentioning that statistic about spending more for lower life expectancy, but it's kind of bullshit.
http://reason.com/news/show/135458.html

The US's lower life expectancy has nothing to do with its healthcare being poor, and everything to do with our having 2x as many car accidents and 12x as many homicides as most of the western world. You factor that out and the US actually has a higher life expectancy.

We also spend more on elective and cosmetic surgeries, as well as drugs like viagra and prozac that can improve for quality of life, but do nothing for life expectancy.

Also, insurance companies and drug manufacturers are BACKING the government insurance plans. They want their slice of the pork.

Our current health insurance system was created by a government tax loophole that caused in the current employer-paid system, which is a large cause of increased costs and the reason most people who want insurance and can't get it don't have it.

Finally, the horrible profit-driven medical industry in the US spends more on new treatment research than the entire EU combined.

I dunno, with what it does have going for it, I'm a little concerned about turning over 15% of the economy to the government to run, considering they do so well with what they already do.

Re:UN slow?

[Das Auge]

Very few countries didn't accept the UN findings on climate change, China and India both did for instance.

Do you think that they agreed to readily to it because the associate plan (The Kyoto Protocol) to deal with the problem didn't include them having to do anything?

Re:UN slow?

[aztracker1]

I wish I had some mod points... I would like to point out that the aggregate of all taxes paid by U.S. residents is pretty high, including federal income, state income, local/state property and various sales taxes, not to mention the impact of tariffs, excise taxes, and the taxes that are added to any service utilities (cable, water, power etc). One thing that truly infuriates me is when people suggest that we need to raise taxes in this country for anything. We already pay far too much, and don't see nearly the benefit for it as prior generations have on far lower taxation levels.

I've worked on a handful of government projects, and have friends who have worked within the government at varying levels. I have yet to see an instance where the trend wasn't towards overspending, over-bureaucratic management, and all around poor controls and ability to manager funds and resources properly.

On the health-care issue specifically though, I don't think any of the proposed bills serve anyone beyond the existing insurance companies, and the federal government itself in terms of expanding its' base of power. I also have problems with taxes on not much other than living itself. I don't think life or property should be taxed (beyond those taxes assessed at the transfer of property).

Re:UN slow?

[value_added]

Half of that 1/6th make over 50 grand a year and 1/4 of that 1/6th are foreign nationals.

You think an insurance plan purchased on the open market by an individual is affordable? Here's a hint: most small business owners make similar amounts and simply can't afford insurance for themselves, their spouses, or their families, and most definitely not for their employees.

I, along with many Americans, do not believe in forcing insurance on people who can afford it but don't want it.

So who cares? Similar knee-jerk reactions are found by people objecting to property taxes, income taxes, and public schools. If you're so short-sighted as to not understand that pooled efforts (aside from being the epitome of fairness), reduce costs for everyone, then there's no hope for you. Go live somewhere where the public doesn't subsidise much of your day-to-day existence.

I also don't see why we should pay for citizens of other countries.

Yeah, I don't have kids, and my house hasn't caught fire, so why the fuck do I have to pay taxes to pay for the fire deparment and public schools for all those snot nosed kids trampling my lawn?

You seem to blissfully oblivious to the fact that it's not uncommon in foreign countries that foreigners (selfish Americans included) are covered for free. By that standard, your views could be characterised as those of a selfish asshole.

Sounds like we need to expand state and federal aid to include these people rather than turn over the entire apple cart and force socialized medicine down everyones throats.

You use the term "socialised medicine", but obiously have no understanding what that means. Didja know that the Canadian, British, Japanese and French systems, for example, are all dramatically different? To the extent "socialised" is some vague, hand-wavy term that the government is involved, then we already have it. The Veterans Administration and Medicare. People screamed "Socialism!" when Medicare was enacted and Ronald Reagan predicted the demise of the US. Now, those Americans scream just as loudly at those who try and take it away or make changes to it.

Another fun fact is 80% of Americans are happy with the health care they currently have.

Fun and useless. 80% of those declaring bankruptcy due to health care costs have health insurance. You'd think those groups would be aware of each other. Either way, I'm sure that if polled, more than 80% of Microsoft Windows users would state they are similarly satisfied. Tells you absolutely nothing, but does suggest most people simply don't know what they they're talking about.

Like you.

Re:UN slow?

[BeardedChimp]

I also don't see why we should pay for citizens of other countries

Because they are humans no matter what country they come from and should be offered decent health care. I don't care if they are benefit thieves (I don't know what the US version is) and haven't paid a penny of tax in their lives I would still quite happily be poorer to offer such a basic human necessity.

Re:UN slow?

[pablodiazgutierrez]

You know, those foreign nationals who pay taxes in the US may be entitled to receiving a basic service for it. Unless you think there should be first and second class citizens. Most wealthy, civilized countries treat foreigners nicely, and apply most of their rights to every resident. If it's a matter of money, there are ways around it. Spain covers the health care costs of many UK retirees who live on the coast, and right now there is some controversy on why the UK is not paying enough for this service, but (almost) nobody in Spain is suggesting that we withdraw the service; It just needs to be paid for. I think it's a reasonable proposal.

Re:UN slow?

[pablodiazgutierrez]

Previous generations didn't have so many retired people to take care of. And the issue is only getting more unbalanced. The only sustainable solution is to delay the retirement age. Also, now wars are being fought with a professional army and mercenaries, which cost much more than a draft. But you know, drafts are unpopular and would likely make people oppose war.

Re:UN slow?

[tnk1]

But you know, drafts are unpopular and would likely make people oppose war.

I don't recall that stopping any one in the past if they wanted to go to war. Drafts fueled most wars starting with the French in the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Continents have been conquered with drafts.

The reason there is a professional military is that professional militaries fight better. They are better trained due to longer enlistment terms and their morale tends to be higher because they are all volunteers. It's also much more cost effective even with extra benefits.

Re:UN slow?

[SBrach]

You think an insurance plan purchased on the open market by an individual is affordable? Here's a hint: most small business owners make similar amounts and simply can't afford insurance for themselves, their spouses, or their families, and most definitely not for their employees.

A PPO through Aetna, purchased independently, with a $2,500 deductible is $90 a month for a 25 year old male. 45 year old male jumps it up to around $150 a month. If your making over $50,000 a year you should be able to easily afford this. Hell, my employer pays most of my insurance cost and I still pay around $50 a month.

Yeah, I don't have kids, and my house hasn't caught fire, so why the fuck do I have to pay taxes to pay for the fire deparment and public schools for all those snot nosed kids trampling my lawn? You seem to blissfully oblivious to the fact that it's not uncommon in foreign countries that foreigners (selfish Americans included) are covered for free. By that standard, your views could be characterised as those of a selfish asshole.

Why should you give me free health care if I travel to your country. I don't pay taxes there. Give me Emergency health care if I require it like we do in America even if I can't pay and then send me home.

You use the term "socialised medicine", but obiously have no understanding what that means. Didja know that the Canadian, British, Japanese and French systems, for example, are all dramatically different? To the extent "socialised" is some vague, hand-wavy term that the government is involved, then we already have it. The Veterans Administration and Medicare. People screamed "Socialism!" when Medicare was enacted and Ronald Reagan predicted the demise of the US. Now, those Americans scream just as loudly at those who try and take it away or make changes to it.

Yes they are different but they all have the same complaints don't they. Long waits and rationed healthcare. Not to mention the fact that if you get sick in Canada you might be shipped to a hospital in Detroit.

Re:UN slow?

[nomadic]

A PPO through Aetna, purchased independently, with a $2,500 deductible is $90 a month for a 25 year old male. 45 year old male jumps it up to around $150 a month. If your making over $50,000 a year you should be able to easily afford this. Hell, my employer pays most of my insurance cost and I still pay around $50 a month.

That would be wonderful if it were true; unfortunately it varies immensely by state. Some states that will cost you over a thousand a month, if you can even find it.

Re:UN slow?

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

Funny, I don't remember you right-wingers asking me whether or not I wanted to pay for your Iraq war.

Re:UN slow?

[SBrach]

I never said we don't need health care reform. My opinion is just that we don't need to force a government run insurance program on everyone in the country. Abolish pre-existing condition cost increases/denial of coverage? Where do I sign?

Re:UN slow?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I don't have kids, and my house hasn't caught fire, so why the fuck do I have to pay taxes to pay for the fire deparment and public schools for all those snot nosed kids trampling my lawn?

Without stating on which side of the debate I come down on at all: What the fuck does that have to do with healthcare? You are an idiot to say "we do it for one thing we should do it for all the other things too". What kind of weak argument is that? It is possible to be pro-fire dept. and against healthcare.

Most of your post is completely an ad hominem attack because you disagree with the GP.

Learn some logic.

Re:UN slow?

[sumdumass]

That's right! I have no clue why reforming health care isn't just fixing what it wrong with it.

They are attempting to convoluted it and take control of health care under some guise that being like other abhorrent systems in other countries is somehow better. Well, just fix what is being claimed as wrong with the system and be done with it. Most of the problems in the current system is because of Government involvement anyways. We didn't have these problems until the HMO act in the mid 60's. Congress screwed with it a little since then but the biggest factor was the states screwing with it. That's why you can find a decent plan at an affordable rate in some states with it costing 10 times or more in others.

Aside from what you mentioned, I suggest a buy-in plan be organized too where if someone finds themselves without coverage (for any reason) and has a problem, they can buy into a plan with a 5 or 10 year commitment contract and have their medical costs covered. The long term commitment will likely mean they never go off insurance again.

Re:UN slow?

[sumdumass]

Actually, if you get rid of homicides and deaths from recreational activities, the life span of Americans is much longer then in Europe. We take a hit from a reckless lifestyle and easy access to weapons and toys to do stupid things with.

In most areas of medicine, our disease survival rates are higher then Europe's. This covers things like Cancer, heart disease, aids and so on.

Re:UN slow?

[sumdumass]

Actually, most of them would have benefited from the Kyoto accord.

A way to get our from under your cap was to invest in other countries without a cap (shifting the problem) or to purchase credits from a country who has done that already. Europe has more then quadrupled their Imports from China and India (who do not have limits) and EU member nations attempt to get under their quotas. Spain almost wrecked their entire economy attempting to get in line with their guidelines.

Of the 180 some countries signed onto Kyoto, only 37 of them have reduction goals and caps. One country agreed to a limit it will not reach for another couple decades. It's been a while since I verified those numbers so they may be a little off- the effect is the same though. The idea behind Kyoto was to spur investment in both infrastructure and productivity more then reduce emissions. In the late 1980's early 90's, there was a global movement to get the western worlds to forgive or relax debt in the third world countries who leveraged the OPEC oil embargo for loans hoping to develop their own oil and sell to the US. This movement disappeared about the time Kyoto popped into play and you don't need too much of an imagination to figure out why.

Re:UN slow?

[aztracker1]

Funny that you assume I'm a right-winger. I actually thought the Iraq war was pretty ignorant... Even given the reasons stated there were and are far bigger, and more eminent threats. Not that I agree with such preemptive actions.

Re:UN slow?

[rhakka]

and when you do that, you get Maine's situation.

Here, a middle of the road health insurance policy starts at about $350/month and if you've got a family you better have $850/month ready, or more... then be able to handle around $13k+ out of pocket should you actually need to USE it.. and hope that your treatments don't cross a calendar year or you'll double that number... never mind any treatments that are not covered.

I know this because I pay for health insurance for my family and four employees.

If you try to make insurance do the job of actually providing health care, insurance will get expensive. the only way to keep that from happening is to share the risks among us all, and that, my friend, is socialized medicine.

and unless you are really ok with people dying on the sidewalks because they are poor (or, as currently, being stabilized and sent home to die there), that is what it will take to change the situation.

count me amongst those "with insurance who think the system sucks".

Re:UN slow?

[GravityStar]

Would you rather have it that they _could_ potently deal with international crisis? That they _could_ effectively and decisively project military power? Do you really _want_ a world-wide super-state?

Because that is what the implication would be. That is what would be needed. A world-wide superstate that could project military power into its own 'provinces' to bring those 'provinces' back in line.

Let's just leave the UN as a meeting place for countries. A bit toothless, yes, but better than the alternative.

ICANN still isn't following its own rules

[ehasbrouck]

ICANN's New Commitment to Transparency Arrives Via Secret Process (more background here)

yo0 insensit1ve clod!

[Anonymous Coward]

niggerness? And Niggers everywhere cre4te, manufacture About half of the

Ya Censorship!

[sadler121]

Ya, I can't wait till domains are revoked for holocaust denial, or for "hate speech" against any kind of minority!

Re:Ya Censorship!

[Tokolosh]

The nub of the issue is how to harden the internet against the vagaries of mob rule, special interests, fads and knees jerking. At the same time to embed freedom in such a way that the usual suspects can't dilute it, even if they try.

Whatever you might think of the USA, there is no other country in the world that could have delivered the internet in its current form, with its openness and freedoms.

However, that does not mean that the USA will remain a good custodian forever, so some insurance against future (current?) loss of liberty is appropriate.

I don't believe national governments or the UN are the answer, but am struggling to propose an alternative.

Re:Ya Censorship!

[misexistentialist]

As long as we continue to invest in hardware the problem will solve itself when the internet becomes sentient.

Re:Ya Censorship!

[Anonymous Coward]

Like when the US blocked Wikileaks?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH

[Anonymous Coward]

ICANN needs to be under the exclusive control of the UN. Nothing more and nothing less. The US should not be "allowing" anything, it is the rest of the world who should be allowing the US to participate in OUR internet. The sooner the US no longer has control of anything, the BETTER.

Re:NOT GOOD ENOUGH

[bluefoxlucid]

We'll just give 100% regulatory control to North Korea then... better than the US.

Re:NOT GOOD ENOUGH

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the mandatory 2am pagents, www.we-greater-than-you.north-korea-is-the-greatest!

Re:NOT GOOD ENOUGH

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see North Korea illegally invading a soverign country under false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction, killing and torturing millions of innocent people, murdering the legitimate rulers of the country, persecuting and murdering his sons, propping up a puppet government, and then continuing to illegally occupy the country when their lies are proven false.

Re:NOT GOOD ENOUGH

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait does not mean Disagree! I'm right and you know it! Go ahead, keep modding me down! We're not going to put up with your shit forever!

Re:Oh noes!

[Tablizer]

Well, what would the pure capitalism version of tracking ID IP be like? I'm pretty sure I'd have to first buy something to fix my split-ends before I get a domain....and I'm bald.

It's not broken so don't fix it

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give up the control over ICANN you silly Yankees! I mean, at least you have the first amendment which provides some sort of protection (even if the crappy antiterrorist FUD laws tend to hinder it). With whom are you going to share that control? France, where you have insane laws like DADVSI and HADOPI with more planned? The UN, where Tunisia had the presidency of the council of human rights? South Korea, where you have to give your real ID to be able to send videos to YouTube? Germany, where the Pirate Party had good reasons to demonstrate against brand new laws and where you're compelled to put that "imprint" with your real ID on your website?

I don't care about power struggles or prestige crap, it's not broken so no need to fix something that works pretty fine. Fwiw, this message is written by someone who is not American and who doesn't live in America.

Re:It's not broken so don't fix it

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'll take a religious theocracy over sane regulation? No thanks. Move to America and join the rest. We won't miss you.

Yes We CANN!

[Tablizer]

X: "But Obama, you can't release US control of it."

Obama: "Yes ICANN!"
   

Re:Yes We CANN!

[ElectricTurtle]

ICANN is kind of like the Panama Canal, just waiting for the next Carter to abandon US interests and sovereignty.

Re:Yes We CANN!

[Burz]

...US interests and sovereignty...

As in: US military bases in every region and a general policy of imperialism.

Re:Yes We CANN!

[ElectricTurtle]

Funny how nobody complains about those bases or the force projection of aircraft carriers when they're the first line of emergency assistance in major disasters like the 2004 tsunami.

First amendment is the best protection in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

The best argument here is the US constitution and the first amendment. Despite attempts at censor or block or mess with things those attempts get canceled out and reversed once the court gets involved. What do you think China's views on a wide open internet are? How many other countries have that type of protection?

Think this conflicts with the Cybersecurity Act

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll believe it when I see it. This directly conflicts with Sen. Rockefeller's Cybersecurity act. See section 8: http://www.chrisbrenton.org/2009/09/cybersecurity-act-of-2009-in-depth-part-1/

He sits in the Senate Finance Committee and chairs the Committee on Commerce. Granted this has not been approved yet, but I doubt he would have included this section if Commerce planned on giving up control.

Bring Back At-Large Representatives!

[Teancum]

For a very brief period of time, ICANN had an amazing group of folks on the board of directors/board of trustees called "at-large" representatives. If they had continued this practice and eliminated the other special interest groups running this incredibly insular board... I might support and even encourage direct U.S. government oversight of this organization.

As it is, it is a sham of an organization that really doesn't deserve to exist... and got handed the reins of a critical global resource with which they irresponsibly act. Yes, there are alternatives to DNS support and some of the other network issues that ICANN deals with, but they would have to be completely irresponsible for somebody else to give legitimate competition to what it is that they do. As it is, they are merely a corrupt quasi-governmental organization answerable to nobody and only interested in their own self aggrandizement and cash on one of the most amazing legal scams ever devised by the mind of mankind.

Flaming? Yeah. I can't stand what they do, so I'm expressing my opinion. It is unfortunate that fewer people don't really see ICANN for the organization that it really is, and their defenders are generally clueless about what it is that they do.

I am still completely amazed at what Karl Auerbach accomplished during his brief tenure as the North American representative to this organization... and I wish he were back in there too! Karl had to sue ICANN in court just to get basic critical records to even make proper decisions on network organization... and got handed his coat for challenging the powers-that-be and shown the door because he challenged the status quo. I voted for the guy, and I'm glad that vote wasn't wasted, but I'm disappointed I can't put in a replacement for him as there isn't a position left at ICANN from which to have a replacement.

Other languages

[bluefoxlucid]

Support for other languages (RUSSIAN!) in DNS would be excellent, because there'd be about 10000 ways I could represent paypal.com in a visually identical manner (with cyrillic and other such glyph sets), thus making hacking way easier through cheap phishing tricks. I could even get an SSL certificate registered for the fake domain!

Re:Other languages

[Late Adopter]

It takes intentional browser support to display such a thing, so wouldn't it also be imaginable that alongside adding that feature browsers would also add a malware warning like a coloration to the address bar? It could even be intelligent to only do that when there's Unicode characters for outside your $LOCALE. I could see Firefox doing that...

Re:Other languages

[Jesus_666]

Er, you do know that international domain names already exist? Look up the Wikipedia articles on IDNs and Punycode. It's bound to be enlightening.

Re:Other languages

[Anonymous Coward]

.... and people would just ignore it or not know what it meant.

What was the problem that warranted change?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a US citizen, maybe I just don't appreciate the annoyance of having ICANN be a US-supervised organization, but IMHO, ICANN has been doing a pretty good job. The organizations that I take issue with have been those like Verisign. I have kind of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sort of sentiment regarding ICANN. I don't see them doing anything I object to today, and I don't see how moving them to global control would improve things. Furthermore, the US has typically been relatively opposed to things like heavy-handed control of the Internet; I'd hate to see ICANN used to promote censorship or monitoring.

ICANN barely works now...gonna be worse

[Archfeld]

ICANN is barely functional with a heavy government hand on oversight. Do you imagine that group of idiots is going to do ANYTHING but line their own pockets without that oversight. The Golden Age of Domain squatting is just about to begin. ICANN will be re-allocating domains based on donations to their pockets within 6 months of them being un-regulated. Any chance the average joe had of winning a dispute against a corporate entity is going out the window as we speak...

Re:ICANN barely works now...gonna be worse

[rs79]

I'm not buying this squatting crap. Less than two months ago I grabbed a desirable 4 letter com name that had never been registered. People have been saying "all the good names are taken" for a decade.

There will always be somebody else who has "your" domain. Know why ? They registered it first, and RFC 1591 is pretty clear: "first come, first served". It may not seem fair, but anything else is even less fair.

Re:ICANN barely works now...gonna be worse

[Archfeld]

First come first served is a good policy, and as long as you are using the domain name for somthing other than holding out on someone else for a profit, then more 'powa' to you. What I see happening is more of Joe Honda getting his site taken from him because Honda Motors thinks the corporate right to profit trumps everything else. IMHO if ICANN would enforce the TLD division the way it was intended we'd have no problems. '.COM' for commercial entities only, then set up a TLD for personal use ONLY, no commercial application beyond banner ads. But it is probably too late for somthing like that now, the TLD's except .edu and .gov are used interchangably.

Re:ICANN barely works now...gonna be worse

[rs79]

" as long as you are using the domain name for something other than holding out on someone else for a profit "

There's a law against this now. Anti-Cybersquatting Piracy Act (ACPA) Lanham Act S. 43(d) 15 U.S.C. S.1125(d)

More worrisome

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

WHO is the "global committee". You might think, at first glance, that it's you and me.

Well, no. It's ISPs. Big, very, very big ISPs. Think Verizon, AT&T, Telefonica, ...

I'm honestly not sure who to trust more, the dept. of commerce or these guys. Wait actually I think I actually prefer the government. These guys gave a monopoly to verisign. We all know what happened. Let's not pretend these guys are our friends, they're not.

Maybe the UN would do a better job

[Animats]

The UN already has the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union, which do for post offices, telephony, and radio roughly what ICANN does for the Internet. The ITU does a decent job, assigning country codes, negotiating the rules which interconnect phone systems across borders, and keeping radio broadcasters from conflicting. Nobody thinks about the Universal Postal Union much, but the fact that you can mail a letter to almost any country on earth didn't happen by accident.

Much of what the UN really does is to act as an umbrella organization for the dull and boring mechanics of infrastructure coordination. The diplomatic level gets all the attention, but there's necessary grunt work going on in the background.

Re:Maybe the UN would do a better job

[rs79]

"The UN already has the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union, which do for post offices, telephony, and radio roughly what ICANN does for the Internet. The ITU does a decent job..."

Go read "Exploring the Internet" to see how the ITU tried to stop the internet from being formed and was one of the biggest obstacles to the rise of telecommunications and computer networks.

And keep in mind the ITU came from the coordination of a few powerful families in Europe that own all the telcos there.

In the day when singalling levels and voltages were a problem when connecting the worlds telephones the ITU made sense, but since everything's gone digital the ITU is trying to reinvent itself and somehow claim relevance to the net.

The ITU makes a lot of people real nervous.

Mod Parent UP, please

[Burz]

Interesting comment!

Dear Slashdot: Host computer != Website

[Anonymous Coward]

I followed your link and looked at the source, which was CIA world Factbook. I looked there and found the definition of host:

This entry lists the number of Internet hosts available within a country. An Internet host is a computer connected directly to the Internet; normally an Internet Service Provider's (ISP) computer is a host. Internet users may use either a hard-wired terminal, at an institution with a mainframe computer connected directly to the Internet, or may connect remotely by way of a modem via telephone line, cable, or satellite to the Internet Service Provider's host computer. The number of hosts is one indicator of the extent of Internet connectivity.

That has nothing to do with amount of websites.

BTW, the same factbook also show that both China and EU have more internet users than USA in absolute amount (and most EU countries come right after USA in per capita).

Even if you would be correct, it still wouldn't mean that most of the internet (or even most of the hosts) reside in USA. It would mean that USA is the largest single entity... For now. But even so most of the internet (in the amount of users, websites, infrastructure, etc.) would reside outside USA borders. Same is true for every country. As such, international organizations would be the logical way to go.

WAIT a moment

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't the US develop this wonderful thing called the internet. didn't it start with DARPA then spread to schools then large business then to the general population. Why shouldn't we keep dibs on it and call the shots the way other countries tell us hands off isn't it our turn ?

Its no excuse for imposing one's will

[Burz]

into other countries, as the British Empire discovered.

Re:Its no excuse for imposing one's will

[ElectricTurtle]

Britain is on better terms with a majority of her former colonies than I think any other European power.

Re:Its no excuse for imposing one's will

[Burz]

North American powers, too.

Oh noes

[Burz]

Score:1 Flamebait

...US interests and sovereignty...

As in: US military bases in every region and a general policy of imperialism.

Cutting through the euphemisms of monumental bloodlust and theft do make the neocons irritable!

Well, sorry but the imperialist duck remains such an animal and there is no way around that.

Practice using "force projection" and "sovereignty" within the same paragraph and see if you can't spot the deep ironies and double-think.

Now, before you call me a xenophobe...

[mykos]

I thought having the internet and IT as a whole attempting to operate in one language was, in the big picture, a benefit to IT. Even something as simple as like making URLs with non-western characters could build up a segregation of the internet that we were so close to conquering. Not to mention the accompanying craploads of URL spoofing fraud that will inevitably come as a direct result...

Off topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I see, and "irredeemable" does not apply to any of the USA's past or current policies, like actively promoting genocide, flouting international law, wars of aggression, silencing domestic dissent, arbitrary indefinite imprisonment, destruction of human habitat in the name of corporate profits - no, the USA is completely "redeemable", of course, because Americans are all such exceptionally wonderful examples of the human species.
Just like all the other wonderfully enlightened people in all the other charming "civilized" countries in the other list.

I know, I'm a troll, but the introductions of filtering in Switzerland, Australia, Sweden etc. should be of MORE concern, not LESS, than those of Burma or Uzbekistan . We expect those "irredeemable" countries to do this sort of thing, but that these "modern democracies" are heading the same way fast means that we all be fucked very soon.

Yes, we "need their input", as even what you might term negative input is an important feedback signal necessary to recalibrate and re-engineer the protocols and systems so the whole thing can keep working.

You shut them out, and we end up knowing even less about what they're up to, and it will be sooner. rather than later, that the "free open peer-to-peer Internet" as we know it today becomes an historic artifact.

"Keeps your friends close, and your enemies even closer"

Re:Off topic

[ElectricTurtle]

It always amuses me when "progressives" trot out the same old tired "dastardly deeds of the evil US Empire" list. Perhaps you can name one major world power in history without blame? Don't worry, I'll wait. History is all the same, and in purely relative terms I think the US is pretty close to the top of the morality and ethics pile when viewed in wider perspective. Spain completely wiped out civilizations more advanced (except perhaps for the whole human sacrifice thing) than the ones we forced onto reservations (a state of existence which although initially disadvantageous has ultimately made them rich at our expense, which is as much revenge as they're probably due). France fought insurgencies in Africa with a brutality that makes the treatment of collateral damage in Iraq look like a kindergarten game. Britain beat the crap out of China for the sole purpose of forcing them to buy their drugs. The Manchus killed millions of Han Chinese just because they wouldn't cut their hair for chrissake! (I suppose you've never even heard of the queue order?) I could go on and on about Russia, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Japan, India, etc. etc. Every country that has ever wielded significant power has abused it. Period. Full stop. So singling out the US for indictment is a childish gambit.

The logical conclusion of the fact that more moderate but still onerous filtering is being introduced in other free and democratic nations is that makes the risk greater. What happens when you amalgamate (small amount of no filter policies) with (larger amount of filter policies)? You think that the no filter policy is going to win out? The average or middle will more likely be found in between the current filtering policies of free and totalitarian states! A situation worse than Australia or Germany et al face now! I'm not rolling those dice because of some vague and vaporous potential protocol gains.

other countries?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like China and Iran? Ah yes I feel the community love already.