Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Nov 2005 18:35 UTC
Internet & Networking The Bush administration and its critics at a UN summit have inked a broad agreement on global Internet management that will preclude any dramatic showdown this week. By signing the statement (.pdf), the Bush administration formally endorsed the creation of an 'Internet Governance Forum' that will meet for the first time in 2006 under the auspices of the UN. The forum is meant to be a central point for global discussions of everything from computer security and online crime to spam and other 'misuses of the Internet.' What the agreement does not do is require the US to relinquish its unique influence over the Internet's operations.
Order by: Score:
So...?
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The Internet governance stays the same...and the UN creates yet another forum that has no power?

I like that.

Reply Score: 0

More of the same
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Is anyone else amazed at how over-hyped this story is? It seems a certain formula for a political meltdown is media spin + clueless public + a technology few people understand.

In any event I'd say this is just about the best outcome anyone from any side should expect.

Reply Score: 0

Claification
by wylde342 on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:22 UTC
wylde342
Member since:
2005-08-12

In other words...

"Everyone, you can keep using what WE built..and we'll at least pretend to listen to your concerns."

USA BABY!!!!

Reply Score: 5

RE: Claification
by endy on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:12 UTC in reply to "Claification"
endy Member since:
2005-09-02

Although I take your post with a grain of salt your view seems to be the popular opinion of Americans from what I have read recently.

We could all start a debate on who invented what and what's more important and get no where, the real issue here is that as a nation on this planet the USA need to learn to share from time to time, and not just on the things it wants to.

In the future all major countries will have a say in the governance of the internet, this is not the right time but soon we'll see things change. Why? Because as the world gets smaller so does one single countries grip.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Claification
by wylde342 on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:41 UTC in reply to "Claification"
wylde342 Member since:
2005-08-12

I suppose I should have added:

<grain of salt>....</grain of salt>

Yes, I am VERY proud to be an American, but I do think that some control should be relinquished.

Reply Score: 1

no sense
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:23 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I am not happy with this outcome at all. And that is not due to anti-Americanism or something-- it has to do with common sense. My common sense tells me it is simply not right for one country to control the internet infrastructure of other countries. It doesn't make sense.

Can you imagine The Netherlands controlling the roads inside the United States? It simply doesn't make sense!

But, I do think there really isn't a better solution than how it currently is. The way it is now sucks butt, but I do not see a better solution.

So let's just deal with it. For now.

Edited 2005-11-16 19:24

Reply Score: 5

RE: no sense
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:36 UTC in reply to "no sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Can you imagine The Netherlands controlling the roads inside the United States? It simply doesn't make sense!"

If Norway invented and built the roads in the US, then YES IT DOES MAKE SENSE.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: no sense
by Anonymous on Thu 17th Nov 2005 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE: no sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yeah but the US didn't build the internet infrastructure in Norway, Norwegians did, they just connected to the network we had and then became part of the internet, every country that has a network on the net is PART of the net, and should have a say in how it evolves. Once the US accepted to have other countries content available from its network, it kinda killed any arguments for holding control over it, because content from other countries is just as valuable to those in the US and vice versa.

They may be connecting to our backbone, but we're connecting to theirs too, it's a group effort, what does it matter who came up with the original idea? Group control is the only sensible option.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: no sense
by morgoth on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:12 UTC in reply to "no sense"
RE[2]: no sense
by Smartpatrol on Wed 16th Nov 2005 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: no sense"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

How did you make your determination that the US Government is corrupt? or are you just prone to clueless ranting?

Reply Score: 1

RE: no sense
by BrianH on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:13 UTC in reply to "no sense"
BrianH Member since:
2005-07-06

Can you imagine The Netherlands controlling the roads inside the United States? It simply doesn't make sense!

I've been on many of those roads. Perhaps Norway will do a better job.

That goes for the Internet too. I'm all for the US controlling the technical part of the Internet, IF that control is limited to keeping it running smoothly. However, any content control should be avoided, with the exception of reducing malicious content. By malicious, I mean malicious or harmful to the person or persons receiving the content (offense isn't harm), or to their computers (malware, DRM), or harmful to the functioning of the Internet itself (malware, spam).

The only problem is that some governmental organizations (like the Bush administration) also want to restrict behavior that they consider immoral, even though that behavior is legal in the US, and certainly legal in most of the areas outside of it. That kind of restriction is unacceptable. With any luck this oversight commitee will be able to keep this in check.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: no sense
by altair on Thu 17th Nov 2005 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE: no sense"
altair Member since:
2005-07-06

That goes for the Internet too. I'm all for the US controlling the technical part of the Internet, IF that control is limited to keeping it running smoothly. However, any content control should be avoided, with the exception of reducing malicious content. By malicious, I mean malicious or harmful to the person or persons receiving the content (offense isn't harm), or to their computers (malware, DRM), or harmful to the functioning of the Internet itself (malware, spam).

This statement is almost correct. You forgot the condition of if the content is harmful or threatens harm to the person in the content (aka child pornography).

The only problem is that some governmental organizations (like the Bush administration) also want to restrict behavior that they consider immoral, even though that behavior is legal in the US, and certainly legal in most of the areas outside of it. That kind of restriction is unacceptable. With any luck this oversight commitee will be able to keep this in check.

The United States is probably the best country to run the internet because of its laws. For example the goverment cannot do anything to you for speaking out against it (just as you did). It will act against people that threaten other people but that falls under the first part of my post. The US does not apply a filter to the internet and its people would be against it if the goverment tried. Name one instance of actual censorship China style. No the suggestion of not implementing .xxx domains is not censorship. That in no way restricts somebodies freedom of speech.

Lastly you are wrong in thinking that the UN is not corrupt and that it has the capability to oversee anybody in this matter. It's own constitution does not give you the right to free speech. It states that you can say anything as long as it is not against the interest of the UN. This means that the UN would be *more* likely to censor the internet than the US would.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: no sense
by Anonymous on Thu 17th Nov 2005 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: no sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Amen brother!

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: no sense
by Pelly on Thu 17th Nov 2005 02:47 UTC in reply to "no sense"
Pelly Member since:
2005-07-07

"I am not happy with this outcome at all. And that is not due to anti-Americanism or something-- it has to do with common sense. My common sense tells me it is simply not right for one country to control the internet infrastructure of other countries. It doesn't make sense."

Thom, I'm going to disagree with you.

When you consider the internet, it's a case of, "the genie is already out of the bottle."

As for your analogy of one country controlling anothers roadways, I don't think that's the intent; though some in the UN would sure like that type of control & power over the 'Net.

While some portions of the 'Net are misused (i.e. email spam), there's a good majority that's useful and of good content.

I believe that in the final result, it will come down to a situation of various countries having jurisdiction over the host servers & equipment that reside on their soil/territory.

This would be similar to phone companies. Phones can reach out on a global basis and each country has it's own laws for their respective communications sectors.

I believe the UN has far better things to do than simply waste money & resources to create yet another department to try to make decisions where the impact will be zero.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: no sense
by Scott on Thu 17th Nov 2005 16:06 UTC in reply to "no sense"
Scott Member since:
2005-09-11

Thom, the DNS services provided from U.S. are the equivalent of import cars from the U.S. No, the U.S. doesn't control Norway's roads, but they do control how cars are built within the U.S. (This is entirely hypothetical, obviously.) And of course, outside influences -- the diplomacy -- can always sway U.S. car building.

I think the argument is just against the wrong ideal. Norway either needs to build their own "cars" in this case, or work seriously hard in guiding U.S. in the right direction in regards to Norway's own agenda. All of this demanding only leads to things like, well, like the W word, not that I think the DNS situation would ever lead to something like that. Again, entirely hypothetical, and entirely extreme.

Reply Score: 1

Equal role and responsibility???
by CodeMonkey on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:38 UTC
CodeMonkey
Member since:
2005-09-22

According to 74B, they say "all governments should have an equaal role and responsibility, for international Internet governnance, and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet"

I simply cannot agree with this. Why should a country who has put little to no time/money/resources into the development of the internet have just as much say as one who has put countless ammounts of time/money/resources into it? Should the country of Tuvalu, pop. 12,000, who decided to lease their internet soul for $50 mil be able to to have as much say as the US or Germany, or the UK? Heck no.

This problem I think has to do with the mentality behind the UN. I think it has many great things going for it, but I think one of it's major flaws is that every country is seen as equal and having an equal say. I do not agree with this. Countries should have a weight relating to their proven track record on the issue or subject at hand.

They're all complaining about US control over the internet. Well, we invented the damn thing, what do you expect. Everybody loved it and started using it and now every depends on it so they say we should give up our Supreme control of it. Why? Think of it in terms of an OS. MS created Windows (let's not squabble over whether or not they "invented" it, that's not the point). Like it or not, everybody depends on it now. Nobody like one company having that much control, but nobody's trying to tell MS that they should let the Windows development be run by the community and open source it. Why? Because it'd be rediculous to. The solution? People didn't like it so they just made their own. And MS is now losing their dominance. As long as MS and UNIX and VMS and Big Iron OS's can still talk to eachother, the world can still work.

Similarly, if people don't like the US controlling most of the Internet, then fine, build your own and as long as they can talk to eachother, everything can still work.

Edited 2005-11-16 19:54

Reply Score: 2

RE: Equal role and responsibility???
by endy on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:36 UTC in reply to "Equal role and responsibility???"
endy Member since:
2005-09-02

So you'd like the UN to be run so different countries have more or less say based on their past? How is that democratic?

It's like saying you should have three votes next election because you work hard and some other guy should only get one cos he just sits around all day. That's a sure fire way to create a heavy bias in a so called democracy.

You want freedom and equality only when it suits you.

Reply Score: 1

CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

No, it'd be more like saying Joe Sixpack who doesn't know the difference between their governer or a piece of bark shouldn't be allowed to vote. I think people in the US get way too big of a head about "Everybody has the right ro vote so everybody has to". Not at all. Sure everybody has a right, but that doesn't mean everybody should. Sure most people know who their presidential candidates are, and most who their governer candidates are in the eelctions, but most have absolutely no clue who the representatives, senators, or judges they vote for are let alot what they stand for. These people shouldn't be allowed to vote for things they don't know anything about. Sure let them vote on the things they know about, but don't let them vote for things they have no clue about.

Similarly with the UN. Lybia of all people is the head of the UN Human Right's council. Does this make any sense? This happened while they were still under sanctions for their involvement in governmental support for terrorist activities. They should not be able to have as much say on those issues until they have proven themselves a humane track record.

Reply Score: 1

CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

Sorry, about my last post there, I got quite a bit off topic.

Reply Score: 1

What do they say the problems are?
by ITPro on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:42 UTC
ITPro
Member since:
2005-07-10

When this topic came up before, I never really understood what the supposed issues were. All I got was something like the following:

1) The U.S. censors the Internet.
2) The U.S. hogs most of the IP addresses.
3) The U.S. should not control the root DNS servers.
4) The U.N. should regulate the Internet.
5) Internet users should pay a tax to the U.N.

I don't think these are the real issues, It's just what seemed to come out of the discussion. It's just as well, anyway, because they're not issues, they're just so much whining about so-called U.S. "control" whatever that means.

If anyone would like to elucidate what the real issues are, it's possible that satisfactory solutions could be found. If it's just about who has "control of the Internet," I'm not interested. I would not want the kind of control that, say, China, Syria, Iran, or Cuba might want, to say nothing of a dictatorial blowhard who is busily destroying his country and its people. Just last night, a CBS (I think) correspondent stationed in China demonstrated that a list of links provided by the in-country Google server in response to the query "democracy" are largely inaccessible because they're blocked on the Chinese network. It's as clear an example of Chinese "control" as might be possible.

Similarly, if the issue is "the U.S. is evil," I'm not interested. If you hate the government of the U.S., go ahead, lots of Americans do too, but it's not a compelling reason to change Internet governance. If it's about how stupid and ignorant I am... well, I may be, but it's not a reason for changing Internet governance.

Let's hear something specific and substantive or let's drop the whole thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: no sense
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:49 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

If Norway invented and built the roads in the US, then YES IT DOES MAKE SENSE.

Excuse me-- but the networks in my country were built using DUTCH tax money and were made largely by DUTCH universities.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: no sense
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: no sense"
RE[4]: no sense
by archiesteel on Wed 16th Nov 2005 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: no sense"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The Web was invented by a researcher from the CERN. Plenty of other discoveries used in the states today were made by Europeans.

The U.S. wanting to retain control of top-domain DNS and Internet names is just petty. Unfortunately, when it seems to dealing with the international community, it seems pettiness is the only mode the U.S. government is capable of operating on.

Don't go around wondering why people outside of the U.S. dislike your government so much...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: no sense
by CodeMonkey on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: no sense"
CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

That's great. Then you should be able to control you're own networks. Nobody is saying they should physically control your networks. But they are saying that if you want to talk to The US, then you have to play by their rules. Consequently, everybody want's to talk to the US, so everybody has to play by their rules. But if that's not acceptable, then fine. You don't have to run the dutch network how the US says, only the communication between them.

Now, sure I can see a problem with this. I personally think there should just be a universal method of communication to be globally governed, then the individual countries and organizations can run their internals however they want. This doesn't require anybody to "give up" control of anything, it would simply be taken from them.

Think of it like ODF. MS said "no, we don't want to support or use that" but then everybody else said "Okay, that's fine, nobody said you had to, we just thought you should. We're all going to use it anyways". Now MS's had has been forced and there thinking "Oh well, we tried, but I guess we'll have to support it now"

Edited 2005-11-16 20:08

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: no sense
by imyib on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: no sense"
imyib Member since:
2005-11-16

If the Dutch could fix the potholes in the road outside my house, I'd be happy to pay some taxes to them.

The doctrine of not fixing what isn't broken would seem to apply here. Isn't one country's anodyne bureaucracy just as good as another's for the purposes of making TLDs?

Reply Score: 1

lies
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"The entire Internet concept, design and implementation was the result of efforts and money by the United States of America. "

CERN is in the US?

Reply Score: 1

re: lies
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"CERN is in the US?"

It's not suprising that you don't understand the difference between the WWW and the Internet.

You must be Linux Is Poo's alter ego.

Reply Score: 0

No control by the crooks?
by Berend de Boer on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:25 UTC
Berend de Boer
Member since:
2005-10-19

What? The crooks at the UN don't get control? The thugs in Iran and North Korea don't have final control on the Internet? Where is all this leading to?

And mr "lies", CERN had nothing to do with the Internet protocols. It did do some work on a certain application level protocol that happens to be quite popular these days. But it didn't invent the Internet. Al Gore did.

Reply Score: 3

RE: No control by the crooks?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:30 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

What? The crooks at the UN don't get control? The thugs in Iran and North Korea don't have final control on the Internet? Where is all this leading to?

For what reason do you think Bush blocked the .xxx domain? Because he doesn't like sex? NO. He blocked it because of political and religious reasons.

And that is unacceptable.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: No control by the crooks?
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE: No control by the crooks?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

While I do think that we (the US) are in the best position to keep the Internet moving forward and progressing from a technical standpoint, I think that we (and everyone else) should stay away from policing content directly.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: No control by the crooks?
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE: No control by the crooks?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

No. It was blocked because it was a BAD idea. If you could force the porn industry to use the .XXX then that would be okay. That would even be THE solution as the pervs could still look at porn on the .XXX domains and it would be really easy for anyone else to filter out. That isn't what was going to happen. What was going to happen is the .XXX domain was going to be just ANOTHER domain that the porn industry could populate. That is NOT a good thing and it was a GOOD thing it was blocked.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: No control by the crooks?
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 16th Nov 2005 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE: No control by the crooks?"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

"For what reason do you think Bush blocked the .xxx domain? Because he doesn't like sex? NO. He blocked it because of political and religious reasons."

And with the demise of the unborn .xxx extension, sex has vanished from the internet! err..

No .xxx domains is not the same as having no domains with plenty of xxx. The content is not being blocked, who the hell cares if a site is pronxxx.com instead of pron.xxx? Seriously? That argument is getting really lame.

If you are so worried about stuff being censored, consider how quickly http://*.xxx would be blocked by those with an interest to do so. That was one of the reasons people (including many fundies) put forward for it, was so pron could be isolated (and optionally blocked).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: No control by the crooks?
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No control by the crooks?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Your reasoning is flawed. That may have been the "intent" until they actually looked at it and said "How do we make them move to .xxx?" The answer, you can't. So the reason for it went out the window and it was blocked so that it wouldn't create another TLD that porn could have PLUS those it currently does. It was flawed reasoning and it was stopped. No big deal.

Reply Score: 0

Equal control?
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Okay, so China should have equal control? What about Sudan? What about Tunesia(sp?)? What about North Korea?

No? I didn't think so. It should stay right where it is at.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Equal control?
by archiesteel on Wed 16th Nov 2005 22:50 UTC in reply to "Equal control?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

What about Canada? What about the UK? What about France? What about Italy?

Why is it that, when the average U,S. apologist thinks "international community", the first countries that come to its mind are the ones that abuse human rights, and never those who work as hard as the U.S. to protect them? As if anything outside of U.S. borders was automatically bad...

That attitude, among other things, is what makes people pissed off at the U.S.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Equal control?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:40 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Look, it's fine with me if the organization that controls the internet (ICANN) is American-- heck, for all I care it's on Fiji. But what I do NOT like is that ICANN is under DIRECT influence by the US government.

Like any government, the US one isn't to be trusted.

Reply Score: 5

yay!
by helf on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:40 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

wooohooo! I'm glad they were able to agree. I'd hated to have seen what might have happened. The whole thing was stupid anyways. Now the powers that had control still have control and the UN is pacified... for the time being... ;)

Reply Score: 1

all this anti-american sentiment...
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

really makes me hope that the recent poll data from the US is published outside of the US.

Just in case it isn't... for the information of those not living here... the past couple years of surveys have shown that the *majority* of americans do not support bush's way of doing business. I for one am almost ashamed to travel abroad and have people know i'm american these days.

Just my 2 cents - bush doesn't speak for us all; not by a longshot. Somebody take the internet away from him before he destroys it.

Reply Score: 0

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

he blocked the .xxx domain. oh boohoo. cry me a river. he is ripping the 'net to shreds.

Grow up.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

the blocking of that domain doesn't concern me in particular, and wasn't what i was really even talking about.

Chill man. I'm not tryin to light fires. I just think we should have more respect for the rest of the world. Who knows? maybe if we weren't so trigger happy to tramp all over the arab world because of economic tensions, they just *might* not be so inclined to blow us up.

God forbid anyone but us should be allowed have any real power.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

If surveys are your authoritive for america's conscious you still have a lot to learn my friend. ;)

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

I never said i consider them authoritative. But i do consider polls to be an ok indicator of general tendancies, if not hard numbers. But giving the benefit of the doubt and considering the polls to be worthless, what evidence can you show me that he has most people's support and confidence?

I don't need polls to know people hate bush's guts. I live here and i see it, hear it, talk to people about it, every day. (and in a *very* red state) But for those outside i thought it would be a reasonable figure to show the general picture. But obviously you must have a better indicator?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Like I said, you still have a lot to learn. The people you know does not give you an authoritive answer on the president's popularity, unless you know everybody in the U.S. which is highly unlikely.

There's no doubt that there's people that don't like the president, but where were they last election? Could it be that they're indeed outside the majority?

Historically a president's poll numbers drop in their second term, so history is my "better" indicator.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The only other president with such low poll numbers in their second term was Richard Nixon. And those polls were taken after Watergate...

You bushbots will have to accept at some point that Bush is going to end up in the history books as one of the worst U.S. presidents of your country's history.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

It's the suede denim secret police

http://ice.citizenlab.org/


Wake up "global community"

Reply Score: 0

Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

It's the suede denim secret police

Jello? is that you?

Wake up "global community"

What a nightmarish idea Globalization = bad

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Just in case it isn't... for the information of those not living here... the past couple years of surveys have shown that the *majority* of americans do not support bush's way of doing business. I for one am almost ashamed to travel abroad and have people know i'm american these days."

And a majority of those idiot who take these polls also believe that the president has some significant level of control over the economy, and that it's his fault if it tanks. Here's a lesson for you, the Congress controls all spending and taxation, and the Federal Reserve is in control of the monetary policy. Presidential opinions polls only serve to show how stupid most Americans are.

Reply Score: 0

Ressev
Member since:
2005-07-18

It really has no business in it. As an inept, let alone corrupt, organization, it should have no business in it.

Edited 2005-11-16 20:55

Reply Score: 1

Censorship and freedom of speech
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Where's all the freedom of speech advocates? Your rights were at stake here!

What if the U.S. was to relinquish it's power over the internet and allow ant-right countries to govern more of the internet?

Reply Score: 0

America cannot "win".
by Michael on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:16 UTC
Michael
Member since:
2005-07-01

I think some people have missed the point. Neither the UN, nor the US can prevent a split. If China wants control of the internet in China, it can just take control. In fact that's exactly what it's done. The same is true for any country.

Failure to get a satisfactory solution here - one is economically and politically acceptable for 95% of the world - just means the internet WILL be split. In much the same way that when peace talks fail, war follows. Economic interests mean people will adapt to any change, to maintain the status quo.

Reply Score: 1

Internet = implemented RFC's = free
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The 'internet', in all its appearances, has always been free technology; ever since the first RFC on IP/TCP/UDP/WHATEVER appeared, it was published without any restraint (no patents, no copyright, everybody was free to implement it). Now, the same goes up for everything related to DNS.

There is no single technical reason why root-servers should be kept unchanged. There are many reasons why it should be geographically distributed.

The catch is this: DNS is a pure technical business, and needed for the internet to go smooth; having the world's DNS records under one single government is simply an invitation to abuse, especially since that particular government is the world's foremost bully.

Reply Score: 2

GPS anyone?
by CodeMonkey on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:43 UTC
CodeMonkey
Member since:
2005-09-22

Why was this whole thing never brought up about GPS? Because it's just whining and it's really doesn't make too much sense.

The US invented GPS. The US controlls GPS. Most of the worlds military relies on GPS. Most of the entire global transportation system depends on GPS. That means that any time they feel like it, the US can flip the switch and say "nope, you can't use it anymore." I'd say this literal governmental control of the global transportation system is a much larger deal than the psuedo-control the US govt. has over a corporation controling parts of the Internet's core.

People didn't like this so Europe is launching their own GPS network (GALILEO). Good for them. They didn't whine about it and say "hey, you need to share", they just decided that'd it'd be better if they had their own.

Good job Europe. +2 points to you for not whining about GPS. and +2 more for being inovative enough to build your own.

Edited 2005-11-16 21:49

Reply Score: 1

RE: all this anti-american sentiment..
by trayuscore on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:43 UTC
trayuscore
Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually it seems strange he would block .xxx domains which would be easier to regulate rather than the status quo where any term you look up on Google could lead you to a porn site. You'd think a religious nut like Bush would want more control over the internet. Guess he'll just have to pray the porn away and hope his daughters don't end up in one.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I doubt his blocking of it had anything to do with regulation, other than offering that as a cover. Makes more sense that he blocked it because not blocking it would constitute nothing short of fully acknowledging that porn is a legitimate part of the web like everything else. And i'd be very surprised to see anything of that sort out of bush & friends. Just because he doesn't have the power to stamp it out doesn't force him to acknowledge its right to exist.

Reply Score: 0

Interesting....
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

On the one hand you have a legitimate case for distributing the servers for survivability.

On the other hand you have a very similar technology in use. Global Positioning System.

Everyone uses it, it's free, AND it's controlled ENTIRELY by the US. At the same time, people are afraid the US might turn it off at any time or prevent them from using it. For good reason too - It's been stated in the past that the US might do just that. They've been clear about what reasons they would use, BUT the obvious threat is still there.

So, we have a fork of GPS as other countries are putting up their own constellations of GPS satellites to combat this threat. End result, the US no longer has a monopoly on GPS technologies.

In all fairness, I'm not sure just how legitimate a threat it is that the US owns the DNS servers. But it's a good example of how stupid some of the sabre rattling can get.

The plain fact is that everyone adopted the internet standards as they were at the time and that included US administration of the road signs and maps. Yes, you built your own roads and they're yours. But you use the US's maps for directions. No maps, no internet.

Do I think the whole argument is stupid? Yes. Do I think it really matters? Overall, not really. Is the UN better suited to governing it? From what I've seen, not really. Do any of us have all the facts? Not by a longshot. Bush is a twit. Personally I think we'll get a lot more useful stuff done in a couple of years once he and his rhetoric go away and we can start to repair the damage he's caused to the image of the US.

Reply Score: 2

Re: GPS - CodeMonkey
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Heh, Beat me to it.

Reply Score: 0

Honest question....
by wylde342 on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:51 UTC
wylde342
Member since:
2005-08-12

I was wondering what opinions both Americans and those from other countries have of the UN?

I, like most Americans, find it a model of neolithic incompetence.

Others?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Honest question....
by archiesteel on Wed 16th Nov 2005 23:13 UTC in reply to "Honest question...."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Well, of course it will be inefficient - it's democratic. The only truly efficient model of government is totalitarianism (i.e. fascism, nazism or stalinism). However, it's also unfair and inhuman.

As soon as people can voice their opinions and consensus (or at least a majority) is needed, things slow down tremendously.

That said, it is in Washington's interest to make sure the U.N. is as inefficient as possible, as it prevents a reasonable challenge to U.S. hegemony from developing. In other words, U.S. administrations have no interest in a functional U.N.

As long as americans (like you) bitch about the U.N., they continue to support unilateral actions by their government...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Honest question....
by Smartpatrol on Wed 16th Nov 2005 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Honest question...."
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

That said, it is in Washington's interest to make sure the U.N. is as inefficient as possible, as it prevents a reasonable challenge to U.S. hegemony from developing. In other words, U.S. administrations have no interest in a functional U.N.

They need no help from us the UN has done it to itself. You may be willing to give up the sovereignty of your country to a foreign body but donít think for a second the US will.

As long as americans (like you) bitch about the U.N., they continue to support unilateral actions by their government...

We were forced to act unilaterally for precisely the same reason you tout. The UN is non-functional! Were you asleep in school when they covered the part about the first Gulf War being a UN action? With conditions of disarmament agreed to at the close of hostilities to be enforced by the UN? WMD aside Iraq was in clear violation of UN Resolutions for 13 years. We cleaned up the UN mess in that region. Convenient selective facts to support your alternate leftist reality.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Honest question....
by archiesteel on Wed 16th Nov 2005 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Honest question...."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding you with all that frothing at the mouth.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Honest question....
by Anonymous on Thu 17th Nov 2005 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Honest question...."
RE[5]: Honest question....
by archiesteel on Thu 17th Nov 2005 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Honest question...."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

That's funny, you seem to have a hard time understanding lots of things.

For example:

The Internet is NOT the World Wide Web.


Oh, I understand that very well. In fact, I've understood it the very first time when I used the WWW, back when the "Whole Internet Catalog" fit in a single book. Back in those days Gopher was the shiznit, and newsgroups were the place trolls used to congregate to.

I think it is you who had a trouble understanding what I wrote. I was not equating the WWW with the Internet. I was merely stating that, if someone can claim that the U.S. invented the Internet Protocol and that this somehow meant that it could had special rights over it, the same logic could be used with WWW and the hypertext transfer protocol.

I was trying to make a point that, even though the Internet was born in the U.S., one of the most popular protocols used on it was indeed created by Europeans. So without Europe, you wouldn't be able to be your little arrogent anonymous self on this web site.

The more you know, indeed.

Reply Score: 1

A rational answer...
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

disagree with several policies of the current american government, but in this topic, i completely agree with their approach. Looking at the news and the demands of the other countries, i am quite scared that they wish simply to control internet for their own political ends... When I hear that Robert Mugabe wants greater control over internet, with his tyrannical approach, i wonder what he would do with it... These people have also proposed to tax the net, I'm sorry but why?

They don't only want control over domain names, but also on rules governing the entire internet. The US governement, on the other hand, has clearly indicated that they will not interfere with internet development, and up to now they have not interfered...

Please do not add politics or rules to internet, as it is the best way to kill it off completely...

Also, by reading several of the messages here, i see there are some Zealots... Zealotry leads only to fighting!

Have a nice day...

Reply Score: 0

...
by suryad on Wed 16th Nov 2005 22:28 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

With all the things that are being outsourced to India...they should do the same with the governance of the Internet! Then watch the Internet fly! I am serious!

Reply Score: 1

I demand the United States Government
by JMcCarthy on Wed 16th Nov 2005 23:00 UTC
JMcCarthy
Member since:
2005-08-12

I demand that the United States government and all corporations involved release control of all their telephone networks and holdings to:

a.) The Government of Canada
OR
b.) The Government of the United Kingdom.

It was a Scottish-born Canadian immigrant who is responsible for its invention--- only Americans and Italians believe it to be Antonio Meucci, and that's purely because of political reasons / denial.


I also demand you cede your entire rail network to the United Kingdom.

Reply Score: 2

This is dopy
by zodiac_ames on Thu 17th Nov 2005 02:00 UTC
zodiac_ames
Member since:
2005-11-06

This argument is only an argument in the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sense. The closest thing to an issue is something about the Bush administration blocking the creation of a .xxx domain for porn. Now there's a burning need. The rest is raving about how naughty the U.S. is. Dopy! And how the U.S. doesn't have to share because the Internet is mine, mine, mine! Dopy! And how corrupt the United Nations is. Dopy! And how everybody hates the U.S. Dopy! And how the U.S. hates everybody. Dopy! And how evil, totalitarian states shouldn't be allowed to control the Internet. Well... maybe that's not so dopy. Then there are the strained analogies such as Norway controling the U.S. highway system. Dopy! And how the U.S. should immediately relenquish control of some bit of infrastructure. Dopy! And even more dopy things I didn't mention.

What are the issues that need new Internet governance in order to fix them? What can't be done now that needs done? The nature of the problems will dictate the solution. As long as it's just about who controls what, the argument just goes in a circle, so don't say that it's that the U.S. should give up exclusive control of the Internet because it's already been said at length. Maybe they should, but that still doesn't tell us what the real problems are.

Reply Score: 2

v UN = corrupt bastards
by Anonymous on Thu 17th Nov 2005 02:28 UTC
v OH, BOO HOO!
by Anonymous on Thu 17th Nov 2005 02:43 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

In particular from some of the American (in the USA resident sense) patrons here.

I'm amazed as well that people can somehow separate the UN from the USA to the extent that the USA is good and the UN is "all corrupt people" for instance.

Don't you realise that the USA was one of the founder members, that it is one of the 5 main groups within the UN, that it has exercised it's veto right in important affairs and has a bigger say than all but 4 other nations of the world?

So it wouldn't be about the USA relinquishing control but sharing authority. The DNS servers already there would still be in the USA, with probably more added overseas which would help *everyone*.

The administration of the internet/DNS would cease to be a US only political football but become an inclusive global political football.

The only reason this isn't liked or wanted is pure and simple because of the "it's my toy I'll say who plays with it" syndrome, backed up with specious arguments about "Tunesia" (good spelling there; really helps to take your argument on board when you know it's wrong but can't even be bothered to fix it) being bad and controlling the internet.

It's the same old McCarthyism from times past. Instead of Reds under the bed, we have Mugabes under the DNS.

Boring and a shame that a chance to actually promote an inclusive - and less likely to be politically one-sided - say in one of the most important modern technologies went bye bye on the back of US parochial intransigence

Reply Score: 3

The Decision is already made
by Moulinneuf on Thu 17th Nov 2005 03:06 UTC
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

The decision as already been made , the Internet is being declared a Global communication system , nothing the US wil do and say will change that , at all , they never had control over it or where in charge at all at anytime.

The only thing they accomplished is show why its not a good idea anymore to use the US to headquarter a non-profit Global organisation.

Reply Score: 1

v The Great Satan?
by Anonymous on Thu 17th Nov 2005 03:10 UTC
Own DNS (root)
by Snapper on Thu 17th Nov 2005 18:19 UTC
Snapper
Member since:
2005-11-16

If any country wants to add their own TLD's, then I think DNS is perfectly capable.

Basically, each country can create their own root servers and populate it apporpiately. Then they can pass laws that say that all the corporations in their country must use these. Then, all their subjects will find any new "fake" tld that their country wanted right away. Of course, this new TLD only makes sense for those using these new DNS servers, but it was something that this one country wanted. Other countries can also do the same.

Yes, this leads to a possible mess, but then so does adding bunches of new TLD's. Are any more really necessary?

Reply Score: 1

what about
by Anonymous on Thu 17th Nov 2005 18:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

countries other than China, Cuba etc..let's take example France, India, etc ?

Reply Score: 0