Senator Wants to Keep U.N. Away From the Internet 1149
Martin Boleman writes "ZDNet reports that Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month. "The Internet is likely to face a grave threat, If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on." he said in a statement."
Statist Musical Chairs (Score:3, Interesting)
The provisions for the Internet being taken over by the UN or any political body will likely bifurcate the Net into multiple separate networks still interconnected but ready to dissolve from those that censor or regulate the information more than the billions of users want.
Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.
My Internet doesn't need DNS as it is set up today. E-mail is dependent on DNS for now, but a combination of BitTorrent and LDAP will shut that need off if DNS gets ripped apart.
There are three reasons for government control of DNS:
1. Censorship
2. Regulation/licensing of certain speech (campaign, medical, educational?)
3. Profit!!! (for the cronies who sell domain names)
There is zero need for any regulation. The Internet could be usurped by any big business but isn't. The ultimate proof of anarchy in action. Companies that try to control the users are beaten by those that provide open access. Companies that want to break free from the global structure will anger their users who want access to anyone else. Verizon could separate their phone network completely but its in their best interest to communicate with their competition.
The UN just wants monopoly power through force and coercion. The private corporations want to be #1 but have to constantly compete with others.
Re:Norm Coleman? (Score:2, Interesting)
Norm Coleman (Score:2, Interesting)
He is a up and rising star in the RNC. Keep a eye on him, he will be running for president sooner or later.
Re:I'm all for internationalizing... (Score:5, Interesting)
-VETO power; this HAS to be adressed; it has no place in a gathering of nations.
-lack of teeth; there should be a permanent peacekeeping force under UN controll...but this only works if veto power is revoked (or at least drastically reworked)
-too much diplomacy...lunacy like certain countries on the human rights commission...that would be like China on the internet-commission
What I never get is that organisations (and countries/corporations etc) are in a way set up like organisms, but always lacking that most effective way for positive evolution to happen: death. The UN charter (and any corporations charter, and every country's constitution) should include sections on it's own death and rebirth (for example a total revision after 50 years). Documents written hundreds of years ago might be relevant all those years later, but they just can't anticipate the way the world has changed, or the changed expectations of people. There's a reason why nature has this thing called death; it enables evolution.
Re:There seems tobe a misconception... (Score:2, Interesting)
So did you miss this, or are you disagreeing with it?
Anyway, this is no longer a uniquely American enterprise. Yes, the US innovated it but maybe it's time to consider opening up the control a little bit? I'm not personally in favor of the UN "taking over" but I think it is time for this discussion to happen in the interest of seeing the Internet continue to evolve.
Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.
And therein lies the problem. If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today. The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus. You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.
The Internet as it is today is controlled, you just turn a blind eye because you are the ones controlling it.
Re:Tempest in a Teacup (Score:3, Interesting)
I really don't see the issue with this anyway. To me, it just looks like the EU wants to take away the
not my impression (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.
Well actually, no, for the same reason many criminals have certain freedoms taken away from them. The internet is the greatest vehicle for free speech and exchange of ideas ever invented. I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet -- including countries that already, today, censor the internet for the 'good of their citizens'. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other nations?
And therein lies the problem. If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today. The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus. You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.
Fractured but if there is a need for interaction it will happen. The internet is already a sparse network of sub-networks. If there's a will there's a way.
The Internet as it is today is controlled, you just turn a blind eye because you are the ones controlling it.
Oh? Care to give an example of how the way its being controlled/managed limits your freedom of speech and expression? Or by "control" are you talking about the fact that it's being managed by a group who make logistical decisions that I could care less about (like whether
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:freedom? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Norm Coleman? (Score:4, Interesting)
Neither opponent had a point and they both spent most of their
time insulting the other. Who you percieve as victor says more
about you than them.
liberty, not democracy (Score:2, Interesting)
I care more about liberty than about democracy. If you (and a majority of your peers) decide to limit my freedom, I don't really care if you did it democratically or not. Curtailing liberty is wrong. Those who would do so should not be allowed to participate.
Funny, I just read this [commondreams.org] which is exactly the same idea. Quite the day when a libertarian links to CommonDreams to make a point. Here's another [wnd.com] link showing that unfettered democracy is not the best idea. A majority is not right simply because it is a majority.
Re:freedom? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the same country that brought you the monopolizing telcos
Ya know, I'm feeding the troll here and everything but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the regulated monopoly telco system provided much more reliable service then anything that has come since (even newer technologies can't compete with POTS for uptime) and the typical Government oversight provided a lot more protection to the consumer then people think.
Billing problem with landline? Dispute the charges and they have to investigate. If they give you shit contact the PSC and the PSC will force them to cooperate. Billing problem with cell phone? Dispute the charges then watch them charge your credit card without authorization, submit EFT's right out of your checking account and start listing black marks on your credit report.
Poor credit and trying to get a landline? Provide two-months worth of basic service as a deposit (less then $20 in Verizon land) and they have to give you service. Poor credit and trying to get a cell phone? Pay insanely huge ass and out of line deposit that they aren't even required to pay interest on and don't have to give back to you after six or twelve months. In fact, the last time a friend of mine tried to get service from Verizon Wireless (the only mobile carrier here with coverage worth shit) they wanted a thousand dollar deposit.
Sure, Ma Bell got very arrogant and cocky back in the day. But I'm sick of hearing people bash POTS carriers and root for their downfall. You show me a service that even approaches the bullet-proof reliablity of POTS and then we'll talk.
Re:.us domain? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've always thought the generic TLDs were stupid. Virtually everything has a country of origin, and every country is going to have its own laws. Put domains under ccTLDs so it's clear where your origination and jurisdiction is. And there's .int for the truly international organizations. Some here like to talk about how the internet breaks down "short-sighted nationalism", yadda yadda - get real.
Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Interesting)
They're open to competition and they're a matter of individual choice. Don't like Google's results? Use Yahoo!'s or Teoma's or any of the hundreds that would spring up in response. Of course, you're swapping one directory service for another. That was the GP's point. DNS, while useful, is not the sine qua non of the Internet. DNS relates human concepts (domain names) to IP addresses. Search engines relate human concepts (text content) to IP addresses. My Bookmarks relate human concepts (whatever mnemonic I choose) to IP addresses. It's all the same function. If DNS got borked, the 'Net would recover with surprising speed. That's why any threat regarding "control" of the Internet is empty. Any problems would be temporary--a hassle, yes, but a short-term hassle.
s/country/organization/ and the statement works equally well for the UN. As a regulatory body, the UN is a proven failure. It works as a venue for mediation and it works as a coordinator for disaster relief. That's about it.
Ever hear of PNAC? It's their plan, as was Iraq (Score:4, Interesting)
In September, 2000 PNAC released a controversial document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, [newamericancentury.org] in which they argued that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to speed up their planned re-militarization of America (see pg. 68). Earlier in this document they itemized their core principals, including 'CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.'(see pg. 11) On page 57 they go into more detail about how and why America must retain control of cyberspace. Controlling ICAAN is critical to this goal.
Scared yet? Remember, these are the folks that brought us the Patriot Act, forcing a vote on it after 9/11 without allowing anyone to read it, and enabling such great things as holding potential "terrorists" indefinitely without access to family or legal representation, sneak-and-peek searches, warrantless monitoring of e-mail, monitoring dissent groups without any suspicion of criminal activity by them, etc., etc.
As for Iraq, PNAC has been calling for the overthrow of Saddam since 1997 [newamericancentury.org] as a way to retain control of world energy supplies, critical to ensuring America's control over the world. But I think they bit off more than they could chew over there.
This group is truly scary, and they have been running our government for five years now.
Clone it fool! (Score:3, Interesting)
It is completely unnecessary for a change of hands or the root servers to take place. The mechanisms are already there for any country to effectively free itself from the evil grasp of the U.S. At least this is true if the motivating factor truly is a fear of the U.S. crippling other economies by use of it's control of DNS servers.
Any country could simply keep up daily clones of the root servers. They could then legislate that ISPs and Universities use these clones exclusively. The clones could even directly reference the actual rootservers until such a time as access to those root servers is denied, at which point it could failover to it's own database.
This prevents the scenario where the U.S. messes with your country by breaking the rootservers. If we decided to split you at least have a relatively up to date domain name service structure and you go from there.
Re:freedom? (Score:2, Interesting)
(I also think it's mostly not concious that this is (part of) the reason, and its also drillied into many from a young age that sex is bad/naughty/dirty/sinfull/embarrasing so people accept it without thinking bout it)
Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I think you're wrong there. The US DoC has control. ICANN is simply their agent for exercising that control. ICANN cannot do anything to "." without permission of the DoC. See here [biglist.com] for a better explanation than I could ever give.
--Ng
Re:No, the UN doesn't want to take over the Intern (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole "They just want to control a critical part of their infrastructure" arguement doesn't come from China, Syria, North Korea, or Cuba, it comes from apologists in the West in order to justify what is clearly an attemt to destroy the free internet as it operates now.
It would be extremly easy to implement a system where no one entity controls the internet (have each country be responsible for there own
This has nothing to do with countries worried about U.S. control of critical parts of their infrastructure (because all those countries have 100% control of their own infrastructure right now!), this is about wanting to end the era of the free, wild, and completly unregulated internet. It is about making the internet an easily controlable medium, like television, radio, and telephone. It is embarrasing for Western politicians to admit that their views on censorship, taxation, and internal survalence of their population is virtually identical to that of China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. So you spread some FUD about the U.S. being in control of their critical infrastructure (which it isn't, and even if it was the problem could be solved without the U.N.), and hope that knee jerk anti-Americanism will blind people to the real authoritarian goal.
Re:freedom? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:freedom? (Score:1, Interesting)
What an uneducated and childish response. You're welcome to leave.
Re:so partial, it's wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
The U.N. should have any control over the internet outside what every other country or person does. They have already talked about taxing it. The role the US plays isn't anything a court cannot fix if the powers are ever abused. It has happened several time over domain names and cybersquating. We know the U.N. is as or more corupt then almost any other governing body can be. So what makes the it so speacial they get control?
People and countries can already place servers and appliances on the net to get it doing stuff outside the original intent. They can use it for the latest breakthru applications without getting special permisions. What is it the US does that the UN or some other ocuntry would do any different? (besides taxing it) What would the main benefit of letting the UN or EU control it over the US? eside disrupting our comunications networks and possibly imposing taxes?
I still havn't heard a compeling reason to give control of the internet to some other body except for "the US is evil" and "we have powers too" what would these reasons be?
Re:freedom? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:.us domain? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's the same reason stamps from England do not have their country named on them; the country that invents the technology gets the prevelidge of being the default. England invented the postal stamp.
Re:freedom? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is one other big issue than the creation of say, the
That's what this big argument is really about - why should the US government, or a fairly unaccountable company like ICANN have the right to determine which registrar, if any, gets to run a country's DNS? So far the US government hasn't abused this power *that* much - but it could.
Nor is ICANN entirely trusted either - remember the fiasco when verisign decided to start domain squatting with it's search engine on all unassigned
The problem with the alternative roots is that software makers like microsoft only support the 'official' ICANN system out of the box. With very few people technicially capable of adding alternative roots, and even fewer knowing why they'd need or want to, ICANN and the DoC effective has the rest of the world over a barrel. And they want to get off it.
Re:freedom? (Score:2, Interesting)
I say if they want their own DNS then they should start their own. Maybe one day when it's more popular/used than ours we'll beg to switch over and use theirs. In the meantime, they're welcome to play on our court, but at the end of the day the basketball is still ours.
My personal translation of the arguments I hear from the UN: "gimme gimme gimme!"
Translation of the ideal US rebuttal: "fuck you. go stand in the corner"
Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:2, Interesting)
Ironic you would say that. Many of us do realize how good we have it, which is why we are willing to sacrifice to help Iraq acheive the same freedoms (Its ok to disagree with me on whether the war is good or not, but the REASON for supporting it for most Pro-Iraq war Americans is still to spread Freedom. Free people seldom bomb each other.)
If you study a little history, "Taxation without representation" was the main force behind the American Revolution. We didn't get to elect anyone or have any type of reprensentation in England but had to pay taxes to England. Americans still loathe taxes.
Most American's would quickly agree that the UN is crap. Liberal or Conservative, most think it is spineless. This is why the US will often go around the UN, and US citizens never give the govt. any heat over it. We NEED some kind of UN like organization, but the one we have is entirely too corrupt and gives people like Castro the moral equivelancy to continue his brutal dictatorship.
So many of us realize how good we have it here, and most Americans are not very fond of the UN for the same reasons you state.
As a side note: There are 600 million guns in the world. Over 250 million of them are in the US alone. That is almost 1 gun for every man, woman and child. I firmly believe this is one reason why American's don't worry about some dictator trying to take over, and why do army could really "invade" us in a traditional sense. Of course, I have a few, and a license to carry them concealed.
Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:3, Interesting)
Some eople don't [wikipedia.org] (at least not directly)