Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Politics

Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet 691

Posted by Zonk
from the shocker-there dept.
TechScam writes "A new resolution was introduced in Congress that aims to backup the Bush administration over retaining U.S. control of the Internet's core infrastructure. From the article: 'The resolution, introduced by two Republicans and one Democrat, aims to line up Congress firmly behind the Bush administration as it heads for a showdown with much of the rest of the world over control of the global computer network.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu@@@gmail...com> on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:48PM (#13858768) Journal

    How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?

    This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).

    I don't think the U.S. is the wisest and most sage about everything, but seriously, what is considered the risk here for it maintaining stewardship. It may have misstepped once or twice but empirical evidence suggests competent management (note I didn't say the "best"), and I haven't seen any contraindications to the detriment of the rest of the world.

    I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrest the internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and more seriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today.

    (Meanwhile, has anyone peeked at the ozone hole lately?)

    • Define "control". (Score:5, Informative)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:57PM (#13858816)
      Really, no one is talking about taking the Internet away from the US.

      What is in question is what nation/organization should have the final say over the domain assignments, creation and so forth.

      Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years.
      • by Wyatt Earp (1029)
        Well if the UN Security Council for example controls it, you think China, France, UK and Russia will be more in favor of a xxx TLD? Or lets say Iran, China, US, UK, Tunisia, Thailand and Cuba are deciding, you think it'll happen then?

        The nation/organization that should have final say at this point, is the one that does have the final say right now.
      • Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:2, Redundant)

        by H_Fisher (808597)
        Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years.

        And just think of all the fun Internet content we're missing out on because of that:

        www.WaffleHouseWaitresses.xxx
        www.JanetReno.xxx
        www.OverweightDeerHuntersFromAlabama.xxx
        www.Skin nyMetrosexualsWhoThinkGirlsAreImpressedByHomemadeP orn.xxx

        If it keeps THAT kind of smut off the web, then by God I hope we keep control for a long, long time!

        • You forgot HillaryClinton.xxx, and MonicaLewinsky.xxx ;-)
        • Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Afaflix (895812) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @04:23PM (#13859336)
          You really don't get it.
          The "smut" is already on the web ... under .com
          if you have all the smut under .xxx it is much easier to filter stuff out.
          lets assume .xxx comes to be; many of the companies that provide that kind of smut will use the .xxx because then they are easy to find.
          easy to find means dollars
          the entities(liraries, schools, families) that DON'T want that smut on their computer screen can easily filter that out and sowith protect the innocent eyes of those they want to.

          cheers
          • Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by KarmaMB84 (743001)
            Who is going to force all those porn sites to go to .xxx? If there's no enforcement then the .xxx domains will just have a second .com address pointing to their IP so they won't be filterable by domain anymore.
          • Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by maxpublic (450413) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @05:02PM (#13859586) Homepage
            if you have all the smut under .xxx it is much easier to filter stuff out.

            And what exactly are you going to do. Force everyone who serves up porn to move the .xxx domain, under penalty of law? If so, then who gets to decide what's porn? The U.S. religious right? Iran? Me?

            The .xxx domain solves nothing, and serves only as a potential tool to oppress others - especially the owners of sites which aren't pornographic, but which certain religious groups would like to classify as such in order to drive them off the 'mainstream'.

            Max
          • Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:4, Informative)

            by stwrtpj (518864) <p.stewartNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Sunday October 23, 2005 @05:38PM (#13859806) Journal
            The real reason that the US government asked for postponement of the .xxx domain is because some lawmaker realized at the last minute that instituting a .xxx domain specifically for adult content effectively legitimizes it. It would give defense lawyers for those accused of violating "obscenity" laws new ammunition, allowing them to claim that the government effectively gave its blessing to adult content by granting this domain for that use. By preventing this from happening, the government eliminates this potential defense.
            • Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:3, Interesting)

              by rs79 (71822)

              "The real reason that the US government asked for postponement of the .xxx domain is because some lawmaker realized at the last minute that instituting a .xxx domain specifically for adult content effectively legitimizes it."


              Nonsense. Cark Rove needed to get a religious group off his back by doing them a favour. Rather than delve into the stem cell issue or any of the other thorny problems on their shopping list, he glanced at their "stop .xxx" request, he made a phone call, and .xxx was stalled.

              The whiteho
      • by The Monster (227884) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @04:15PM (#13859292) Homepage
        Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years.
        And yet, via the ccTLD mechanism, we have federated control of domains to every nation on earth, including some with policies we don't much like.

        So, for example, if those wonderful bastions of free speech, the French, wanted to, they could make an .xxx.fr domain. Whatever interference is exerted by USGOV to prevent .xxx, there also must be hundreds of other countries preventing .xxx.$(cc) as well.

        I personally oppose .xxx, but not for the reason you might expect. I think people (including my own brother [stbi.edu]) who demand that the Internet be made safe for the Precious Children<tm>, perhaps by ghettoizing 'adult content', have it backwards. The Internet was built by and for adults, and the presumption should be that a site is for adults unless otherwise specified. I'm all in favor of .kids or other mechanisms to 'whitelist' G-rated content, but want no part of a system that requires consenting adults to do anything to keep kids out. That's their parents' job.

      • Nor should we. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jetson (176002) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @04:22PM (#13859335) Homepage
        Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years.

        Nor should we. Every country in the world has been assigned a 2-letter top domain, and we should be using them. Rather than creating new 3-letter TLDs we should be adding ".us" to the current ones. Those ".com"s that are not in the USA probably already have a matching address in their own country's TLD anyway. Sometimes it redirects to the .com (microsoft.ca redirects to microsoft.com/canada) and sometimes the redirection works the other way (google.com redirects to google.ca if you try to connect from Canada).

        Once the whole world isn't fighting over the same TLD there won't be any call for the USA to give up control because it would only control the ".us" domain anyway.

        This fight is about who gets to profit from issuing and owning "vanity plates".

        • Re:Nor should we. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)
          Once the whole world isn't fighting over the same TLD there won't be any call for the USA to give up control because it would only control the ".us" domain anyway.

          Except, as the status quo stands, the government of the USA[1] controls the servers that decide which server has the authority to handle requests for country code domains. Why should the US government decide who handles requests to .uk (for example)? In theory, there is nothing stopping them from deciding that France should have backed them i

    • This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).

      You are aware that the present administration has totally squandered any goodwill due to the horrible 9/11 incident? The US has very little credibility with regards to human rights and international law!

      Even staunch European allies of USA are deeply concerned a

    • Um, self determination and control of commerce were, I thought, principal reasons for the US to come into being.

      Other countries are in the same situation: The 'net is a major part of these country's economic infrastructure. The US having absolute control of that much economic infrastructure would give them the same willies that your fore-fathers got. It could plausibly start messing with venezuela trade for instance.

      This dispute is indicitive of the divergence of interests between US and the rest of the
      • The US having absolute control of that much economic infrastructure would give them the same willies that your fore-fathers got.

        Then - like the US - they should declare independence and build their own.

        I hate the current US administration, and the uselessly inoffensive Democratic party is a close second. But I love my country, and this is something we made. No foreign bureaucrat has the right to decide it's not ours anymore.
        • by Carewolf (581105) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:50PM (#13859138) Homepage
          That _is_ what they are doing. They _have_ build their own and connected it to the US network. If the US insist on maintaining control, there will be two internets. The one in the US and the one in the rest of the world. So yes, that would make the non-US one _The Internet_ and basically mean they have taken control over it.

          So semantically you are full of crap.
        • I'd like you to pay my internet bills, since i started using the internet in the mid nineties. No? I keep hearing that the USA built the internet, pays for it and invented it so they have every right to do what the fuck they arrogantly want to do. Ok. Pay my internet bills, the price of my computer, of my router, and the 20m of cat5 cables, because as you know, my computer is part of the internet too. So, I'll wait your government to contact me with a gracious offer of paying my involved costs since 1996, i
    • by Decameron81 (628548) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:14PM (#13858895)
      "How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?"


      No, the Internet as we know it is the result of the work of programers, engineers and other profesionals from all over the world. It may be based on DARPA's work but there's a lot in it that has nothing to do with it. Simply discarding other contributions as irrelevant to make Internet what it is today is simply an attempt to give the US more credit than they actually have.

      "This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not)."


      The reason why other countries want more control has nothing to do with jealousy or envy. They simply don't want to be dependent on the US in something as important as this network is. I am quite sure that if the situation was reverted, the US would be requesting the same.

      What really scares me a bit is the notion some US citizens have that other democracies in the world are not as democratic than theirs. On top of that I find it quite interesting that out of all possible motivations you could have seen behind the request of other countries to have more control, you decided that the most plausible one was jelousy and envy. That kind of reasoning can lead to no good.

      "I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrest the internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and more seriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today."


      That's completely subjective. I personally feel like the Internet is too big for the US alone.
    • by jadavis (473492) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:16PM (#13858903)
      It doesn't really have anything to do with who invented it. They can "reinvent" the internet any place they want, it's not like the U.S. has some global patent.

      It has everything to do with economic power. Many people in the U.S. would hardly notice if other countries started dropping off the internet, except, perhaps, for a small decrease in spam. In any other country, the internet would basically be useless without seeing U.S. sites.

      I may be somewhat exaggerating, but the basic idea is that the U.S. holds all the cards (for now at least), and the other countries don't really have any recourse.
      • In any other country, the internet would basically be useless without seeing U.S. sites.

        What complete and utter bullshit. Obviously, this comment was written by some kind of ignorant, arrogant American who thinks that the whole world revolves around his/her country. I can't remember when I last read a sentence that was so ... so ... what's the word ? Arrogant ? Stupid ? Narrow-minded ? Ignorant ? Stereotypically-American ?

        Right now I'm browsing this US website called slashdot.org. A few minutes ago,

    • How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?
      This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the would wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).


      You're right about the origin of the Internet. But that doen't mean it belong
    • Man, whenever I hear stupid drivel like this I'd like to remind the poster that the Otto internal combustion engine [wikipedia.org], the Diesel motor [wikipedia.org] and the Wankel engine [wikipedia.org] all were invented by German engineers, funded by German money and patented in Germany. So please, do stop using them, then you're allowed to complain.
      Or better yet, force the designers to include remote control kill-switches that allow the German government to shut down each one. Don't worry, we'd never abuse that.
  • Time to begin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by technoextreme (885694) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:49PM (#13858773)
    Obligatory slashdot argument about which countries have the best freedoms.
    • I don't really trust the US government to run the Internet.

      I don't really trust the UN to run the Internet.

      I don't really trust the EU to run the Internet.

      Maybe we should just set up our own one, and not let idiots or politicians (but I repeat myself) join in.

    • by serutan (259622)
      Maybe a better place to begin a discussion would be the question of which governments have the most control over their citizens. When someone's in position to take away your "freedom" whenever they want, then it isn't freedom anymore, it's permission.
  • great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:50PM (#13858778)
    if there is anything stupider than the (EU + UN)'s ignorant attempt to take over the existing DNS root, it just might be the US's attempt to maintain control of it.

    what we need is to get some momentum behind a decent decentralized DNS-type system. there have been various proposals out there for a while, but there was never a strong reason to try switching... until now.
    • Re:great (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tinik (601154) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:05PM (#13858853)

      what we need is to get some momentum behind a decent decentralized DNS-type system. there have been various proposals out there for a while, but there was never a strong reason to try switching... until now.

      Agreed. What most of the world doesn't understand is that the internet, the real internet, is not controlled by any goverment or agency. It's controlled by us, the geeks and nerds of the computer world! The DNS system only continues to work so long as we continue to use it. If we all start using a different system to find our pron, the companies of the world will follow us to keep our buisness. Then the rest of the world will follow them.

      We don't have to keep DNS around. There are other ways of finding information on the internet. If we put our heads together and came up with a replacement, then used it, we can put this whole messy business, and any future similar problems, to rest.

      • There are other ways of finding information on the internet. Maybe so, but finding specific information can be something of a challenge without a hierarchy for it to have a fixed place in. Say I want to find about company X, for example. What I generally do is go search google, but this is dependent on being able to find google in the first place. If I want to go visit slashdot, I'm reliant on slashdot.org still being occupied by the same people.

        I've heard a lot of people say "We don't need DNS". What'
    • You mean, like the DNS system we already have? The one operated by dozens of independent parties all over the world?

      I agree, it is neat.
  • Political? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wlan0 (871397)
    You know something's wrong when they have to bring Congress into this.
    • Re:Political? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScentCone (795499)
      You know something's wrong when they have to bring Congress into this.

      But that's exactly the way to preface a controversial and important action. You know, so that later, there won't be any whining. You know, like how Congress saw all the same intelligence, and then voted for the action in Afghanistan and Iraq. That way, no one can complain about it only being the executive branch that... oh, wait. Never mind, people will whine no matter what we (with or without congressional activity) do about DNS autho
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:51PM (#13858785)
    The US backs the US.

    -RadioElectric
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:52PM (#13858790)
    why is it that the administration wants control over the Internet. But when it comes to trade and the economy they want to "liberalize" it and actually give up control.
    • The US has already taken the 'liberalized' approach to the Internet. The US handed it off to a not-for-profit company to manage it under some strict 'keep your damn hands off' guidelines.

      This stupid battle over "control" of the Internet is at best the EU and UN trying to compare dick sizes with the US to see who is the bigger man, and at worst an attempt by some UN nations to exercise higher levels of taxation and censorship on the Internet. Chances are it is probably a little bit of both.

      Personally, I am
  • Film at 11! Is there really any news here?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:56PM (#13858807)
    Having the US keeping the root DNS servers doesn't equate to meaning they "control the internet". Exactly what can the US do that will so harm non-Americans in using the Internet? They can setup their own DNS at any time.

    This "control of the Internet" is just inflammatory rhetoric to drive the US vs. the world posts. If you stop the hyperbole, it's obvious this issue isn't going to really affect Internet users much.

    Zonk, stop baiting for pagehits on this topic. Your motives are so clear, it's sickening.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Having the US keeping the root DNS servers doesn't equate to meaning they "control the internet". Exactly what can the US do that will so harm non-Americans in using the Internet? They can setup their own DNS at any time.

      What sort of harm could they do to non-Americans? Forgetting for a moment that fragmenting of the DNS system would harm us all lets take a look at a recent post about Estonia using online voting [slashdot.org] in their latest election as an example. If you read this article [csmonitor.com] you'll see that their gove

  • Lawmakers? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by shine-shine (529700)
    Shouldn't that read "U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet" ?
    • No, Congress makes the laws for the entire world. You see, laws are America's #1 export good. This is also the reason for the EU's progressively worsening legal situation. *g*
  • by Jormundgard (260749) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:56PM (#13858810)
    It's phrases like "control of the global computer network" that make this whole issue so stupid.
  • Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet?!
    I am quite sure that if you ask some of the lawmakers in Europe, they will disagree with you :P
    Makes it sound like they only make laws in the US.
  • by Rob_Ogilvie (872621) <rob@axpr.net> on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:57PM (#13858818) Homepage
    One reason why businesses are alarmed is the lengthy list of suggestions that have been advanced by nations participating in the U.N. process. Those include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access," and folding the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) into a U.N. agency. The United Nations has previously suggested creating an international tax bureaucracy and once floated the idea of taxing e-mail, saying in a report that a 1 cent tax on 100 messages would be "negligible."
    (from news.com [com.com])

    Yeah, let's pay a little extra to give each of the Billion people in Africa a laptop with wireless Internet access. And who uses the Internet the most? It's the US, is it not? So we'd be forced in to yet another form of foreign aid. Lovely.

    We *did* invent the damned thing... it is ours, there's no good reason to give it away!
    • And who uses the Internet the most?

      Greetings and love to you in the name of the most high God, from my beloved country Nigeria. I am sorry and I solicit your permission into your privacy. I am Barrister Richard Okoya, lawyer to the late Ibrahim Abacha eldest son of the late former head of state of Nigeria late General Sani Abacha.

      My former client late Ibrahim Abacha died in a plane crash in the year 1994. Upon the death of my former client and unknown to the family that is currently under house arres
  • I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BortQ (468164) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @02:58PM (#13858819) Homepage Journal
    When they say "control of the internet" are they just talking about the root DNS servers? There's nothing the US can do to stop other countries from designating some root DNS servers of their own, right? The only issue is whether or not they will share data with the current root servers. I'm not sure on the details, but all the root servers share data with each other now.I don't see the problem with more root servers being put up. Even if one of them didn't resolve some addresses based on nefarious ideas the other root servers would still be available for people to use.
    • Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jeffrey Baker (6191) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:17PM (#13858909)
      They aren't even talking about the root servers. They are only talking about the root zone file, a file of plain text. The USA doesn't control the root servers, and neither does any other single nation or organization. The root servers use the ICANN root zone out of sheer practicality. For anyone to claim that the US controls the Internet is to understand both the technology and the fundamental nature of power.

      So when "journalists" say "the Internet's core infrastructure" they really mean a few lines of ASCII text. And when I say "journalists" I really mean "bunch of asshats".
  • A Non-US Opinion (Score:5, Informative)

    by NewbieV (568310) * <victor.abrahamse ... t@ g m a i l.com> on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:01PM (#13858835)
    Quoting from a recent editorial in The Ecomonist [economist.com]:

    America has offered olive branches to its critics. This summer, it acknowledged that other countries have sovereignty over their national addresses, and said it would never disrupt the system (ie, kick France's .fr address offline). And, at the meeting last week in Geneva, it supported the idea of a forum in which all governments can discuss these matters in an "evolutionary process". That sounds like an excellent scheme: just as startling as the speed of technological development is the slowness of decision-making in international forums. If this move works, it should succeed in parking the issue harmlessly for many years.
  • How will we ever do without the UN's vaunted, impeccable integrity running the Internet? You know, that vaunted UN integrity displayed by their flawless management [timesonline.co.uk] of Iraq's oil for food program [nationalreview.com]. Or the great work they've done defending defenseless Africans in their care [worldnetdaily.com]. Or the work of the UN Human Rights commission [state.gov]. Or their work preventing genocide in Sudan [bbc.co.uk] and Rwanda [bbc.co.uk].

    How can we possibly be safe without the UN controlling the Internet?

  • America spent a trillion dollars building the internet economy, and then this Congress and President shipped it to China and India.

    Fuck them.

    Trying to kiss our ass by keeping control of the root servers is not going to save their jobs in 2006 and 2008.
  • Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet

    Of course they do, they are U.S. lawmakers. Ask a different Government for different results. D'oh!

    No new arguments here, just another "We want it all and We deserve it" statement. Not very helpful.

  • It is interesting to see that U.S. says that it is defendding free spech, while U.N. says exactly the same, that it is defending freedom of expression (check here [wgig.org])...

    Very interesting, because freedom of speech for U.N. seems to be: "We want a rich public domain and no government looking into our conversation.", and for U.S., it seems to be: "If they make racism illegal, the next one will be porn.". I can see why U.S. government is concerned by the U.N. idea of free speech, but I can't see how U.S. people c

  • by palfrey (198640) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:14PM (#13858900) Homepage
    Quoting the article: Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices


    I think you've already got a full set there.
  • by wheelbarrow (811145) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:16PM (#13858905)
    Remember that the UN is the global organization that allows Libya to be a key voting member of the UN Human Rights Commission. The US is far more tolerant of dissent and free expression of ideas than most of the nations that make up the UN. As an individual who values freedom, I feel safer with the US in control.
  • ..or that doesn't apply today?

    The important thing is to have a DNS root Server everybody in the world, no matter their political point of view, can trust. When politicians (and especially presidents) starts to be interested in the "universal guidebook", no wonder people start loosing faith in the system.

    Today, The Internet is not DARPA it is not American. It's international, global, something more that we all need in our daily lives.

    The more US politicians, US lawmakers and US presidents tighten their grip
  • ...and Congress isn't going to be able to stuff it back.

    U. S. control of the Internet is about as likely as U. S. control of the atomic bomb was during the fifties.

    The U. S. can certainly mess things up, and, along with other countries, partially fragment the Internet. Usually it is undemocratic countries like China that do things like this. The main effect will be to partially deny U. S. citizens access to the rest of the world, and restrict the ability of small and medium-sized U. S. businesses to do busi
  • WWTBLD? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Slashdiddly (917720)
    No really - what would Tim Berners Lee do?
  • by oliverthered (187439) <olivertheredNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:29PM (#13858980) Journal
    If the rest of the world ganged up on the US in the form of heavy trade sanctions it may result in the US being a little less bigheaded about... well... everything.
    • You don't have to wait for that. You could simply stop buying US made products. That would get the message across. Imagine the phone calls the CEO of coke and nike would make to the president if their overseas sales fell off by 20% or more. You can bet your ass the US govt would behave differently after getting spanked by their corporate masters.

      So just reach for the localy made soda instead of coke and locally made shoes instead of nike. You will be helping your local companies grow and you will be helping
  • by A.K.A_Magnet (860822) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:34PM (#13859021) Homepage
    New flash! US lawmakers want to keep US Internet control...! As do US administration and government! And for all those "ARPA is American", well, the Web is European. I wonder where the Internet would be today without the Web as we know it (there would be some kind of replacement, for sure, but would it be open and free? And maybe it would just have appeared).

    Get your facts straight. The Internet is an international progress and profits to everyone. I haven't participated a "DNS control" topic yet, but I'm posting now since I find it really childish that American slashdotters are so reluctant to ONLY let countries manage their own ccTLD, and let ITU manage the gTLD (for the better interest of everyone, since for now the Bush administration is completely corrupted by VeriSign for .com and .net TLDs.. And we all remember the dreadly wildcard).

    The ITU managing root DNS servers doesn't mean that the U.N will get to decide everything and that Chinese will have a say. And even if they did, why not? The U.N. privilegdes democratic thoughts, e.g Free Software (FOSS) is recognized by UNESCO, an U.N. branch? ITU has already managed discussions on IPv6 and is a very prominent actor in the world of networking and communication.

    All in all, the US letting the U.N. manage the Internet won't change what we love in the Internet, but it will prevent bad political choices (e.g VeriSign having gTLDs that are supposedly ran as Public Service), and it is just the way it should be. And stop those redundants "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's not about fixing it, it's about making things equal. The Internet was made by all (maybe not by country still in development who couldn't possibily help, but does it mean we should say fuck to Africa when it wants to have some input in the future of our great *HUMAN* network?). Oh, forget it, Slashdotters are sometimes so conservative I don't know why I'm posting. Certainly going to burn some karma and getting tons of replies of how wrong I am and how we should just cut the transatlantic optic fibers so we won't bother each others anymore. Sorry, but I enjoy the American Internet. And I enjoy the European Internet. And without those peerings, it would feel like cold war. Think about it: Back in 1991, Linux would have had to be sent to the US by traditionnal mail (yeah, it was developped in Finland). Now that would have been bad for all of us, wouldn't it?

    I don't care much about the issue. The US have not managed the root DNS servers too badly, except for the VeriSign crap (but the .org is now managed by SPI, a great German ISP really "for the public interest"). So now let's get a big hug ;) And hope nothing bad happens, I'd hate not to be able to read Slashdot, and for sure, everyone here would miss my INSIGHT ;) (HAHAHAHA).
  • by LadyLucky (546115) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:34PM (#13859022) Homepage
    I'm from New Zealand. The UN no more represents me or my opinion than it represents the US and its opinion. The rest of the world is far from united behind this UN resolution. I for one think the US has done a fine job and I would much rather it be controlled in the US than in some wholly undemocratic institution where repressive governments would get a say in governance.
    • by NigelJohnstone (242811) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:55PM (#13859172)
      "The UN no more represents me or my opinion than it represents the US and its opinion. The rest of the world is far from united behind this UN resolution. I for one think the US has done a fine job and I would much rather it be controlled in the US than in some wholly undemocratic institution where repressive governments would get a say in governance."

      UN ITU is just a meeting place for government technical people. If they don't meet there under the UN, they'll meet at the London Hilton, or the Savoy but whereever they meet and whoever books the meeting room, it will be the same governments and the same technical people. It's not a *UN* resolution or *UN* control, since a UN is just a bunch of governments in a meeting.

      You might not like some of the Governments sitting at the meeting table, but they're just one voice each in a big table, and some of them feel the same way about you!
      That system works in all other telecoms, including the wires that carry the internet, so why wouldn't it work for DNS?

  • by Saggi (462624) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @03:44PM (#13859085) Homepage
    The discussion is in regards to the root of the DNS. This is NOT the Internet! The Internet is composed of many technologies, where the DNS is only a minor one.

    The most fundamental is the wire! This is not made by the US, but mostly telecompanies around the world. But also some WIFI and other free networks has been build.

    The core technology is based on the TCP/IP. This is like telephone numbers. These are distributed all over the world as we speak and it would be close to impossible to break this up.

    In regards to who made the Internet, it was based on some ideas made by the US army many years ago. But the net was not build by the US. It was mostly universities who had local networks that over time got connected to each other, slowly building the Internet. It is not the US who went to every country and implemented it locally. If the rest of the world disconnect from the US, US will be alone.

    The most common feature of the Internet; the World Wide Web, was not an invention from US at all. It started in CERN, and was made to provide scientific results out to a large audience.

    So what is the fuss about? If the DNS goes offline (or I chose to use my own), all I need to do is to find the IP's I'm looking for. Well that's what I did before the DNS was invented. And there is no one who can prevent me from distributing my own phonebook (DNS) today, ignoring the US root.

    So control of the Internet? It's a joke! The Internet is extremely difficult to control. Anyone who thinks its possible doesn't live in the real world. They are probably more political orientated than having technically knowledge.

    The Internet is fundamentally a collection of networks that various people, regions and countries has decided to connect together.
    • "The discussion is in regards to the root of the DNS. This is NOT the Internet! The Internet is composed of many technologies, where the DNS is only a minor one."

      How sure are you that your senator understands the difference? Maybe they are indeed advocating controlling the internet and not just the DNS servers.
  • by iworm (132527) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @04:25PM (#13859349)
    So, let's apply the US logic:

    - Television standards should be controlled by the Scottish Parliament.
    - Postage regulations are controlled by the British parliament.
    - Ballooning is controlled by the French (even in the US!)
    - ...and so on.

    Stop being so fucking paranoid about the Internet. So DARPA funded it years ago. Big fricking deal. We've moved on since then. Get over it and deal with it.
  • fear of the other (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dot_Killer (473321) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @05:39PM (#13859811)
    Some times I sit back and think do these conservative or Republican or ultra-patriotic Americans believe the crap they say in the vain of never saying anything against US policy.

    "Turning the Internet over to countries with problematic human-rights records, muted free-speech laws, and questionable taxation practices will prevent the Internet from remaining the thriving medium it has become today"

    The US has one of the most REGRESSIVE tax systems in the developed world, tax cuts to the wealthy with giveaways to companies that do not pay taxes while public programs get cut like HUD. Plus I guess we can forget the whole firehoses and attack dogs thing since that was in the past, no human-rights issues there. Prisons for profit filled up with minorities as street-sweeping by the police, yadda yadda.
    And for free-speech, in the US it isn't free and it has already been bought by those who own all the major media outlets.

    We don't want to turn over internet speech over to the Chinese but do we want to turn it over to the US Christian Right. They exchange the idea of censoring ideas from the west for censoring sexual material. I'm sure the very moral people can make that choice easily but have we put them in charge of our speech.

    If the people who actually built the internet we making the decisions of its future I would be OK with that, but I cannot turn it over to politicians or companies that have bought up all the votes to do whatever they want.
  • by stock (129999) * <stock@stokkie.net> on Sunday October 23, 2005 @06:26PM (#13860028) Homepage
    For Europe RIPE [ripe.net] always has functioned ok, sofar. Ditto for Asia's APNIC [apnic.net] the America's have been covered by ARIN [arin.net] . These three bodies have made the Internet what it is today. The only one complaining seems to be the White House itself. Why would that be ? Because today press organizations still can publish stories like these ? :

    "Waiting For The Valerie Plame Wilson Grand Jury: The Big Question Is Whether Dick Cheney Was a Target" [findlaw.com]

    "2 Brits nabbed with $3 trillion in fake US fed notes" [abs-cbnnews.com]

    Robert

  • by chris_sawtell (10326) on Sunday October 23, 2005 @08:17PM (#13860548) Journal
    What the rest of the world wants is for dear, doddery, old Uncle Sam to nurture his delinquent creatation and put it back on the rails by:-

    1. Stopping spivs stealing TLDs from small, and naive states.
    2. Stopping spivs hoarding domain names thus creating a very expensive market for what should be an administration-cost only resource.
    3. Stopping organisations hoarding many millions of unused IP numbers.
    4. Stopping the registration of Out-of-Country servers and email addresses.
    5. Stopping the largest supplier of software foisting insecure by default machines on innocent customers who then use them on the 'Net, thus allowing the creation of million machine bot-nets to be used for criminal purposes.
    6. Stopping the broadcasting of billions of spam messages which are mostly used for criminal purposes.
    7. Controlling the veritable flood of revolting, depraved, and offensive images and film clips.
    Once the addressing of these issues has at least been attempted by the US Government and its co-conspirator the ICANN, the rest of the world might agree that the Internet is being properly administered. Until that time, so sorry Uncle Sam, but you are a failing parent.

    Strongly put maybe, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned that's what the issues are all about. In a word, shared Sovereignty over what has become an internationally shared resource.

While money doesn't buy love, it puts you in a great bargaining position.

Working...