Governing the Internet Report Released 344
An anonymous reader writes "After the speculation on earlier this week, the Working Group of Internet Governance
(aka the United Nations attempt to govern the Internet) has just
released their much anticipated report. News
coverage and a helpful
summary point to the four options on the table and the likely
outcome in the months leading up to a final conference in Tunisia in
November."
Already prepared to take over? (Score:4, Insightful)
How much control does the US really have? (Score:2)
Re:How much control does the US really have? (Score:2)
I would call that a creepy enough agenda.
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty hard to avoid "giving up control" if everyone around the world starts using different root servers. It's like talking about Google refusing to give up controlling the search engine market. Only because people use it do they have control.
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:2)
That a big word, 'if', the real question is 'why'. Other than a few countries and individuals who, 'just don't like it', where is the compelling reasons. Has the U.S. been a bad steward of these services? Sure one (well, many) can easily 'grip' about the policies of the (current) U.S. government, hell just poking into practically any thread on slashdot will show the anger of at least some motivated people. However most people only
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a very good analogy indeed! Why, how accurately and wisely does it cover the brutal war the UN has waged on the US, the tank battles near Houston, the nuking of Atlanta, and the poignient ruins of the White House smouldering even now! And the rape analogy! Whoooweee! Brilliant! That probably refers to the mass execution by the Canadian forces, under the command of a Chinese general of the orphan
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is precisely what is being discussed. Noone is talking about taking over the servers paid-for by the US. UN is about to buy their own and run them if they need to, but even more mundanely, they are merely discussing the process of assigning the IP addresses and names, which is exactly euivalent to the work the ITU has been doing with international phone numbers.
This does not stop however the "UN is World Government is the Coming of the Beast!" types
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:2)
Re:Already prepared to take over? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shit, some don't even have running water for most of their population, let alone electricity.
=Smidge=
Re:what the US should do (Score:2)
The four options... (Score:5, Informative)
- ICANN stays but the governmental role changes through the creation of a Governmental Internet Council. The GIC replaces the GAC and assumes the role currently held by the U.S. Department of Commerce in ICANN oversight. There are advisory roles envisioned for the private sector and civil society.
- No need for oversight organization. Stronger GAC and creation of international forum for discussion of Internet issues.
- Creation of International Internet Council that would assume responsibility for the Internet governance issues that arise on the national level. ICANN's mandate would need to be altered based on the development of the IIC.
- Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.
Personally, I'm wary of the first option's reference to roles for "private sector" and "civil society." I have a hard time not reading "private sector" as "Microsoft" and "civil society" as "political lobbyists."Re:The four options... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about the UN trying to get control and power where they currently have none. They want this power so that they can be more like a government. The problem is, they are a treaty organization, not a government. They are not elected. They are not accountable to the people they want to govern.
Please stop trying to make the UN into a world government. It is nothing more than a forum for countries to discuss their issues and posture on the international stage. Nothing more, nothing less.
The UN Would Be An Atrocious Government! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about the UN trying to get control and power where they currently have none. They want this power so that they can be more like a government. The problem is, they are a treaty organization, not a government. They are not elected. They are not accountable to the people they want to govern.
Exactly right. I'm all for the world setting up an alternative set of more egalitarian root servers, but ICANN is hardly a democratically run organization, and has, quite frankly, demonstrated even more corruption than Verisign in this context (and that's saying a lot).
People forget that the UN's constituents aren't the people of the world, their constituents are the governments, most of whom are actively oppressing the people. Expecting liberation from a body that, by and large, represents oppressors, and certainly represents rulers, is a fool's bet.
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
Right. Here are some of those Articles that would never fly in the UN:
Option 4 looks good... (Score:2)
-
Re:The four options... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the scots created the TV, give up your cable network now!
The United States has perhaps the most to lose, economically, if the internet were to "go down(whatever that means)"
Every country has something to lose.
The universal access tax scares me. You don't need a tinfoil hat to see why a worldwide tax is a bad idea and an awful precedent.
Don't you pay now to get an internet
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
Picture this. China becomes a member of the committee to "control" the internet. They show up to the first meeting with a list of addresses they want removed from the root servers for having "illegal" (read anti Chinese Communist) content and demand that the addresses be removed.
I do not doubt that if the UN gets oversite control of the root servers this WILL happen. I'm not saying that these sites will be eliminated, but the organization would definately go
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
If China should decide that they want to remove some TLD from the root servers, the rest of the world simply won't accept, and won't remove them. Why should they?
By the way, the root servers are already now spread all over the world.
-- The price of eternal vigilance is a dollar a day and half an hour of your time.
Carefully choose a respo
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
Just like China being the member of the ITU resulted in some phone numbers in Nebraska being refused to "anti-communist" activists.
Get a grip.
Re:The four options... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of little things, but a few big things:
1) Nobody "taxes" me now to get on the internet. I think you're being to generous to the U.N. I think they're talking about taxing everybody on the internet.
2) That would be a huge precedent in the U.S. to allow an access tax for internet service. Its a bad precedent since I would have no way to advice my representative about the best use of the money.
For example, I can easily call my senators and representative on matters that I care about (and I have sent letters and called them). How do I go about complaining to my U.N. rep about an internet tax? In fact, how do I get to vote on them?
You do remember the Boston Tea Party and why those guys dumped the tea overboard right?
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
Personally, I perfer a representitive government. In the US we have a generally strong democracy, which will allow some of our will to trickle to the UN, but many countries are not so lucky. I have faith that a well informed voter in the middle east would elect fair leader, but nearly always they are not given the chance. The same applies to large areas of Africa, Asia, and South America. IMHO, the w
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
Considering that the present United States is itself a colony of people from all over the world, your point is a bit moot. The internet transcends geographic boundaries and the control must be international.
"The internet has become a security issue- Aside from all the defense networks etc, we need to be able to keep tabs on extremist groups..."
The more important security issues
Re:The four options... (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States is not a "colony of people from all over the world". The vast majority of Americans were born here.
I realize what you were trying to say, but does it really have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion to know, for example, that one of the inventors of the internet has ancestors that came over on the Mayflower hundreds of years ago? Talk about moot.
The UN could make a fresh beginning and make the internet really secure.
And on what record do you base this assumption? The UN has not done a whole hell of a lot lately to keep the world secure.
The US hasn't either, but the difference is in 3 years George Bush will be gone, but the UN will still be around bickering amongst itself and just generally doing nothing. I'd put my bets on the US any day, for the long term.
Besides, it's worth remembering that the internet was created as a US defense department program to guard against a nuclear attack. Asking the US to give it up is really no different than asking us to hand over the plans to the B-2 bomber to the UN - it just ain't gonna happen. It is a national security issue.
If the rest of the world wants its own internet under the auspices of the UN, let them develop it. In the meantime, the US has never done anything to restrict the growth of the current US-controlled system, so why complain? I see no reason why we should have to give something up simply because other people want it - has the rest of the world just become the equivalent of a spoiled child?
Re:The four options... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of countries have a lot to lose. Putting control of something in the hands of the people who have the most to lose is a bad idea.
There is already a universal tax. It's called a "Registration Fee".
There is nothing stopping us from keeping the same tabs on extremists. It's like you think the internet is in a building somewhere. All we control are ten or so big domain servers. And, if you want to google "How to build a Nuclear Bomb" you'll find plenty of video on that. Not like Terrorists need the internet to figure out how to bomb a bus. They do have a bit of experience.
China != the UN. We may "believe" in free speech, but the surest way to make sure it stays free is to make sure that no one entity has complete control over it.
Just my opinion.
Re:The four options... (Score:5, Insightful)
You may not even realise it, but the thinking exemplified by the above quote is exactly the reason the international community is so wary of leaving the US with any controlling interest in the Internet at all.
The US did not create the Internet. It may have played a larger part in some aspects than other countries, but it is neither responsible for all of the technological innovation, nor for even the majority of the investment, nor for keeping it running as it stands today. The fact that ICANN and its overlords are effectively US-government-controlled is an anomaly, not the norm.
The current US administration has demonstrated a great willingness to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations economically, legislatively and even militarily, essentially to further its own economic interests. This doesn't exactly engender trust on the part of those nationss' governments, and you can't really be surprised that they don't trust the US to "do the right thing" any more.
Re:The four options... (Score:5, Insightful)
Presuming you have enough language skill to know that "create" is not equal to
"develop, nurture, and improve", which country did create it?
The US created the the Internet, and there is no question about
that. It has been at the core of it from the very beginning.
That being said, it doesn't mean it owns it. But considering the US's
20-year stewardship of the net which has provided an incredibly fertile
ground for growth, with plenty of opportunities for all countries, I think
they are a better choice than the UN for this.
The UN is a case of the inmates running the asylum. Any organization which can
put a Syrian delegate as the chair of its human rights commission has shown
what it is made of.
It was never about a single country (Score:3, Interesting)
No one country did. That's exactly the point. For a start, the Internet is almost by definition a network of networks, many of which are not in the US. Moreover, there is no clear "creation date"; different aspects of what we know today as "the Internet" appeared at very different times in history.
What became today's Internet was mostly driven by academic resear
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The four options... (Score:5, Informative)
The United States developed the internet, with many large investments (DARPA etc.), and now we are expected to just give it up?
Europe invented and developed the wheel. Clearly your cars and roads belong to Europe.
Stop cooking right now, Africa invented the fire.
Clearly we need an international patent system, so that each country can hoard and control its own inventions.
What happens when China decides that no one should use the word democracy? What happens when France decides that the word Nazi can't be used?
International collaboration through organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union [itu.int] must be brought to an end immediately. What if China decides that no one should use the word democracy on the phone? What happens when France decides that the word Nazi can't be used on the phone?
Note that the names and numbers that would be assigned correspond to the international country codes for telephone. For China to censor your Internet usage they'd have to invade your country, just like they'd have to do for censoring your use of the telephone. It's the same thing.
One question. If the root servers and the assignment of TLDs and numbers were controlled by Europe, would you like it to stay that way? Or would you, maybe, perhaps, want the US to have some part in it?
-- The price of eternal vigilance is a dollar a day and half an hour of your time.
Carefully choose a responsible newspaper. Support it, read it, write to it.
Do your part.
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
Europeans invented the wheel, and Americans made their *own* wheels
Americans invented the protocol and the network, and the rest of the world *connected* to *that* network. They didn't build their own, separate network. They jacked into *ours*.
We financed it, I payed for it with my tax dollars. Similar to how I payed for GPS. Should the GPS satellites be controlled by the UN too because the rest of the world uses it? Hell no. Is the rest of the world free to make their own
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
The USA is a Country.... Gheeesh
That's no problem because we have no problem with sharing and cooperating. Only America has this problem.
-- The price of eternal vigilance is a dollar a day and half an hour of your time.
Carefully choose a responsible newspaper. Support it, read it, write to it.
Do your part.
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
That was our grandparents. Seventy years have passed. Europe has learned its lesson. We're not repeating the follies of our grandparents.
Sadly, judging by the angrily aggressive jingoism of some Americans, it seems now we have to wait for you to catch up.
-- The price of eternal vigilance is a dollar a day and half an hour of your time.
Carefully choose a responsible newspaper. Support it, read it, write to it.
Do your part.
Re:The four options... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The four options... (Score:4, Interesting)
The British developed North America, with many large investments (buying New York from the Dutch etc.), and now we are expected to just give it up?
The British empire has perhaps the most to lose, economically, if the new world were to "go down(whatever that means)"
No taxation without representation scares me. You don't need a tinfoil hat to see why no taxation without representation is a bad idea and an awful precedent.
The new world has become a security issue- Aside from all the defense networks etc, we need to be able to keep tabs on extremist groups in the new world, note that there is a widely circulating how to pamphlet about how to cause the most damage with a b#mb on a coach.
As popular as "Britain is an Imperialist" sentiment has become, we still believe in freedom of speech. What happens when New York decides that no one should use the word teatime? What happens when Boston decides that the words Your Majesty can't be used?
Just some thoughts.
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
I don't see the similarity between the New World and the Internet issue, although your post is creative and a funny parody of my post- a hearty laugh was enjoyed by me, a laugh hearty enough that a coworker asked me what was so funny- The New
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
And the comparison between the current feelings towards the US and the Jews in the 1930s (based on the opinion of a woman who was born in 1929, I should add) is nonsense. Nobody has anything against individual
Re:The four options... (Score:2)
We already have our own interconnected networks.
The only part of the Internet that your country owns is the part that is in your country. Your country did not dig down fiber in my country and city. Nor did you install the TV cable that connects me to the dug-down fiber.
The many networks are interconnected through fibers that cross borders and oceans. Are you saying that you want the US to be disconnected from this?
If that's what you wa
The US can take the internet.... (Score:3, Informative)
The United States developed the internet, with many large investments (DARPA etc.), and now we are expected to just give it up?
So the US keeps the internet but has to give up WWW, because that was European. The internet was created by the US... but made useful by Europe, and made mobile by Japan. The US did the tin, the rest of the world did the vision.
Aside from all the defense networks etc, we need to be abl
Re:The four options... (Score:2, Interesting)
What I think your hinting at here, but perhaps not touching is that while the most common TLD's are run by the department of commerce
Option #4 (Score:5, Funny)
W.I.C.A.N.N?
I always knew it tooks a certain amount of magic to make the internet run smoothly.
LOL (Score:4, Funny)
In any case, IF the europeans where to branch off with their "own internet" it would only last until it became inconvenient for the USA. At that point the US would declare that the internet should be free and it would "liberate" it from the europeans.
Give control to the ISPs (Score:5, Interesting)
Sort out some fair means of representation, and get them to select a root administrator. They all have the same ultimate goal - a stable internet - and they al understand the internet. The same cannot be said of the US government or the UN.
Re:Give control to the ISPs (Score:2)
Whoever controls it, they have to be accountable to the users of the system, or they need not exist at all.
Just for the record, I'm fine with the "not exist at all option." If various groups set up their own master domain servers, we could have a little biological competition to determine
Nationalized, Fractured Internet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nationalized, Fractured Internet? (Score:2)
Re:Nationalized, Fractured Internet? (Score:2)
Option 5. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Option 5. (Score:2)
I'm guessing Steak and Shake is some US food place, right? If that's the case, then your comparison is missing the point: the UN can't easily meddle internally in the US, but if the other nations representing it want to dump the US control of DNS, they can relatively easily just switch to an alternative system. Then the US can either play by everyone else's rules or not play at all. It gets no third choice of "status quo".
Re:Option 5. (Score:2)
Free the DNS ! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Free the DNS ! (Score:2, Interesting)
What do you do when two or more different organisations share the trademark on the same word? E.g. Apple computers and the Apple music label; Frosties the breakfast cereal and Frosties the sugar coated sweets.
Re:Free the DNS ! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free the DNS ! (Score:2)
>organisations share the trademark on the same
>word?
It is not only an issue of the same word for different areas, but also between countries. Many trademarks are not global, but local to specific countries. If one want global domains not tied to countries, like
There goes that argument (Score:2)
Really? Then how do you propose people get to google.com?
It's a luxury (Score:3, Interesting)
05.41622 -6-
Absence of an appropriate and effective global Internet governance mechanism to resolve the issue.
When did the internet become a NESSESITY of life???
Why must thier be a "even" distribution of costs?? If it costs more to get connectivity to your isp then it costs more for that isp to do buisness.
Re:It's a luxury (Score:2)
Having them to pony up the relatively high connection costs would only slow down the dissemination of this information to those who need it most.
And yes, Third World countries do have a need for the internet even though you consider it a luxury. The information on it allows it to grow better and quic
Re:It's a luxury (Score:2)
On another note, ICANN has its faults (need stronger rules to govern bad registrars and legal recourse for domain "owners" for one), but I can only remember 2 times in the last 12 years when I could resolve a DNS name because the TLD domain servers were off line. BOTH of those were during massive DDOS attacks that saturated the backbones in
internet next generation (Score:3, Interesting)
- there is an unneven distribution of cost in developing countries -- why not offer development grants and support the infrastructure
- they fix internet stabilty, spam -- each country should make their own laws
- intelectual property protection -- figures.
- they will help developing countries with a "forum" -- no way to do this now, is it ?
Basically their proposal is ok as long as there won't be a single country in charge. But I do fear the expansion of this "governance" into other areas.Thoughts on the synopsis... (Score:4, Insightful)
However looking at all the options it essentially boils down to three things:
1. The U.S. cedes real control to the international community
2. The U.S. cedes token control to the international community (option #2 proposes creating an international forum to "discuss" internet issues - read: eventually inconsequential)
3. Start from scratch
While it's tempting to hate on the Americans for refusing to give up control of the Internet's foundations, any kind of sharing would lead to power sharing with nations including China and Russia.
Slashdot has posted numerous articles about the Chinese iron fist when it comes to dealing with anything on the internet. I find it frightening to even think about the prospect of having my internet access dictated in some part by the blatantly power hungry government of this nation. Yes, the Americans are no white knights either, but I'd rather have their faulty system of checks and balances than the outright corruption and byzantine system of governance that still controls much of the world today.
Think about the recent stories of "adopting a Chinese blog" to protect the bloggers from chinese government reprisals. What do you think the Chinese would demand first if they were given real control of our internet access? Control of any content that originates from China - which means these bloggers who almost got away, would be tracked down again.
Eventually the answer is going to come from somewhere in between. There isn't going to be a peaceful transition of the entire system from the americans to the international community. But rather different parts of the world will begin to develop their own networks with differing levels of compatibility, and software and hardware vendors are going to make a killing in providing systems that can handle these multiple formats and networks.
This diversity will arise not only from politics, but from new technology too and I can totally see the European Union developing a "new internet" that provides alternative control to what the americans have -- and then subsidizing the cost of this network so that it is taken up by major subsets such as India and the Pacific, until it eventually supercedes the now "legacy" american systems...
Re:Thoughts on the synopsis... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he does underestimate the requests of the foreign powers. The foreign governments want the Internet to become a single entity ruled under single law - Germany wants no mention of the word Nazi, France wants no mention of white flags, China wants no mention of freedom or pornography, etc.
This is the truly scary part of what turning control over would entail. Sure, there's a difference between technical and political control - but pol
why bother with the US ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:why bother with the US ? (Score:2)
Grow up. The internet is too important to be under the control of any one government, especially one that's shown a propensity for screwing other countries over for US corporat
Merely step 1.. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is merely Step 1 in a long-term approach to txing internet usage.
1. Form a global council.
2. Make claims of global intellectual inequality
3. The UN, ACLU, and (insert names of politicians trying to buy votes here) decide to "level the playing field" by taxing those who have "won life's lottery" (have a domain name) and redistributing funds to under achieving locations.
Some time in the future.. U.N. Ambassador from Nauru (pop. 10,000) "Mr. Chairman, the people of Nauru beg this body to level the
Will the U.N. do better than U.S.A? (Score:2, Insightful)
The U.N. needs to show the world that it can consistently manage its programs in a competent, honest and equitable manner before we trust it with such an important piece of world-wide infrastructure.
At least the U.S.A. has a vested self-interest in the internet continuing to work well.
Re:Will the U.N. do better than U.S.A? (Score:2)
Similar sentence with as much thruth to it as yours.
The UN has alot of good things as well, Unicef, Unesco, several peace missions etc. Yet for some reason you dismiss all this for a single issue?
The UN has as much interest in the Internet working well as the the USA does. Or for that matter, most of the developed world has.
Obligatory Neuman quote (Score:3, Insightful)
The Wicann ??? (Score:2)
What Happened to Separation of Church and State? (Score:3, Funny)
WICANN? It's a conspiracy. The witches are always trying to push their sway into the international realm, and now the Internet! This must be stopped!!
I guess I should be used to this by now (Score:2)
UN reforms (Score:2, Interesting)
2. UN still expects US to hand over control of the internet
3. US refuses (duh)
4. UN has a hissy fit.
If the US thinks the UN is corrupt.. why would we turn over control of a critical piece of infrastructure to them?!
This is progress? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel [wikipedia.org]
To a committee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation
And now we need the whole fscking world collaborating on this?
Seriously. It's a fscking database of IP>Hostname mappings. This is NOT rocket science. Jon Postel, why did you have to leave us to these asshats? We miss you.
Re:This is progress? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, he died. Second, he's the guy that handed power to these asshats, through Darth Cerf.
I liked Jon, he was great, but all this DNS mess happened on his watch.
The origin of this problem dated back to when Steve Wolff privatized the NSF backbone thus creating the non-governemnt controlled internet.
The problem is he forgot to privatize the name and address spaces (and in retrospect says this was a big mistake - duh). So, administration of these remained under US contract, where it exists today. This is a natural choke point and acts like a magnet for power seekers.
But, once you understand the net is not centrally controlled, it's edge cotnrolled, and you can decide where you point your DNS then you really don't care what any government does.
So the US and ICANN have screwed up the root servers? Big deal, I havn't used them in a decade, nor have millions of others.
Primary the root for yourself; become your own root server, then what ICANN or the UN does is utterly irrelevant to you.
"Much Anticipated" - Please (Score:2)
What about the Internet Society? (Score:4, Interesting)
I read the entire 24 page report, with I hope some thought and consideration. What I found very, very interesting is this "fact-finding" body did nothing to examine the current structure of "Internet Control" and the role of the Internet Society and its divisions. They mention the IETF *once*, and neglect to mention that IETF RFCs are now accepted in the Standards community as Standards. International standards -- the ITU says so. Instead, the report concentrates exclusively on the role of the United States Department of Commerce and *one* US corporation, ICANN.
What about the role of the technical committees that have kept the Tier One routers running all these years without too many hiccups? How would they fit into a UN-based "oversight"? Either the routers work, or they don't. Does Grand Fenwick have anything to contribute to that process? Oh, let's not forget that NANOG is not a US-centric organization now...
A previous contributor showed the country breakdown of the participants. For my part, I looked through all the names of the people on this commission and didn't recognize a single name as part of the original Internet Construction Crew (ICC).
The report, if I were grading it on completeness, would get a D+. The report concentrates on those few things that bring certain peoples to a slow boil. I'm sure that one of the most important questions will be how to handle right-to-left writing systems in the current structure. It completely neglects those portions of oversight and control that mean the life and death of the Internet, either as we know it or as people have envisioned it in the future.
My great fear? "Regulation." As in putting together a list of conflicting requirements on users of the Internet that will spawn a whole new industry that generates not one cent of revenue. Oh, and someone has to pay for all this work and effort to make my life as an admin miserable. Can you say "Internet Tax"? I knew you could!
As a system administrator, I will continue to run my network. my routers, and my servers as I see fit. If the UN wants to play power games and screw it all up, then I as an operator and administrator will do everything technically possible to be sure that UN screwups don't affect my customers.
My network, my rules.
Re:What about the Internet Society? (Score:2)
Completely off the wall suggestion (Score:2, Interesting)
Root servers will now be considered diplomatic territory, no matter what country they exist in.
Allow peoples around the world the opportunity to be considered dual citizens (their home country an the CyperSpace) and allow them to vote for representation to manage the space and then provide a representative to the UN.
This would take some doing as some nations (i.e. the Un
MOD PARENT UP FAST (Score:2)
Wooo thats clever... an utter nightmare to implement diplomatically but think about it, who needs a data haven when everyone's machine is one? I like it.
Re:Completely off the wall suggestion (Score:2)
There was a paper that came out of Georgetown Universtity several year back that advocated a jurisdiction of cyberspace, to say nothing of Barlow's famous "We are children of cyberspace: screen.
Remember Shaw's quote about "unreasonable men"?
Its not control of the Internet... (Score:3, Interesting)
Basicly, the internet consists of the following core elements:
1.The core Protocols that underly it (that are drawn up as RFCs and put out by the IETF). The IETF seems to be doing a good job of this (although its slow to get a RFC out, there is no reason you cant go and use without one plusd RFCs need to be very well thought out in order to work)
2.IP address allocation.
Right now various agencies (I know the IANA used to do this but they dont do it anymore, someone else does) hand out IP address blocks. That function seems to be running right (other than the physical lack of usable addresses that is)
If IPV6 was more widely deployed, you wouldnt have any address problems since IPV6 provides so many addersses that even a home user could have an IPV6 block where the upper 120 bits were fixed and then they would get 8 bits of address to allocate to devices (IANA IPV6 guru so 8 bits for a normal home user might be too much but even 6 bits would give them 64 or so addresses to use)
You could give different countries a block of IP addresses which could then give ISPs and hosts etc parts of that block and so on down to the users.
Also IPV6 adoption would mean a greater adoption of encryption (via IPSecV6 or something similar) and multicasting.
3.DNS. Right now, this is controled by those who run the root servers. And by ICANN and DOC who ultimatly control the root zone file (which points to the ccTLD and gTLD nameservers run by verisign and others). Then, verisign and others control the ccTLDs and gTLDs. What is needed here is for control of the root zone file as well as control over the key gTLDs (like
Special gTLDs like
ccTLDs would be run by whatever agency the governments of those countries decides should run them (e.g.
and 4.the cables, routers and systems that actually make the core of the Internet work. The problem right now (IMO) is that too much of this infrastructure is held by too few companies (a lot of it is held by phone companies/large ISPs)
There is not enough redundancy (and this isnt just to do with a lack of physical cables, its also to do with the fact that the large ISPs and phone cos that own the backbone wont allow/dont want/charge to much for their systems to talk to each other and route data over the other guys links when theirs is down.
In addition to this, the consolodation of data links (including the fact that there are not as many possible ways for data to get from A to B as their should be) makes it easier for governments, police forces, spy agencies (friendly and otherwise), corperations (MPAA/RIAA/etc for one) and others to "Spy on" and "Monitor" and "Censor/control/block" internet traffic.
So, the question is, exactly which of the 4 key parts that make up the Internet as we know it is the part that people seem to think could be run better by an agency other than ICANN or the US Goverment?
Status Quo is good for me. (Score:2)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not so simple as "US vs. rest of world"--it's a balance between "how much do you trust the US to be a fair custodian" vs. "how much do you trust an organization giving weight to what Libya and South Africa and Papua New Guinea want to be a fair custodian".
As far as I'm concerned, having an organization in the US, with some involvement by the US government, "running" things is not a great solution but a lot less worse than, say, whatever the ITU would come up with.
That said, remember that the Internet works on the principle of routing around failure. Neither the UN nor ICANN nor the US government are known as organizations which always work quickly, logically, unbureaucratically and in the best interests of both their constituents and the greater community at large.
The "US", aside from a few fun Internic fuckups in the 1990s, didn't ever "turn off the Internet" or come up with idiotic international requirements. Carnivore? Try enforcing that in France. Nobody's stopping me from using encryption between Ghana and Mongolia. I wouldn't, however, put it past some atechnical third world level 50 career bureaucrat to come up with something stupid wthich might try to do just that.
Not that it'll ever work, but it'll just create more work for everyone. Another thing I'd like to see pro-UN-control folks to ask themselves honestly would be "is this just a pure control question"? I hate to say it, but like Magellan, anyone can always build their own...
Re:Hmmmm (Score:2)
I can understand your problem with Libya, but what's wrong with South Africa and Papua New Guinea? Both are democracies.
The good thing about the UN is that everybody has a say in the decisions and it's therefore hard for one country to dominate. Al
Re:Screw the UN (Score:2, Interesting)
How comes that the same people speaking about democracy and freedom have so much problems to give other nations the right to vote where they are concerned?
BTW, there are no small meaningless countries.
BTW 2, funny that you speak about "random leaders".
Re:Screw the UN (Score:3, Funny)
1) Think of all the time you spent learning about the rest of the world outside your country of origin: geography lessons, watching or reading news coverage, research or even actually visiting the countries involved. Add all that time together.
2) Now imagine that instead of doing all those things, you spent that time in McDonald's stuffing your face with supersize portions of fa
OT: Wow - /. IDs break 900,000 mark (Score:2)
Official Bastard (900041)
I'll be darned.
Re:OT: Wow - /. IDs break 900,000 mark (Score:2)
> I'll be darned.
Just wait till it hits 1,000,000 and the universe collapses into itself!
Re:Make your own (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make your own (Score:2)
And now we're seeing the end result of American policy over tha last few years. The stock response to criticism was, well so what, we can nuke you, haw haw. Now we have a lot of panicky people claiming some kind of droit de seigneur over the internet, and the rest of the world snipping as many links to the US as possible, as quickly as possible. You reap what you sow fellas, and its harvest time...
I don't think the UN is going to be able to do that.
Gee Dubyaw will manage it all by himself, don't worry
Re:Make your own (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What are we fixing? (Score:4, Informative)
Your wrong. Only 5 root servers are here in the USA.
See here: Root Server Locations [public-root.com];
Enjoy,
Re:What are we fixing? (Score:4, Insightful)
There! That oughta keep us busy for a while!
Seriously, it's not anti-American sentiment. It's a somewhat back-door attempt for the UN to have a real governing ability over issues that they've never been able to address through resolutions. Some country isn't playing nice with regard to intellectual property? Hit 'em in the Internet. At least, that's my theory...
Re:What are we fixing? (Score:2)
Jebus, have you been in a coma for the last five years?
Re:How can they tax us? (Score:2)
Re:How can they tax us? (Score:2)
If you want to take away people's right to vote, you should stop stealing taxes from them.
You are grossly misinformed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Insurgency (Score:2)
You write that as if the entire world outside the US isn't already in that exact position. This is your insurgency on a massive scale.