Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Argument For Leaving DNS Control In US Hands

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the no-let's-give-it-to-the-UN's-human-rights-council dept.

The Internet 607

An anonymous reader writes "Ariel Rabkin has a piece over at News Corp.'s Weekly Standard arguing that the US should maintain its control over the Internet. After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body."

cancel ×

607 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ICANN is a logical choice for this... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126367)

Just imagine the possibility:

Ned: Phil? Hey, Phil? Phil! Phil Connors? Phil Connors, I thought that was you!
Phil: Hi, how you doing? Thanks for watching.
[Starts to walk away]
Ned: Hey, hey! Now, don't you tell me you don't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.
Phil: Not a chance.
Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"? "Ned the Head"? C'mon, buddy. Case Western High. Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore? Well?
Phil: Ned Ryerson?
Ned: Bing!
Phil: Bing.

Re:ICANN is a logical choice for this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126425)

Fail

Real summary: (-1, Troll)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126411)

Only the US (acknowledged torturer, massive human rights abuser) has the legal protections (memos penned by John Yoo) to ensure that free speech (Yahoo releases personal info to Chinese internet police, subject of info executed) remains in full force on the Internet.
Rah rah! U! S! A! U! S! A!
At this point, we could hand control of the Internet to Hitler, and not have any moral standing to criticize him.

Re:Real summary: (1, Offtopic)

Soporific (595477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126451)

Wow a comparison to Hitler, I don't really think you know your history.

~S

Re:Real summary: (3, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126639)

Wow a comparison to Hitler, I don't really think you know your history.

Well, say what you will about Hilter but I don't think you can make the claim that he was in bed with RIAA ;)

Re:Real summary: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126927)

You obviously dont know about "Hitler Yodels the Classics" from EMI. Theres a number of Top 20 hits on there including "Blitzkrieg for you my love" and the ever popular "Gassing Jews in the rain". Available from all good retailers.

Re:Real summary: (5, Funny)

Millennium (2451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126473)

Whoa. Godwinned in only three posts.

Re:Real summary: (5, Funny)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126475)

Wow, a Godwin-First-Post hybrid. The force is strong in this one.

Re:Real summary: (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126563)

Wow, a Godwin-First-Post hybrid. The force is strong in this one.

No. That's not the force. That's just a greased up Yoda doll pressing on his brain.

Re:Real summary: (3, Insightful)

mindstormpt (728974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126657)

Great summary, too bad I have no mod points left.

As for the original one:

 

After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.

Either the submitter can't read, or he's completely devoid of critical sense.

Legal Eagles (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126417)

Well, there is one thing to be said about US control of DNS. Any and all attempts to change the system will be met with years of suits, counter-suits and legal quagmires of the n^th degree before such changes can even be discussed.

That is of course, when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.

Seriously? (3, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126453)

Analogy time:

"We don't see any problem without our accountant writing and signing all the checks because we've never had a problem with it before. They're perfectly trustworthy, and so much better than -unknown entity- probably is!"

The time to take control away from someone is -before- they abuse the power, not after. If there's a world-wide organization that can impartially handle this, and handle it well, then it should be done by them. UN was suggested, and while they are weak, they are the strongest international organization I know of that is supposed to be impartial.

Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126545)

The time to take control away from someone is -before- they abuse the power, not after

And giving it to the UN, which regularly demonstrates its embrace of corruption at every level of its bureaucracy and finances, is better because ... at least you know that domain name control will be immediately perverted by special interests and tyrants, instead of wondering if it might be, by a country with better free speech standards than pretty much anywhere else on the planet?

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

Froggie (1154) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126673)

And yet WIPO arbitration is perfectly acceptable?

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127029)

> by a country with better free speech standards than pretty much anywhere else on the planet?

And which country might that be? And whose standards are we using?

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126589)

Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.

Why is that fair and right? Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint, the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology. What moral reason does the world have to gain control? "We would make better owners of your property than you."?

Re:Seriously? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126787)

the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology.

Ever hear of tim berners-lee?

Re:Seriously? (5, Informative)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126959)

You mean the guy who created HTML (based on a lot of previous work by many others) and had complete boo to do with the hardware side, which came from ARPANet?

Look, nothing against Tim Berners-Lee, but I keep seeing this growing meme that he somehow fathered the entire blessed Internet.

Re:Seriously? (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127079)

Look, nothing against Tim Berners-Lee, but I keep seeing this growing meme that he somehow fathered the entire blessed Internet.

When we _all_ know that it was an American who did that.

Al Gore.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127043)

And he created the internet?

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127099)

Ever here of ME?

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

parodyca (890419) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126833)

Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.

Why is that fair and right? Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint, the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology. What moral reason does the world have to gain control? "We would make better owners of your property than you."?

That's funny 'cause that is exactly how I read the current state of affairs. Sorry to break it you you sonny, but the US does not own the Internet. No one owns the Internet any more that anyone could own the air we breath. It is a common resource, and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world. Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown. The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US. Does the US really need that?

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127119)

No, the US doesn't own the Internet, it just owns the rights to control the DNS servers that are currently used. Other countries are free to make their own DNS servers, or the UN can make its own DNS root. Let people choose what one they would like to use, or do a "first look at x, then y" style lookup.
I still don't see why the US owes anyone control of DNS.

Re:Seriously? (5, Funny)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127137)

> The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.

It's part of a plan to collect a huge amount of resentment bread, then use that bread to feed the poor and bring about world peace. How can you be against that?

Re:Seriously? (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126607)

Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.

Well, he's afraid of censorship--at least after reading the first page and scanning the second that's what I gather. Specifically something like a Muslim nation or organization forcing domains with "Mohammad" in them to be automatically rejected or some such nonsense.

That said, he conveniently ignores any attempts for it to happen in the US [wikipedia.org] . And on top of that he doesn't have a real grasp on how actual country by country censorship works today. I mean, it's happening in Thailand occasionally with blocking YouTube on the ISP level or last week with Facebook in Iran. I mean, those things should be done at the ISP level with local law enforcement to stop it.

I say if we hand it over we do so on the condition that certain things stay the way they are. One being that you can't censor a domain but you can allow country by country to force their ISPs to obey whatever stupid law their government enforces. Let their constituents complain.

No one has presented to me a definite argument one way or the other.

Re:Seriously? (5, Interesting)

neomunk (913773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126615)

So what about the International Telecommunication Union? Has the ITU ever had any political disputes that were leveraged over a certain party?

It seems to me (though my perspective is limited) that the telephone network is pretty well internationally compatible. And on the topic of politicization, what ever happened to the .sex or .xxx domain? I thought that was a great example of politic butting its nose into the internet.

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127075)

So what about the International Telecommunication Union? Has the ITU ever had any political disputes that were leveraged over a certain party?

Well yes, the ITU doesn't like the fact that people can make phone calls over the internet, and it wants to stop that.

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

Diss Champ (934796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126633)

When it comes to "fair and right", the UN is usually a massive fail.

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126669)

Then it's simple - have an international NGO mirror the root servers and at the first sign of any tomfoolery, announce that people should use their root servers. Bonus points if they can keep from censoring.

But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.

Is that the same UN that always has its actions paralyzed by the US, China, France, UK, and Russia? The same UN that allows countries to send illiterate and untrained peace keeping troops in exchange for money? Or is it the one whose peacekeepers have a history of rape and murder? Or the one that's standing idly by while the Chechens are being slaughtered by Russia, the Palestinians being slaughtered by Israel, or the massacre in Darfur is going on?

I'm not saying the US is the shining example of what is right and good (torture, rendition, illegal wars, warrentless wiretapping). I'm just saying that the UN has its problems as well.

Re:Seriously? (4, Interesting)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126707)

But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.

No. It should be handled by an organization with a demonstrable history of not fucking things up in the name of censorship. Unfortunately, such a beast does not exist, and insofar as the "choose the lesser of the evils" mantra goes, your country seems to be doing a solid job.

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

Aquitaine (102097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126715)

The time to take control away from someone is -before- they abuse the power, not after. If there's a world-wide organization that can impartially handle this, and handle it well, then it should be done by them.

That's a very interesting suggestion. It sounds like you want thought police.

How about 'the time to punish someone is after they've done something wrong, or when in possession of ample evidence that they are in the process of doing something wrong.'

The notion that the UN is impartial is a far-fetched one, though perhaps no more than the notion that the US is. The article is making the case that, whatever US government's current agenda, they have thus far been apolitical, refusing to get involved in exactly the kind of murky questions that the UN loves to deal with. You don't hear the US going around threatening countries with which it has disagreements to pull the plug on their TLDs.

I'm no expert on the subject and would be happy to read an argument to the contrary, but I do accept the premise of Rabkin's thesis, which seems to be 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

So let's a) see some cases where the IANA was in the wrong in such a manner that its status as subject to the Department of Commerce bears responsibility, and b) see some convincing evidence that the UN would do a better job.

The chief problem I would have arguing in favor of a UN solution (which, in theroy, I agree sounds like the best one) is that you cannot be 'impartial.' Deciding on cases of civil war or Taiwan vs. China cannot be done without value judgments. Obviously it's possible for any national government to make biased value judgments (one might even say that it's necessary some of the time) because they are elected/appointed/whatever to serve their own people. It just so happens that, in the case of the IANA, we've taken what appears to be a relatively hands-off approach where, rather than try and make impartial judgments on everything, we either don't make judgments (see TFA's comments on referring most matters to national courts) or make purely technical judgments.

Like anything else I'm sure there's room for improvement. I'm not convinced that the IANA or the US Department of Commerce deserve pre-emptive sacking just because they're the US DoC and IANA.

Yes seriously (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126917)

in an ideal world...sure...an impartial, neutral multi-national organization should handle it.

in the real world, that ain't the UN. Just look at their handling of things (just look at the recent examples: North Korea, Georgia, Darfur, etc.)
The UN is a political, partial organization where a lot of things are broken.

One of the oldest adages comes to mind: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Even with the current flaws, there are more protections in the US than there are with the UN.

Re:Seriously? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126969)

There is a financial side to this that Europe particularly and the World in general likes to ignore.

The US taxpayer paid for this Internet and though it wouldn't be as important as it is now without World participation it is still owned by the US taxpayer.

If it were in the interest of the US taxpayer I could see distribution of parts of the Internet but I doubt it would be now. Many of the new recipients would most assuringly demand that the US foot the bill in integrating their DNS schemes.

Europe, the third World, China, whomever can demand all they want but the fact is they do not own it and have not paid for it and it is doubful they will want to pay a fair price to have it...

Re:Seriously? (1)

pankkake (877909) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126975)

Except that control by the UN is no better than control by the US, perhaps worse. RTFA!

Re:Seriously? (1)

Sicily1918 (912141) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127089)

The time to take control away from someone is -before- they abuse the power, not after.

Analogy time:

"I'm going to permanently take away your car, because you might eventually abuse it. Same goes for your cell phone -- there are plenty of pay phones left -- and you can only use a computer at your local library -- after all, you might abuse the power a computer gives you."
How does that make sense?

Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.

Our Navy controls the world's oceans -- is it 'fair' and 'right' (for everyone else)? Doesn't matter -- the world's not fair and right; you either deal with it or pull the wool over your eyes and discover it the hard way.

There have been complaints (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126461)

Actually there have been complaints about how ICANN has run things including some cases where there were disputes about who was the rightful group to handle CC TLDs. In some cases ICANN used these disputes to gain leverage over the parties running the affected CC TLDs.
The guy who wrote the article clearly hasn't done his homework.

Re:There have been complaints (4, Interesting)

Froggie (1154) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126725)

To add to those complaints with an economic one, why should it be that registration fees for .com, .net, .org and friends should be funnelled into the US economy? There have been many complaints about the monopoly powers effectively granted to the keepers of .com from within the US. (And no, .com is not a US-specific domain. .us is.)

Why mess with it (5, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126469)

Why mess with what is working? Honestly, the US has shown no real heavy hand in managing DNS, why break it now?

Re:Why mess with it (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126623)

Because some thing that work aren't "fair." Like monopolies for example...

Re:Why mess with it (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126627)

Honestly, the US has shown no real heavy hand in managing DNS, why break it now?

Because the US is the country that everybody loves to hate. Here's hoping that China becomes a global superpower sooner rather than later -- then people will hate them too. Maybe they'll even come to realize that the US wasn't so bad afterall, in spite of our flaws.

Re:Why mess with it (0, Troll)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126695)

Yes because there are absolutely no legitimate complaints anyone can make about the United States. Any critic is clearly just a freedom-hating, terrorist-lover. *rolls eyes*

Re:Why mess with it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126923)

Yes because there are absolutely no illegitimate complaints anyone can make about the United States. Any sympathizer is clearly just a hamburger-eating, arrogant xenophobic fatass. *rolls eyes*

Re:Why mess with it (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126981)

Wow. Strawman much? Oh I'm sorry, I guess I should have just said: "AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!" So I could karma whore. I find it absolutely amazing that fellow Americans can't even take the tiniest criticism without flying off the handle or by trying to claim that it's okay if we do something that is immoral because does something even worse.

Re:Why mess with it (2, Interesting)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126771)

Maybe they'll even come to realize that the US wasn't so bad after all, in spite of our flaws.

No, most of us who routinely "bash" the US know that already.

Where people such as yourself get confused is when we reply to some typical asshat who, perspective-free, claims some kind of superiority, either real or imagined, like those who subscribe to whatever warped "Manifest Destiny" meme is floating around the jingosphere at any given time.

Then there's also the relative of your own comment, which will get "bashing" responses. Something along the lines of "Well, we're pretty awesome/the bad guys are doing it, so why can't we kill/torture/invade once in a while?"

And that's part of the price of being "the best": You're held to a higher standard than everybody else and any slip ups are much more visible.

Ain't life lonely at the top?

Re:Why mess with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126717)

A 5 insightful, for a bury head in sand astroturf?!

Remember when DNS registr* wasn't an extortion racket?

Re:Why mess with it (4, Funny)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126831)

Remember when DNS registr* wasn't an extortion racket?

No. When did this magic day exist?

agreed (4, Interesting)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126487)

Do we really want the internet domain system to turn into a larger bureaucracy fuckfest? Let anyone who has a problem come up with their own competing DNS hierarchy, a la OpenDNS.

disagreed, you mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126907)

That's an argument *against* government control of DNS. The article is arguing the opposite, that no one should be allowed to set up DNS servers except bureaucrats in the US government. From the article:

The present system is thus perhaps the best way to prevent the naming system from being used to chill online speech worldwide.

In other words, schemes like OpenDNS that are not supervised by the appropriate government authorities are prone to censorship. The article drives the point pretty hard that DNS allocations should be the exclusive privilege of a government elite. I completely disagree, and I suspect that you would too if you reflected on it.

OpenDNS isn't a DNS "hierarchy" (4, Interesting)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127021)

> Let anyone who has a problem come up with their own competing DNS hierarchy, a la OpenDNS.

Erm, OpenDNS has nothing to do with this. OpenDNS uses the existing root servers - the existing hierarchy - for name resolution. Then, they apply big blacklists and transformations to the bulk of the data. Typing in a slightly wrong domain will be auto corrected and bounced to the proper domain, "bad" domains (malware, etc) are blocked, and questionable content can be filtered.

(In fact, it is these very same practices that have got quite a few ISPs in trouble with their customers. Verisign pulled the same stunt with the .com TLD some time ago, and caught unbelievable crap for it. Why some people love OpenDNS but hated on Verisign for that I'll never know or understand.)

It has NOTHING to do with root DNS control. It depends upon the existing infrastructure, and does little more than sanitize it. They don't handle domain registrations, TLD management/control, and they don't manage authoritative nameservers for their customers domains.

They are, in fact, not a competitor in any form, but instead they are quite dependent upon what we already have in place. This has absolutely nothing to do with OpenDNS in any reasonable way I can think of. They are absolutely not a "DNS hierarchy" as you would imply.

Not convincing and very lame. (3, Insightful)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126505)

I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea. It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.

If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US? No.

Re:Not convincing and very lame. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126747)

I'm not sure moving DNS to a bigger bureaucracy is the best move, but I have to agree with you. The author argues that the US provides neutrality, for example, by deciding who controls .pk in the event of civil war in Pakistan, and goes on to say that an international organization such as the UN wouldn't be able to provide that neutrality. Other than it being harder to get consensus, instead of the US unilaterally mandating who gets control, I don't see how that's true.

In fact, in the example of a UN-controlled system where .tw might away if China "absorbs" Taiwan, this could be pretty bad for the US--it might have a horrible impact on US relations with China if we unilaterally decided to keep .tw around, instead of letting the UN make the call (where we'd still have a huge voice, but the buffer of bureaucracy to stand behind).

And the author's concern about sanctions against TLDs? Instead of a bad thing, I think that could be a powerful motivator for change, getting the comfortable business class very unhappy when their online business suffers...

Re:Not convincing and very lame. (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127063)

letting the UN make the call (where we'd still have a huge voice, but the buffer of bureaucracy to stand behind).

You presume that there would be something along the lines of the UNSC that would grant some sort of additional status, instead of something like the General Assembly where the US would be one among 200+ or even the various councils where it would be one among a few dozen. US power could be quickly diluted, and in the last case could be removed if membership was on an elected basis.

Re:Not convincing and very lame. (1, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126881)

I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea. It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.

Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.

Even us dastardly Americans should know to check the sources and consider their arguments in light of their inclinations.

FWIW, there ARE decent arguments for DNS control to remain under the thumb of the US. But I'd lend those arguments a lot more credence if the weren't coming from Nationalistic sources (I know, I know, that's a logical fallacy... but it's a useful logical fallacy).

How awful! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126511)

Referencing isolated examples of Internet-related free-speech limitations somehow constitutes proof that America is the only country that can manage digital freedom?

We're talking about a country that can't handle a Justin Timberlake exposing an elderly lady's breast on TV.

Re:How awful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126741)

Fine, if you're going to troll me for that. I meant that you fat fucks can't stand seeing a nigger's chimp tit. Neither can I. You hideous, useless orcs.

Re:How awful! (2, Interesting)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126905)

In my humble opinion, and briefest experience observing politics, I've typically noticed that when something changes, its for the worst. It is in the name of agenda, abuse, and grabs for power. I'm not saying that the US should run it, but I have a feeling that anyone else who runs it would do a worse job. United Nations? I've not heard of them doing anything meaningful in the last 20-30 years. At any rate, I doubt they'd have the teeth to run it successfully? Maybe the EU? Probably not. [slashdot.org] They make draconian laws serving interests other than that of their subjects, and then have problems enforcing them. (Which is not always a bad thing). Maybe we should try giving it to another country outright? Rules out Australia, with their 'decide-to-censor-off-and-on-based-on-the-whims-of-the-day' mentality. Germany too. Last I heard they were on the censorship bandwagon. There are other countries that don't censor that might seem like a good idea, being fairly impartial and not arbitrarily declaring war on abstract concepts, but you can't trust that they wont serve their (lobbyists) best interests at the detriment of the world. Moral of my story: When picking between two evils, pick the known one. You can at least imagine how far they will fall.

Re:How awful! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127035)

I (the author of the original message; but not that masquerading racist troll below it) do actually agree that it should not change. I don't trust the UN any more than the US, and as a Westerner—British with American connections—I am politically not politically disinclined towards the US.

However, the article is braying horse shit.

Give control to Canada (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126517)

We're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we'll apologize for it.

Actually, even if the mistake isn't our fault, we'll apologize anyway. That's the Canadian way.

Re:Give control to Canada (2, Funny)

homesnatch (1089609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127031)

Canada is one of my favorite US States!

Re:Give control to Canada (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127133)

Canada is one of my favorite US States!

And we're all very sorry about that.

Hand it to the UN? God no. (0, Troll)

GenieGenieGenie (942725) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126521)

What does that massive resource sink have on its list of achievements in, say, the last 30 years? Might as well give it OBL, at least he can do *something*.

this idea is insane (3, Insightful)

superwiz (655733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126539)

It would give some international body actual enforcement power over something. Up until now they only have the power of rhetoric and proclamation (even if they are "binding"). This would create a mechanism for them to actually enforce penalties against non-complying (insert blank here). Given that the international relations are always (by definition) nothing but politics, this would have almost immediate chilling effects on free speech on the Internet.

Who will police the police? (2, Funny)

DarrenBaker (322210) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126543)

I dunno... Coast Guard?

Speculation... (5, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126549)

The article makes vague speculation about what could potentially happen but neglects to consider that it is the US's ball to hand off.

So if the US wants certain terms (e.g. Freedom of Speech) met when it hands it to an international body they have the leverage to get it.

As far as the "US has never done anything bad with domain names" thing that is bull. The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they want and let's not forget the insane anti-gabling domain grab recently.

Re:Speculation... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126809)

So if the US wants certain terms (e.g. Freedom of Speech) met when it hands it to an international body they have the leverage to get it.

What do you propose is the incentive to honor any conditions placed upon that transfer of power? Once transferred, it is unlikely to be given back under any conditions.

Re:Speculation... (1)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126895)

As far as the "US has never done anything bad with domain names" thing that is bull. The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they want

Please tell me how it should work? Should we allocate names based on who the govt _thinks_ should have them? You want a name, register it. Already taken, buy it. Don't have the cash, get a different one. Honestly how is this broken? What moral superiority is going to look at each name and decide who gets it, fairly? What about nissan.com? Does the guy with the last name Nissan get the domain because he got it on a first come first served basis (and he has a reason to want to and rightfully own a trademarked name)? Or should someone step in and give the thing to the big multinational corporation, because that would be "fair"?

Please enlighten us to a better system?

Is there some way to decentralize name resolution? (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126551)

Subject says it all; The very concept of name resolution would seem to require centralization, but I'm just praying that there's someone out there who is sufficiently smarter than me to have figured it out or sufficiently well-informed that they know of some potential solution, yet who is bored enough to be here to tell me about an alternative.

The Internet belongs to those who use it. (2, Funny)

Kensai7 (1005287) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126557)

The Internet should be administered by an international body.

I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced, for security or productivity reasons, but the Internet has been so successful because of the international networking it helped achieve.

Otherwise here in the EU we would have used the French standard and I would have posted a similar silly post to the "La BarreObliqueDot"...

Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it. (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126647)

The Internet should be administered by an international body.

Here's an alternative; move all the existing three letter TLDs under .us, and give each country control of their country-code TLD. Why should the USA have any say as to what happens under, say, China's TLD?

Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it. (1)

denobug (753200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126807)

Why should the USA have any say as to what happens under, say, China's TLD?

In reality (and as a technicality), no. US dos not regulate how China regulates the usage under China's TLD. A good example would be to take a look at how many Chinese hosting sites using the .com, .net domain to avoid certain regulations from the Chinese Government.

You might try to infer that US CAN, based on the current structure. However US does NOT actively regulate China's TLD because China has a government stable enough to self determine how to use it. The overall control in US hand is simply a formality.

Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it. (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126929)

Here's an alternative; move all the existing three letter TLDs under .us, and give each country control of their country-code TLD. Why should the USA have any say as to what happens under, say, China's TLD?

I sorta like this idea.. and frankly, it's already what alot of non-US nations do already.. .co.uk anyone?

You will have to come up with some way to deal with breakups of stuff like the old .ussr or .sov or whatever it was, but I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to outline..

And create a standard for 'this is how you MUST behave at the TLD level' (ie: you must remain compliant to the current DNS system).. just so I can in fact access .co.uk domains and they don't go and do something to break their access.

Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it. (0, Troll)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126683)

first off "it" wasnt completely invented in America or am I the only one that doesnt remember history .. Switzerland anyone ?

French Standard ? whats that 3 strikes your out ?

Seriously ffs let sleeping dogs lie, we dont need any more International Unions trying to regulate shit.

Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127121)

The Internet was invented in the U.S.. The WWW was invented at CERN and is a protocol operates over the Internet.

Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it. (1, Insightful)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126791)

I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced

Last time I checked the World Wide Web was invented at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee who is British. Sure many protocols that the Web uses date back to DARPAnet but the Internet as we know it is the way it is due to Berners-Lee.

Actually, after reading that article... (0, Troll)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126579)

...I think a cogent argument can be made for taking governance of the Internet OUT of the US' hands, and for the establishment of a UN body to maintain DNS and everything else about the Internet. TFA was some of the worst jingoistic garbage this side of RedState.Com. Oh yeah, the Weekly Standard is run by NewsCorp. I understand everything now.

Re:Actually, after reading that article... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126849)

Oh yeah, the Weekly Standard is run by NewsCorp. I understand everything now.

Seriously, it was founded and run by Bill Kristol [wikipedia.org] . Jingoistic garbage is their forte.

DNS should be faded out (3, Insightful)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126581)

If there's any kind of central control point in a global architecture, then it's not truly global. Any single governing body (or even a group) will be controlled or dominated by at least one country. Then it becomes a national architecture. I'm all for a different solution, where the industrial model gets broken down and a web of trust gets established. Sure there are issues with a web of trust, but they can be solved with time and money.

I'm personally surprised that there isn't more issue with BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) and it's dominance over the network of networks. I think there's a lot more direct and immediate control there than with DNS.

The information utopia that never came (5, Interesting)

DiscountBorg(TM) (1262102) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126583)

It's interesting that a lot of fiction scenarios assumed that the global network would be completely decentralized.. and therefore not subject to anyone's control. This utopian illusion is fading away.. because in reality the global network is just a series of cables, and yes, they pass over political borders. I think it is pretty inevitable that the global network we take for granted is going to change drastically, as every country attempts to enforce their particular political and moral stance on the information passing over their borders into their country. It is quite likely that in the not too distant future the internet will be quite a different experience from continent to continent, nevermind from one country to another.. it's already happening..

Re:The information utopia that never came (2, Funny)

mindstormpt (728974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126703)

You probably didn't get the memo, but it's not a series of cables but a series of tubes. It's a slight difference, but a critical one too.

Re:The information utopia that never came (1)

DiscountBorg(TM) (1262102) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126823)

Amusing.. Series of tubes [wikipedia.org]

Your leaders got you in Iraq (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126597)

Based on fabrications; and all constitutional amendments did not protect USA.

If same people tried to "fix" DNS (like they "fixed" Iraq, and for best intentions, but similar result - Afganistan and New Orleans) - what would be the result?

No, politicians should be taken off and ITU should do it. ITU does similar job for almost hundred years, and no problems - whatsoever!

Re:Your leaders got you in Iraq (0, Troll)

Froggie (1154) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126803)

No, no, that would be the UN resolutions that got them into the conflict.

But wait, the UN is a powerless talking shop, according to the rest of the comments here.

Anyone else get that warm tingle of cognitive dissonance?

Conservative much? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126613)

Seriously, get a neutral news report that doesn't have Reagan's face on the page, doesn't have articles like :
-- Conservatism is in good shape
-- The Golden Age of Lobbying : Also known as the Age of Obama.
-- Arabs vs. Iranians : Courtesy of the Jews....

And then we'll discuss as rational people..

Re:Conservative much? (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127003)

It's an opinion piece. Conservatives are allowed to express opinions too.

Some of the opinions in the piece are interesting, e.g. the danger of politicizing TLD issues and the good track record of US management.

Some of them are stating the obvious, e.g. that any government or international body can set up its own DNS.

Some of them are silly, like the reason that the US invented the Internet is that the government leaves telecom to private industry. Of course the opposite is just as silly, that the Internet as we know it is purely a government creation.

There is no single reason the US created the Internet. You can point to a number of things, like the fact we spent such a huge amount of money on defense. In terms of national values that might have contributed to the creation of the Internet, I think our great strength is a kind of dynamic between public and private Interests. A nation with a government run on strict laissez-faire economic principles would never have invented the Internet; nor would a command economy. It started with the government doing something unprofitable, but in the public interest, and it took off when in the public interest the government let private interests use it.

Go team America!! (0, Offtopic)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126619)

Great argument, dicks fuck assholes, assholes just shit on everything, blah blah blah...

DNS under US control (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126641)

The US is the only country with the balls to protect DNS from a Muslim terror attack.

I wrote the following poem about the United States and DNS

And I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
who gave that right to me,
And I gladly stand up next to you
and defend her still today, '
Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.

FroDst 4ist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126653)

has brought Upon one common goal - to yet another there are only the BSD licwense, While the project

Big Assumption (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126719)

The United States could, in theory, set up a renegade, uncensored Internet. But there would likely be significant public distrust, substantial political acrimony, and a great deal of hesitation. We are better off keeping the public Internet free and leaving the social and technical burdens on governments that want to censor. The present system is thus perhaps the best way to prevent the naming system from being used to chill online speech worldwide.

The only problem with his morass of assumptions about freedom is that America does want to censor the internet.
A long time ago Feinstein tried to ban bomb making instructions on the internet, then there was the Communications Decency Act (unconstitutional), followed by the Child Online Protection Act (unconstitutional), ending with Children's Internet Protection Act which the Supreme Court eventually declared Constitutional because it was vastly narrower than its predecessors.

There's other legislation I'm leaving out, but you get the idea.
/And God helps us all if the **AA's of the world get their way.

So roll your own.... (0, Troll)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126739)

Seriously. If as some of the folks outside of the USA claim, you have built and paid for your own infrastructure, then you're quite capable of creating your own standards and software just like the Americans did with their own money and brains. Arent' you? All you're really saying by asking for international governance is, "It's great. I don't feel like doing the work to get it. Gimme the thing now." Asking for it to be turned over to a consortium (i.e. and "international" body) without even th suggestion payment of any kind sort of takes gall to a new level.

DNS has lost much of its importance (2, Insightful)

bzzfzz (1542813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126759)

TFA raises a valid point but overstates the case. ICANN's work is indeed politicized, and one need look no further than the disparate fates of the .sex and .info TLDs to see that. On the other hand, it's hard to believe that something run by the U.N. would be any better.

In reality, though, DNS has lost much of its original importance. This becomes clear when you consider that all but a handful of Alexa's top 20 sites [alexa.com] have names that have no real connection to the business. They're just rarely used words that lack much meaning in everyday life (Google, Amazon) or entirely made up (wikipedia, ebay). There are already alternative public root servers [wikipedia.org] , and while these lack popularity, it shows how easy it would be for a distributed naming system to gain a foothold.

The real outcome of handing the rootservers over to an international committee would be to hasten the day when there is no longer one unified DNS, a day we'll probably see before too long anyway.

DNS Should be in everyones hands (2, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126793)

Just google the .xxx extension and why we don't have it yet. Seriously and I know this will offend some people, but the internet and the DNS is of too much importance to be in the hands of 1 party. What if the USA goes berserk, something that from an European point of view is totally possible, and they pull the plug? They should not have this power in the first place.

So what it boils down to is american selfinterests (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126795)

and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards

So the americans want to keep control of the internet in order to keep rights that are only upheld within their country. Since the americans don't apply these rights elsewhere - (a small thing called sovereignty) their desires to retain control of the internet are merely selfish.

As it is, every country wants to do exactly this: control the internet for their own purposes - just because the americans got there first is no reason why the situation should continue as it is.

Neo-con US comic wants to keep US power (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126815)

Pope still Catholic, bears poo in woods, nothing to see here, move along.

Daniel Hannan Speaks (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126837)

You should listen. [youtube.com]

Vague fearmongering... (1)

endquote (47995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126847)

Not that I think that the IANA is really broken but this article does nothing to convince me of anything. A bunch of "things aren't broken why fix them" arguments combined with some vaugely offensive, jingoistic, BS that the US is the "only country that believes in free speech". To be honest I think the main reason we haven't seen the US attempting to abuse this is because historically the people in charge simply didn't have any idea what they were doing.

After all it's "not a big truck" [wikipedia.org]

Leave it! it's not broken, why fix it? (1)

Frippet (825472) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126861)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, was the internet not designed, developed and 'released' through the US Department of National Defense and Universities? If it wasn't for them, we probably would not have it. The US has had control of the internet since it's inception and appears to be working pretty good the way it is being managed now. Leave it the way it is.

HE's from UC BERKELEY?!? (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126889)

Really? That came from someone who attends UC Berkeley?

He's obviously not taking his daily recommended dose of LSD. Or, maybe taking too much.

what about .sex and .xxx??? (2, Interesting)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126963)

What a load of hogwash.

If USA were truly pro-free speech they would of permitted the implementation of .sex and .xxx namespaces.

Its nothing to do with what I think about porn, it has a practical use that allows people to quickly identify with the subject matter and to allow software to classify it as so.

The conservative government simply did not want this to happen, and they have successfully lobbied hard to stop these practical namespaces to be implemented.

Creating an Internet wasteland of "filth" may have some merit, but I highly doubt it will lead to an increase in people watching it. Most large, modern cities have "saucy" areas, but just because they are there doesn't mean every citizen visits everyday.

I still believe this process needs to be apolitical as noted, without government intervention - its the only way. I do not accept that the US has a higher ground than other forward thinking countries in this matter.

Seems easy enough (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127039)

Political questions like "Who is the rightful government of Pakistan?" are settled by the U.S. Department of State.

Nope, I can't see anything wrong here. Everything is as it should be. Move along, citizens.

Got the basic facts wrong (3, Informative)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127067)

Internet domain names (such as www.google.com) are managed hierarchically. At the top of the hierarchy is an entity called IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, operated on behalf of the Commerce Department.

Not correct. ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is under contract to DOC. ICANN has two components: control of the DNS root and control of the IANA. IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority deals only with numbers: IP addresses, protocol numbers, AS numbers, port numbers, etc. IANA is almost completely unrelated to the DNS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?