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!

Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the shocker-there dept.

The Internet 691

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.'"

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

It's good to see (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858762)

That Americans can finally unite on a common idea: We made the internet and it's ours forver.

Re:It's good to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858831)

Hahaha :)

Ok - Darpa invented the internet. If the EU/China care to do so - they can easily have an 'intranet' and disconnect 'we invented it - it is ours' internet.

All rights are gone - get ready to ease off!

If Yahoo can bend over and do what we want - so will the US of A.

First (-1, Offtopic)

hamilton76 (629072) | about 9 years ago | (#13858765)

First!

what drives this controversy? (4, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | about 9 years ago | (#13858768)

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?)

Re:what drives this controversy? (0, Redundant)

CDPatten (907182) | about 9 years ago | (#13858781)

well put.

Re:what drives this controversy? (1, Interesting)

hamilton76 (629072) | about 9 years ago | (#13858795)

Correct. The Internet is, fundamentally, an invention of the United States. Now, that doesn't mean that we should be arrogant about it, but what have, say, Cuba or Iran done to create or maintain it? Then why should they have any part in its control? Never mind the fact that they're repressive, closed, anti-deomcratic states....

Re:what drives this controversy? (2, Funny)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | about 9 years ago | (#13858828)

In Wales, we'll build our own, Cymru internet! Called HarlechNet. It'll be a finable offence to use enlish language nameservers - or to call them "nameservers", for that matter!

Define "control". (5, Informative)

khasim (1285) | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Define "control". (2, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 9 years ago | (#13858874)

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...? (1, Redundant)

H_Fisher (808597) | about 9 years ago | (#13858923)

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!

Re: .xxx TLD...? (1)

ericdano (113424) | about 9 years ago | (#13858965)

You forgot HillaryClinton.xxx, and MonicaLewinsky.xxx ;-)

Re:what drives this controversy? (-1, Flamebait)

KillShill (877105) | about 9 years ago | (#13858824)

it has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with not letting the most aggressive nation on earth have control over a critical resource.

DNS root servers are only the begining.

would America (and by america i mean the right wing and left wing traitors to the constitution) like it if say China controlled major aspects of the internet? how about North Korea?

hell, America doesn't even like that there is oil under the ground of other countries. venezeula is under a constant barrage of CIA coup d'etat agents for the past couple of years.

the problem is, the internet shouldn't be under the control of any one nation or organization, ideally. it's a communication infrastructure that's too important to the future of humanity to be screwed with.

and that blurb in the summary about 2 republicans and 1 democrat.. real fancy maneouver... as if this or any other important issue is a "partisan" issue. the right and left (and middle) is a complete fabrication. whoever brings it up first, gets the prize of being recognized for what they are.

Re:what drives this controversy? (0, Troll)

CK2004PA (827615) | about 9 years ago | (#13858858)

Except China or North Korea didn't invent the Internet, did they dumbass.

What if someone in the EU invented it, and the US was DEMANDING to take it over? What would old Europe say to that?

Thought so, idiot. Yeah...yeah..Iran said do this...so we must swear alligiance to France and do what they say!!!

WAKE UP EURO-TRASH

Re:what drives this controversy? (1, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 9 years ago | (#13858878)

"It has nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with not letting the most aggressive nation on earth have control over a critical resource."
Yea right the US is the most aggressive nation on Earth. The fact that you can make that statement with a straight face is funny.
The US has a long history of setting up democratic free nation after they defeat them. I guess the US did a great job at keeping Germany, Italy, and Japan as slave nations. What bastards.
Get a grip. I think most of the fear that other countries claim to have of the US in really a fear of themselves. They look and see how much power the US has and know how they would abuse it in the US's place. Yep the very statement that the US is the most aggressive county on earth says it all.
It really doesn't matter. The US isn't going to give it up the EU will do nothing to stop the commerce on the Internet and life will go on.

Re:what drives this controversy? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858948)

so the US didn't abuse it's powers in places like Chile, Guatemala, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Indonesia, etc?

Get a grip, millions of people have died from these actions.

Re:what drives this controversy? (0)

ericdano (113424) | about 9 years ago | (#13858979)

Well put. The US should NOT give it to the EU. The internet has been working a long time the way it is (with the US in charge), why change horses mid-stream?

Re:what drives this controversy? (3, Insightful)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | about 9 years ago | (#13858879)

it's a communication infrastructure that's too important to the future of humanity to be screwed with.

Ummm, which side are you arguing? It's been stable for like 50 years now, and you want to toss it into a 'rule by committee' environment?

Re:what drives this controversy? (1)

aitikin (909209) | about 9 years ago | (#13858981)

So a single power that just happens to have been "stable" for 50 years means leaving that single power in charge is a good idea. Amazing how America has turned around. We used to think having a single power a thousand miles away controlling things was a very bad thing, now we seem to want to keep power in a single body that is easily a thousand miles away from some people who need it. The "democracy" America has (which is actually a democratic republic) is, in some respects, a "rule by committee" enviroment. So we shouldn't treat the DNS servers with the same respect we treat ourselves?

Re:what drives this controversy? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858906)

If you think the US is the most aggressive nation on Earth for standing up to tyrants and generally working toward freeing people around the world, then us Americans would take that as a compliment and a badge of honor.

The US is the most benevovent superpower in history. The fact is that we did invented it, and nobody else did. Going into hypotheticals is pointless because China was dirt-poor when the Internet was invented, and North Korea is starving now. There's a reason so much invention and ingenuity happens in the US.

It's sad to see the jealousy on slashdot. It's almost like you wish the Internet or anything else hadn't been invented by Americans, just so you couldn't see our satisfaction over it.

Re:what drives this controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858913)

But it's ours. The US developed the technology and let people in other countries use it. Now they want to take it. Sorry, but that is called ''theft.'' They want control of the internet, they should make their own.

Re:what drives this controversy? (3, Informative)

Shihar (153932) | about 9 years ago | (#13858961)

would America (and by america i mean the right wing and left wing traitors to the constitution) like it if say China controlled major aspects of the internet? how about North Korea?

No, and that is kind of the point. No, the US does not want two nations famous for their censorship of the Internet to have any more control then they already do.

Oh... what is this fine gem from the UN? http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/docume nts/APCITY/UNPAN016881.pdf [un.org]
Is this China asking for more control over the Internet?

And lookie here.
http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.doc [wgig.org]
The original report on Internet governance. Hrm, who signed this merry little report... China, Cuba, Egypt, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to name a few. Now, I now the US is the great Satan and all, but do you really want those nations to dictate internet governance? Me personally? I'll pass and take my chances with the nation that has seemed to have done a marvelous job keeping their hands completely off of ICANN.

Re:what drives this controversy? (2, Insightful)

Homology (639438) | about 9 years ago | (#13858825)

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 about the present US direction. Potential enemies are scared, so they have no choice but to develop WMD to pretect themselves. Very, very bad for all of us!!!!

HAhahahahahaha (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858854)

Oh my gosh... where to begin. Yes, Iran and North Korea suddenly decided to develop WMD's because of the Bush administration... years before it began. They must have good psychics over there.

Re:HAhahahahahaha (1)

Homology (639438) | about 9 years ago | (#13858886)

Oh my gosh... where to begin. Yes, Iran and North Korea suddenly decided to develop WMD's because of the Bush administration... years before it began. They must have good psychics over there.

Yeah, sure, Iran has as much WMD as Iraq had. But hey, you only watch Fox "news", right?

Re:HAhahahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858958)

Yeah, Iran needs a nuclear power plant because they're not sitting on a ton of oil as a cheap energy source.

Re:what drives this controversy? (1)

CK2004PA (827615) | about 9 years ago | (#13858883)

OK Mr "I love France" Euro-Trash .

What if FRANCE invented the Internet (I know, I'll give you a minute to catch your breathe from laughing at this imaginary scenario...ok) ? And the US DEMANDED to TAKE CONTROL of it?

What would you say ?

Thought so you ignorant moron. Go swear alligiance to your socialist Euro trash leaders. Stop thinking for yourself. Iran said do this so you jump and say "OK..please Mr Iran don't hurt us...pretty please?!?"

My God you make me sick.

Re:what drives this controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858833)

The controversy is driven by certain elements that want to censor the Internet. That's all.

Re:what drives this controversy? (2, Insightful)

Bobzibub (20561) | about 9 years ago | (#13858889)

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 world. The US is going it's own route in so many ways that this dispute will be par for the course.

Cheers,
-b

Re:what drives this controversy? (5, Insightful)

Decameron81 (628548) | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:what drives this controversy? (2, Insightful)

frank378 (736832) | about 9 years ago | (#13858985)

This is pretty much the same thing I wanted to reply to the FP. Only thing I think is missing is for us to notice that what the Internet is today is far different than what it was in its infancy. It's become a valuable, viable conduit for communicating ideas, socializing and social commentary, and even a new channel for business, and more.

In my opinion, if it is going to be used by everyone, and affect everyone to varying degrees, we should probably think about letting everyone have some input. Also I think the UN might not be the best group to give more control .

Re:what drives this controversy? (4, Insightful)

jadavis (473492) | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:what drives this controversy? (1)

whathappenedtomonday (581634) | about 9 years ago | (#13858941)

How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work?

Interesting point of view that actually qualifies as flamebait; suggestion: you keep the DARPA network and the rest of the Internet will disconnect, ok? No more controversy. That was easy.

Seriously, if you really don't understand what the controversy is about, maybe you should rather read than post. [/reflame] ;)

Re:what drives this controversy? (-1, Troll)

ericdano (113424) | about 9 years ago | (#13858947)

Totally agree. Keep things as they are, with the US not the EU running the nameservers.

Re:what drives this controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858960)

I disagree with just about everything you say.

The Internet is an extremely important piece of infrastructure for almost any given country. When you speak of "control of the Internet", try substituting the words "media", "telecommunications", or "foreign policy" for "Internet". That will give you an idea of how countries view this issue with regards to their sovereignty.

At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, politicians will make choices that advance their country's interests. That is why it is a good idea to have the Internet controlled by the U.N. If the U.S. didn't control the Internet then they would most certainly be advocating a more equitable balance.

Of course the U.S. could take its shiny toy home and not play with anyone. The world will keep spinning. I'll leave it to you to look back at recent history to see how isolationist policies affect the economies of countries.

Disclaimer: I post this without knowing exactly what "control of the Internet" means!

Wth congress' backing... (1, Insightful)

CDPatten (907182) | about 9 years ago | (#13858771)

Bush won't backdown. I predeict the US is going to win this battle, but I wonder what they will give up in another area to let the EU save face?

I suspect we will wind up giving them money, but in what area? Maybe we will back off the Airbus stuff at the WTO? Anyone have any thoughts?

Time to begin (5, Insightful)

technoextreme (885694) | about 9 years ago | (#13858773)

Obligatory slashdot argument about which countries have the best freedoms.

Re:Time to begin (-1, Troll)

Krach42 (227798) | about 9 years ago | (#13858918)

Obligatory bigoted and arrogant American opinion stating that the US is "teh best", and indeed "r0x0rs" despite anyone else's opinions outside of the US.

Re:Time to begin (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 years ago | (#13858920)

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.

As you wonder how we got to this place... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858775)

Besides the obviousness of a world network needing a world body to proide oversight, remember that the Bush administration is known for giving ultimatums rather than practicing diplomacy. So, if anyone is upset by these turn of events, look inwards. His election was a choice. Many (over 50% as of this writing) believe it wasn't a very good one. But you can't go back and rewrite history (well, unless you have paid reporters planted in the media).

History (0, Troll)

panxerox (575545) | about 9 years ago | (#13858776)

Considering the history of US tech lawmaking I'm kinda suprised they dident screw this up too and give it away thinking that "oh boy this will make everbody like us again whoo hoo!". Get over it the rest of the world has -never- liked us unless we were giving them foreign aid.

Re:History (1)

firegate (134408) | about 9 years ago | (#13858847)

Wrong.. even when they give us foreign aid, they still don't like us.. but that's no reason for us to be a bunch of pussies and give away control of something that we built..

Re:History (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858915)

Yeah, I am sure your fucking fat arse had alot to do with the building of it.

Why dont you just go ram some more mcdonalds down your fat fucking fat USian face.

Fucking worthless USian shit.

great (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#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 (1)

DanteLysin (829006) | about 9 years ago | (#13858822)

A decentralized DNS root. Fear!

It's easier to trust 1 authority than to trust hundreds or thousands of authorities.

Re:great (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | about 9 years ago | (#13858872)

It's easier to trust 1 authority than to trust hundreds or thousands of authorities.

I take it that you don't trust your local governments to assign things like street addresses, street names, landmark names, etc. It would throw the world into total confusion if there wasn't one central authority responsible for naming all of those things - you might end up with different cities reusing the same street names and stuff, and nobody would EVER be able to figure out where they were going.

Re:great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858894)

You are absolutely correct that we don't trust local governments with providing exact addresses. That's why the feds introduced the ZIP Code system.

Re:great (5, Interesting)

Tinik (601154) | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:great (1)

Lifewish (724999) | about 9 years ago | (#13858973)

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's the alternative? Non-hierarchical systems are intrinsically disorganised, which in many cases is a strength, but it really doesn't help if you're trying to locate something specific. I have the same trouble with my room.

Political? (2, Interesting)

wlan0 (871397) | about 9 years ago | (#13858783)

You know something's wrong when they have to bring Congress into this.

Re:Political? (2, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | about 9 years ago | (#13858832)

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 authority. Since we're going to hear it anyway, we might as well take the opportunity to solidify our position on the matter, and make sure that at least most of the pieces of the 'net that we care about continue to function. Without some UN sub-committee, chaired this week by the technical experts from The Sudan, deciding that Allah doesn't the ".com" TLD should be used by women, etc.

In a shock move... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858785)

The US backs the US.

-RadioElectric

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858786)

haha!

Re:first post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858813)

Fool.

why the double standard toward globalization? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:why the double standard toward globalization? (2, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | about 9 years ago | (#13858857)

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 not interested in who has the bigger cock, and I am even less interested in the UN's attempting to tax and censor the Internet. ICANN has done a fine job running things as they are and has had a strictly hands off policy. Things should remain as they are until ICANN does something wrong.

Re:why the double standard toward globalization? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858978)

ICANN has done something wrong: It has censored the top level domains. There should be a .xxx domain by now.

Finally, legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858792)

It's about time they legalize occupations, digital or land ones.

U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of $WHATEVER (3, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 9 years ago | (#13858794)

Film at 11! Is there really any news here?

Re:U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of $WHATEVE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858829)

How would you know that "U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of $WHATEVER" if when it happens it NEVER makes the news?

Re:U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of $WHATEVE (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 9 years ago | (#13858925)

Is there really any news here?

Nothing to see here, move along please, or Officer Bar-Brady will have to execute you with a gunshot to the head.

Next the news will be 'congress approves US bombing brown people', well *duh*.

;)

Re:U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of $WHATEVE (1)

merdaccia (695940) | about 9 years ago | (#13858967)


perl: warning: capitalization of name main::$WHATEVER implies constant value

I want to see what China thinks about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858797)

The US domination of almost anything can't last forever. Chinas is growing to be the next "empire" and in this information-driven era, I think they would like to at least share the control of the Internet :)

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this (3, Interesting)

michaelzhao (801080) | about 9 years ago | (#13858820)

Don't be ridiculous. China will have absolutely no control of the Internet. As for China being the "next" empire. That is dubious, according to the CIA 15 year report, it will be the EU that will become the next superpower, economically, and militarily.

This is why this is issue is so significant. The US does not want to the EU to have anymore power than it does now. This classic showdown highlights US foreign policy. The US will win because of simple facts. The sheer amount of Tier 1 ISP's as US companies, Akamai is a US company, the ICANN is still in the US. And many major websites are US owned.

The EU can poison all the DNS servers they want. It will hurt them more than the US because the simple fact is that more Europeans do business with US companies than American's doing business with European companies.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858898)

the simple fact is that more Europeans do business with US companies than American's doing business with European companies.

So American companies have more to lose than European companies in any trade conflict? Somehow that doesn't seem comforting.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this (3, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 9 years ago | (#13858926)

The EU can poison all the DNS servers they want. It will hurt them more than the US because the simple fact is that more Europeans do business with US companies than American's doing business with European companies.

Poison is a pretty emotive word, and I'm not convinced it applies here. Unless you see everything in black-and-white with yourself as the fearless defender of God's own American values against the heathen Socialist cheese-eating Europeans.

My guess is that in the short term the US will win this one, simply because it isn't currently worth the hassle to set up an alternative DNS system.

However, I expect that behind the scenes- or away from the present "controversy"- if the US maintains its current position, then other countries will make moves to create their own root DNS server system anyway. This will almost certainly mirror the existing root servers, and be used in conjunction with them.

Only if US control grows too great will they fully switch over to use of "their" root servers and stop mirroring. In short, people will be migrated to the "new" systems with no noticable effect on their use of the Internet, whilst allowing government X (rightly or wrongly) to control the servers better.

Personally, I think that this story is way overdone. There was nothing to stop this happening before, and if places like China felt like doing it for reasons of repression, they'd have done it anyway. That's not to mention the vagueness of the reporting; the BBC basically said "The Interweb is going to split/break", and didn't go into more detail.

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858949)

Ah the same CIA that said there were WMD in Iraq?

Now tell me, is the casefor the EU being the next superpower a "slam dunk"?

Re:I want to see what China thinks about this (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 9 years ago | (#13858983)

Why poison DNS servers? We'll just use our own [orsn.org] . I can very much imagine the DNS network being replaced by multiple regional, separate DNSes. This won't be good for the Internet, but it's not like there's anything to keep it from happening.

Stop This "Control The Internet" Nonsens (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Lawmakers? (2, Interesting)

shine-shine (529700) | about 9 years ago | (#13858809)

Shouldn't that read "U.S. Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet" ?

Re:Lawmakers? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 9 years ago | (#13858943)

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*

Global Control of the NETWORK!! (3, Insightful)

Jormundgard (260749) | about 9 years ago | (#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? (1)

Daath (225404) | about 9 years ago | (#13858815)

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.

Why UN control is a BAD idea (3, Insightful)

Rob_Ogilvie (872621) | about 9 years ago | (#13858818)

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!

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858901)

And Europe invented HTTP. If you have a problem with that, feel free to cease all use of it.

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | about 9 years ago | (#13858930)

And who uses the Internet the most? It's the US, is it not?

Do you have any supporting stats? (I don't have any to contradict you; I'm genuinely curious as to whether there's any support for your claim).

Re:Why UN control is a BAD idea (2, Funny)

LordEd (840443) | about 9 years ago | (#13858956)

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 arrest and undergoing prosecution in the hands of the present administration as a result of human right violation and looting of the country's treasury by the late head of state General Sani Abacha.

Before the death of my client he had deposited the deed to the world wide Internet in a secret safe deposit box, and I am the only authority to this property which he was to transfer out of the country few days after he died in a plane crash.

In order to sell the deed, I must transfer it along with other valuable property to another country. As a sign of good faith, I will transfer a suitably large amount of money to an account of your choice in order for you to make security arrangements.

With this information I will immediately commence all necessary documentation for a successful shipment of the trunk box and money to your country of choice as all the modalities have already been worked out by me. I will also give you full details of this whole transaction which I have already perfected in due course.

Please note that you are to treat this with utmost confidentiality willing or not willing to assist me in this transaction as nobody knows about this deed and I am still an active lawyer in this country.

Remain blessed in the name of GOD.
Yours faithfully Barrister Richard Okoya

I don't get it (4, Insightful)

BortQ (468164) | about 9 years ago | (#13858819)

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 (3, Insightful)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | about 9 years ago | (#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 (4, Informative)

NewbieV (568310) | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity (2, Insightful)

Nova Express (100383) | about 9 years ago | (#13858838)

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?

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity (0, Troll)

adamwright (536224) | about 9 years ago | (#13858916)

How will we ever do without the US's vaunted, impeccable integrity running the Internet? You know, the vaunted US integrity displayed by their invasion of a sovereign country under false pretences [cnn.com] ? Or the great work they've done in helping combating racial poverty [go.com] in their communities? Or the work [sfgate.com] of their high ranking politicians? Or their work [womensenews.org] in preventing the spread of fatal disease in Africa?

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

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858987)

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

Probably because the US already controls it and has been since when we invented it?

Go sit down and shut the fuck up now, boy. You just got fucking schooled.

Re:Doing Without the UN's Vaunted Integrity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858933)

This is such a straw man argument. Why does it have to be the UN in control?

Original Creator (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858851)

I think we should give full control to Al Gore since he is the person who invented the Internet.

*ducks*

It's spelled LEGISLATOR (1)

55555 Manbabies! (861806) | about 9 years ago | (#13858863)

Thanks.

IT'S A LITTLE FUCKING LATE FOR THAT! (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 9 years ago | (#13858869)

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.

What a surprise! (2, Insightful)

whathappenedtomonday (581634) | about 9 years ago | (#13858884)

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.

Free spech... (1, Troll)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 9 years ago | (#13858891)

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 can't realize that the second argument is a non sequitur.

Also, I loved that phrase:
"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"

Let's forget that the U.S. viewed today as exaclty a country with problematic human-rights records and questionable taxation practices! Let's blame the rest of the World for those thigs.

Black hole calling the kettle black (4, Insightful)

palfrey (198640) | about 9 years ago | (#13858900)

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.

Re:Black hole calling the kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858932)

Propaganda. Cite some neutral sources, and then we'll talk.

It's about policing thought (3, Insightful)

wheelbarrow (811145) | about 9 years ago | (#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.

Information wants to be free.. (1)

klang (27062) | about 9 years ago | (#13858914)

..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 insists on control of The Internet, the more likely it is, that they will loose.

Who's got the Nuke? (-1, Flamebait)

dfn5 (524972) | about 9 years ago | (#13858922)

Yeah, that's right, we do. I think we'll be keeping the Internet thank you very much.

The genie is out of the bottle... (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | about 9 years ago | (#13858929)

...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 business overseas.

It is a negative-sum game, the opposite of synergy; it will hurt the world a bit and it will hurt the U. S. more than it hurts the rest of the world. But if the U. S. prefers a chaotic Internet to a harmonious Internet it is certainly capable of achieving that result.

WWTBLD? (2, Insightful)

Slashdiddly (917720) | about 9 years ago | (#13858938)

No really - what would Tim Berners Lee do?

The USA aint our boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13858939)

China is your biggest lender, Saudia Arabia is your biggest supplier of Oil, Europe is your biggest trading partner.

Since when did we suddenly become enermies and since when did you get the right to tell us how we should run our part of the Internet?

Let the sanctions commence... (3, Insightful)

oliverthered (187439) | about 9 years ago | (#13858980)

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.

Wheee. And life goes on. (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | about 9 years ago | (#13858989)

Anyone else think all this useless diplomatic handwrestling about the "control" of the internet is quite utterly useless (if someone starts to censor things or whatever, I'm the first in line to start my own linux boxen to take care of all my home network DNS needs)?

Wish the opensource community developed a distributed system so we could all give the finger to the man trying to bring our internets down. :P
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?