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!

US Keeps Control of the Internet

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the well-thank-good-thats-all-settled-once-and-for-all dept.

The Internet 1057

Adam Schumacher writes "As a result of a a deal reached late Tuesday, the US and ICANN will maintain control over the Internet's core systems. A new body will be created to provide international oversight, which will, of course, have no binding authority."

cancel ×

1057 comments

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

FUCK THAT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042783)

Damned US imperialists!

Re:FUCK THAT! (0, Flamebait)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042899)

Yankees desserve yet another dozen of 911. [eucd.info]
These filthy obese fucktards have no repesct for privacy and yet happen to manipulate unser laws in order to milk us even more.
Fuck the ghey Uncle Sam until its eyes bleed!

Le cochon dans le maïs [paroles.net]

        Imprimer la chanson Le cochon dans le maïs de Les Fascagats à partir d'une fenêtre en mode texte et sans publicité :-) Envoyer le texte Le cochon dans le maïs de Les Fascagats à un ami

Demain, je porte plainte contre l'Amérique
J'ai bouffé du maïs et du chou transgénique
Je n'bande plus ça reste mou comme une chique
José Bové a dit que c'était allergique
Il paraît qu'on est plusieurs dans le le même cas-ca
On ira plus manger au Ricain car c'est caca

Le seul remède c'est une assiette de foie gras
Un verre de rouge, du Roquefort et pas de soda
Demain, je porte plainte contre l'Amérique
L'Amérique
Nous ce qu'on veut c'est du bon et du biologique
Attends tu vas voir, on va leur faire la nique
Faire la nique
Si les Ricains nous embrouillent con:

On leur mettra le cochon
Le cochon dans le maïs
Et on mettra les glaçons
Les glaçons dans le pastis
{x4}

Demain, je porte plainte contre L'Amérique
J'ai bouffé du poireau transformé génétique
Et depuis ma carotte n'est plus énergique
Pourtant ma femme tu verrais comme elle l'astique
Il paraît qu'on est plusieurs dans le même cas-ca

On ira plus manger au Ricain car c'est caca
Le seul remède c'est une assiette de foie gras
Un verre de rouge, du Roquefort et pas de soda
Demain, je porte plainte contre l'Amérique
L'Amérique
Nous ce qu'on veut c'est du bon et du biologique
Attends, tu vas voir, on va leur faire la nique
Faire la nique
Si les Ricains nous embrouillent con:

On leur mettra le cochon
Le cochon dans le maïs
Et on mettra les glaçons
Les glaçons dans le pastis
{ad libitum}

Re:FUCK THAT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042980)

An insightful first post. How odd.

First cunt post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042786)

This is the first post with the word "cunt" in it.

boo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042788)

1p

I'm sure the US will listen to everyone else... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042789)

Just look at Iraq

Re:I'm sure the US will listen to everyone else... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042885)

The rest of the world just let the US keep it until they can get their shit together, once they have hardware in place, it will become a moot issue and the internet will be a total clusterfuck. Yay!

Re:I'm sure the US will listen to everyone else... (1)

tysonkam (570676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042970)

...Just look at the UN...

What did you expect? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042793)

Likely it will fall to their corrupt friends at UN WIPO.

THBBBPPPPPP!!!! </raspberry> (4, Funny)

thatshortkid (808634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042794)

I, for one, welcome our concern-addressing, no-binding-power-having overlords.

HA HA!!</nelson>

burn, baby, burn... karma inferno!

The Minutes Of The Meeting (5, Funny)

ellem (147712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042796)

World: We want to control the internet.
USA: No.
World: Come on!
USA: No.
World: Will you at least think about it?
USA: No.
World: If you don't we will be forced to make our own DNS systems.
USA: OK.
World: But that will break the internet.
USA: OK
World: But that would be bad.
USA: Then leave it alone.
World: OK. But we're making a committee.
USA: That's cute.

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042857)

World: Pictures and video of preteen pussy should be legal
USA: No
World: But they're hot
USA: Sicko
World: Jerkwad
USA: Preteen vagina
World: Now you're getting it
USA: *slobber* I love Natalie Portman....... when she was 9!

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (3, Funny)

The Hobo (783784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042868)

Detective: Now don't you fret. When I'm through, he won't set foot in this town again. I can be very, very persuasive.
(Cutaway to detective in a bar with Sideshow Bob)
Detective: Come on, leave town.
Sideshow Bob: No.
Detective: I'll be your friend.
Bob: No.
Detective: Aw, you're mean!


And for those Sideshow Bob fans, I managed to get this shot at just the right frame..

CLICK ME!!111one1 [imageshack.us]

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (2, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042890)

I don't know how to feel about the US keeping control. It's not that I care about the countries involved, but I'm afraid if the control were moved out of the US, where freedom of speech is much more voraciously protected than other countries (like Europe countries), that the PC police will go around and simply stop pointing at domains that some factions making up the international group does not approve of. Probably in the guise of protecting the people or some such.

It may sound paranoid, but the stories of how the unelected EU parliament tries to lord over every mundane aspect of life and of how they tried to widen their scope ever more really gives me second, third, and fourth thoughts about this issue.

I know that how the U.N. might be a more apt analogy in this case, but that just even more shivers down my spine.

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042923)

"the unelected EU parliament"

Of all the EU institutions you picked the only ELECTED one to call it unelected. It's the COMISSION that is unelected.
Not that it makes it much better but you still gotta be accurate.

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (3, Informative)

mdecarle (756338) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042977)

The commission gets elected by the parliament. See also: the problems Barroso had when he proposed that italian guy in his commission. The European institutions are no different than any other democratic government. The only problem is that is parliament opposes one memeber of the commission, it has to oppose the whole of it.

Do the US vote who gets to be Secretary of State? Defence? DHS ? Didn't think so.

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042925)

vociferously protected

Just... you know... for next time.

The EU parliament is directly elected... (2, Informative)

blorg (726186) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042935)

...perhaps you meant the commission? [wikipedia.org]

Get our of your hole (5, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042990)

... and stop being so biased.

If you really think that Europe is for some reason "less free" than the US, than I would suggest you take a look at the http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15333 [worldpress.org] "> Worldwide Press Freedom Index, which lists it in a solid 44th place on the index of freedom of the press, which is mainly what you are talking about when you discuss speech on the Internet, since it is a form of press.

The US has really dipped a lot in this lately (20 places in the past year).

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (1, Troll)

SillyWilly (692755) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043009)

An example of American freedom of speech - making it illegal to join the communist party...

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (1, Insightful)

nathanh (1214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042931)

World: We want equal partnership in the Internet

USA: No, it's all ours

World: Ok, we want the US to follow UN directives and not invade countries at a whim

USA: No, can't tell me what to do, I'll invade whatever country I want

World: Ok, we want the US to honour free trade agreements, just like you expect us to

USA: No, I'll break free trade agreements whenever it suits me

World: Ok, we want the US to stop polluting our part of the world

USA: No, I don't give a crap about you, I'll shit on your lawn and piss on your door

World: You know, you really are a jerk

USA: Shutup or I'll beat you up

World: ...

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042974)

You know, France/Russia/Germany had plenty of opportunity to do something about invasions on the security council, which is where it belongs. Trying to fight out the issue in telcomm committees is weak at best.

Bottom line is that the world really doesn't have any complaints about US' Internet administration, and instead attempted to resort to pathetic war FUD.

Re:The Minutes Of The Meeting (0)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043004)

Where did you pull all this from?

The only thing that happened was that ICANN (which the *US* actually, y'know, *paid* for for a hell of a long time) retained its authority. ICANN's done a pretty decent job (especially in standing up to seriously stupid -- if influential -- shit like that flowing from Verisign regarding .com wildcards and that flowing from Christian right groups insisting that the whole world conform to US morality standards with a .xxx TLD). ICANN's exceeded *my* expectations right there. Why possibly break something? If they do a bad job, *then* ask to fund an international organization based on the fact that they're sucking.

no BINDing authority? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042799)

hahahaha
I get it! A *PUN*
DNS--->BIND--->"Authority"

It's too bad I just use a hosts file
(a really really BIG hosts file)

Re:no BINDing authority? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042910)

You must be having crawling downloads then...

Still good (3, Insightful)

koreaman (835838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042802)

The United States built the thing, and it's not asking for control of all the stuff Europe built.

Re:Still good (0, Troll)

l0wland (463243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042838)

The US tries to control the world, where Europe only asks to be part of a worldwide computer-infrastructure.

Re:Still good (1)

CdBee (742846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042849)

Actually, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [wikipedia.org] , the US has a strong interest in Europe and obligations to involve itself in wars on European soil in certain circumstances. Thankfully since the fall of the Eastern Bloc, those circumstances have become much more likely.

"the thing" (1, Flamebait)

samjam (256347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042916)

Indeed. Was that "built the thing" as in "work for hire" or "we had the idea first"?

Both are irrelevant, it's always "who has IT now" that counts, and lets just look at how much control ICANN actually has.... hmmm It has absolutely no respect anywhere and slight residual power that is likely to evaporate as quickly as it is used for anything significant in opposition to the rest of the world.

When you say "United States Built the thing" do you mean the same way as in "United States killed Iraqi civilians using white phosphor" and "United States contracts out tortue of suspects to other countries" or in the same way as "United States gave lots of help to Tsunami victims"

Just for the record, much of the internet was built and is owned outside of the USA. Don't forget what "inter" means, it strongly implies co-operation. And thats not co-operation in the sense that "man is co-operating with the police but has not been charged".

Sam

Re:Still good (2, Insightful)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042938)

The United States built the thing, and it's not asking for control of all the stuff Europe built.

Neither are we. If that were the way the world worked we'd be begging the middle east every time we wanted to make a calculator.

Re:Still good (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042984)

"The United States built the thing, and it's not asking for control of all the stuff Europe built."

Actually wgen the Galileo project began, the US did just that - and unlike the Internet, Europe (and others) are actually PAYING for the whole thing themselves and they still wanted control.

Fastest game... (-1, Offtopic)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042804)

...of Rochambeau ever!

Re:Fastest game... (1)

gnuLNX (410742) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043006)

Off topic...but funny as hell.

Predictable, really (0, Flamebait)

CdBee (742846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042808)

Unilateralism "We will not under any circumstances..." seems to have won again.

What's less obvious, is why?
If the US believes it has national security interests in maintaining control of the Internet, that can only act to undermine the confidence of the rest of the world in the wisdom of using it as a public network.

If there aren't security reasons, has international negotiation come down to a contest as to who is the most macho.. along the now-common split between the US and the UN ?

and who better than the US... (3, Insightful)

quetzalc0atl (722663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042810)

...to serve the internet? China?

What other nation of the world could guarantee the free speech implicit to the internet, as sites like slashdot are testament to?

Re:and who better than the US... (1)

TheoGB (786170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042827)

Hey hey: Britain. Right here, baby!

Or something. ;-)

Re:and who better than the US... (1, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042867)

The UK, maybe. Or perhaps France. Canada might be worth looking at. Japan? Who knows. Germany, Switzerland? Who can say?

Re:and who better than the US... (1)

fifedrum (611338) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042901)

we can say, and we just did. no one is more capable or deserving of the task of maintaining the core of the internet than the US.

France? You were kidding, right?

Re:and who better than the US... (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042959)

yes france, as a brit, i hate the french, but i love their consumer protection (DRM CD != CD) , i would guess that would extend to freedom of speach.

Although the UK would be a good place too - our bloody government backs down to the US at any opportunity - the us would keep control, but not 100% control.

Re:and who better than the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042907)

UK: Echelon
France: Shutting down blogger sites
Canada: "America did what? maybe we should do that?"
Germany: "Do you question our authority?" (re: not being allowed to voice certain opinions on nazis, misguided or not...
Japan: These people are nuts [wikipedia.org] but they have damn fine network connections
Switzerland: Not a bad option actually. Privacy is good at least.

This is all a joke, well, except maybe the last bit... but will probably get modded "-5 wtf?"

Re:and who better than the US... (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042934)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but don't pretty much all of those countries have laws against hate speech? Not that I'm a big fan of the hate speech, but I'm a bit of a fan of the ol' Voltaire (possibly mis-)quote. And the US's policies on speeching, which is pretty much all the internet is good for, seem to be about as liberal as there currently is.

Re:and who better than the US... (1, Insightful)

CdBee (742846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042880)

This will get me modded down, but the US isn't as free-speech as it would like to make out. "Free Speech Zones" (which are actually the opposite), anyone?.

Re:and who better than the US... (4, Interesting)

wolf- (54587) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042888)

France? Germany? Not likely.
Can't even discuss Nazi history there.
Can't trade Nazi memorabilia.

Suggestion of Great Britian, possibly. They tend to have their heads screwed on straight. Canada, our 51st state? What would be the difference?

Re:and who better than the US... (0, Troll)

caseydk (203763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042895)

Well, the Chinese bloggers, Iranian dissidents, Christians hiding in Saudi Arabia, and just about anyone else who would suffer a crack-down have another day to live.

Re:and who better than the US... (1)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042952)

Well, the Chinese bloggers, Iranian dissidents, Christians hiding in Saudi Arabia, and just about anyone else who would suffer a crack-down have another day to live.

You actually feel as though the US maintaining control of the DNS root has any bearing on the above? Wow. Way to give yourself a "god" complex.

Anyways, didn't the US take down a pro-islamic website just this week? Dissent is good, as long as it's not against us? :-)

Re:and who better than the US... (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042995)

Duh. I don't see how the free speech factors in. As far as I know, Europe asked for a 'neutral', as in not-tied-nor-funded-by-one-government, agency to manage the DNS, not to control it (that would be plain stupid).

And the national laws would still overule any laws of the countries the international agency would be.

Saying the Slashdot is a testament to USA's free speech mentality is true; but /. could exist in just about any other democratic country, including any European country. I can say that my president is a dumb fuck and not be censored in any way - and I don't live in the US. Basically the main difference beetween US/European 'free speech' is that in most European countries you cannot publicly call for hate against a religion, a group of people, or be a negationist (ie: say that the Holocaust didn't happen).

Free speech on slashdot (-1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042998)

What other nation of the world could guarantee the free speech implicit to the internet, as sites like slashdot are testament to?

I agree with you about US internet governance. But the slashdot moderation process creates effective censorship, so I wouldn't hold it up as a shining example of free speech. Your posting is a good example. It is labelled as a troll. I think it is a serious statement. But those who disagree with it can hide it though moderation, rather than take the time to refute it.

Re:and who better than the US... (1)

Wite_Noiz (887188) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043007)

Well, it would be nice to see a non-commercially and non-politically incensed organisation looking after the rather important lists.

I may not want the USA government to be in charge of the root DNSs, but it could have gone horribly wrong if an agreement wasn't reached.
If I couldn't have got to Penny Arcade or PvP... No! I can't think like that!

We paid for it.... (0, Flamebait)

Lioner (19663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042812)

We paid for it so this is correct.

Tim

Re:We paid for it.... (1, Insightful)

orzetto (545509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042881)

We paid for it so this is correct.

Ok, so please make 398 Norwegian crowns payable to my account by the end of every the month for the next five years. Thanks.

Re:We paid for it.... (2, Informative)

samjam (256347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042943)

What is this "it" that _you_ paid for?

Lets face it, most of the internet that exists was paid for by private companies with their own money, replenished by re-selling use of "it".

I've owned and run my own ISP which puts me a legup over you and I'm not so vain as to say that any of "it" belongs to me apart from the bit of "it" that is inside my house. It is an INTER-net.

Sam

No binding authority.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042815)

AHH.. so the UN should be happy then!!

they can waste tons of money on useless and ineffective programs, treaties and resolutions, and atleast know that they "feel" better doing it, even if it doesn't do anything anyway.

Congrats for the UN..

US still does all the work.. and they get to sit around like the useless body they are.

Re:No binding authority.. (1)

pl1ght (836951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042961)

Give this guy some mod points. So true. But alas, until a country is in danger or has a catastrophic event, we are damned to hear them blasting our country for eternity. Funny how that works!

Waiting for american media (3, Insightful)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042820)

I'm just waiting for all the stories in the American media with headlines such as: "We saved the internet", "Internet kept out of hands of cheese eating surrender monkeys!", etc etc

Seriously, this whole debate was decided by the pressure from big American IT firms and also the furore in the American press about this whole issue. Anyone less well informed than the average geek would think the rest of the world was planning to take the internet, rape it, tie some bricks to its legs and row it over the bridge with the way the press has dealt with this topic.

Another five years till this comes up again.. i'm hoping for a more democratic contest next time.

Re:Waiting for american media (1)

l0wland (463243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042854)

"Internet kept out of hands of cheese eating surrender monkeys!"

So they left out the Mid-West as well? ;-)

Re:Waiting for american media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042928)

ok. make your own then. We don't care. really.

Honestly, we let you play in our playground and then you want to keep it?

I3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042822)

Hello.

I have connected my computer to my friend's computer with a coaxial cable. Does anyone want to connect to it, we can perhaps create another internet of our own? My friend has ha dc++ hub on it so we can share files and linux distros. My friend even wanted to call it Internet3, hehe.

Doesn't this remind you of AT&T? (4, Insightful)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042823)

Doesn't this remind you of AT&T, but on a larger scale?

The US owns the hardware, has all the control, and is expected not to abuse the power. And there's no one that's more powerful that can tell them what to do.

Re:Doesn't this remind you of AT&T? (3, Funny)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042877)

And there's no one that's more powerful that can tell them what to do.

I'll forgive you because you haven't met me...

Re:Doesn't this remind you of AT&T? (3, Insightful)

SlashAmpersand (918025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042898)

No. The U.S. doesn't own anywhere near all the hardware. The U.S. doesn't control everything. But, yes, the U.S. is expected to not abuse it's power. Tell me, who do you trust the most to have the most control. How about China? How about Nigeria? Wait, let's trust the UK. We'll all end up with Internet ID cards and webcams to monitor us so they can throw us into detention for Homer knows how long until they crack our drives (which hopefully don't rely on MD5 in any way).

Re:Doesn't this remind you of AT&T? (1)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042940)

The real answer is that we need an internet constitution, with members from all governments that use the internet, and the citizens of each country choose the representitive.

But that's too utopian to be feasable.

oh dear! (0, Flamebait)

loakers (925219) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042824)

Dissapointing, but lets face it - Team America were never gonna budge.

this is good news (5, Insightful)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042825)

So far, the US has been the only player who wants to maintain the free and open nature of the internet, with little-to-no censoring. The internet works because anyone can put anything they want up for the world to see.

Some of that content will be wrong, inflamatory, misguided, illegal, and/or offensive, but having that open forum means that a lot of good will show up, too.

Re:this is good news (3, Interesting)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042944)

That is why the big US corps are in the queue to serve China with it's censoring... Not that I disagree with you that we are better of in the current situation on the internet.

Re:this is good news (0, Troll)

fifedrum (611338) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042947)

Yes, but it won't please the "anybody but the US" crowd of whining nitpickers who will only ruin the internet. Imagine if the UN gained control?

God, that would be a train wreck. Like the oil for food program, the corrupt UN government would sell favors to irreputable people, siphon money, and generally bring the whole process to a stand still.

Damn, imagine, say something negative about China's leadership? Get your website, hosted in Idaho, taken offline. Say something about Tibet, or a Free Taiwan? Probably get jail time.

Of course, you would be free to show video and photos of heads being hacked off, slowly, while the screaming victim moans their last. So long as it's a US ally getting their head chopped off.

Re:this is good news (-1, Troll)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042991)

So far, the US has been the only player who wants to maintain the free and open nature of the internet, with little-to-no censoring.

Care to back up that assertion with some facts? Seriously. I don't see the US fighting for "free speach" anywhere, it's all information management and lies until the lies get proven beyond all doubt and they have to come clean. Do I need to provide examples of this??

And it's US companies that are destroying the free and open nature of the internet, in case you didn't notice. Perhaps you might want to practice what you preach; remember the great firewall of china was built by you. Where is this "little-to-no censoring" you speak of? Your ideals do not match your actions.

Your argument that the US should control it for the greater good doesn't hold water anymore.

Thank GOD! (0, Troll)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042833)

I am rather happy the US gets to keep control over the internet. The last thing we would need is for some other European Country or Asian Country taking control and screwing things up. Even if they DO threaten to create their own DNS System etc etc etc, they won't. They would alienate themselves and be like:

"Look we have our own Internet system, what you gonna do now, US?!"

"We simply won't update to allow you access to the REAL Internet, mawahahaha!"

What Would Gore Do? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042836)

I'm curious, with Gore having been the father of the Internet, and with Gore wanting to spread US power among UN nations, what would he have done were he President?

I've become quite a cynic in my old age (25), and I really don't see why there's any problem at all. If the entire DNS standard were to fall off the face of the Interweb, we'd just see another service pop up. The Internet doesn't rely on it at all, and DNS is probably not going to last much longer, anyway.

I say if you don't like DNS, just make your own overlay, base it on IPv6, and have the upper hand...and quit whining. Demanding control of DNS is like demanding that Instant Messenger services give up their networks.....

-Benjamin Vander Jagt

USA! USA! USA! (-1, Offtopic)

abegetchell (921666) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042839)

There's nothing here.

Actually, corporations maintain control (5, Insightful)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042840)

Gallagher said the compromise's ultimate decision is that leadership of the Internet, and its future direction, will remain in the hands of the private sector, although some critics contend that the U.S. government, which oversees ICANN, if only nominally, could still flex its muscle in future decisions.
So in a sense, the US and the rest of the world have continued to allow the existing private corporations to keep control of the Internet.

Re:Actually, corporations maintain control (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042954)

So in a sense, the US and the rest of the world have continued to allow the existing private corporations to keep control of the Internet

In what sense? Your comment is fine, other than in the sense of "not factually correct." ICANN may be many things, but it's not a corporation in the Here At Slashdot, All Corporations Are Evil sense.

Conspiracy? (2, Funny)

ArTiCwInD (846978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042844)

Oh dear, conspiracy theories are gonna go for the illuminati stories again.

This makes sense...for now (1)

Horus1664 (692411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042853)

This seems to make sense for now that the US-based organisations remain in 'control' of key elements of internet naming/configuration. But it seems inevitable that one day (probably sooner than some people, and govenrments think) the net will have significant new power blocks among the developing nations/economies.

China, India and the EU will not always be willing to allow the US to control fundamental elements of the network. Also it seems sensible not to have gone further down the UN route, particularly at the moment, with the UN having difficulties demonstrating its organisational efficiency in other areas.

However we should start to consider how net governance (whatever form that should take) will develop in the future, before the future arrives. Just as China, India et al are in a hurry to explode economically they will also be in a hurry to move forward technologically too and if the US or others appear to be moving too slowly they may well 'go it alone' and develop competing networks.

Re:This makes sense...for now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042896)

What's with all the rubbish that in order to modernise we need to become more socialist? Rediculous.. Wake up to reality people. Somehow government involvement will increase innovation?

Re:This makes sense...for now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042978)

I like your train of thought and I wish the world were headed in that direction. But, reality tends to rear it's ugly head - you're (sadly for the world) under estimating how corrupt the UN has _always_ been. It's just a lot harder for them to hide it - BECAUSE of the internet! That's right, so many more people around the world HEAR about what really goes on now. Do you think for ONE SECOND that any of the petty dictators (or large scale dictators) at the UN would not LOVE to get involved with a committe that decides how the internet moves information? Are you out of your mind?

Let's be serious - let's say we let the UN get involved. Are you going to make the charter for this 'Internet Group' say 'you can't censor'? In this day and age, a bunch of do-gooders will say 'every little country deserves an equal vote'. No, no they don't. Most of them are 'dictator of the month' clubs.

I'm still amazed by the whole 'poor countries need equal access to the internet' thing.
No they need food and someone to kick their leaders in the nutz.

NYAH NYAH!!!! (4, Funny)

skyshock21 (764958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042858)

Rest of world: "Is there someone else up there we could talk to?"

USA: "No, now go away before I taunt you a second time. I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries." PPFTTT!!!! PPFFFFFTTTTT!!!!

They did it again. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042859)

Do we have to vote a radical party into office to avoid being duped by the USA over and over again? I mean, who could blame us? We would only be following the example that the USA gives us, right? Do what our governments don't have the balls for: Use the European Root Server Network. [orsn.org]

"Latin languages" (4, Interesting)

orzetto (545509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042870)

The accord reached late Tuesday also called for [...] the issue of making domain names -- currently done in the Latin languages -- into other languages, such as Chinese, Urdu and Arabic.

I suppose they mean Latin alphabet, yet Urdu and Arabic are both written in the Arabic alphabet (possibly with a few Persian-style letters more?). Anyway, I look forward to my first spam with a Chinese address. I can already see the scams: PCs without Chinese fonts that trick users into clicking on a blank link...

Nice going, US... (-1, Flamebait)

Hakubi_Washu (594267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042876)

Ahead of the summit, rights watchdogs say, both Tunisian and foreign reporters have been harassed and beaten. Reporters Without Borders says its secretary-general, Robert Menard, has been banned from attending.

Bend over, beeyotch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042884)

US: "That's the way it's going to be. Bend over, beeyotch!"

World: "Oh, thank you for reaming me one more time!!"

US: "No problem. When we're finished here, go get me a sandwich."

Yeah but... (2, Informative)

GrendelT (252901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042889)

This is great and all, but who's to say the argument won't spring up in another 3 to 4 years. The only reason ICANN actually has authority is because they say who has control of the root servers. If an international body setup their own root servers and decided they would all use them, then only the US would have control of the current roots. Then, if you wanted your website to look the same to the rest of the world as it does to the US, you would have to deal with both governing bodies (US and world). It could be a headache, and the only thing keeping the ICANN in control is that the majority of the world currently lets them be in control. It can be snatched away relatively easily.

Re:Yeah but... (1)

pl1ght (836951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042905)

Thats all well and good in theory, but id gather the US wouldnt be the ones ending up suffering from that. I can safely say i could care less what ppl in other countries see for my website if at all, or that any sites i go to are abroad. ( there are ones but in general very few). It wouldnt cause much more than a shrug from your everyday user. Plus you should realize that Japan/korea/taiwan/australia would all still be behind the US in this(which they have stated b4 this agreement was reached). Main problem is, all of the EU still doesnt have enough influence to scare us into anything.

Re:Yeah but... (5, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042945)

This is great and all, but who's to say the argument won't spring up in another 3 to 4 years.

The newly formed oversight committee is to say.

Thus far, the US has had a pretty much hands-off approach to running the internet. That's been great, guys. However, the internet is getting larger and larger and more and more important to the economies and to the security of all nations. The potential power that comes from running the internet is getting greater. The day may come when the US government starts to abuse its position here - for instance, how about imposing export tariffs on domain names, or on IP space?

Hence the oversight committee. If, five years down the line, the US has been naughty, then it's time to seriously think about splitting the internet. But if they've continued to behave as they generally have in the past, then all is well. The committee won't have power as such over the running of the internet, but if it isn't kept happy then the next round of negotiations might not go so smoothly.

That was a long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042893)

Good, now that a choice has been made I can go pee. You know...because I have been waiting on the edge of my seat for this one.

*sarcasm* I never saw this coming. *sarcasm*

Always good when there's a no-yelling solution. (5, Interesting)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042903)

Now if the rest of the world is smart, they'll get to work on setting up plan B servers to bring out on a moment's notice and distributing the info to their big ISPs in case the US suddenly goes nuts. Which has the added bonus of giving the US incentive not to go nuts, and we can all feel better about it.

I'd love a secondary DNS system (4, Interesting)

typical (886006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042975)

That's a really good solution.

While I think that the US has done a pretty good job so far of staying hands-off, and I don't think that many countries would do as good a job, it's not impossible that in the future they'll start to abuse their position and do things like .xxx. (Or something else that tries to inject one country's culture into DNS, which is absolutely unacceptable -- banning any domain names containing "nazi" would be another one that I suspect a few countries might try.)

Second, it's great leverage against Verisign.

Remember the .com wildcard problem? Where *all* .com addresses always resolved...just much of the time, to a Verisign-run machine with a webserver with ads? If there is a second DNS infrastructure that can be transferred to in an instant, that would put pressure on Verisign not to abuse the DNS system.

Finally, IIRC, we use the ISO country codes for CCTLDs. That's probably the thing that most countries want to have input on, since it allows them to legitimize claims to country status in the public's eyes. As long as ISO codes are used, the DNS world isn't making any huge political statements -- it shoves the political burden off to ISO (who probably doesn't want that, but it produces separation of red tape and techies, which is a good thing).

Re:Always good when there's a no-yelling solution. (2, Insightful)

TuballoyThunder (534063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042994)

You mean something like this [orsn.org] .

This was more an exercise of some countries wanting to exercise content control rather than just technical control. Many people point to the .xxx domain as an example of US interference. I would like to point out that it was a good idea that the .xxx domain got nixed since the very idea promotes censorship. If governments can partition content that it finds objectionable into subdomains, that action aids censorship.

Typical UN... (2, Insightful)

kenblakely (768899) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042909)

I love how the world's diplomats "agreed late Tuesday to leave the United States in charge of the Internet's addressing system...." As if they had a choice. That's the UN for ya....

New group modeled after the UN (1)

ejbvanc (558014) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042920)

"... no binding authority."

Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14042921)

I thought the EU had developed some plan to take it away from us. How typical. All talk, no action.

How much control? (2, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042922)

How much power does ICANN really have, though? Right now everybody listens to them, but I see no reason why people couldn't just set up their own organizations that performed the same functions, and use these instead. Of course, if they all moved in different directions, there would be big chaos, but as long as they all agreed with ICANN, the Internet would continue to work, right? And then, if ICANN ever took decisions that many disagreed with, people could just rely on these alternatives and bypass ICANN, right?

I know that such a movement already exists in the DNS world (see, for example, OpenNIC [unrated.net] ).

So, while I resent that one organization - worse, a corporation - has so much power over the Internet, I don't think it's as big a problem as it could be.

Common sense is still here? (2, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042926)

For a moment I even thought - yeah, politicians are such @$#$%%^ that they can screw up absolutely everything.

But somehow we finished good - until next time.

I think in this situation we have lession, brothers - we (and I don't care about the OS, about software, about what care you drive or what your beliefs on global warming are) should spread the world that INTERNET should not be controled by NO politics. Repeat after, me - NO poltics. It is media - as paper, TV, radio. It is necessary for people. It is no more just sex.com or check out lyrics for that Britney song. It is for job, for communication with other dear ones. It is essental for many to survive (yeah, I am not afraid to say that).
So let's send big message - each one of us - to our "dear" politics - please DON'T F#$% WITH IT. Seriously.

Thanks for your attention.

Al Gore (1)

Odd John (806803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042941)

Is this what Al Gore had in mind when he said ''There is no controlling legal authority''!

Re:Al Gore (2, Insightful)

SlashAmpersand (918025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042982)

Actually, we should ask him, as the inventor of the internet, what he thinks of the whole thing.

The headline should read.... (5, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042950)

The headline should read:
Private Sector will probably retain control of the Internet.

From the TFA:

the compromise's ultimate decision is that leadership of the Internet, and its future direction, will remain in the hands of the private sector, although some critics contend that the U.S. government, which oversees ICANN, if only nominally, could still flex its muscle in future decisions.


And it hasn't even been ratified....this is just a preliminary decision.

Have a read of this the register article [theregister.co.uk] about the Pakistani Ambassador who made this possible.

I wasn't aware of another country.... (1)

evanism (600676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042960)

Hi,

Isn't the whole earth the USA? I was under the impression that every word, deed, and utterance was subject to USA law..... and this somehow changes things?

Your-most subserviant, humble, kowtowing, dry-handwashing, lick spittle

Evanism

A monopoly is a monopoly (5, Insightful)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14042965)

The Slashdot crowd really intrigues me. On one hand we're adamantly against operating monopolistic tendencies in one regard (Microsoft with Windows and other software ventures), yet we cheer when another one is formed (US having control over the internet).

If there's a difference in philosphy here then can someone please point it out to me? I can't be the only one befuddled by the difference of opinion between the two issues around here.

Here's an idea (3, Insightful)

arevos (659374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14043001)

As the majority of people here know, this debate was not about who controls the Internet, but which countries have authority over the body that controls the central DNS servers.

Frankly, I couldn't care one bit where ICANN is based, just so long as politicians bloody stay away from it! If you don't understand it, then it might not be a good idea screw about with it, especially when all of the experts are telling you not to. How hard is this concept to grasp?

To its credit, the US has been quite good about not fucking things up... so far. However, I rather fear that the political fuss over the xxx domain may be the tip of a rather ugly iceburg.

Why would the US give up control? That's dumb! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14043008)

I think the US should put the top level domain servers under international control the day after all the Middle East countries put their oil under international control. It's the same sort of idea, since the whole world has a vested interest in oil just like it does the Internet. Why shouldn't EVERYONE have a say in how it's used?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>