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 Control of Internet Remains an Issue

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the holding-all-the-cards dept.

The Internet 303

Hugh Pickens writes "A UN-sponsored Internet conference ended with little progress on the issue of US control over the domain name system run by ICANN, a California-based nonprofit over which the US. government retains veto power. By controlling the core systems, the United States indirectly influences the way much of the world uses the Internet. As the conference drew to a close, the Russian representative, Konstantin Novoderejhkin, called on the United Nations secretary-general to create a working group to develop ''practical steps'' for moving Internet governance ''under the control of the international community.'' The United States insists that the existing arrangements ensure the Internet's stability and there's little indication that the US government and ICANN plan to cede their roles over domain names anytime soon. ''I think (there are) a small number of countries that are very agitated and almost don't care what the facts are,'' said Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, who stepped down as ICANN's chairman earlier this month. ''It's a very small vocal group bothered by this issue. ICANN has existed for eight years and done a great job with its plans for internationalization.'' With no concrete recommendations for action, the only certainty going forward is that any resentment about the American influence will only grow as more users from the developing world come online, changing the face of the global network. The next forum will held next year in New Delhi, India."

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

Not really an issue (5, Insightful)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377257)

Many are quick to point out the question "Why does the United States deserve to control the internet?"

This quickly spins into a ridiculous flame war consisting of something along the lines of "We invented it" - (A claim contested by swedish apoligists), or some kind of line about how Libya is in charge of the UN council on human rights, whatever that has to do with it.

These points, and many other historical arguements, are irrelevant. The only issue here is that the United States currently has control, and is being presented with no good (or even clear) reason why it should give that control up.

Re:Not really an issue (2, Interesting)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377291)

The only issue here is that the United States currently has control, and is being presented with no good (or even clear) reason why it should give that control up.

Maybe one can find a majority that does not like it ( http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [internetworldstats.com] ).

CC.

Re:Not really an issue (2, Insightful)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377319)

a Majority that is fully capable of forming their own infrastructure, and telling the United States to Sod off.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377497)

a Majority that is fully capable of forming their own infrastructure, and telling the United States to Sod off.

Go for it. No one is stopping you.

Woosh! (2, Funny)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378099)

I love it when people reply snarkily to my snarky replies.

Hint: I'm American.

Re:Woosh! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21378129)

But you're using terminology that is more identifiable with certain European countries than USA, so the mistake is easily made (perhaps by intent on your part).

Re:Not really an issue (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377423)

Maybe one can find a majority that does not like it ( http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [internetworldstats.com] ).
So?

I mean, not to be callous, but just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

I believe that a big reason a lot of people don't want the US in control is because that's the status quo, and people find reasons to dislike the status quo, deservedly or not. Another reason is the general ill will that exists towards the US government worldwide. Yes, there are concerns about network neutrality, and there are concerns about the US abusing its position.

However, when the time comes that the US implements policy that damages the internet in a meaningful way, then we'll see alternatives used. It's how the internet works.

For now, the status quo is fine. Why do we waste so much energy trying to fix something that works?

Re:Not really an issue (3, Insightful)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377515)

You must not get out much. America bashing is always one of the more popular sports in much of the world. We know how China would run it, the Saudis just gave some woman 200 lashes for being raped (I know you are going to say it is more complicated than that) so I can imagine their idea on the free flow of ideas. But still the Yanks are the worst you know.

Re:Not really an issue (-1, Flamebait)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377565)

From the GP post:

Another reason is the general ill will that exists towards the US government worldwide.
Sorry, I was trying to be rational -- maybe rational discussion is too much to be hoped for on Slashdot, but your China & Saudi examples are red herrings and not really relevant to whether the US can administer the internet well.

Re:Not really an issue (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377697)

Your niggerdom truly knows no bounds.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377945)

Your niggerdom truly knows no bounds.
Hey, good to see that it's still much easier to be a racist prick when you're hiding behind the equivalent of a white sheet, AC. Why not post that under your username?

Re:Not really an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377785)

Cave man, finaly one of them was found... Seriously, taking extreme side as examples is poor policy. Look at the EU public opinion regarding US. But this got to where we are now mainly because of the present administration. But know better then that. We know that for that administration to be elected once, ok, though luck choosing in who to vote.... twice? bunch of morons. And wasn't elected by one person, but by the majority of US citizens. So yeah, add that to the fact that Americans tend to be self infatuated and self righteous. I remember a friends cousin arriving at his place for hollidays and saying "oh wow... you have microwave ovens in here already?", or a teen I met in a train ride from Bruxels to Amsterdam that couldn't keep his mouth shut, was always paraphrasing pulps fiction scene when Travolta speaks about his experience in Amsterdam, or making fun or Europes cars compared to SUV's - even thou most cars here have better millage/fuel ratio, with less gas emitions, are confortable dispite not being a freaking bus compared to most commonly used American cars. Also there's all the short term problem and selective memory that most Americans seem to have: they reacted to Zidane aggression like it never happened in the US (even thou sports figures have even been murdered outside the playing field; or that none ever hit anyone in hockey). I've nothing against american people, just against the way some (if not most) of you act and react to some things. Have the same problem with an European or Japonese if I see them having the same reaction, the problem is that in your case is more a socio-cultural thing and not individual.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377851)

What has any of that got to do with the internet?

Re:Not really an issue (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377961)

It's about feelings, you insensitive clod!
Given a perceived difference between two groups, A and B, where A is nominally superior, B can either:
  • Set about coming up with a superior solution, as in, say cel phone technologies,
  • Go on and on, in the fashion of the baby with the full diaper.
One hopes that IPv6 mill eventually somewhat mitigate the latter squaking.
Fa{ir|re} is what you pay to ride a bus.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377883)

> the Saudis just gave some woman 200 lashes for being raped (I know you are going to say it is more complicated than that)

Sure - she'd have got 300 lashes but she apologized.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377541)

A a majority of everyone not in the US thinks the US should cede control? thats a reason? If ew were to propose that everyone in the world give 90% their income to the people of China and India there would likely be a majority of the world population in favor of it, fortunately we dont live in a world where a simple majority can deprive an entity of controlling their own property.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377605)

fortunately we dont live in a world where a simple majority can deprive an entity of controlling their own property.

We would if the people that think the General Assembly should be the Governing body for the World had their way.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378105)

I think the main argument about giving up control is an old saying we have here in the US:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

If the other countries really care, they can build their own DNS infrastructure *today*, they don't need our root DNS servers for that. Their issue is that the big bad USA currently has control - so they want the UN to control it (effectively saying "we don't want you to control it, but we don't want to be responsible for setting up the new system ourselves").

Re:Not really an issue (5, Insightful)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377339)

What exactly is the US "controlling" anyway? They decide who is responsible for the content going into the root DNS servers and who assigns IP addresses, but that's about it. Nobody really HAS to use our DNS root structure, but everyone that has tried to setup an alternative one has failed miserably. Logically someone *should* be responsible for at least allocating IP addresses so they are globally unique or else you're going to have a ton of problems... but who is anyone really complaining about the way the ARIN/APNIC/RIPE arrangement is working? It seems to be handing out IP address space pretty efficiently.

Re:Not really an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377427)

Exactly. Nobody really *needs* to use DNS at all.

If you want more information about DNS and why you don't need it, just 64.233.187.99 it.

Re:Not really an issue (0)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377551)

Well, technically nobody DOES need DNS. How often do we really type in URLs anymore anyway? Most of the time I'm just clicking on a hyperlink from a search engine, bookmark, e-mail message, or some other web site I'm viewing and couldn't care less what the hostname of the site is.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377865)

And when you click on a link in a search engine, it contains a hostname. When you send an email, your address book contains a mapping from people to username / hostname pairs, and the hostname forms a to-many mapping to MX records identifying hosts. Or do you think every time a company adds a backup mail exchange they should somehow contact everyone who has their email address in their address book and let them know? Just because you don't enter the hostname manually doesn't mean it's not important to how you access the information.

Exactly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377357)

Agreed.

Re:Not really an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377371)

It's a question of principle really. If there's an organization like UN (that means United Nations for those who don't know /sarcasm off) that could be a more neutral regulator, why leave it to one single nation? Not that it matters, since even if it was UN who had the ICANN actual responsabilities, it would still be in the US since that's where the headquarters are. But then again, taking into account how little US takes UN into account (well, not US, but the present administration) this doesn't surprise me a single bit. And it's not like it matters that much, even if US ever embargos the world and "closes" their side of the internet, there's no damage then can't be mitigated and no problem that can't be solved (except for US itself, so it's a two edged sword actually, except in case of retaliation the more blunt side is not facing the US). So, with that said, let them keep the control, and let the rest keep fighting for their principles and not only oil like some.

Re:Not really an issue (4, Insightful)

hanssprudel (323035) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377533)

To qute Ayn Rand about the UN:

"I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia, the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history, as one of its members. The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons, I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships."

Change out "Soviet Russia" for "PRC" (and to a growing extent Putin's Russia) and this still holds today.

I'm not American, don't get to vote for American laws, and I dislike, nay detest, many, many, policies of the American government. But I would rather have important elements of the Internet under the control of a single democracy than under an organisation that gives equal voice to completely undemocratic regimes of terror.

Re:Not really an issue (-1, Troll)

Ariastis (797888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377643)

Your calling the Bush administration a Democracy? heh

Re:Not really an issue (4, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377711)

Whether you want to or not, in an increasingly interconnected world, you have to deal with regimes that do things you disagree with. I, for example, have to deal with a regime that tollerates the death penalty for juveniles, and, please, that's not meant to be flame bait, I'm just pointing out that there are different views.

Ok, so there are two basic ways in which you can deal with these regimes, talk to them or bomb them back to the dark ages. The PRC may not be a paragon of virtue but they're a great deal better than they were. Why? Because they value the trade they get. And if you want the situation to improve to talk to them, and you keep talking to them.

Re:Not really an issue (4, Funny)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378035)

So the fact the US is a non-democratic nation that creates undemocratic regimes of terror doesn't figure into your thinking?

Re:Not really an issue (4, Insightful)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377633)

It's a question of principle really. If there's an organization like UN (that means United Nations for those who don't know /sarcasm off) that could be a more neutral regulator, why leave it to one single nation?

1) I dont consider the UN 'neutral' consisting of a body of every nation does not mean they do not have a strong agenda

2) irregardless of their 'neutrality' the US built the internet put in all the investment and should benefit by control

3) There has yet to be a compelling reason presented other than 'Its not fair'. Nobody has been significantly damaged by US control.

But then again, taking into account how little US takes UN into account (well, not US, but the present administration) this doesn't surprise me a single bit.

Dont just peg it on Bush, many Americans (Anywhere between 20-40 percent) see the UN for what it is, a body a bureaucrats originally chartered, in spirit, with preventing war through a place of negotiation who have decided to ever justify their existance by meddling in every aspect of member (and non member) nations policy.

So, with that said, let them keep the control, and let the rest keep fighting for their principles and not only oil like some.

LOL I love this, how noble to have gotten rich raping the world and the worlds resources (Europe) and act so condescending to the US less than a 90 years after it all started to fall apart.

Re:Not really an issue (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377389)

or some kind of line about how Libya is in charge of the UN council on human rights, whatever that has to do with it

It has to do with the respectability of that institution in the eyes of a lot of people. To a lot of people the UN hasn't done anything morally just since the intervention in the Korean War. Many of us are leery of ceding control over anything to an organization that comes off as quite hypocritical in many areas (the human rights council being one of them).

Now I'm not looking for a flame-fest over the pros and cons of the UN. Just trying to explain the viewpoints of a lot of people. Personally, I also think this is a manufactured crisis, because I have yet to see anything that ICANN or the United States has done to the internet that harmed the interests of the rest of the world. And please don't throw '.xxx' out there as your example, as there are many legitimate reasons not to setup yet another TLD and I'd hardly think that a disagreement over porn of all things should be something to get nation-states upset about.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

passthecrackpipe (598773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377679)

there are many legitimate reasons not to setup yet another TLD
Are there? Please enlighten me. I understand that the present system of TLD's was designed to be freely added to whenever required, without much fuss. However, allowing this to happen would make the domain name business a rather less valuable proposition, so this concept was quickly killed off. what I can see from where I am standing is that everything is run by a decidedly closed shop, with only pretenses to openness, and the whole thing happily handed over to a multi-billion dollar business with interests to protect (and those interests are not likely to be ours).

I am no big fan of the whole UN idea, I shudder at the thought of DNS becoming even *more* bureaucratic, but the current arrangements don't fill me with much confidence either. The whole US thing doesn't really mean much to me - but ICANN come across as a bunch of bastards looking for justification to keep on breathing, and Verisign are even worse.

My view here is that the only thing that is manufactured is the requirement for a limit on the amount of TLD's. You mention porn and .xxx as the only reasons people should be upset, but that is both a red herring as well as a non sequitur. The issue goes deeper then .xxx

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377809)

what I can see from where I am standing is that everything is run by a decidedly closed shop, with only pretenses to openness, and the whole thing happily handed over to a multi-billion dollar business with interests to protect

Agreed. ICANN sucks donkey balls. But how does that relate to the United States? The argument isn't "ICANN sucks", the argument is "We can't trust the United States". How the hell do you expect Americans to respond to that?

Are there? Please enlighten me. I understand that the present system of TLD's was designed to be freely added to whenever required, without much fuss

Let me qualify what I said. There are no reasons to add more English language TLDs. What the hell is the point of .info, .museum, .name, blah blah blah? Not that many people are using them. All they do is send more money to the pockets of ICANN and the domain registers because trademark holders feel like they have to register in every single TLD to protect themselves. We didn't need more TLDs to allow more businesses to flourish. eBay seemed to become pretty big without the benefit of 'auctions.com'.

Note that I qualified it with "English language TLDs". I have no problem with adding TLDs for other languages, as they have been under served by the existing arrangement.

ou mention porn and .xxx as the only reasons people should be upset, but that is both a red herring as well as a non sequitur. The issue goes deeper then .xxx

The issue that I see is that the US isn't very popular right now and somebody manufactured a crisis to that affect. You want to change the way ICANN operates? Where do I sign up? You want to bash the United States and say we can't trustworthy and the UN (*shudder*) should control it? Now we have a problem.....

Re:Not really an issue (1)

passthecrackpipe (598773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378133)

ICANN sucks donkey balls. But how does that relate to the United States?...the argument is "We can't trust the United States"
Well, I'm not really into this whole "US sucks/US is teh awesomeness" debate. It applies to this issues with regards to the fact that the US has veto powers over ICANN. This makes me uncomfortable, but in the same way that I would find it uncomfortable if any other single nation would have that kind of control over the web. It isn't really about the US sucking. But, to answer your question, that is how it relates to ICANN.

What the hell is the point of .info, .museum, .name, blah blah blah? Not that many people are using them
So? if not many people use them, that inversely means that some people use them. It obviously makes them happy, so what's the issue. as far as I care, people can go ahead and create any kind of TLD they like. The only reason it would send more money to the pockets of the financial stakeholders is because a) they have elected themselves to be financial stakeholders, and b) they manufactured a pretend shortage of names. If you are able to create any kind of TLD you like with some form of minimum support, the whole business model would fall out from under Verisign and ICANN't - APNIC, ARIN and RIPE were doing just fine without them.

Re:Not really an issue (3, Funny)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377397)

what do you mean irrelevant? Yes we invented it. We should be suing every other country for copyright infringement except that we sold them the technology to make a profit. So that means it's still our technology and we can do whatever we want with it. If other countries are so mad about that, why don't they make their own private DNS network?

Re:Not really an issue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377495)

Oh they will. With hookers and legal blackjack.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377499)

You know, the Japanese came up with ramen....

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377547)

I think the number one reason to keep US in "control" of the internet is domestic stability. This is why a lot of foreign countries keep there money here in the US. The fact that we are democratic takes a back seat to stable.

Face it, other than some stupid name resolution, what REAL control does the US have over the internet?

If it's infrastructure, then this can be fixed by the foreign countries laying more cable...

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377569)

Note to self: /s/There/Their.

Need more coffee...

Re:Not really an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377977)

You lost me when you tried to make a relation between pseudo-internet control (US has none, just the domain policies), and economics.

It was presented with good arguments (0, Flamebait)

hellfire (86129) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377603)

These points, and many other historical arguements, are irrelevant. The only issue here is that the United States currently has control, and is being presented with no good (or even clear) reason why it should give that control up

The discussion started, as most discussions do, quite sanely and quietly with a good reason. The main reason why it should give up control is because it has control, and the world doesn't trust someone as crazy as the US with that power. Countries depend on the internet more and more, and it is truly international. That said, something international like that should not be under the control of one country. As a people, we elected a nut like George W. Bush, we invaded two countries on a whim, our CIA is taking people from other countries, hiding them in little rooms all over the world and torturing them, all in the name of "fighting terrorism," and the rest of the world simply does not trust us. Whether or not you agree with the obvious slant of my statements, that's how the rest of the world looks at the US. I'm an American and easily see that.

Now while giving up control is, in terms of the world, the right thing to do, do you honestly think that the US is giving up control any time soon? We have the power, why give it up? Of course the discussion degenerated, because you could present all the logical arguments you can come up with, the US simply will not give up power like that. Who knows when they'll need another bargaining chip, or need to shut down a TLD before invading another country, or whatever else the government comes up with.

That's why this degenerates into a flame war, because there's no where for the discussion to go. The US has all the toys, and when they were asked to share, they put their fingers in their ears and stomped away. Now the rest of the world is stomping right behind them demanding "it's not faaaaaaiiirrrrr!!!!" Welcome to international politics.

Re:It was presented with good arguments (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377683)

, we invaded two countries on a whim

Uhh, two of them on a whim? I'm pretty sure we had good reasons [wikipedia.org] for going into Afghanistan. Do you think that China or Russia wouldn't have done the same thing if 3,000 of their citizens were killed? Did you forget that NATO invoked it's collective self-defence clause? Afghanistan was hardly invaded on a 'whim' and you lose creditability by saying so.

and the world doesn't trust someone as crazy as the US with that power

WHAT POWER??? Everybody keeps talking about this "power" that the US has over the internet. Control of the DNS root != control of the internet. And if the US attempted to do anything unsavory with the DNS root it wouldn't take that long for everybody else to setup their own DNS root within their own borders.

In fact, if you want to look at control over the internet, I'd look to the fact that so much of the Internet backbone is based in the United States. It was pointed out awhile ago that packets from Japan to Europe usually (always?) travel though the United States, mainly because nobody has bothered to make the effort to build long haul links across Asia. Maybe the rest of the world should be investing all of this effort into building those links and adding more redundancy to the internet instead of worrying about the "control" that the US has over the DNS root?

Re:It was presented with good arguments (1)

passthecrackpipe (598773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377781)

nobody has bothered to make the effort to build long haul links across Asia
Surely, by nobody you obviously mean FLAG [flagtelecom.com] Telecom [telegeography.com] ? Don't be a wiseass if you don't know it all.

Re:It was presented with good arguments (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377923)

Surely, by nobody you obviously mean FLAG Telecom?

I fail to see how your links to maps of submarine cables disproves my statement that nobody has bothered to build long haul links across Asia and in any case, I was basing it off the discussion the other day (in a diff story) where quite a few people posted traceroutes from Asia -> Europe that went through the United States for some reason.

Don't be a wiseass if you don't know it all.

If they do have those links, then why the fuck is all that traffic going though the United States? Do they need help setting up BGP or something? (there, now I'm being a wiseass ;)

In any case, my original point is still quite valid -- people worrying about the DNS root are missing the point. If I was you I'd be more concerned about the fact that so much of the World's internet and telecom traffic passes through the United States and I'd be taking steps to fix this problem. As an added bonus, any steps taken towards this end also have the benefit of adding redundancy to the networks in question and that's a win-win for everybody (American or otherwise).

Re:Not really an issue - but should be so made (1)

chawly (750383) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377731)

"Libya is in charge of the UN council on human rights,"

If this is really the case, I must admit that I'm far from shocked. This sort of thing is seen in really life all the time ! Each "hot" issue needs a leader. Just get somebody who knows nothing whatsoever about the issue and put him in charge. In real life this is often called a MANAGER. Don't know if this idea would work out well where the Internet is concerned though. In my view it would probably be better if this were managed by somebody just ever so slightly knowledgeable on the subject ..... but this is only my opinion, of course. And my right to have such an opinion might well turn out to be a "human rights question"... (wanders off wondering if he knows any Libyans - nothing like a word in the right place).

.com is just a convienence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377777)

If the rest of the world wants to control its "internets", all they need to do is set up their own DNS servers for their own countries and have people who want websites use those TLDs. Oh, and move to IPv6 for two reasons - breaking up IPv6 addresses regionally would be easy and, since the rest of the world doesn't like the US being in control of the 'tubes, it would force American ISPs and American interests to make a (somewhat expensive) move to IPv6.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377783)

You are correct in everything, except in saying that there is only one issue. There are two issues, firstly, the obvious point that you make, which is absolutely correct.

The second issue is that the rest of the world always has the nuclear option to split the DNS system and provide their own. Would the US allow (1) short term global chaos followed by (2) an Internet where they had absolutely not control or had to petition for a minority role? Simple answer, they can't afford to.

I'm not saying that such an outcome is a foregone conclusion - but what it does mean is that the possession being 9/10ths of the law argument is not enough, and that the US cannot just say 'We have and we're keeping it'. They must compromise.

Re:Not really an issue (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377873)

or some kind of line about how Libya is in charge of the UN council on human rights, whatever that has to do with it.

Not to degrade into that selfsame flame war, but here's the explanation on that: There is no way in hell the US should be willing to cede control of something as important as the internet to any organization that would put Libya in charge of human rights. It would be akin to walking over and handing the keys to your Porsche to some guy staggering out of a bar. You'd be an idiot.

Oh, and you forgot Syria on the security council.

Re:Not really an issue (5, Insightful)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378047)


Agreed. I love America, but I recognize our many flaws, and am quick to point them out, in order to facilitate the making of a better America. But, come on. For starters, this is one of the few international projects that we've gotten almost completely right! Secondly, as a sys-admin, I (and many others on slashdot) will be first to tell you: "If it ain't broke, and the new model doesn't add any needed functionality, don't fix it".

I'm pretty sure this is just bitching about America because it's cool to kick the guy when he's down. If you're going to bitch about America, take a look at our foreign policy, our unilateral support for Israel on the UN security council, our plummeting currency valuation, our mixed-bag relations with China, our disappearing middle-class and rapidly-growing-richer upper class, or the state of our healthcare and education services. Leave ICANN alone.

~Wx

Australia (1)

p3anut (1131451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377261)

It would certainly be nice for Australia to have some part of the infrastructure here. Everything on the net we use seems to come from the states :(

Re:Australia (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377309)

It would certainly be nice for Australia to have some part of the infrastructure here

Uhh, what do you think you are using to connect to the internet? Tin-cans with string run all the way back to the US and plugged into our infrastructure?

Define infrastructure? Because there's an internet backbone in Australia. There's also at least three [wikipedia.org] DNS root servers in Australia. What's the problem here?

Re:Australia (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377447)

It would certainly be nice for Australia to have some part of the infrastructure here
...

Define infrastructure? ... What's the problem here?


Infrastructure = WoW servers.

They're extremely unhappy that they don't have any Oceanic WoW servers and they just won't STFU about it.

Re:Australia (4, Informative)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377315)

It would certainly be nice for Australia to have some part of the infrastructure here.

But you do [apnic.net] , in fact.

Everything on the net we use seems to come from the states :(

Content is not infrastructure.

Re:Australia (1)

p3anut (1131451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377337)

Semantics :P Try 200 ping to anything outside of the country.

Re:Australia (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377523)

Try 200 ping to anything outside of the country.

Then bitch to your telecom companies and/or Government until they upgrade their links to the rest of the world. This has nothing to do with ICANN's control over the DNS root.

cowardly posting inc. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377267)

second post ?

ef(fing) pee, man (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377281)

could it bee?

no i dont think so (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377311)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

obligatory (2, Funny)

Xochi77 (629021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377317)

I, for one, welcome our Internet controlling Seppo Overlords...

Internet is USA property now (2, Funny)

Slashidiot (1179447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377327)

As a European, I do feel there is a need to do something with this issue. Not to be disrespectful, but I don't think that USA are the best people for the job. Just look at all the problems they have now (packet shaping, net neutrality, etc...). And as a spanish speaker, I feel that it has taken faaar too long to get the "ñ" in domain names. And we only have one funny letter!

Why don't we give the governance of internet stuff to somebody like Switzerland? They look like they could do a good job, they have the money and good reasons to do a good job on worldwide internationalization of internet.

A bit more seriously, I think that something that has grown as important as this, should be in the hands of the UN, as any strange move can have significant effects worldwide.

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

sigzero (914876) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377345)

Nothing, I repeat NOTHING should be in the hands of the UN.

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

Slashidiot (1179447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377393)

Ok, maybe not the UN, maybe this deserves the creation of a truly new intenational organization, that was not my point. And why that animosity against the UN? I mean, I know they are not perfect, but it's hard to be perfect when there is such a big group of interests. Believe me, I know it's hard, I work for a EU institution, and many times trying your best is not enough by far...

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377799)

They are worse than not perfect. They actively encourage and engage in real harm in almost every endeavor they undertake.

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377469)

As a European, I do feel there is a need to do something with this issue

Why, what's the problem with the current arrangement other then European mistrust of the United States?

Just look at all the problems they have now (packet shaping, net neutrality, etc...)

Disputes over packet shaping on the individual ISP level lead you to think that ICANN can't govern the root DNS servers effectively? Your kidding, right? And traffic shaping is hardly unique to the United States [azureuswiki.com] .

I feel that it has taken faaar too long to get the "ñ" in domain names

And you think the technical obstacles would have been overcome faster by adding more bureaucracy to the process?

Why don't we give the governance of internet stuff to somebody like Switzerland? They look like they could do a good job, they have the money and good reasons to do a good job on worldwide internationalization of internet.

Because Swiss neutrality is slowly being erased in favor of closer ties to the EU? And why the Swiss? Why not Iceland? Why not Mongolia? Why not New Zealand?

bit more seriously, I think that something that has grown as important as this, should be in the hands of the UN

Yes, because more will solve everything!

Re:Internet is USA property now (2, Interesting)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377501)

Is there a clear technical reason why "control over the internet" should be handed over to the "International Community" ?

It issues you cite: "packet shaping, net neutrality, etc..." are all end-user (ISP level) issues. They do not effect the backbones and international communications at all. Furthermore, there is still no legislation at all regarding these issues (though the packet shaping/tampering thing is currently being "worked on")

Putting things into the hands of the UN is a horrible idea, simply because the UN has basically failed to do anything noteworthy since it's formation - unless they screwed something up, anyway. Do you honestly think that putting control into the hands of the "international community" will magically resolve all the political issues?

Also, my understanding is that international domain names are largely a TECHNICAL problem, not so much a political one. Putting the UN in charge will very likely not solve it. If their track record is anything to go by, they will likely force the issue and mess everything up. Let's not get politicians involved any more than they already are, yes?

Right now, the bulk of the argument in favor of the shift is essentially anti-American sentiment. Every country is free to build their own national internet and connect it to the global network... then they will have total control over the part that effects their country.
=Smidge=

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

Slashidiot (1179447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377677)

Ok, ok, let me make myself a bit clearer. The big problem with this is that something as big as the government to the root DNS servers should not be on the hands of ANY country, as it is something that can have an effect on all economies worldwide. It's not a technical reason, it's an economic and strategic reason.

It's not that the EU does not trust the US as Shakrai says. Imagine it the other way round. Imagine that the French "ruled the web". I guess americans would not feel safe, knowing that if Mr. Sarkozi decides to tamper with it, they would have big economic losses. Therefore, this is a power that should be shared, I don't care if it's the UN or who, I just mean that it is wrong that a single country controls the thing.

About my citing of net neutrality, etc, that was just an example of the problems that the US has with technological-etical problems. Don't take it badly, but sometimes the US government is just not able to handle some things gracefully...

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378013)

Geographic location os root name servers worldwide [wikipedia.org]

The US does not "Rule the web" in the sense that it could actively prevent another country from doing whatever it wants. It just so happens that ICANN - the recognized authority that regulates certain aspects of the internet - can (but never has) be prevented from acting by the US government on a case-by-case basis.

The US President can veto an act of Congress. That is a far cry from saying he controls Congress.

Also, the solution to the problem is amazingly simple: Don't recognize ICANN as the authority! Make your own authority to govern the part of the internet you control, and/or literally make your own internet and connect it to the global network. In that situation, the only way ICANN can do anything is to cut access to it... which would be a trick, because that requires cutting access to you and every other country you're connected to. It's doubtful that will happen.

All this ignoring the fact that ICANN holds public assemblies all over the world proportedly for the purpose of getting everyone involved.

I guess the crux of my argument is "if it ain't broke don't fix it." When someone can actually demonstrate that the system is broken to the point where making the process MORE political would improve things, I'll gladly reconsider my opinion.
=Smidge=

Re:Internet is USA property now (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377545)

Getting the ñ in .es domain names has nothing to do with ICANN. Go talk to the people at .es (for reference, .de already has support for some IDN). BTW, according to their web site they are nearly ready to use it.

Re:Internet is USA property now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377553)

As an American, I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The Internet started here, we have control, if you don't like that feel free to start your own network and see if you can get others to connect.

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377669)

As a European, I do feel there is a need to do something with this issue. Not to be disrespectful, but I don't think that USA are the best people for the job.

Mindless drivel. Euros are just out of joint because they didn't invent the internet but use it like heroin addict. And your governments foster this rhetoric as to them this is far too open and standardized for their liking. They would rather see government controls, like France for example on encryption. None of why governments want shared control has anything to do with benefiting the internet at all. It is about controlling you and most countries are too inept at managing what they have. Your country has a top level .iso, use it.

The internet works because it is open, standardized and a packet is a packet in China, France or in the USA. The USA has done a good job, or you would not be using it. It is doubtful the UN would do better as if Internet development was left to the UN we might get it in the year 13756.

The UN should be more concerned about:

  • Dictators who buy yachts, guns, planes while their people starve.
  • Countries with out of control population growths living in self induced poverty
  • Getting a solution to Iraq/Afghanistan
  • International law and terrorists, making smaller countries comply
  • Making the UN more constructive and productive so we don't think they are an expensive ineffective joke

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

file terminator (985503) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377795)

And as a spanish speaker, I feel that it has taken faaar too long to get the "ñ" in domain names. And we only have one funny letter!

As another European speaking several languages that have multiple "funny letters" in them, let me say that I think that putting those funny letters in URLs are a stupid idea. Most people have keyboards that are capable of easily producing letters a-z and digits 0-9, or generally speaking, most of the US-ASCII character set. Fewer people have keyboards that easily will produce 'å', for instance. Do you really think Joe Sixpack in the States is going to enjoy figuring out how to type "www.åkea.com" in his browser when he wants to buy new furniture? Forget Joe Sixpack, how would you like to type in the name of some Asian company in their local language when you want some Asian export game that otherwise would not be available to you? (For the exercise, assume that you can't Google for the URL.)

And for what, really? So that we nerds can pat ourselves on the back? So that Motörhead's manager finally can give the band the Internet presence they deserve? So that people can stop feeling "oppressed" and now get to use their favorite oddball characters in URLs, rather than approximations that are easily produced? Do you really think that having 'ñ' and 'å' available as URL characters will enhance usability for the end user, rather than just giving cyber-squatters a larger set of domain names to hijack?

Personally, I see little use in increasing the character space allowed in URLs (but not in documents, obviously), and I don't see what putting 'ñ' into domain names really has to do with US control of the Internet anyway.

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

Slashidiot (1179447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377919)

Well, precisely I did feel the necessity of having a ñ in my domain. Actually, not in my domain, but my mom's.

She has a shop, you know? It's just a local shop, has nothing to do with nothing outside spain. Actually, my mother only speaks spanish, so she does not want to hear anything from people who cannot write in spanish.

Her shop (the local small shop) has an ñ in it's name. It was created before the net was there, so at the moment, the problem of getting her shop on the net didn't even cross her mind. Also, if you just change the ñ and put a n instead, the name sounds funny. It sounds like "lots of white hairs", literally. It's a fabric shop, the original name makes a lot of sense, but "lots of white hairs" is definately bad marketing.

So she had her shop's website with a totally different name, up until now, when people will finally find her shop. Only spanish people, of course, but that's what she wants.

Well, if you want strange moves, the UN is tops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377817)

How many millions of dollars did Kofi Annan's son get from Saddam Hussein's "Oil for Food" program?

Why is the IAEA only now admitting that they've known for at least two years that Iran had plans for nuclear warheads?

And if you want some really, really strange shit, just look into the behavior of UN "peacekeepers" around children. (And WTF is a "peacekeeper" anyway? An army of occupation? Because if the locals don't want to be "peaceful", the only way to "keep" them peaceful is by military occupation. If the locals want to be peaceful, "peacekeepers" are not needed....)

Re:Internet is USA property now (1)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377869)

And as a spanish speaker, I feel that it has taken faaar too long to get the "ñ" in domain names.
I disagree on that one. Written language (I speak german and french, so äöü and àèéêîôç are kinda common to me) may sometimes rely on "funny" letters, but using them in domain names is hugely impractical for everybody with the wrong keyboard layout (and it tends to make stuff harder to find). The internet is, by it's nature, an international idea and to preserve this international accessibility, it might just be a good idea to stick to the lowest common denominator.

Internationalization is harder than EUisation (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377921)

It's fairly easy to get the Domain Name System to work for the main European languages - just allow 8-bit characters in the names using ISO-Latin-1. But real internationalization is harder - you not only have to deal with UTF-8 or other character sets, you also need to deal with right-to-left languages, and you have to deal with domain names that could have mixed character sets used for name-squatting. Or you can take the Punycode approach, which is way too ugly for anybody to want to deploy it unless they're Verisign making money by selling the names.


There are political issues on this between Verisign and ICANN, and unfortunately ICANN does not seem highly motivated. But (last time I looked, which is a few years ago) Verisign really wanted to push Punycode solutions, and was trying to deploy internationalization using the same mechanisms they were using to hijack DNS requests for non-existent domains to point them to their advertising web pages (which were very annoying if you were using some protocol other than HTTP: TCP:80.)


And of course there's not only the US Trademark Mafia trying to push domain name policy, but the US don't-trade-with-our-enemies people, and the Chinese government-censorship mafia, and various other governments that want to use this as an excuse for control or censorship.

First come, first served (-1, Troll)

Edgyboy (1157885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377331)

This is an issue of start positions. The US was the first country that embraced internet on a global scale - next were European countries like UK, Germany and, of course, Japan.
And as the old saying goes: first boy on the village bicycle has the longest lap. Of course, if that boy also happens to be the dominant Superpower, other villagers should just forget about their turn and go play with rocks or something.

Re:First come, first served (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377575)

And you do know what happens to kids who try to bully others around don't you? They end up working at a 7/11 just to be able to pay their electricity bills, while having a second job to pay for their rented room, while the other boys end up as chairmans of a company. But wait... we already do play with others and little to you, and we already pay for many of your bills (ironic isn't it? Your international debt). Don't mind me, but pointing the obvious, US threathened closing GPS whenever they felt like, Galileu was born. You have to understand one thing about the rest of the world in comparison to US: US has what we call a "dick problem" (or in psicological terms: inferiority complex). They need to feel superior in order to feel equal to all the rest. And since we know better , we let them be, building their big houses, big cars, big everything, and using them to our advantage. Things like internet, international space station (in this case if it wasn't for the US saying "everyone else was retarded and that if you want things done you have to do it yourself" they wouldn't have ended with most of the costs on their side as it is now), the megalomaniac particle accelerator so you could be on par with CERN (that CERN was going to take advantage of, but since it wasn't built, CERN had to spend money to build the new one). Need I say more? I don't mind you being the dominant whatever as long as you behave.

Re:First come, first served (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21378069)

Galileu was bornz

Galileo is stillborn. Fixed it for you.

By the way, your line about bullies is merely wishful thinking. The majorities of bullies outgrow their nasty habits and become successful members of the society, while their victims keep on suffering because of a wounded ego.

The economy is the only thing I worry about. (5, Funny)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377373)

I'm going to start requiring my traffic to be sent in Euro packets. These American packets don't hold their value across long ping times.

International community? oh yea despots & tyr (2, Insightful)

Austrosearch (857263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377431)

I personally do not believe there is really going to be any improvement by handing the reigns over to "The International Community", because that community is not truly representing humanity, they only claim to. I personally have to be grateful that Mr. Bush has not given the Internet already to Newscorp. That said it appears that the gift The US Department of defense gave to humanity is currently held by the best of all possible stewards. I believe that the most vocal chorus against the US veto role over the DNS Root servers comes specifically from political communities (Regional Government Administrations) that have absolutely no cultural track record of respecting freedom of speech and thought. I'd say that we really do not have much of a choice, if they give the Net to the UN the net will no longer exist as it came into being, which is the voice of humanity's ability to communicate with it's self.

Re:International community? oh yea despots & t (1)

Slashidiot (1179447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377537)

Well, I would say that the most vocal chorus comes mainly from other big powers of the world (like Europe, like China...) that think that it's a bit unfair the US is fully controlling a part of their economy as important as the net. Nowadays, the net is a hugely important asset of most of the developed economies in the world. It is hard to believe that the US ahs the keys to it.

Something similar happens with GPS. Now, at least in europe, there are many important things that rely on GPS signal to work. The truth is that the US has the power to turn that off, without previous notice. Obviously, at some point, the EU decides that enough is enough, so we are building our own GPS equivalent, Galileo, pouring billions into it, just so we don't depend on Mr. Bush not to do anything stupid.

Re:International community? oh yea despots & t (1)

Austrosearch (857263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378147)

Freeloaders of the world unite and learn to take care of themselves?

Re:International community? oh yea despots & t (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377543)

You've hit where I believe is the core matter - yeah, there may be issues with big corporations and the internet, but those issues may not go away with someone else in control AND there would be some SERIOUS freedom of speech and access issues with even some moderate European powers in charge of the 'net.

Gee Just what I predicted (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377433)

In the last thread (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=356717&cid=21311105) when this came up I said rather than sit down and discuss what could be done, they'd just bitch. Well there you go. No talk about solutions to the problem of US control like, you know, actually setting up non-US groups to do this stuff, just whining that the US should "give up control."

To me this seems similar to a bunch of kids whining that the kid who owns a really nice toy that he shares and lets them all play with should "give up control" of it to the rest of them.

This is especially true since any sort of ceremonious handing over of control would do nothing to the reality of the situation. Sure the US could, in theory, tell ICANN they answer to the UN now (though there are limits to what they can legally make a private entity do). However it wouldn't change who really has ultimate control if everything remained in the US. If the government wanted to, they could still force ICANN to do what they said since, well, they have the guns.

It would be the same thing as if you used a server in my house. Let's say it was my hardware, hosted on my net connection, but I let you use it as you pleased. However you didn't have root to it, I maintained it for you. You demand that since it is your server, I "give up control" to you in the form of root. I do that. Ok great, but I didn't really give up anything. Why? I still physically and legally control the computer. So at some point in the future I decide I don't like what you are doing I tell you to stop, you say no. I just go and unplug the server and change the configuration offline. The "control" you had was an illusion, I was still ultimately in charge because I maintained physical control and legal ownership.

Hence for a real system that isn't US controlled, it requires other countries to set up their own services. Setup your own entity like ICANN, set up root servers that operate under it. Initially, have it just devoted to mirroring ICANN's zone file (there are some small DNS projects like this). However once you've got an established system that works well with good infrastructure backing it, then maybe you approach ICANN about splitting the zone. You take the TLDs relevant to your part of the world, they keep the rest, and you swap zone information. You might find they are quite open to something like that.

Now if that was done in a number of places all over the world, you'd end up with a real robust DNS system that nobody really controlled. If any of the top level entities flipped out, the others could just stop accepting updates from them and their roots would continue to work fine. There wouldn't be any way for a single group to mess up the Internet.

That's what I want to see, something where there really isn't ANY country in charge. However what all these idiots want to see is something where the US just pretends to give up control, we still have something the US retains ultimate control over, except that the day-to-day decisions become run by the UN and are incredibly bureaucratic.

Time for a heart bypass? (3, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377453)

The internet is designed to survive nuclear attack. There ARE no core systems. Surely if everyone else wanted to wrest control away from the US govt., all they would need to do would be setup a new system providing the same facilities, and then route traffic there instead.

Don't fix what isn't broken (1)

RaigetheFury (1000827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377463)

There's a huge movement toward decentralization in technology. Some people like to apply that to everything including groups. The Internet by design is a free space. ICANN follows that basic principle religiously.

Take a look at every other world wide organizations and you'll see why this is a bad idea. It's moving the decision making ability away from competent individuals that believe in freedom of the internet to people who don't know what they are doing, who are easily swayed by buzz words and controlled more by politics than logic.

ICANN has done an excellent job. It continues to do that job incredibly well. Don't fix what isn't broken. Evaluate it, suggest reasonable fixes, and move on.

The last thing in the world we need is some politician directly controlling the internet. I'm referring more to countries that don't believe in freedom of speech that hold a tight grip on it's populace (See China, Chad, Zimbabwe... etc).

This is a political battle from a small group of power hungry individuals. If there was truly a problem with the current way things are, everyone would be calling for a change. That's not the case

UN Hahaha (4, Insightful)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377471)

I can't help but think it would be better off in the US as non-profit than the UN. The UN is political, not a technical organization. So any changes they made would be driven from a political source with ulterior motives. Think, if they messed up commerce because of poor decisions they could argue 18 months about it before making a decision.

And besides, there is nothing stopping any country from doing their own thing provided they are willing to pay for it them selves and not hide behind the UN. Last I checked every country does have their own 2 letter ISO code country assignments. I am not aware of any who are denied access to .com, net etc.

It must have been a slow day at the UN. As if the UN had their way, one must remember it is stacked with mostly poor countries with most of the votes. Why should these countries with the least to lose have more control? Most can't even manage their own .iso.

Re:UN Hahaha (1, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378095)

Fuck yeah! Why stop there? Poor people shouldn't get to vote in anything, because as you said - they have the least to lose! Votes for the rich!

Just fucking do it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377563)

It's a computer network. The US doesn't actually have any control. The UN goes on as if every computer in the world came hardcoded to obey ICANN's every whim.

Set up some goddamn hardware, and everybody will switch over to it. Everybody likes seeing the US take a kick to the teeth, so there won't be an issue with that. It'll be like a big worldwide "Fuck You" to America, and it'll be easy. Everybody will care because everybody either hates America or at least wants to be able to use the internet.

Stop bitching about this in meetings, and start signing some fucking cheques. Their lack of action in this matter makes me question if this is even about control of the internet at all.

Re:Just fucking do it already (-1, Troll)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377769)

If America sucks so badly, stop posting on an American technical site you whinny little Europeon (intentional misspelling) bitch. I laugh out loud at the Europeon "little brother" syndrome.

Nice (crack) pipe dream (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378009)

IF they set up "some hardware", then "everybody" will switch over.

Yep. Everyone will automatically switch over to an unproven provider, right off the bat.

ARE YOU NUCKING FUTS?

If they want to do this, they need to start small, prove they can be stable, take on more responsibility, then eventually, when they prove they can handle their portion of the load, assume authority over PORTIONS of it.

What you're suggesting is akin to some kid on a cablemodem setting up a Linux box and then telling everyone they should move off Akamai and on to his "uber boxen".

wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377577)

Who originally thought it up, funded it, and deployed it? Damn right we did. :-)

So make your own! (3, Interesting)

Chicken04GTO (957041) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377595)

So make your own DNS and your own interwebs and go forth and be happy.
Americans dont trust the international community to do anything right except bitch about Americans.

If you dont like it, no one is gonna stop you from going your own way. Make your own.
Just stop complaining about it.

We'll sell it to you for... (1)

mcwop (31034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377693)

$500 billion dollars.

This seems to be a non-issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377705)

For the moment, the internet seems to be in fairly good shape, give or take - the biggest pains are usually software that is actively trying to block content (e.g. national firewalls, etc) and little details like spam and the never ending need for more bandwidth. I suspect most of the underlying issue here is that countries who already are mad at the US (not without reason) don't want a critical resource to be controlled by the US, independent of whether a good job is being done at the moment.

That's not an unreasonable fear, I expect (for those in the US, turn it around and ask yourself if you would be willing to have, say, China exercise the same power we currently do (in theory) over the internet). But the solution is known - when the US gets to be too much of a pain, someone will set up something more reasonable and the world will switch over. It's not the technical questions that make switching impossible, but the social inertia needed to actually MAKE that change. If people get riled enough, it will happen.

I dont see any issues with it (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377717)

It works well. There are no problems with it. I dont want boards that can be clogged by china, russia, iran, libya or other crappy countries at the helm of internet.

and im no american. im turkish.

Start with the ccTLDs (2, Insightful)

network23 (802733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21377789)


Start with regulating the ccTLDs. Today nobody cares about unethical principes by ccTLD owners, take a look at Nunames that revokes good .nu domains just for fun and/or to resell them later at a higher price. ICANN and IANA couldn't care less. Such unethical behaviour can ruin the trust in the domain name system.

Oh, what the hell (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21377965)

"All of your Internet are belong to us!"

Well, someone has to do it.

WorldNet (1)

MrHyd3 (19709) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378025)

Why don't some of these countries start their own WorldNet and stfu? I'm sure all these other countries have the talent and cash to do it and then peer the two networks if need be. They want control of something they can't handle in the first place or will sending dive bombing into the ground. The UN? That's a global body of colossus disaster who has a hard time drop shipping food in Africa, but they sure can line their pockets up with CASH for Oil. The UN is nothing but a gold-digger that siphons whatever it touches dry and moves on to the next sugar daddy.

Where would it go? (2, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378085)

Never mind the fact that people don't trust ICANN to be in charge of things* then that implies they want it to be moved to some other central location.

If we put it under NATO or UN control or something then where do the main authoritative servers get put? The UN doesn't own any territory, which means it would have to put it in the territory or a member state. Either that or they put it somewhere completely neutral (middle of the sea?) at which point the connection is terrible.

So, while it might be good to have it under less potentially influenced control, where would it all physically go?

* which, TBH, if the US Government have a veto on them then I don't really, but that's not important

Very Small Vocal Group (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 6 years ago | (#21378135)

"It's a very small vocal group bothered by this issue."
- Vint Cerf [nytimes.com]

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead [wikiquote.org]

-kgj
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?