Slashdot Log In
U.S. Insists On Keeping Control Of Internet
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Sep 30, 2005 09:43 AM
from the we're-not-going-to-share-our-toys dept.
from the we're-not-going-to-share-our-toys dept.
veggie boy writes "A U.S. official strongly objected to any notion of a U.N. body taking control of the domain servers that direct traffic on the Internet." From the article: "'We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet,' said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. 'Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable.' Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It's not broke... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It's not broke... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Such Short Memories (Score:5, Funny)
The US wanted to invade to close all of the Pirate Training Camps, but the NeverNeverLand government was vocal across the internet in claiming there were no training camps, just theme parks. So what happened, the US kicked NeverNeverLands domain (.nn) out of the root servers. Suddenly no one in NeverNeverLand could email one another, the government collapsed and the country went into chaos.
But worse, nobody could access any
Now it's just an legend, like atlantis, and all because the US kicked
Remember it's happened once, it can happed again.
Parent
Re:It's not broke... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet was never "free" in either sense of the word. You may have had an Internet connection but someone paid for it. In my case, the university I attended paid for the connection and we got use of it in exchange for going to school there.
Napster was never declared "legal". It simply wasn't noticed and when it was, some people had problems with it. Just like if you steal a candybar from a store and never get caught, does that mean you didn't break the law?
A dialup connection can still get you anywhere if you have the right service provider.
Email is important, still. Just like anything else, there's always someone out there who will piss in the pool - spammers looking to make a quick buck or virus writers who do it for the hell of it.
Do you have any specific examples of where the US broke the Internet?
I'm entirely convinced that the UN can't even fix itself, which it needs to do badly before worring about taking on more responsibility (for anything).
Parent
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Constitution of the People's Republic of China [people.com.cn]:
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Talking this up... (Score:5, Interesting)
i) Control of DNS is not the same as control of the internet.
ii) If the US started to exercise internet control via DNS, alternative root servers would likely appear almost overnight. Remember that old saw about "routing round censorship"? This time it's actually true.
iii) As a Brit, I applaud the current essentially hands-off control the US has. We get all the benefits, US tax payers cover the actual cost.
iv) The UN couldn't find it's arse with both hands. Of course, neither can Congress, but at the moment the system is up and running and they'd have to actively intervene to screw it up. Migrating something as important as this to a new bureaucratic body doesn't bare thinking about.
Re:Talking this up... (Score:4, Funny)
Never give Congress any suggestions with the words "actively intervene" and "screw it up" in the same sentence - they'll likely take you up on it.
Parent
UN Corruption (Score:4, Funny)
Oil for root, anyone?
--Saddam H.
Different spin (Score:5, Informative)
To me, looks like the US might not have a whole lot of choice in the matter, in the end.
Re:Different spin (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of the other countries metioned in TFA: Brazil, along with Iran, Cuba, China and others has created an impromptu "Likeminded Group" at the PrepCom3 meeting in Geneva that has continually insisted on the removal of US control.
Yea, with a group like that, I'm sure the US is ready to hand over the keys any day now.
Parent
So, they should do it anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
They just have to have the will to do it.
Then all they gotta do is convince/coerce all of the Internet entities in their respective countries to use THEIR TLD servers, they become the de-facto TLDs for those countries...
There's nothing to stop them but their lack of will...
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gross dismissed it as unacceptable.
"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."'
The question is, why?
"Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy."
Could someone tell me why are they wrong? And if they are not wrong, what is this US opposition? If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade. Noone will miss them.
It seems to me the US is playing "i don't want to do this and i won't tell why not". Those dealings are the most suspicious to me, as they are not only arrogant, but they cannot be sustained for a long time.
The Internet is of a growing importance, it shouldn't be held hostage by one single country just as no single country should have total control of anything which is used globally. I guess the EU thinks so too, because they set up their own GPS system. If the USA's position won't change, i guess people can just ignore the states and set up an alternative dns servers/architecture.
The lesser of two evils? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a third alternative? Maybe decentralized governance? Self-governance? A meritocracy? Unpaid volunteership? Management by 1000 chimpanzees randomly pushing buttons?
The Internet is important to me. I'll feel troubled so long as I don't see an approach that works well and efficiently, is relatively bias and value neutral and allows reasonable freedom and privacy to the average user.
W.W.A.G.D (Score:4, Funny)
Next week on Slashdot, we ask you to send in your questions to Al Gore, creator of the internet. We'll give Mr. Gore the 10 best questions. So send them in.
[disclaimer: This is a joke, I am a democrate, I can make fun of my own, and G.W.B because... well because thats easy]
Oh, gotta control this too . . . . . . (Score:5, Funny)
It'll be just like the old one!
It should be about ip6 not dns (Score:5, Informative)
my $.02:
1) All the TLDs are snapped up only in European languages. This should piss off basically no one. Why, every country has its' own TLD. To whit, American techies had to use www.theregister.co.uk for years before they decided to make a www.theregister.com version. Why, because everyone in the UK was used to typing
2) All the IP blocks are snapped up by Europeans & North-Americans. I'd say they are late to the party, too bad - but it's a legitimate complaint. Without IP addresses, they can't do what they want. However, what they really should do is mandate IPv6 so that there are more blocks to go around. The people who have blocks now don't want to pay for it, but if the rest of the world want's it - everyone will have to go along (or loose out on business if they don't interoperate well). I mean, really, how many addresses are lost by using a class A (127.x.y.z) block for loopback?
Hey, look - shiny toy: I want it!!! If they really wanted, they could use new.net and IPv6. Waaaaaaah!
US Gov is wrong on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, each government should also have control of it's own DNS servers within it's own geography for maintaining it's commerce and communications sovereignty... but this is not contradictory to a Int Body governing the allocation of address blocks to each country or determining policy for TLDs.
The US Gov doesn't currently control the telephone number address space for other countries, why is the internet different?
On the negative side of things... I'm fairly certain that China is the biggest supporter of getting DNS out of US hands and into the control of a Gov they have influence over, namely the UN. China would probably love to have the ability to cut off their people from accessing anything outside of China without a dispensation for commercial communications from their gov.... this will happen if the UN gets control and it will be really sad, but the Chinese people need to confront their gov on this one and demand more rights... if the people do, then the international public shoud support them against their gov via sanctions to not communicate with China, nor to trade with them. It will be messy but in the end will be better than treating them like the spoiled teenager that they are acting like. ("sorry Li, you can't drive the car cause you're not responsible enough" except Li is 30 years old and needs to go to work... so it should be "Li, if you get a DUI you go to jail. If you get into an accident and kill someone, you're going to jail. Be responsible. We won't bail you out.)
To the U.N. haters: (Score:5, Informative)
A. the U.S. stopped underhanded tactics such as witholding money owed to the U.N.
B. the U.S. stopped vetoing resolutions against the proliferation of WMD re. Israel
C. the U.S. stopped vetoing resolutions against genocide
And that's just for starters! Please be in no doubt - WRT the U.N. America has a track record of putting its own interests way ahead of those of the rest of the world community, and until that changes there's not much hope of the U.N. getting any better.
Still, you can be sure that when American hegemony is undermined by the rise of China the U.S. will use every means at their disposal - including the U.N. - to try and cling on a little longer...
Chicken Little (Score:4, Insightful)
I have heard of no credible evidence that the US is abusing their administration of the internet. Yet other countries want control of it. The only logical conclusion is that these same countries must also have ideas of how the system could be abused, and can't wait to implement them. Censorship is probably on the forefront of each of these countries minds. (Some are worried about it happening, some are salavating at the chance to abuse it.)
Countries know they can not build a corrupt system from the ground up, since no one will use it, so they are attempting to gain control of what people are currently using. I just see transferring control as the equivalent of giving a child a button with "Blow Up World" written on it.
The UN wants control for the wrong reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body."
Ghana: "There was unanimity for the need for an additional body...This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N."
These are the people that want to control the internet. They don't want some hands off technical control, they have specific cultural, moral and economic ideals they wish to implement in relation to the Internet. Yes, spam is bad. But "stopping spam" by a macro control mechanism is a control on information. This is contrary to the legal and user technological controls we are implementing now. Do you trust the UN to actually handle specific information on the Internet via their multicultralism moral compass? I don't.
U.N. Should take control of the BBC... &the Lo (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the CBC should be put under control of the U.N.
After that, we need to get the U.N. to take over the Louvre. After all, the Louvre is considered an important part of our World Heritage, and so should be compelled by an international body to eliminate the clearly western bias of most of the artwork contained within. We just aren't going to accept the arrogant attitude that just because the French built the Louvre, paid for the Louvre, and nurtured the Louvre to be the preeminent art mueseum in the world, that they have the right to control it! Zambia, Bolivia, and North Korea have some wonderful ideas of what they are going to do with the place.
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Please give me a break!
Parent
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and while the US doesn't have exactly a spotless record regarding human rights, it at least has the technical competancy to manage something like the internet and is a lot more financially sound than the UN. And it is not like there is any particular wonderful track record on human rights coming out of the UN, or its member nations as a group.
Parent
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is by no means perfect! But no other country has a proven track record of supporting other people's freedoms over the past 100 yrs. Furthermore, we have no obligation to turn over a system that we developed to promulgate and enable communication to the the CORRUPT UN, just because we were successful.
Parent
Re:My turn (Score:5, Insightful)
I am assuming you have heard of a country called India, which is a developing nation. If you still don't get it, then get out of your basement and watch the real world. We are not in 70s anymore.
Parent
Re:My turn (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, couldn't resist
Parent
Re:My turn (Score:5, Informative)
You [bbc.co.uk] tell [abc.net.au] me [bbc.co.uk].
"Villagers in India's Andamans and Nicobar Islands have denounced 'paltry' tsunami compensation relief they have received from the local government.
One woman received a cheque of just two rupees (less than five US cents) for damage to her coconut crops."
I also remember reading an article recently about how India's Air Force kicked our ass in joint training exercises
While the Indian Air Force did 'win' several (even 'most') of the engagements, to say they 'kicked our ass' is a bit misleading.
No AWACS, which the USAF would use if it were real
Older F-15C, lacking the upgraded, longer range radar, against newer IAF Su-30's.
No BVR engagements
The USAF sent 5 jets, and were outnumbered during the A-A portions of the exercise. This was a DACT exercise, not a 'beat the other guy' situation.
Having said that...
General Hal Hornburg, head of the US Air Combat Command [defencetalk.com] said "that we may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were"
From an IAF official [telegraphindia.com]:
"We have appreciated the compliments but we are being pragmatic. We have no doubt about the technological superiority of the US Air Force. The exercise in Gwalior was a low-level one and involved conventional fighter tactics."
Spin it how you want, but that's not quite "kicking our ass"
Parent
Re:My turn (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me put it this way, I just stayed up most of the night documenting in my blog how the Chinese government abuses its people and ignores the very laws it put in place to protect its people. Now first thing in the morning, I hear that the UN wants to turn over full control of the DNS heirarchy to countries like China. Countries to whom "freedom" is just a word to be filtered. Countries where a constitution is just words on some expensive paper. Countries that care little for anything except maintaining their own power.
If we turn even the slightest control over to these people, it's a surefire guarantee that they will abuse it. They would use the technology to further oppress their people (illegally, I might add) and attempt to extend their influence to elsewhere in the world.
So I will repeat, the Internet is not broken. Don't fix it.
Parent
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the above is pretty much why the rest of us are unconfortable with the current US administration being in control of the internet.
Parent
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
No single country should. That's the point.
Parent
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Enforse your DMCA laws on us by use of trade blackmail?
But it's not the present I'm worried about, more the future. Your current leadership has shown utter disregard for the international community. They cannot be trusted with the internet; I'm talking about people that have mounted a disinformation campaign to get people to back a counter-productive war for the benefit of their benefactors. How long before those benefactors (sorry, "campaign contributers") seek to control the internet for their own profit? Your government puts the needs of the people behind the needs of corporations. That is not how I would like to see the internet run.
Parent
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to completely ignore basic economic facts. Did you ask her how much rent is in her area? How much a Big Mac is both countries? Did you subtract your medical/dental insurance from your monthly wage, as taxes paid hers? Or your pension vs her state pension, also paid thru tax? Just how much does it cost to live in each country for a month?
Only then will you know if you are "better paid". There is more to currency exchange than just the simple exchange rate. Hell, I make more an hour than some people do in a month, but if I were to move to those countries with a year of my pay, I'd never need to work again.
Parent
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.destatis.de/themen/e/thm_loehne.htm [destatis.de]
Parent
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Got to respond to this one. Use your own logic:
The existing system, works quite well, thank you very much. If the rest of the world doesn't like it, they are perfectly capable of setting up their own DNS system and encouraging the use of it. For them to demand to be given control of a system setup, funded, and run, by the original creators of the system is just absurd.
You don't like? Just go setup your own system, prove it's better, and people will switch... Just like Linux...
Parent
Re:My turn: Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
It might be worth dropping the silly jingoism and having a look at how the world actually works. International telecommunications are already being coordinated (very successfully) by a UN agency, and have been since 1947. http://www.itu.int/home/ [itu.int]
Parent
Re:My turn: Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have a very peculiar view of the DNS system, most likely due to the fact you live in the US.
I live in Belgium, which has top-level domain name ".be". Any individual or business can register whatevertheylike.be. Do you not think that Belgium would rather control it's own domain rather than depending on another country to make sure root zone files point to a.ns.dns.be for the
As root files will always be necessary, I would rather have a central (neutral) authority guard over such systems that trust on a (not so neutral) country to allow me to use my domain.
Parent
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
We're talking about the future of the Internet here, you're talking about the past of the US. Look around yourself and tell me what's left of your individual rights after subtracting out the DMCA, PATRIOT, Eminent Domain and other Constitution-defying laws!
As for "the only country"... where did you learn this, the National Enquirer?
Parent
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:5, Funny)
ICANN is Canadian?
Parent
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The *rest* of the world doesn't see America as the great land of opportunity anymore, but rather the great land of opportunists, where the average 'honest' guy fights an uphill battle against corporate litigation, pseudo-law that has been reinterpreted via corporate lobbyists to support their agendas (i.e. Software Patents), or military actions that sadly mirror the ones they use to justify who they are fighting (i.e. invading a country to protect its own sovereignty, when the hidden goal could only be oil).
America heaps over with great features and wonderful people, and produces some of the best of everything to be found on this planet, but don't for one second pretend that your country is somehow the last bastion of truth and freedom, and that the rest of the world, via the only legal global governing body, lacks not only the ability but the *right* to govern the internet.
And for those of you who will follow on with 1D patriotic 'fuck-you-and-the-donkey-but-obviously-not-a-repu
----
There's nothing wrong with pissing in the wind, just make sure you are facing the right way when you do it.
Parent