Power grab could split the Internet!

[RJ]

For the first time in its history, the Internet is running a real risk of fracturing into multiple and perhaps even incompatible networks.

At a meeting in Geneva last week, the Bush administration objected to the idea of the United Nations running the top-level servers that direct traffic to the master databases of all domain names.

That's not new, of course--the administration has been humming this tune since June. What's changed in the last few months is the response from the rest of the world.

Instead of acquiescing to the Bush administration's position, the European Union cried foul last week and embraced greater U.N. control. A spokesman said that the EU is "very firm on this position."

Other nations were equally irked. Russia, Brazil and Iran each chimed in with statements saying that no "single government" should have a "pre-eminent role" in terms of Internet governance.

Do read the full article here:

http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5886556.html?tag=tb

Important issue here for all domain name owners!

I'm not sure how this is going to play out, but things could get ugly if no one is willing to compromise and the domain name system is split into different services.

I know the words "Bush administration" can cause a knee-jerk urge for some people to post something nasty, but stop and consider -- do you really want the United Nations managing the domain name system?

 

[iDev]

"Web" does not equal "Internet"

Many use the terms internet and web interchangeably which is causing confusion here. The internet was invented by the US as primacomputer describes. The web interface which helped the general public access all the resources on the internet was invented by Sir Tim Berners-Lee while working at CERN. His addition of hyperlinks has grown into the web pages that we see today.

Without getting too technical, what we see on the web pages is just one type of traffic that is on the internet. This traffic is just one of hundreds if not thousands of different types of traffic that flows on the internet.

And more importantly, before you can have traffic flowing you have to have a common format (TCP) for the traffic and unique names (IP) for the traffic to flow from and to. This was accomplished thru TCP/IP which was invented decades earlier.

Here's a great summary which is the the second result from googling "tcpip" (first summary result)
http://www.garykessler.net/library/tcpip.html
The evolution section is most relevent for this discussion:
http://www.garykessler.net/library/tcpip.html#evol

 

[wildbest]

That's just plain wrong. I was using the Internet long before 89 when you claim it was invented in CERN...The reason the US controls the Internet is precisely because it was invented in the US...

Ok, if we have to be precise, Internet was invented at the very moment when two computers were connected in a network. And that happened long before 1989. When you say you were using Internet before that date, you probably mean you were using some kind of file transfers between different computers. However, the WWW or simply the Web was invented in CERN because its core technology the hypertext links and HTML were invented there. This is a proven fact and there is nothing to argue about.

Not because of some UN manifest destiny to poke it's sticky fingers into anything that crosses national borders.

Why do you hate UN so much?

Internet, the way we know it today, should not be governed by a single country! 99% of people will agree with that. The best possible choice for me is ITU - http://www.itu.int.

 

[Rasbelin]

Ok, if we have to be precise, Internet was invented at the very moment when two computers were connected in a network. And that happened long before 1989. When you say you were using Internet before that date, you probably mean you were using some kind of file transfers between different computers.

No, no, no, no and once more: no. That doesn't constitute an "Internet." Any computer network isn't Internet, only Internet (removed "the" to demonstrate my point) can be Internet. Remember that it's just the name of a specific network, just like what AOL and Compuserv used to be.

 

[sm]

yes precisely ... the Internet was not invented by the US ... but by Mr. Tim Berners Lee in a european research lab.
So it all began in europe.

 

[wildbest]

To be correct, the WWW aka the Web was invented in the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Of course, there is a difference between Internet and WWW - http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Co.../WorldWideWeb/WebInternet/WebInternet-en.html.

People often mix the 2 because 99% of Internet users are actually using only this part of it that is named the World Wide Web. It is quite understandable why people make no difference between the 2 nowadays. Without the Web and the hypertext technology the Internet would be of no use to the general public as it was before 1989.

But what is (or what was) the difference between the WWW and the Internet is not the point of the current thread. The point is if the communication media known as the Internet or the Web today should remain under governance of a single country or should it be regulated by an international body?

 

[Nerz]

Why has this thread degenerated into a measuring contest between the U.S and Europe History is history...its the future that we should be worried about.

 

[ly2.com]

Sooner or later, in order to save the Internet and guarantee future development, the Internet has to be truly globally operated. It's just not working that ICANN runs it as a very commercially flavoured entity and clearly pushes for an agenda that mostly benefits one country (no need to name it, because you guess it anyway). The basic problem of the Internet is that it's simply far too Anglo American. Issues such as IDNs and Unicode have proven this. Not to mention the biggest technical concern: Excluding several exceptions, all DNS root servers are located within the borders of one country, on one continent. This is alarming for making the DNS system sustainable.

What we need to see is the Internet developed from a global prospective, to serve the common good. This isn't the case when very fundamental infrastructure is located mainly in the USA. It doesn't matter which country it is, as long as we see the administrative body being spread out more diverse and making sure the network can work independent even if a big flooding would suddenly swamp North America. A part of this process must be getting rid of ICANN being under political preasure from the White House. ICANN doesn't necessarily have to be merged into some other large body (like the UN), as long as it's made to function in a democratic manner and it pushes for a truly global Internet.

We need to forget about geopolitical borders and focus on unifying standards (IDN and Unicode) becoming de facto and scattering around the globe the technical resources of the Net. Each country would take care of their own ccTLD and ICANN would take care of gTLDs in a way that benefits everyone.

And those who think the Americans should have a monopoly on this: The Internet can't flourish more as it now does, as long as you see it as network for mainly your own population. This has nothing to do with bashing you and burning your flag. It's about making sure the Internet mends us together as unified cyberspace, in which no single nation must have authorative power.

IF IT AINT BROKE....

I disagree, the EU would actually get SOME say in what goes on for once, rather than having the US demanding control. The EU does not control the UN.



This is exactly why the US SHOULDN'T have control, because the US likes to have control over everything, and actually, I'm not comfortable with having a country in charge which does everything in it's power to please it's own citizens without caring about those from other countries.

If there ever was a problem, the US would be able to do what ever they wanted with the internet, and I just don't like that. Countries fall out with each other, the US more than most.

This should be about ensuring co-operation and shared control over the internet, however for the US, it is about having SOLE control over the internet.

yea, say it with me..SOLE CONTROL. Everyone should be used to our arrogant attitudes by now huh?

 

[totenmaske]

Why does everyone always assume that the intentions of the United States are insidious? I shudder at the thought of the U.N. (riddled with scandal) gaining control...you want the Internet divided into fiefdoms? Then go ahead and hand control over to one of the most corrupt organizations in existance...the UN! The very implication that other countries want to stick their hands in the pie should tell everyone that they (whoever they are) obviously have plans of their own for the Internet and you can just about be certain that money is involved (taxes...more taxes!!!) I personally like my sub $10.00 domains...

If there ever was a problem, the US would be able to do what ever they wanted with the internet, and I just don't like that. Countries fall out with each other, the US more than most.

The mere fact that very little interference from the US has already occured despite the political climates that may exist between seperate nations should account for something.

Can you image what the Internet would be like is say...CHINA was in control? "Sorry...but access to any webpage containing the term 'FREEDOM' is restricted please try your search query again"

 

[primacomputer]

Ok, if we have to be precise, Internet was invented at the very moment when two computers were connected in a network. And that happened long before 1989. When you say you were using Internet before that date, you probably mean you were using some kind of file transfers between different computers. However, the WWW or simply the Web was invented in CERN because its core technology the hypertext links and HTML were invented there. This is a proven fact and there is nothing to argue about.

The “Internet” was probably “created” when the first ARPANET hosts went online in 1969. The Internet was created in the early 70's when Vint Cerf came up with TCP. This is who coined the term “Internet” and when. What the UN is hoping to grab control of was created in the early 80's when DNS was created.

But what is (or what was) the difference between the WWW and the Internet is not the point of the current thread. The point is if the communication media known as the Internet or the Web today should remain under governance of a single country or should it be regulated by an international body?

What is or in not the Internet is the root of why your reasoning is wrong. ICANN doesn't control “The Internet”. They don't control the “WWW”. They don't control the ability to network two or more computers. They control the DNS name space. That's all.

The point of the current thread is, should control of this be passed from ICANN to the UN. So far we have had a few justifications for why, such as “bush is stupid”, “Al Gore invented the Internet”, “Tim Berners-Lee created the Internet”. Since the last two are false, and the first is irrelevant, perhaps you can come up with another reason why this should happen?

Why do you hate UN so much?

I don't hate the UN. I just recognise them for the ineffective corrupt bureaucracy that they are.

Internet, the way we know it today, should not be governed by a single country! 99% of people will agree with that. The best possible choice for me is ITU - http://www.itu.int.

People often mix the 2 because 99% of Internet users are actually using only this part of it that is named the World Wide Web.

You truly have a gift for making up “facts” to support your arguments
Who are these 99% people. What strange place do you come from where 99% of the people use the web but don't use email It's hard to imagine somewhere where 99% of the people have Internet access but only 1% of the people use IM, VOIP, P2P software, play network games, etc. What a bizarre place. Please tell me where it is. I'd love to come and spread the word of these “new” technologies so that the natives might worship me as the new inventor of the Internet.

 

[Nerz]

The document i mentioned above, the 25 page report does outline some fairly serious problems that will need to be addressed. Every country in the world has a stake in making sure the internet is the best it can be...The report outlines problems that arent being adequetly addressed under the present model, theres no point hiding your head in the sand....there only going to get worse, and the pressure to reform, or build an entirely new body is only going to increase.

Whether its a U.N agency or something entirely differant i dont really care, as long as it works and the issues are resolved, and as long as its a "trully" global authority.

Saying the U.N is the most corrupt authority on Earth is somewhat overstepping the mark. A couple scandals and all of a sudden we have to throw out arguebly the most important worldwide organisation we have..thats a silly arguement. It just needs some serious reforms, a few people to get the boot, and possibly one or two behind bars. Dont throw out the baby with bath water as they say

 

[primacomputer]

I'm glad we got past this (irrelevant) "who invented what" topic and can get down to debating the real issues.

The document i mentioned above, the 25 page report does outline some fairly serious problems that will need to be addressed. Every country in the world has a stake in making sure the internet is the best it can be...The report outlines problems that arent being adequetly addressed under the present model, theres no point hiding your head in the sand....there only going to get worse, and the pressure to reform, or build an entirely new body is only going to increase.

I can outline a list of “problems”. Does that mean I should run “the Internet”? I don't need a comittie of 40 people to determine that spam is a problem! And of course it's all ICANN's fault that we have spam, right?

If anyone wants to seriously be considered as a candidate for managing the Internet let them come up with solutions to these problems, not lists of them. Then people will start to pay attention.

Whether its a U.N agency or something entirely differant i dont really care, as long as it works and the issues are resolved, and as long as its a "trully" global authority.

A truly a scary thought. An Internet dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of every special interest group on the planet. An Internet run by people who have trouble getting water or electricity, let along broadband. All paid for by increased registration fees, taxes, and postal fees for email. No thanks.

I'm all for international participation in managing the Internet, but I'm against mob rule. Why should countries that have little or no Internet usage have a say in how it's run? Why would they want to? Because then they can make me pay for their mistakes, of course. Again, no thanks.

The only people with their heads in the sand are the people who believe that the Internet is some international charitable cultural foundation. It's not. Get over it. It's a vital piece of economic infrastructure. I don't want third world dictators, drug dealers and criminals having input in to how my bank is run. I don't want them having input into how the network that connects me to my bank is run either.

Saying the U.N is the most corrupt authority on Earth is somewhat overstepping the mark.

I never said it was. Those are your words, not mine

A couple scandals and all of a sudden we have to throw out arguebly the most important worldwide organisation we have..thats a silly arguement. It just needs some serious reforms, a few people to get the boot, and possibly one or two behind bars. Dont throw out the baby with bath water as they say

The average joe is only just now hearing about some of the corruption that has been going on at the UN. It has been going on for a long time and is prevalent. Also, the UN is in a unique position to “legalise” their dodgy deals by passing a resolution. This doesn't make the actions any less wrong.

But it's their ineffectiveness and bureaucracy that are the real problems.

 

[Nerz]

I'm glad we got past this (irrelevant) "who invented what" topic and can get down to debating the real issues.


I can outline a list of “problems”. Does that mean I should run “the Internet”? I don't need a comittie of 40 people to determine that spam is a problem! And of course it's all ICANN's fault that we have spam, right?

If anyone wants to seriously be considered as a candidate for managing the Internet let them come up with solutions to these problems, not lists of them. Then people will start to pay attention.

Definately, you cant just outline problems and then not outline solutions. It seems to me there still in the consultation phase. In order to do this right, they need to get grasp of what the problems are before they try to implement any solutions, otherwise it could be potentially worse than it is now. That doesnt mean to say "it will" be worse than it is...people seem to envisage doomsday scenarios.

A truly a scary thought. An Internet dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of every special interest group on the planet. An Internet run by people who have trouble getting water or electricity, let along broadband. All paid for by increased registration fees, taxes, and postal fees for email. No thanks.

I'm all for international participation in managing the Internet, but I'm against mob rule. Why should countries that have little or no Internet usage have a say in how it's run? Why would they want to? Because then they can make me pay for their mistakes, of course. Again, no thanks.

So you dont think we should address these issues:

1) Broader access to the internet for developing countries. A fundamental issue i would have thought.
2) Encouraging multilingual websites where people other than english speakers can actually ready them. I.E half the planet
3) Better access, and lines of communication between those that make the rules and those that follow them.

Currently those 3 have been cited as problems...not too mention a tonne more. There all important as far as im concerned. I certainly wouldnt want New Zealand having the same voting power as a country like the U.S...I would have thought a proportional system is the go...

The only people with their heads in the sand are the people who believe that the Internet is some international charitable cultural foundation. It's not. Get over it. It's a vital piece of economic infrastructure. I don't want third world dictators, drug dealers and criminals having input in to how my bank is run. I don't want them having input into how the network that connects me to my bank is run either.

I cant remember ever saying "charity" and gimme gimme gimme, but I do believe in trying to get basic access for all. Its fundamental economic development issue i would have thought. Do you really think tyrants and mobsters would wield ultimate control...come on prima, have a little faith..

I never said it was. Those are your words, not mine

Fair call, but plenty of people have been saying something pretty close to that.

The average joe is only just now hearing about some of the corruption that has been going on at the UN. It has been going on for a long time and is prevalent. Also, the UN is in a unique position to “legalise” their dodgy deals by passing a resolution. This doesn't make the actions any less wrong.

But it's their ineffectiveness and bureaucracy that are the real problems.

I agree the U.N is broken, but anyone who wants a world without a U.N type body basically wants World War 3, cause that would be the end result. People love to jump to the conclusion that because somethings broke lets throw it out and start again...rather than trying to mend it.

Ive said it before and ill say it again...the ineffectiveness of the U.N can be blamed not purely on the U.N as an institution, but on the people that participate in it...If they cant agree, we dont get progress, thats there problem, not the U.N as an instituation. It only provides the framework, its the diplomats and politicians that have to find the answers. Half the reasons resolutions dont get passed is because one of the larger member states doesnt want to come out of there comfort zone and move forward, that and there somewhat dubious ties with lesser states. Witness the U.S and Israel...how many times did Israel escape the wrath of the U.N as a client state of the U.S...dozens of times. Thats what happens when your bankrolling a country. Anywayz thats another story.

Prima i want a sensible outcome just like you do, i dont want regulatory body full of committees and factions and splinter groups...i guess i just have a little bit more faith that we can avoid those problems. Lets face it, the U.S will have the primary role here, and hopefully they will use that role to ensure any new authority is as slimlined as possible, while also achieving the desired results. We DO have to change things....You dont have to look to far into it too see that, it might not effect our everyday lives as domainers living in luxury in the western world, but it certainly does elsewhere..and there are issues that apply to everyone, not just the developing world.

 

[sm]

Okay, here's another twist based on what's dependent on what. The internet wouldnt exist if there were no computers (or more generally electronic devices). right ?

Electronic devices wouldnt work without capacitors, resistors, etc .....

Any electronic device responds to a signal (a trigger), at the most fundamental level, either by responding with a 0 (low signal - below a threshold) or a 1 (high signal - above a threshold).

Without the binary number system, there's no computing devices.

Who created the concept of a "0" (something that signifies nothing) ?

An Indian

So, it all starts from there, as the most basic and essential requirement :yell:

 

[CrazyTech]

1) Broader access to the internet for developing countries. A fundamental issue i would have thought.
2) Encouraging multilingual websites where people other than english speakers can actually ready them. I.E half the planet

We've got a long way to go before everyone can have the internet. Arguably, a large portion of the world is far from even needing the net for any reason at this point. Nothing can change the fact that the largest majority of traffic is English speaking.

The internet is currently open to anyone and everyone - see the terrorist sites that are up if you don't believe me. That's certainly freedom of speech.

Besides, if you go back and look at the articles, the only one threatening to "break up" the internet is the EU. If they're already whining now then I sure as heck don't want them anywhere near it. What happens when their is something else they don't agree on - especially if a coalition of their member states gets on board a comittee which is like to happen in the event a body is formed or even a board in the UN?

A couple scandals and all of a sudden we have to throw out arguebly the most important worldwide organisation we have..thats a silly arguement. It just needs some serious reforms, a few people to get the boot, and possibly one or two behind bars. Dont throw out the baby with bath water as they say

The problem is those "few people" held high positions. The investigation itself is far from concluding and it looks like more will come to light as time goes on. If you agree that it needs reform then why the heck, frankly, should we be handing the internet over to them now? Reforms take time and the UN hasn't even started yet.

Ive said it before and ill say it again...the ineffectiveness of the U.N can be blamed not purely on the U.N as an institution, but on the people that participate in it...If they cant agree, we dont get progress, thats there problem, not the U.N as an instituation. It only provides the framework, its the diplomats and politicians that have to find the answers. Half the reasons resolutions dont get passed is because one of the larger member states doesnt want to come out of there comfort zone and move forward, that and there somewhat dubious ties with lesser states.

You're highlighting exactly what we're pointing out. Regardless of where the fault lies, it still is there and that's a huge problem for them to be in control.

 

[wildbest]

The “Internet” was probably “created” when the first ARPANET hosts went online in 1969. The Internet was created in the early 70's when Vint Cerf came up with TCP. This is who coined the term “Internet” and when. What the UN is hoping to grab control of was created in the early 80's when DNS was created.



What is or in not the Internet is the root of why your reasoning is wrong. ICANN doesn't control “The Internet”. They don't control the “WWW”. They don't control the ability to network two or more computers. They control the DNS name space. That's all.

The point of the current thread is, should control of this be passed from ICANN to the UN. So far we have had a few justifications for why, such as “bush is stupid”, “Al Gore invented the Internet”, “Tim Berners-Lee created the Internet”. Since the last two are false, and the first is irrelevant, perhaps you can come up with another reason why this should happen?


I don't hate the UN. I just recognise them for the ineffective corrupt bureaucracy that they are.



You truly have a gift for making up “facts” to support your arguments
Who are these 99% people. What strange place do you come from where 99% of the people use the web but don't use email It's hard to imagine somewhere where 99% of the people have Internet access but only 1% of the people use IM, VOIP, P2P software, play network games, etc. What a bizarre place. Please tell me where it is. I'd love to come and spread the word of these “new” technologies so that the natives might worship me as the new inventor of the Internet.

Rubbish.

The only argument so far to not passing the control to UN is that UN is corrupt and inefficient. I do not see the US government to be less corrupt. Just open any newspaper. And we have just seen a month ago how efficient they were in dealing with a disaster. Apart from that, UN may be corrupt like the US government but at least they do not kill innocent people.

The UN have hundreds of programs like the one you are probably pointing at - the oil for food program. The UN also have hundreds of organizations under their supervision. Just one of them is ITU http://www.itu.int. It is the oldest organization in the field of telecommunications. I haven't heard a single argument why shouldn't they be responsible for DNS system like they are responsible for the international telephone numbering system at present?

Finally, the world can exist without the US, but the US can not exist without the rest of the world. Let me remind you what Sir Winston Churchill has said in the past for a similar situation - In the end, the US will do what was right to be done, but after they have gone through all the possible mistakes before that.

 

[Zeeble]

I would not be comfortable with the UN taking control, but neither am I comfortable with the current situation in the USA. There are just as many serious scandals in USA politics from people in senior positions as there are in the UN.

As suggested before, some sort of international organisation setup of telecoms and current internet experts would be the best solution.

To be honest the ideal situation would be where no governments were involved, and the ruling body would be independant.

 

[primacomputer]

Definately, you cant just outline problems and then not outline solutions. It seems to me there still in the consultation phase. In order to do this right, they need to get grasp of what the problems are before they try to implement any solutions, otherwise it could be potentially worse than it is now. That doesnt mean to say "it will" be worse than it is...people seem to envisage doomsday scenarios.

I'm perfectly open to reviewing any solutions they may come up with, and if they look good and involve governance by a UN organisation thenI'd support them. But the UN seems to be saying they want ICANN to hand over control of the root servers without offering any good explanation as to how they are going to administer them better. That's my primary complaint.

So you dont think we should address these issues:

1) Broader access to the internet for developing countries. A fundamental issue i would have thought.
2) Encouraging multilingual websites where people other than english speakers can actually ready them. I.E half the planet
3) Better access, and lines of communication between those that make the rules and those that follow them.

Should we, as Internet users, domain owners, etc, address these issues. Perhaps privately out of the goodness of our own hearts, but certainly not through any additional restrictions or charges on our net access

I think the UN is a great forum for these issues. That's what it's there for. They can do all of that without touching the root servers.

Currently those 3 have been cited as problems...not too mention a tonne more. There all important as far as im concerned. I certainly wouldnt want New Zealand having the same voting power as a country like the U.S...I would have thought a proportional system is the go...

This is what really scares me. The bulk of the worlds population does not use the Internet. They don't understand how it works and are not in a position to govern it. For example, I don't want certain types of speech banned on the Internet simply because 65% of the worlds population is religiously opposed to it.

I cant remember ever saying "charity" and gimme gimme gimme, but I do believe in trying to get basic access for all. Its fundamental economic development issue i would have thought. Do you really think tyrants and mobsters would wield ultimate control...come on prima, have a little faith..

I have no faith. It's a dangerous world out there. 30% or so of the world is reasonably developed and shares similar values. Much of the rest is like an international version of Deadwood. You simply can't have countries that have no rule of law and no respect for basic human rights having a say in how something as important as the Internet is run.

I agree the U.N is broken, but anyone who wants a world without a U.N type body basically wants World War 3, cause that would be the end result. People love to jump to the conclusion that because somethings broke lets throw it out and start again...rather than trying to mend it.

The League of Nations fell apart during WWII because if it's ineffectiveness in preventing the war. We wouldn't have WWIII because the UN disappears. The UN will disappear because is ineffective in preventing that war.N.

Ive said it before and ill say it again...the ineffectiveness of the U.N can be blamed not purely on the U.N as an institution, but on the people that participate in it...If they cant agree, we dont get progress, thats there problem, not the U.N as an instituation. It only provides the framework, its the diplomats and politicians that have to find the answers. Half the reasons resolutions dont get passed is because one of the larger member states doesnt want to come out of there comfort zone and move forward, that and there somewhat dubious ties with lesser states. Witness the U.S and Israel...how many times did Israel escape the wrath of the U.N as a client state of the U.S...dozens of times. Thats what happens when your bankrolling a country. Anywayz thats another story.

The list of tragedies the UN has been powerless to avoid is long. The organisation is impotent. Countries withhold funding because it doesn't do what they want. When it does get funding it's squandered. It has grown fat beyond usefulness. It tries to be a world government but has no teeth.

We need an organisation to carry out the role the UN was founded to be but the current UN falls sort of the task. Of course it's the fault of the members. This is why I'm worried about the Internet being governed by an organisation composed of the same members.

The only argument so far to not passing the control to UN is that UN is corrupt and inefficient.

It's been said repeatedly the the UN should not be given control of the root servers because they have no plan on how to manage them any better. The same goes for anyone else who wants to control them. First show us a plan that is better than what we have now. Then we'll think about it.

Apart from that, UN may be corrupt like the US government but at least they do not kill innocent people.

That's the best impersonation of an ostrich I've ever seen!

The UN have hundreds of programs like the one you are probably pointing at - the oil for food program.

Actually I was probably referring to the MINUSTAH massacre a few months back. Well actually I wasn't. I was referring to the wide spread corruption in numerous UN programmes, not the ones where they kill innocent people.

What any of this has to do with root servers is beyond me.

The UN also have hundreds of organizations under their supervision. Just one of them is ITU http://www.itu.int. It is the oldest organization in the field of telecommunications. I haven't heard a single argument why shouldn't they be responsible for DNS system like they are responsible for the international telephone numbering system at present?

Because you weren't listening. They shouldn't be given control because they don't have a plan to run it any better than it is now.

 

[JMJ]

The only reason these countries want the internet handed over to the UN is money. Plain and simple. The UN wants it so they can tax services so the US isn't it's #1 supporter whereas those with this on their agenda make up for a very small portion of it's support. If you want to use the ITU have a look at your international calling rates. If it's handed over to them you will soon see International internet rates.

Results

Increased cost of doing business for me.
Very likely that my current internet freedoms will change.
Very fat wallets for those over at the UN.

So I say no way to handing it over. And it wouldnt matter if I lived here to timbuktu.

 

[Palyriot]

Taken to the worst case scenario, the US would have its own Internet which would only let you visit US based domains and the rest of the World would have a seperate Internet, and the two would be incompatible with each other.

I really can't see this happening. Imagine the mess that would be created if .COM suddenly became only accessible from the United States. Would people in Europe have something to say about that?

That would suck SOOO bad. Also, we would never be able to talk to our friends from other countries on the internet again. SUCKY.

 

[JMJ]

http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39153921,00.htm


US bids to hold on to net

"Look for the holy grail inside yourself", delegates told...

By Declan McCullagh, Anne Broache

Published: Friday 4 November 2005

Less than two weeks before a United Nations summit on the internet begins, technology firms including Google, IBM and Microsoft are supporting the Bush administration's efforts to maintain the United States' influence over domain names.

In what amounted to a public effort to back the status quo, those firms sent representatives to an event here organized to highlight what some participants touted as the security and stability of the current form of internet governance. MCI, BellSouth and Cisco Systems also participated.

Because it is home to 200 million internet users and nearly half of the world's electronic commerce, the United States is in a unique position to ensure there's not a slowdown in Net growth, Michael D. Gallagher, the U.S. Commerce Department's assistant secretary for communications and information, said at the event. The gathering was organized by the Information Technology Association of America.

"The U.S. does not support top-down intergovernmental control of the internet," Gallagher said at a panel discussion composed of technology industry and government representatives. "We do not believe in adding an inter-governmental layer of bureaucracy over such a dynamic medium as the internet."

The United Nations and one of its agencies, the International Telecommunication Union, have scheduled the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunisia for Nov. 16 to 18. It's designed in part to provide other nations with a forum to debate alternatives to the current form of internet governance, which is heavily influenced by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)--a California nonprofit created by the Clinton administration--and the Commerce Department.

Business groups have long expressed worry that greater U.N. control could usher in higher taxes, curbs on free speech and reams of new regulations. "That is one of our biggest concerns, that politics that have nothing to do with ICANN start trickling into how the internet is going to be run," said Rick Lane, vice president for government affairs at News Corp.

"It is because the US government has had the lightest possible touch on the internet...that we support the idea that we do not need another international body," said Harris Miller, president of ITAA.

Nearly all the components of internet governance already are distributed by geographic region. internet addresses are assigned by regional organizations including ones in Europe, Asia and Latin America, and national governments currently control country code domains (such as .jp for Japan).

"The real work of domain name system happens in a very distributed, very decentralized way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel and a former ICANN official. "The best way to keep that vector of development growing is to keep this a loosely, lightly coordinated system." If the U.S. government wanted to pull the plug on google.co.uk, it could not, McLaughlin said.

But ICANN does approve new top-level domains and it does wield some influence over the internet's root severs. Because the organization is located in California, some nations perceive it as having an uncomfortably close relationship to the U.S. federal government. As a result, nations such as Russia, Brazil and Iran have published statements saying that no "single government" should have a "pre-eminent role" in terms of internet governance. The European Union said in September that it's "very firm" on internet governance reform.

Gallagher, from the US Commerce Department, said that foreign governments' concern over the American-dominated net governance system was misplaced.

"It's clear that they don't understand how the DNS is structured, how it works," he said, talking about the Domain Name System. "For those of you that are looking for the holy grail, for the meaning of life, for the fountain of youth, it does not lie in the DNS...where you need to look is inside yourselves and the policies you establish and the environments you create for your citizens."

Any multi-governmental body - based at the United Nations or anywhere else - would undermine the current model that is based around the private sector, one State Department official said.

"We are going to WSIS arguing for a system that is very light-handed, that is minimalist but essential for stability and security," said Richard Beaird, the department's senior deputy U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy. "Others, including the European Union, would like to replace that with an intergovernmental council. We do not think that is the right way to go."