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?

 

[Mystic]

People in the US are mentioning UN Power Hungry? Thats rich coming from an American.
The UN are Corrupt? Just take a look at the US Goverment and you will see what corrupt really means. Just look at the Iraq War

This isnt meant to offend people but I always wanted to know this. Why do Americans think they know it all, think they are better than anyone else and worst of all anyone they dont like are "terrorists".

Im a UK Citizen and I beleive the internet should stay in US how it is, the only change that needs to be made is Bush!! Get him out!!!! Most of the world arent comfortable with having the internet in a country who decided to start a war with the excuse "weapons of mass destruction" simply because they want some oil . Ooh what a christian, "God bless america", I think you have allready been cursed. Im Just glad im not an american citizen, I wouldnt get a night of sleep.

Offtopic: Call me cold but America (not the innocent people) deserved the attacks such as 9/11, Anyone take time to research about america bombing afghanistan for years hunting for sadam before 9/11 happened? Its just revenge. Damn, All the suicide bombers out there and not one will kill Bush

 

[Nerz]

Woooaah, settle Lets keep this civil

People in the US are mentioning UN Power Hungry? Thats rich coming from an American.
The UN are Corrupt? Just take a look at the US Goverment and you will see what corrupt really means. Just look at the Iraq War

This isnt meant to offend people but I always wanted to know this. Why do Americans think they know it all, think they are better than anyone else and worst of all anyone they dont like are "terrorists".

Ever heard the expression, people in glass houses etc etc? Some of the attitudes of the present day U.S administration are almost an exact replica of several hundred years of "Empire" ending basically after WW2. Before that the British thought they knew it all, it was there "god given right" to dominate the world as English..Its funny how history repeats itself. I think you'd struggle to find any government that isnt touched by corruption at some point...i wouldnt even think of pretending the australian government is holier than thou.

One thing i will agree with you on is the rampant paranoa in the U.S about terrorism. I know a lot of americans who are concerned about it. In fact the U.S administration might show a relatively light hand to the administration of the net at the moment, but how long is that going to last given the current paranoa?...I dont think its far away before a major crackdown takes place on extremists sites, or even political sites considered "dangerous" "provocation" or "submersive". More European involvement in the admin of the net, may help to subdue that tendancy somewhat, especially the involvement of Western European countries. So that could be a positive.

Here in Australia there is major debate going on about some laws the government is trying to pass, laws that on certain levels fly straight in the face of established legal process, like locking people up for weeks on end...Guantanamo Bay style in Aus basically.

Im a UK Citizen and I beleive the internet should stay in US how it is, the only change that needs to be made is Bush!! Get him out!!!! Most of the world arent comfortable with having the internet in a country who decided to start a war with the excuse "weapons of mass destruction" simply because they want some oil . Ooh what a christian, "God bless america", I think you have allready been cursed. Im Just glad im not an american citizen, I wouldnt get a night of sleep.

Theres no doubt they lied...i think thats been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and i was surprised Bush got away with it considering american voters normally punish dishonesty heavily...but again, its the paranoa that keeps him there. The U.S just wasnt in the mood for change...plus there was some pretty skillful and fullon campaigning on the ground by replicans from what ive read...The sort of campaigning we would never see here....Dont think ive ever had a foot soldier from any political party knock on my front door...i get the odd leaflet.

Offtopic: Call me cold but America (not the innocent people) deserved the attacks such as 9/11, Anyone take time to research about america bombing afghanistan for years hunting for sadam before 9/11 happened? Its just revenge. Damn, All the suicide bombers out there and not one will kill Bush

Thats cold, harsh, and stupid. I didnt see the terrorists seperate the "innocent" from the "guilty". Thats the nature of these people though, they dont go after the guilty because there too protected. (government officials, high ranking generals etc) Thats all too hard...so there attitude is why not kill civilians, sif that is ever going to help there cause. Many of those people in the towers were probably ardent opponents of Bush. We will never know now..

The murky past of Bush and his family, and certain other officials in there dealings with the arab world over the last couple decades is starting to see the light, people are aware of it.

Ill be stunned if Bush can resurrect his standings from his position atm though, perhaps its time to launch the war on Iran...might win him a few "kill em all" type voters..

In terms of bombers going after Bush...they'll never get to him...you wouldnt believe the security he gets, even in a friendly country like Australia, you basically have quarantine an area of like 20 kilometres...its insane. If someone did get him...well, then it would get interesting.

I think you might owe an apology to some of the U.S domainers around here....would you have the same view of they launched a plane at wembley stadium, buckingham palace and the houses of parliament? and thousands of your countrymen died? for the sake of Tony Blair and his involvement in the Iraq War? I doubt it..

 

[Mystic]

I would not care if a plane was launched at:

Buckingam Palace: What does the queen do for me that somebody else cant do earning £700 per week instead of her and her family growing rich.
Wembley Stadium: Is that still up? I thought they knocked it down? (I dont follow football)
Houses or Parliament: As long as Blair was present, He is a waste of space too.

As I said, Not the Innocent people, The assgholes such as Bush, Blair.

As for Bush, We showed how much we liked him when he came to UK and wanted to pass through our town, The protest ("No Bu$H")we had showed that, He took a different route

Anyways..This is getting off domains

 

[wildbest]

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

Actually, what are your requirements to run it better?

It is not the question who will run it better. It is a question of the law that will be applied when governing the root servers and the Web. An international laws must be applied not national.

The Web is rapidly becoming a place where more and more business is done. But business needs strict rules. Because business means commercial code, taxes, copyright issues, adult material issues etc. You can not apply national law (US) to international media or international market place (the Web).

Nowadays when a case is resolved most often used criteria about what law should be applied is where the site is hosted. This will be outdated just in 2 years. And if truly international laws are not applied there will be a complete chaos. Nobody would be in a position to tell where the site is actually hosted. And here comes handy the second control - the DNS root servers. But you can push the button here only if national law is observed not international!!!

Why the Web will be different? Because a new version is coming Web 2.0.
There are such new technologies as Server Oriented Architecture, UDDI standard and related UDDI business registries...

http://www.ntt.com/uddi/index-e.html
http://www.uddi.ne.jp/ubr-e/faq.html#what

To allow interaction on a server level, business needs not only to be programmatically described but also described in terms of applicable rules and laws how it needs to be performed.

A truly international law need to be applied and not national. It is not a question who is better. It is a question who is more suitable for the future. Very, very near future!

 

[primacomputer]

Actually, what are your requirements to run it better?

My requirement is that anyone who wants to take control of the root servers has to lay out a plan demonstrating how they will do a better job of running them. It's not my job to lay that plan out, it's theirs.

It is not the question who will run it better. It is a question of the law that will be applied when governing the root servers and the Web. An international laws must be applied not national.

Wrong on all counts. The best way to manage the root servers is to have no laws applied to them. There are currently no laws that say what ICANN is supposed to do with the DNS root. In fact the privatisation of the DNS system was simply ordered in Clintons' 97 “memorandum on electronic commerce”. This document contains some real gems:

“For electronic commerce to flourish, the private sector must lead.”

“I direct the U.S. Trade Representative to work with foreign governments to secure agreement within the next 12 months that all products and services delivered across the Internet will not be subject to tariffs and that all equipment from which the Internet is built will also not be subject to tariffs.”

“I direct the Secretary of Commerce to support private sector development of technical standards for the Internet and the U.S. Trade Representative to oppose efforts by foreign governments to impose standards or to use standards for electronic commerce as non-tariff trade barriers.”

“Existing laws and regulations that may hinder electronic commerce should be revised or eliminated consistent with the unique nature of the Internet.”

Not a single new law. In fact a directive that laws should be either relaxed or eliminated. A directive that seems almost prophetic considering the current UN attempt at a power grab.

Why the Web will be different? Because a new version is coming Web 2.0.
There are such new technologies as Server Oriented Architecture, UDDI standard and related UDDI business registries...

Awesome! So you should have no problem just waiting a couple years for the DNS to become obsolete? And you won't mind keeping your paws off my root servers in the mean time?

A truly international law need to be applied and not national. It is not a question who is better. It is a question who is more suitable for the future. Very, very near future!

Please do post a link to where I can find this “truly international law” If we are going to hand over the root servers so they can be managed according to this law then surely this law must have already been drafted and approved. It must be available for my perusal so that I can read it and be informed of what I need to do to avoid breaking the law.

 

[wildbest]

Saying something just to have something said is the worst possible behavior.

...Wrong on all counts. The best way to manage the root servers is to have no laws applied to them....

Oh man, ... there is an ancient saying that even the worst law is better than no law! Think about it.

...Please do post a link to where I can find this “truly international law” If we are going to hand over the root servers so they can be managed according to this law then surely this law must have already been drafted and approved...

Oh man, ... you dont have an idea what is this animal - the international law, do you? ...

I thought you may wish to use Google:
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=UN+international+law&btnG=Search

And then surely you can find links like this for example:
http://www.un.org/law/

 

[Lyte]

Geez, why does every topic turn into US bash fest. :td:

I was watching FOX News this morning and they brought up this issue. I was kinda surprised to hear them even talking about it! According to the reporter, the UN's intention is to bring the internet to every person on the planet. There was talk too of a $100 laptop coming out ... either next week or next month, I forget which.

The disturbing portion of the report was how countries like Iran and China wanted to be part of how the internet was "distributed." Another scary issue raised was the UN (or those countries involved) might decide to start using their new found power for propaganda.

It would be great if the internet was available to all but it should not be controlled by an organization like the UN. The "oil for food program" shows they (even at the highest level) can not be trusted NOT to consider their own interests before others. The UN is a corrupt body and frankly, I think it should be dismantled.

Lyte

 

[wildbest]

I can see only an UN bash fest here!

The "oil for food program" shows they (even at the highest level) can not be trusted NOT to consider their own interests before others.

http://news.google.com/

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1501153.htm
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1513312/20051109/index.jhtml?headlines=true
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/cia9e_20051109.htm

 

[Lyte]

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1501153.htm
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1513312/20051109/index.jhtml?headlines=true
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/cia9e_20051109.htm

I'm going to presume the point you're trying to make since you didn't bother to articulate it.

If you're trying to suggest (in a very lazy way, I might add) there is corruption elsewhere in the world, that's a child's point to make. The argument "They did it too... " or "They did it first... " is a silly and immature point. Just because Johnny stuck his hand in the cookie jar, that doesn't give Billy the right to do it too.

This original post and issue is what role should the UN play. Therefore the focus should be on the UN... not the U.S.

The internet should be as UNgoverned as possible.

Lyte

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Thread marked as heated.

The question here is about UN governance of the internet; not about whether or not the US deserved 9/11.

-Allan

 

[wildbest]

Thread marked as heated.

The question here is about UN governance of the internet; not about whether or not the US deserved 9/11.

-Allan

Absolutely!
That is why I have raised some practical questions and simply am annoyed when somebody (like the Lyte person) is trying to bring the discussion back where it was - who is the good and who is the bad guy?

Try to resume thread from here
http://namepros.com/showpost.php?p=911332&postcount=104

 

[Lyte]

Absolutely! That is why I have raised some practical questions and simply am annoyed when somebody (like the Lyte person) is trying to bring the discussion back where it was - who is the good and who is the bad guy?

I brought the topic back where it started... focused on the U.N.

Lyte

 

[.X.]

Geez, why does every topic turn into US bash fest. :td:

I was watching FOX News this morning and they brought up this issue. I was kinda surprised to hear them even talking about it! According to the reporter, the UN's intention is to bring the internet to every person on the planet. There was talk too of a $100 laptop coming out ... either next week or next month, I forget which.

The disturbing portion of the report was how countries like Iran and China wanted to be part of how the internet was "distributed." Another scary issue raised was the UN (or those countries involved) might decide to start using their new found power for propaganda.

It would be great if the internet was available to all but it should not be controlled by an organization like the UN. The "oil for food program" shows they (even at the highest level) can not be trusted NOT to consider their own interests before others. The UN is a corrupt body and frankly, I think it should be dismantled.

Lyte

Well said on the US bash fest Lyte,I have yet to figure out why myself,That's why i voted for no political threads here at NPs,And this isn't even a political thread so to speak.Sorry iam off topic,I have already posted my coments in this thread on the true subject matter,I would just like to see less bashing of ANYONES country be it the US,UK Canada,India and ect,It's pointless,Debates can be very contructive without ANY bashing period.

 

[Nerz]

Its a lot like the U.N in here

In saying that it will never be dismantled, theres far far too much at stake, and there wouldnt be a single country on earth that would support it, the U.S included. In fact it would be a nightmare for the U.S...id expect:

1) More military interventions in conflicts and a massive financial burden as a result
2) Virtually no chance of western europe raising a finger to help
3) A larger, more organised, and more inward looking E.U, that would no doubt initialize a European only NATO..with Russia joining in on the fun. Some countries already want to do that.
4) China would get a away with a lot more than they do now....
5) The withdrawel from all the important international agreements we have on aid, environment etc etc..

....man i dont want to even think about it anymore, its too scary.

not only that, but if it was dismantled, how long do you think it would take to find agreement on building something similiar...damn it wouldnt be in my lifetime.

Think about it.

In terms of this ongoing debate. Im taking a wait and see approach at this stage now. I think the ITU alternative is still finding its legs. I hope (prey) all sides are smart enough to see that a solution that addresses the concerns of the international community, while still providing the lightest regulatory touch is going to be the only solution long term...the exact details of that need to be worked out.

 

[JMJ]

Any change means more hands in the cookie jar. More hands in the cookie jar means a higher cost of business for me. Sure everyone deserves access to the interenet but it's up to those governments to make that possible. Not me or my wallet.

Those $100 laptops BTW are being built by a non-profit organization which will include a satellite or cellular type modem for WIFI access. So that somewhat eliminates the need for developing networks in underdeveloped countries.

Either way I have a feeling this is going to end up as everyone wishes it will not. The internet will have taxes of sorts. It won't really affect the majority of the US as we see it now but it will hamper those who wish to have access to US customers in the future. Those that this whole initiative is suposedly all about will be affected mostly. The cost for them will increase primarily because they will have to pay those taxes.

The current companies with no presence in the US will end up setting up a business if they don't already have one and operate just as they would a brick-and-mortar business. Which will lead to them getting licensed and paying taxes on their earnings. An increased cost of doing business but a neccesity to survive in business as they know it.

I would imagine there are quite a few people who make their living off of US customers primarily because the cost of living in their country is much lower. What happens when or if the cost of doing so greatly increases? They have to pass the buck to the client. Suddenly their prices aren't as attractive because the client can get a local provider to do the same thing for around the same price.

Web Hosting is an example. I started out doing this several years ago but have since tried to eliminate all but my local clients. One reason is a local client is more likely to pay their bill on time if they don't they know I'll be stopping by for a collection visit. Another is it's more of a hassle than it's worth to me. I can't even imagine how much more of a hassle it would be if I had to track and figure out email taxes, network access fees, etc...

 

[primacomputer]

Oh man, ... there is an ancient saying that even the worst law is better than no law! Think about it.

There's an ancient saying that breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck. You'll excuse me if I won't join you in supporting Internet governance by old wives tales.

Oh man, ... you dont have an idea what is this animal - the international law, do you? ...

I thought you may wish to use Google:
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=UN+international+law&btnG=Search

And then surely you can find links like this for example:
http://www.un.org/law/

I visited the UN international law and did some searches. I received the following results:

Your search - dns - did not match any documents.
Your search - root server - did not match any documents.
Your search - "domain name" - did not match any documents.

Once again, please provide a link to the “truly international law” that will be applied to the root servers once they are handed over to the UN. I need to see this in order to determine whether the law is going to have a positive or negative effect.

Don't be such a tease. Surely you can post a direct link to the text of the law instead of a link to Google. You insist that this law is better than what we have now so clearly you have read it, perhaps bookmarked it, or at least can remember how you found it. I can't imagine you would be advocating handing over the root servers to the UN because their law was better if you hadn't actually read the law.

 

[Flaresolutions]

That's a funny statment,We won't loose world power superiority,All though many would like to see it happen,Sorry,Aint gonna happen.China doesn't have what it takes to it away,And the US will make sure they never do.Trust me.

Now back to the topic,That is interesting,Would www still apply should this happen??

Why do people always push their own political feelings into threads like this? Especially when they obviously dont know the facts to back up their biased reasoning. Im happy with ICANN holding power, the internet is the internet to me. A place where people can communicate with other people all over the world. Its the biggest medium to find information and just think of what it'd be like without it?

And -X- your integrity is pathetic, you say you dont want any political discussion but from the looks of it your totally biased and hypocritical threads have stirred up the most of it.

 

[JMJ]

Unfortunately it's these same attitudes towards the US that will change the www as you know it now. End result will be the US won't change a thing and those countries crying foul to save face will have to go and create their own. It's kindof hard to keep a topic off of politics when the whole initiative is politically motivated.

Sure they would like you to think it's "For the good of the people." lmao Do you really think the Chinese government gives a damn about your freedoms?

 

[CrazyTech]

The entire situation is a result of politics and therefore it would be impossible to keep them out of it. Instead, you have to rise above it all and discuss things in a sensible manner - something those who shall remain unamed cannot do.

1) The oil for food scandal is not a matter of opinion unlike the motives of the Iraq war. Different people have different opinions on the war itself and that's fine but if you want to base how we control these nameservers off of the Iraq wars then let's also apply that standard to the UN. There are several members with known human rights violations and restriction of information. The UN itself is currently being investigated at the very highest levels for illegally taking money to look the other way. What's to stop them from currently doing the very same thing with the internet?

2) The UN has yet to present any real plan on what they are going to do. They still have an investigation to clear up and clean up after and they should concentrate on their own problems first. The EU is the only group crying about the situation and threatening to go play with their own toys like a two year old would.

Oh man, ... there is an ancient saying that even the worst law is better than no law! Think about it.

...and then there is common sense that a law that currently works is much better than a law that doesn't work.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Let somebody else develop a business, and then when it is very successful, knock on their door and say "I should be a part owner!"

That's essentially what's happening here.

Just say: NO.