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?

 

[DNQuest.com]

I'm gonna hate myself for this, but here it goes...

Originally Posted by mystic
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

You did know that the US was a target of terrorist bombings before we bombed them? There were several high profile bombings by Al Qaeda: 1993 WTC and 1998 multiple US Embassy bombings as the biggest (there were many others). We were trying to stop the terroism and bring Osama to justice...

Sorry guys, didn't want to add to the fuel

 

[CrazyTech]

That's just such a helluva BS comment you just made, CrazyTech. Claiming that basically English speaking users would be more entitled to use the Internet right now is just so naive that I don't know if to cry or laugh. Just count the number of non English speaking persons using the Net and you realise you, native English speakers, are a minority online, not the majority. Certainly there's a use for the Internet around the world, even in extreme poverty. It's a communications medium, even if you wouldn't be sipping Dr. Pepper and fragging people in a Counterstrike deathmatch. Of course in extreme conditions there's more vital needs to served first, but that doesn't consitute that there's a smaller need than what you have. You too can actually live without it, just like I can or my neighbour.

Actually your determination to slant the comments of everyone on the board is the only laughable material here. If you'd like to debate with facts, then by all means please do so by using what I said and not changing the words. I ask that you at least respond to what I say and don't turn it into something else like you love doing in your little rampant tirades.

Now, let's get back to what I really said.

1) Let me clarify my statement for politically correct reasons. English speaking traffic conducts the majority of ecommerce on the web. Its obvious from domains alone that English domains are the ones selling for the big bucks. Check DNJ if you don't believe me. Obviously, I didn't say that English users are somehow superior to everyone else. If I said that, please point it out.

2) Internet usage is not a priority in the developing world and it is absurd so somehow say that it is. People in the developing third world nations aren't starving for the internet and you're the one telling me that I can live without it. Thanks for the laugh. Perhaps the proverbial look in the mirror is in order.

3)However, my original point, in which you apparently completely missed in your desire to twist and maim posts still goes back to the fact that there is currently no problem with the internet. Everyone who needs it has access to it including terrorist organizations and individuals. That's pretty much the ultimate sign of free internet usage. The same people who make it a habit to kill and maim have access and run websites.

Actually statements by George Jr. have been pretty much like a two year old grabbing his ICANN toy and keeping it firmly to himself, objecting any diplomatic solution and sharing that toy, so that everyone would enjoy the ICANN toy.

Actually, it's more like a sound politician and businessman not taking apart and potentially compromising something that currently works just fine. Especially to hand it over to hands that seem to be washed in corruption. The UN has no credibility during these investigations and the EU is just as selfish in motive as they accuse of the US of being if not far worse. Sounds like organizations I want in charge.

 

[.X.]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20051116...JJwDmYB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I'd say that ^^^ pretty much sums it up,Nough said


I apologize DNQuest,I didn't see the "Posted By Mystic" It is hard to see.I do apologize,My bad.

Mystic...I really can't believe you posted what you did,I find it hard to believe
any human being would post such.

 

[Jeffrey]

I think we dont need UN as an independent body to run the internet. Those who insistently push for an independent bodies are practically Europeans who are i "think" jealous of the US.

 

[Rasbelin]

Actually your determination to slant the comments of everyone on the board is the only laughable material here.

Me slanting? Pardon me, but this isn't slanting, but debating the issue. Thinking the opposite than you isn't right away slanting.

I ask that you at least respond to what I say and don't turn it into something else like you love doing in your little rampant tirades.

If you re-read this thread with unbiased thought, you see many other comments which could be seen too as tirades, if you so please to see them as.

1) Let me clarify my statement for politically correct reasons. English speaking traffic conducts the majority of ecommerce on the web. Its obvious from domains alone that English domains are the ones selling for the big bucks. Check DNJ if you don't believe me. Obviously, I didn't say that English users are somehow superior to everyone else. If I said that, please point it out.

Actually your response points out the wrong whing. You nor I never refered to ecommerce. Your post clearly refered to English speaking Internet users in general. Domain names and ecommerce have nothing to do with your comment. Nada. And yes, from a domaining point of view, the North American market is inevitably the largest and most crucial one.

2) Internet usage is not a priority in the developing world and it is absurd so somehow say that it is. People in the developing third world nations aren't starving for the internet and you're the one telling me that I can live without it. Thanks for the laugh. Perhaps the proverbial look in the mirror is in order.

I didn't say it's vital. You actually now totally dismiss the sentence in which I said it's not of great importance in extreme poverty. However you can't say, which you basically did, your Internet usage is more justified than someone using Google in a mudhut in Togo. Perhaps it's more plausible in some sense, but certainly you shouldn't look down at the man in the mudhut.

3)However, my original point, in which you apparently completely missed in your desire to twist and maim posts still goes back to the fact that there is currently no problem with the internet. Everyone who needs it has access to it including terrorist organizations and individuals. That's pretty much the ultimate sign of free internet usage. The same people who make it a habit to kill and maim have access and run websites.

Your original point? Well, certainly you now changed it to civil liberties from something else. As for claiming there's nothing wrong with the Internet as it is, I'm sure zounds of people disagree with you. We could even have a poll here and see what people think. My guess is some 75-80% saying the Internet isn't okay as it is. Some mention contents that they find frivolous, some mention illegal online file sharing, some mention pedophiles, some say the Internet isn't good to manage the fast groving load of new users, some find ICANN to be slow and fuzzy, some find it to be far too US centric, etc. Apparently something must be wrong if people think there's something wrong with it.

As for an ICANN prospective on what's wrong with the Net and ICANN, I already made a list of issues which have been also in the past recognised in discussions on eg. NamePros. Or dig up more in ICANNWatch or Slashdot.

It's more than hilarious to see you get amused, while actually I did make a point, which does have validity when it comes to if there's trouble with the Internet as it is.

Actually, it's more like a sound politician and businessman not taking apart and potentially compromising something that currently works just fine.

Well, it works to a point, but beyond that, future development seems vague and neither do they clearly have all the necessary means as it is to develop the Net freely.

Especially to hand it over to hands that seem to be washed in corruption. The UN has no credibility during these investigations and the EU is just as selfish in motive as they accuse of the US of being if not far worse. Sounds like organizations I want in charge.

As I gave already examples about corruption in the US, you must realise that nor is your federation of 50 states holier than the EU or the UN. All three are of course about as self-centric. That's why there's a need for a globally mutual body to govern it.

 

[RogueWriter]

The UN is riddled with corruption and stoically anti-American in most issues. Why would we hand a useful tool like this over to them? Silly.


- - - - - -
My guess is some 75-80% saying the Internet isn't okay as it is.
- - - - - -

You pulled that number out of a hat, that's for sure. I think that number would be closer to 90% saying it IS okay. The other 10% have adware on their PCs.

 

[CrazyTech]

Me slanting? Pardon me, but this isn't slanting, but debating the issue. Thinking the opposite than you isn't right away slanting.

Thank you for proving my point by answering my question in the post. You took my original argument and tried to say that somehow I'm stating that English users are above everyone else on the use of the internet and that is clearly not the case. That, my friend, is what you call slanting an argument.

If you re-read this thread with unbiased thought, you see many other comments which could be seen too as tirades, if you so please to see them as.

Agreed, but in many cases people here aren't trying to slant everyone else's arguments to fit their own views.

Actually your response points out the wrong whing. You nor I never refered to ecommerce. Your post clearly refered to English speaking Internet users in general. Domain names and ecommerce have nothing to do with your comment. Nada. And yes, from a domaining point of view, the North American market is inevitably the largest and most crucial one.

Actually it has everything to do with my point. I clarified myself in the second post since you missed the gist of my argument.

Certainly there's a use for the Internet around the world, even in extreme poverty. It's a communications medium, even if you wouldn't be sipping Dr. Pepper and fragging people in a Counterstrike deathmatch. Of course in extreme conditions there's more vital needs to served first, but that doesn't consitute that there's a smaller need than what you have.

This statement would certainly suggest that internet is vital for these people. This group of undeveloped nations is years away from their people having internet.

My guess is some 75-80% saying the Internet isn't okay as it is.

My guess would be quite the opposite. I don't see that many complaining in this thread about access to the internet and ICANN problems. If you'd like to come up with a poll showing that a majority of people have a problem, by all means, please do so. This would be, of course, problems related to ICANN and not just any issue with the net.

As I gave already examples about corruption in the US, you must realise that nor is your federation of 50 states holier than the EU or the UN.

Once again, didn't say that it was. However, I can say that we're not under investigation at virtually every level for accepting bribes. I don't think one selfish motive trumps another. When something works, it should be left that way. If these internet servers were currently in Iceland and being run by an Icelandic ICANN then I'd have no problem leaving them there because it works.

 

[sm]

The issue actually isnt about what's wrong with the functioning of the internet or with corruption in various organizations, because corruption per-se is a world-wide phenomena. It starts at an individual level, and is therefore present everywhere, and in every nation. Some are stylishly corrupt (bureaucrats), some are confidently corrupt(big shot businessmen) and some others are corrupt with the head hanging down(typically the lower middle class). So, the corruption argument that I see in this thread is baseless.

The language issues are also irrelevant, because even the most universally popular language, namely english, is not limited to a country. With broadband connectivity becoming cheaper and cheaper, financial considerations are also fast becoming a non-issue.

As for the argument regarding ecommerce being the primemover of the internet, global online spendings are on the rise, so that fact cannot be used for tilting the balance in favour of a particular nation, as having control over the Internet.

The overseeing of a global communications system is not the sole responsibility of a single nation, nor should it be.

This is not to say that the UN is/was a good alternative, but that's not the central issue either.

 

[Lyte]

It only turns out to be a "US bash fest" when you interpet it as one, nobody here as intentionally made this a thread/conversation about outright bashing the USA, but rather is simply just a topic about a topic at times seen as heated.

Bah, if you really think that then you've not fully read each post and/or have not fully comprehended each post.

Lyte

 

[Genialnames]

wow, it is quite a huge post, couldn't read it all.
IMHO each country manage could manage its own part throught standard protocols, nothing change for the users , neither for the industry, and everyone is happy.

ps. did anyone noted fluctuations in the stocks market after that meeting?

 

[CrazyTech]

The issue actually isnt about what's wrong with the functioning of the internet or with corruption in various organizations, because corruption per-se is a world-wide phenomena. It starts at an individual level, and is therefore present everywhere, and in every nation. Some are stylishly corrupt (bureaucrats), some are confidently corrupt(big shot businessmen) and some others are corrupt with the head hanging down(typically the lower middle class). So, the corruption argument that I see in this thread is baseless.

Actually, it is all about corruption. Would you hand your business over to a manager convicted on larceny charges? Would you hand it over to the managment of someone convicted on money laundering charges during his work with his last company? I'd sure hope not.

The language issues are also irrelevant, because even the most universally popular language, namely english, is not limited to a country. With broadband connectivity becoming cheaper and cheaper, financial considerations are also fast becoming a non-issue.

My point about the majority of the traffic being English was taken out of context. It was simply a response to a single statement.

This is not to say that the UN is/was a good alternative, but that's not the central issue either.

This seems to be the biggest problem with this entire issue and what annoys me the most. We seem to have so many calling for these nameservers to come under control of a world body yet no one can actually explain what the world body would consist of or offer a real solution. There are a few who have spoken about vague guidelines but nothing concrete.

There are many questions about such a body that would need to be answered first...

1) Who would be on this council?
2) How would power be shared?
3) Would human rights violators and censorship governments be on it?
4) What rules would govern this body?
5) Who is the body subject to?
6) ...

The questions go on and on. We have all of these politically motivated bodies who made these demands. It's pretty obvious that this entire move was nothing more than a political attempt to get America to give up control of these nameservers. They were hoping that we'd just say sure we'll give up control and let everyone else take over without any sort of plan of what we're going to do.

 

[wildbest]

There are many questions about such a body that would need to be answered first...

1) Who would be on this council?
2) How would power be shared?
3) Would human rights violators and censorship governments be on it?
4) What rules would govern this body?
5) Who is the body subject to?
6) ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051125/wr_nm/internet_domains_nodotcom_dc

As always, real innovative business is far, far ahead of all the political twaddle.