US assertion of hegemony over domains

[Venolus]

Assistant Secretary of Commerce Michael Gallagher announced Thursday that the U.S. will not transfer control of the internet to any other entity and will "maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file," CNET reports. The "root" is the master file of authorized top-level internet domains. The announcement came as a surprise and may cause waives internationally. In the past, the U.S. has said it would grant the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) responsibility for maintaining the root file.

The current memorandum of understanding between ICANN and the Department of Commerce will expire next year, in September.

The Bush administration's announcement came a few days before ICANN's meeting in Luxembourg and asserted that he U.S. will continue its "oversight" over ICANN and ensure that its main task remains technical coordination. The U.S. position won't likely go over well with the United Nations, through which many poorer states have been requesting more input into how the internet is managed.

more at http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2005/07/03/us_asserts_hegemony_over_internet_domains/

 

[armstrong]

How difficult can it be for a group of large countries to push for an alternative global root, with extensions like .web or .shop? Simply require all state and school-owned computers to have OS, browsers and email clients that support this alternative root, and the software makers will fall all over themselves to add the required mods.

All it will take is some balls to buck the US. Something I don't expect the UN to pull off, but maybe the G-8 heavyweights can.

 

[Venolus]

Ofcourse, they ought to have handed over the authorities to ICANN and made a clean chit and i surely believe that UN will take the issues

 

[Element]

Thanks for the interesting article.

 

[LeeRyder]

lol, you act like the US stole the internet.

We invented it, developed it.. and if not for the USA it most likely would still be back where it was in the early 90's. A wasteland.

What could the UN do that the USA hasnt? Hell the UN can't even keep itself in line as it is.

Give it to another nation? Like who? The UK? The UK is currently undergoing a massive devolution of freedom of speech.. not really who we want to be in control of the free web now is it?

Aside from th brits.. I couldnt imagine just handing it over to any other nation.

Give it to ICANN? The same ICANN everyone here is always complaining about?

The web has developed just fine under US jurisdiction.. it has no were to go but up... unless it steps back to some "Watchdog" group or worse.. under the rule of a less than free society.

 

[armstrong]

Hail and thanks to America for the internet. I say that in all honesty - no sarcasm.

But that's not the point, Lee. The internet has grown to a point where it is (or will soon be) the world's largest information center and economic marketplace, and other countries want to ensure that their sovereign interests are preserved. Having all that control under one country (in fact, under one country's political party) could be dangerous for those who's interests run counter to the US, to whatever degree.

The US invented phones as well. Can you imagine the power your CIA can wield if you have technical control of all phones worldwide? That's the potential power you have over the internet.

 

[LeeRyder]

Well.. if there was a modicum of hint at any amount of disfortune of the possiblity that could arise from the USA controlling the web.. I havent heard or seen it aside from one obviously false claim in the Break room about a website being shutdown.. then I would agree.

the fact is..America is the only nation (to my knowledge) that has laws against spamming..etc. And at least here, we can and do enforce it.

put the UN in charge of it.. what would happen? Nothing.
absolutely nothing. for decade upon decade on end.
France would argue it deserves the majority of the say, then germany would claim it..USA as well.

at least this way..no one is getting a say and it is ensured to grow and grow under the very facets of the Constitution of the USA (the same consitution that has lead and been the main driving force behind the fastest growing, economical powerhouse known as the USA).

I think we all know that putting it in the hands of the UN would effectively kill any chance at progress.. essentially putting the WWW into a holding pattern 30K and 10 miles outside the future..indeffinately. America makes things happen.

To dwell on speculation because of a President is ... at best... Tinfoil hat material.

Giving it to a corporation or an organisation that is subject to corporate budrens (ICANN as an example) would be even worse for everyone. So that road is pure darkness..and not one anyone wants to traverse.

You can only judge the future by what has worked in the Past. In that I base my feelings for this decision. America has made the web for all people. the only things not allowed to be viewed are the results of other nations limiting their own people and..oddly enough.. the only limits placed on the global growth of the www is the UN... both things people are advocating that should take hold here.

tell me, please.. what track record does the USA have the insinuates that the USA shouldnt maintain control? What evidence (aside from personal speculations) is there to suggest that this is not the best route to take?

 

[Venolus]

This discussion is going more and more nationalistic and better to say imperialistic
You must unsderstand that "the internet" isnt a patented product or "networking" is a registered trademark. You can say that nobell invented dynamite and even nobody can use it since only he has it in his lockers. When the internet became a gloabal substatial benefitory, you must understand that it belongs to all and not but to one. So the supreme control of it should be on an authority that has its roots branched on all leading nations not just on US. Also people must understand that though Networking and Internet began in a small scale at Pentagon, India and China are one of the most outspreading countries where US actually relies upon for their end products, i mean even US companies heavily rely upon Indian softwares, say for IBS as they produce air trafficing control and networking devices for Swiss Air, Global Pacific and all.
Please dont justify the thread as it has been totally unjustified by most leading thinkers and deveopers

 

[LeeRyder]

ah man.. my right to post has been revoked by a nobody in India


**yet another example why the USA should retain control.**

 

[armstrong]

The following thread contains a subject that is potentially volatile.

EDIT: This thread make a good case for maintaining international control.

 

[dgaussin]

the fact is..America is the only nation (to my knowledge) that has laws against spamming..etc. And at least here, we can and do enforce it.

Sorry, but for your information we have laws here in France against spamming, and we don't joke with that. And I'm sure other countries have same law too like Germany, etc.

put the UN in charge of it.. what would happen? Nothing.
absolutely nothing. for decade upon decade on end.

I don't understand that Lee. What do you want to happen more than nowadays ?...

And well..by the way.. I think America is happy to find UN or other country when America needs them, excatly like we're happy to find America when we need you. I've relatives in US and I love this country, but please, open your eyes, you're not the only ones on the planet...

 

[dgridley]

I forget the movie but I think it was part of the "Flint" series starring actor James Coburn where the phone company plotted to take over the world... maybe it was The President's Analyst instead?

The US invented phones as well. Can you imagine the power your CIA can wield if you have technical control of all phones worldwide? That's the potential power you have over the internet.

 

[LeeRyder]

What do you want to happen more than nowadays ?

lots. WWW2, more proactive and stringent protections built into the system -or- having the web more secure from it's foundation (hence WWW2)..etc.

I've relatives in US and I love this country, but please, open your eyes, you're not the only ones on the planet...

My eyes are open.. perhaps yours arent.
Us not being the only ones on the planet is exactly why we should retain control of things. Who's to say that the future safety and security of not only the web..but America, her people and her business' dont rely on the web staying in US control? If a party with ulterior motives (not possible? oil 4 food wasnt either) has there say... it would be to late to stop it.

just common sense for us to maintain control over things.

 

[dgaussin]

just common sense for us to maintain control over things.

We're agree. It's only your interest to keep control :D If I was american, I think like yourself

 

[LeeRyder]

no..its in the interest of everyone that uses the web, and most that dont use it directly.

imagine: the UN gets control. We both know the UN is not the most effective nor efficient machine out there... so what happens when something needs to be done? listen to nations argue about what is best or who should get what contracts or where said server should be located etc etc etc???

or is it better than there is one driving direction by the proven leader of "this realm"?