Behind the Fight to Control the Internet 593
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The battle over control of the Internet and ICann (previously slashdotted here and here) gets placed in broader context in the Wall Street Journal. The article explains the role of 'other nations' discomfort with the U.S. as the world's only superpower, unafraid of taking unilateral action,' a fear intensified by the U.S.'s move to halt the introduction of .xxx domains for pornography sites. In a related column, Frederick Kempe opens the floor for a debate between the diplomat leading talks for the U.S., and the former journalist from Luxembourg leading the effort to move the Internet away from U.S. control. 'Today, in a globalized world in which the Internet has become a global resource for freedom of expression and for economic exchange, this monopolistic oversight of the Internet by one government is no longer a politically tenable solution,' Viviane Reding says. Kempe also suggests ways the two sides can split the difference."
Let us not forget the internic/registrar split (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let us not forget the internic/registrar split (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you dream of $500 domain names? Cause that's what I paid for my first one.
Re:Let us not forget the internic/registrar split (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you dream of $500 domain names? (Score:3, Insightful)
$500? Sure, it would go a long way toward getting rid of cybersquatters.
It would also make it harder for the average person to register a domain name. My sister and brother-in-law registered a domain for their baby girl who's now 19 months old. They upload photos and keep a log to share with family and friends. But I seriously doubt they would have registered if they had to pay $500.
FalconRe:Do you dream of $500 domain names? (Score:5, Funny)
God, what a loss to humanity that would have been.
Re:frivolous domains (Score:4, Funny)
I can see it now. "Here's little Susie taking her first picture of herself in the bathroom. And here's Susie showing some cleavage just to get some friend invites. And here she is laying upside down on her bed, just wearing a bra. I'm so proud!"
yeah, i dream of it, too! (Score:2)
Finally. (Score:5, Interesting)
People are dumb (Score:2, Funny)
If the average
Re:Finally. (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is a split, I'm sure there will be some complex solution we techies will have to come up with that can act as a band-aid between the two "root domains." People will give a collective yawn and go back to their porn.
Re:Finally. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't correct me with a torch because I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue. I see downsides to dividing control, but I can also conceive of the problems if america would ever be reduced to a police state in the future. Our (US) government is not perpetual, and any system can fall. If it did, the rest of the world wouldn't want the internet governed by whatever restriction could come about in such a case.
The masses are sadly uninformed about a lot of issues that are important to them because a lot of people lack the underlying knowledge about the subject to make a solid argument.
Don't worry, be happy (Score:5, Funny)
> the world wouldn't want the internet governed by whatever restriction could come about
> in such a case.
Don't worry about the root DNS servers if the US ever completes it's slide to socialism or lurches towards a police state. Just remember that the US of A is THE number one power on this planet and the implications of that. No, if we go over to the Dark Side I can personally promise everyone that they won't be worrying about what we order ICANN to do to the root name servers; no you guys will be far too busy cowering in terror from our war machine.
Which is why I prefer the root servers stay under the Dept of Commerce. Moving it to the UN has enormous downside potential and zero upside. So long as the US remains the lone force holding the line against the Darkness and defending Truth, Justice and Western Civilization there isn't a problem leaving ICANN in charge of DNS. Should we sucumb to the Darkness, lose the will to continue holding the line or be ultimately defeated by the barbarians, it just doesn't matter anymore because the whole world will slide into a new Dark Ages anyway.
Re:Don't worry, be happy (Score:4, Insightful)
So long as the US remains the lone force holding the line against the Darkness and defending Truth, Justice and Western Civilization there isn't a problem leaving ICANN in charge of DNS
While I don't want to see a new government organization or the UN to take control of the internet or DNS, there is a problem as it is now. ICANN had all but approved the .XXX domain but because a few Christian groups complained to the Commerce Department it forced the ICANN to drop the domain. That's neither open, democratic, nor a free market.
FalconGood riddance to .xxx (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for them, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
In a single stroke it would transform the Internet from a free and open instuition into one that was mandated by law to be child safe.
Re:Don't worry, be happy (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not war or invasion that other nations are likely to be concerned about. Blowing things up is only the final option of a long chain of ways the USA can influence other nat
Re:who's complaining? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see many bad trends in your government, and hardly regard them as the beacon of truth and justice many americans seem to think they are. Additionally, I don't see why the USA deserves such veto power. The internet would not be an international network without the cooperation of all parties involved. Therefore, there is no reason for any one of those countries to have sole veto power over TLDs.
Re:Don't worry, be happy (Score:3, Informative)
As for Europe ... they couldn't help us even if they woke up and smelled the coffee because they long ago surrendered both their military capacity to do so and the moral authority to even try.
You do realise that the EU, rightly or wrongly, provided tens of thousands of troops to support the invasion of Iraq, don't you? Not to mention hundreds of aircraft, and several ships. Not as big as the US contigent for sure, but Spain, Poland, Italy, and most of all the UK, all sent combat troops and accounted f
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
See, I am educated about the issue, I *still* say we should keep it, and I don't care a lick what the bulk of the
Re:Finally. (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that the rest of the world seems to be screaming that "you made it, we want it, now hand it over!", I'm not sure who we'd be looking good for, I'm not sure they'd appreciate it, and I'm not sure looking good would end up being a pointful exercise in any way. Certainly not so pointful as to be a worthwhile exchange for giving up control of the Internet to, say, Chi
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
Let's face it, most people don't have a clue about how the internet really works. In fact, I'm sure most americans don't even know the internet was started as a government project.
The average american knows that they use the internet to get porn and to check their email. Beyond that, most people could care less. That's why I get my news online.
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
Which, of course, is different than any other country, where mention of such terms causes all conversation to stop as everyone focuses on the news.
Or not.
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
Anyway, I don't think any one country or organization should control it. We should go to a decentralized system and then everyone would be equally happy (or unhappy if they had plans to use this control).
Much Better Article (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84
They place it in perspective, but also point out the nations who are shouting the loudest are also the least free. Overall, a good read.
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
On another note, this has come up on talk radio and I have even heard it covered on top of the hour newscasts on radio.
.xxx domains (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wouldn't these people be in favour of an
I mean, what's easier to spot as porn (domain names made up because I'm at work and cannot check for a good example):
searchmovies.com or searchmovies.xxx
Re:.xxx domains (Score:2)
Re:.xxx domains (Score:5, Insightful)
Because nowadays all the porn is really difficult to find?
Re:.xxx domains (Score:3, Insightful)
Because
Re:.xxx domains (Score:2)
However, it's unclear to me whether DoC can actually halt ICANN introducing
Re:.xxx domains (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite the opposite. My guess is that all these fundies are closet porn eaters but are worried that if all the porn goes
Re:.xxx domains (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wouldn't these people be in favour of an .xxx domain? Hell, wouldn't it make it easier to block sites at work or home?
You're failing to understand puritanism. These people are not interested in blocking porn so they don't have to see it. They are interested in making porn illegal so you can't see it. Anything that legitimizes porn, or makes it less offensive and less of a problem for the general populace is something they are against. Similarly, puritans are not against gay marriage because they are afraid they might be forced to marry someone of the same sex. They are against it because they are terrified that somewhere, someone might be having butt sex and only by acting like complete jackasses can they advertise to everyone that they, do not want butt sex (I suspect because many of them secretly do and are ashamed of that fact).
Re:.xxx domains (Score:5, Funny)
"Puritan : Someone who is afraid that, somewhere, someone else is having a good time."
- H. L. Mencken.
-WS
Re:.KKK domains (Score:3, Insightful)
But its such flawed logic even a baby can grasp the errors. First, you would be rewarding the klan by acknowledging their influence with a special
Second, it wouldn't work, because some people would purposely want to talk about hate in non-KKK TLDs (like slashdot.org). And then you are back to
Re:.xxx domains (Score:4, Interesting)
if .xxx comes to be, then material that now stays buried under the weight of "public decency" will suddenly have a legitimized place to pitch a tent, which will, one suspects, result in generally wider availability of more of it. (E.g., a red-light district puts more prostitutes on view.)
Umm, have you ever tried doing a web search? This town has more brothels in it than it does other businesses combined. You see, porn is legal, unlike prostitution (in most of the U.S.). And it is getting to the point where it's hard to find bagels because for every bagel shop there is a "girls doing nasty things with bagels" shop that you might stumble into. The idea of moving porn all to one TLD would simply be a huge boon for accurate discovery of both porn and everything else and anyone who is arguing against that, is most likely either simple minded or arguing from an ulterior motive.
Re:.xxx domains (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with his argument and if I had mod points, I would have modded him +5 Insightful.
The problem you appear to be having is that his statement is accurate and unflattering. The religious wants to make (sinful == illegal) and they are pursuing that goal on many fronts, not only pornography and being anti-gay-rights. You can't really disagree with it because it's the often-stated goal of many politically active Christian groups.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Voluntary : .PEE TLD (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want .XXX based solely on its POPULARITY then you must also accept a .GOD TLD, because sheer numbers say just as many people are into .GOD as into .XXX. And you must also accept a .NYC because, hey, New York is big, and lots of people would like a .NYC TLD. ad infinium[sic]
If there is enough interest in a .pee domain and enough traffic to that site to warrant it, I'm fine with it. The same goes for .kkk and .god. New York city already has a lower level domain and they seem to being doing just fi
Re:.xxx domains (Score:3, Insightful)
But in the first place I don't find anything immoral about Christian groups using completely legitimate methods to get their views represented.
No one else argued against that either. The only statement I made is that "puritans" (which I was using in a generic way, obviously not referring to the original puritans) have successfully lobbied (note this is not the same as using democracy, it is bypassing the democratic system using money and a loophole that allows legitimized bribes) to hinder free expressio
Re:.xxx domains (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is the reason why ONE SINGLE country should NOT be in control of internet domains. Many (if not the majority of) internet users are _NOT_ christian, why should christians of the U.S. be messing around? Now suppose it wasn't christians, but scientologists. Ta-da! Instant censorship of the internet, driven by private groups.
Allowing conservative, liberal or whatever groups in a single country to determine the availability of domain names, is nothing but expanding corporate lobbying into scopes way beyond the U.S. government.
After all, this is one of the reasons why we have the United Nations. Right?
Re:.xxx domains (Score:2)
Not really...it was put together as a forum for nations to discuss world matters, but, not as a regulatory body of any type with any enforcement powers.
The UN never has had any REAL teeth it can enforce things with...and wasn't meant to have them.
Countries can use it as a forum to discuss things...and maybe put forth a resolution they can agree upon...but, no one is forced to observe it.
Re:.xxx domains (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't know that American companies laid network cables all over the world, in China, Russia, Turkey, Guatemala, Indonesia, Germany, france etc, but I guess you know more than I do. I'm sure that you still think that it is only in USA that can connect to internet? You think USA owns all that cable? I guess this is another nail in the coffin that is called education here in USA?
Re:.xxx domains (Score:3, Interesting)
You're suggesting the "play OUR way or we'll take our ball home" stragegy. Well, the U.S. seams to have plenty of balls of its own and doesn't need yours.
No one forced any one else to interconnect. The Internet started in the U.S. and others connected voluntarily.
Now, if DNS were developed in Helsini, .fi, things might have turned out differently...
Well, no, not really: the U.S. would have just seen the value of a distributed name service a
Re:.xxx domains (Score:2, Insightful)
Because they want porn to disappear entirely. "Porn is sinful". Making "sinful" things easier to avoid is not as important making those "sinful" things illegal.
Re:.xxx domains (Score:2)
These people are not in favour of choice on this kind of issues, they are against the idea of people having access to porn period. They use the demand for blocking sites only as a weapon, as they know the cost and technical impossibility of the task helps their agenda. Having
Re:.xxx domains (Score:3)
Because .xxx would do nothing.
-Who enforces it?
-Who defines it?
-It adds an air of legitimacy to porn
-Blocking "xxx" at work would be no certainty of no porn. It would block some, but with no enforcement, certainly not all.
Basically, add another TLD, with no real benefit.
Re:.xxx domains (Score:2)
Because they don't see it that way.
They want to pretend those sites don't exist, and/or want the ones that do exist banned or shut down altogether, and don't want anything that legitimizes it.
They feel that the fantasy of somehow "banning" all porn sites could still become a reality if porn sites aren't "legitimized" with their own top level domain.
Therefore, they oppose the creation of
Re:.xxx domains (Score:3)
See how much it affected me, here in the US. The VERY worst that would happen would be that the US TLD does not resolve
"Great weeping websites, Batman. What shall we do?"
I know what the REAL problem is. The portentious polliticians out there waving their porkers don't want to miss out on any of our great AMERICAN porn. That's right. Even t
Luxembourg? How dare they? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Luxembourg? How dare they? (Score:3, Insightful)
To preempt some of the more useless comments (Score:5, Informative)
It is common for a country to host its own TLD servers (the servers which tell you what a particular domain under for example
In addition to the CCTLD servers, several countries around the world operate root DNS servers (the servers which for example tell you where to ask about
So far, the people who run these root DNS servers have agreed to serve a common "root zone file" as decided on by ICANN. You see, what many people on this forum propose, that "the rest of the world" should start running their own DNS servers and see how that goes, has been in effect for years. If someone in Germany asks for the
Absolutely the only thing which keeps the DNS from fracturing is the international agreement on a standard definition of the root zone. This agreement is crumbling and if no multilateral solution is found, DNS will become ambiguous.
When people say that users would have to be forced to use alternate servers to make changes take effect, then they clearly don't understand the situation. When they say that everybody uses the US-owned and thus US-controlled internet, then they clearly don't understand the situation. When they say that other countries lack the resources, then they clearly don't understand the situation. It is blatantly obvious that most people who "dare" the rest of the world to try the split have no idea how little stands in the way of that move, both politically and technically.
But the internet routes arounds this damage OK (Score:2)
However, if the US gummint tries to tell my ISP which root servers to point to, or blocks DNS service from offshore, we have got a serious problem on our hands.
Re:But the internet routes arounds this damage OK (Score:2)
remember the trade balance (Score:5, Insightful)
The commercial part of the Internet is largely used for reaching customers, yes? And the largest and wealthiest concentration of customers, that every company with a website in the world would like to reach is in the United States. That is, it's way more important to Toyota, Inc. that Americans reach www.toyota.com correctly than it is important to Ford that Japanese reach www.ford.com correctly.
There's a good reason the US can throw its weight around with import tariffs. The market in the US is so large that access to it can make or break an international producer. The same is not true about a US producer, since he has direct access to the enormous domestic market. Same thing with 'net access, I'm afraid. In this silly game the US holds four aces. I'm not saying this makes their position right, just that in a real showdown the official UN-sponsored "international" DNS system seems likely to go the way of the official UN-sponsored "international" language (French), namely it would end up being used by UN bureaucrats and governments only.
er, wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, there's this odd recurring question I've seen of: "What happens if the US government turns Evil?" Well, in that case, what's to s
US Against the World (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:US Against the World (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:US Against the World (Score:2)
Re:US Against the World (Score:2)
Re:US Against the World (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth is that the US doesn't trust the UN and for pretty good reasons. I do wonder how many "countries" really care about the US having root control. I am all for the US keeping control or the root domains but I would be willing to allow the UN to control it under some conditions.
1. No censorship of political or religious speech in any nation that uses the Internet. Each nation may establish rules on pornography.
2. Pricing to be set by the US and for it to un
Re:US Against the World (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to see some "Universal Declaration of the Communications Rights of Humans" enforced with teeth by the UN. But your specific formulation has problems. Is trying people for "treasonous conspiricies" communicated over the Internet, like planning the assassination of a ruler, "censorship"? Can one nation's mailorder underwear ads be prosecuted in another nation where they're consumed? These are big, complex, globally important issues. We need the US to lead with credibility as a "fair dealer", and for diplomats to negotiate the work.
Tinkering... (Score:2, Insightful)
This reminds me of a child just shown how to do something new. They see Dad riding a bike or working on the car and they want to try. How often are their attempts at emulating the actions of an experienced person successful? Would you really allow your child to poke around the engine compartment of your
Re:Tinkering... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a reason why important jobs generally require years of experience...not just an education.
Other countries have been running root servers for many years, they just have been making sure the domains ICANN is running are in synch with the U.S. root server list. Also, most countries have been managing their own country specific TLD servers and allocation of domains for many years. Exactly what other experience, other than implementing a UN agreed upon, rather than US agreed upon root list would you
Questions (Score:2, Informative)
- The US, and the massive US military-industrial complex many despise, was essentially solely responsible for creating the internet (note: I am talking about the *internet*, not the world wide web, which itself would not have existed were it not for the internet)?
- Aside from the politics and issues surrounding
Some answers (Score:2, Interesting)
As for your second arguement,
Re:Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't seriously be suggesting ICANN are doing a good job, can you? It's an undemocratic monumental, expensive, indecisive, grindingly slow moving organisation that does nothing at all about cybersquatters and adds new TLDs purely so you have to buy more versions of your existing domain every time they want a bit more cash?
Moving to an international system would make no difference whatsoever to the daily functioning of the net, all that would change is that ICANN would be replaced by something else - and I find it hard to imagine that it could be replaced by anything worse.
Re:Questions (Score:4, Insightful)
If we're going to have multilateral control of DNS, then at least everyone who has control should have to sign an Internet Bill of Rights...
Re:Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
The US, and the massive US military-industrial complex many despise, was essentially solely responsible for creating the internet
And we gave deadly gas to Saddam Hussein, what does this have to do with deciding the proper governance of root servers?
Aside from the politics and issues surrounding .xxx, that the US has proven itself to be a capable caretaker of the internet and the root servers (several of which are outside of the US, albeit under ultimate control of the US)?
I think a lot of people disagree. Aside from the .xxx tld, they have given control of .com to very unscrupulous people who intentionally violated their agreement and broke routing worldwide for profit. They just gave control of .com to that same company for another 7 years with no competitive bidding and no public discourse. They have consistently failed to implement the hundreds of tld recommendations from IANA over the last decade. They are not democratically elected, have no representatives from most of the large players that actually run the internet, and have no transparent processes. The changed their own charter and removed all democratically elected members. They have consistently gouged companies around the world for "yet another" registration as they start yet another .com TLD clone for profit. They have done nothing about cyber-squatters or respecting international trademarks. That is not exactly capable care taking.
As to the root servers, most of them (physical machines) are located, paid for, and maintained by foreign companies and reside outside the U.S.
Why is there no consideration that other governments jockeying for position and control over DNS and the root servers could and probably will actually provide a greater chance for problems, mismanagement, miscommunication, and so on?
Because by distributing responsibility you need a majority of countries to agree before they can really mess things up, as opposed to just the US, which is already messing things up and is likely to do so more in the future.
Why is there this concept floated in every one of these articles that makes it seem as if nations will have no choice but to create their "own" internets, disconnected from the "primary" internet, simply because of DNS? I'd say the stupidity and arrogance of disconnecting from the internet and making your own, whether out of principle or some perceived need to have a new top level domain, trumps any stupidity and arrogance of the internet's original creator and caretaker retaining control...
The root server list is simply an agreed upon standard, decided by the U.S. and incompatible with other standards, more or less by definition. If the whole world agrees to move the standard in one direction, not chosen by the US, and the US disagrees, who is it that is being arrogant and stupid?
To put it another way, if you were the minister of technology in the Iraq, Russia, or Chile would you recommend that your government invest billions in and build a technological infrastructure for all communications within and outside your country upon which your economy is dependent, if you knew a political shift in Washington could completely cripple that architecture? Would you not feel safer if it required a majority of countries to agree to cripple your infrastructure and if you were given the opportunity to have representation when decisions were made?
Would you feel the same way if the U.S. was investing in this architecture, but Poland was the one making all the decisions and running the root list. Would you think it would be fair to pay Poland for a listing so theirs can connect to you on your network with your hardware using their network and their hardware? I'm serious, if Poland were running the root servers would you advocate that they remain in control or would you prefer the U.N. run the root server system?
Re:Questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Those outside the US tend to view the US as a single country, strange in many of its habits and with a track record of dangerous mistimed interference. They recognise its problems, as well as what it can do well, and are quite happy for it to be 'one-of-the-crowd', but with no special position. Recent events have shown it currently cannot be trusted, and they therefore are preparing to take back some of the reins of power it currently holds.
Where these two viewpoints clash is in who can make things happen as they see fit. As others have pointed out, the change to a UN control function requires no US agreement. From the 'world is US' perspective, they are creating a small offshoot, nothing to worry about. From the 'real world' perspective they will essentially partition off the US from the rest of the world, allowing it to diverge from the real internet under its own steam.
In the end the real impact is in how any change separates and isolates the US, if only in a small way. Combine this with the inherent US viewpoint of CONUS and its just one more step along the line towards a point where the world takes action against the US to prevent it undertaking some action it attempts, because the 'real world' cannot accept it crossing a line. When you take into account the US is essentially in debt to that world, if becomes akin to the bank manager withdrawing your credit because of your 'strange' behaviour - its very swift, very destructive, and causes a significant shock to the psyche. Here's hoping that the US realises its in its interest to reach a compromise on this issue, akin to the one the EU is attempting to broker. It will be easier to reach a UN hosted solution where no one country can censor free speech/tax commerce if the US plays its part; rather than acting as a young child, unable to recognise others as complete independent entities.
Re:Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that this statement (repeated every time an article of this sort comes up) should be modded flamebait. You are posting something that is largely orthogonal to the discussion, whether you are doing this deliberately or not.
Several points:
1.
Re:Questions (Score:2)
Does the lack of a
Sorry, but this isn't censorship, moral or otherwise. It's too bad that the people arguing against
Re:Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for one thing: it's not me making that argument. It's the "experts" and pundits *opposed* to con
Real story behind XXX domain? (Score:3)
Re:Real story behind XXX domain? (Score:2, Funny)
Yadda, yadda, yadda... nothing will change (Score:5, Insightful)
Fragment the internet? Yeah, right. Goverments cater to business interests and there's no way said business interests will sit idly while their governments screw with the business's bottom lines.
This is much ado about nothing.
Oh, and somebody needs to tell Zonk that the defintion of "slashdotted" does not mean 'previously appearing on slashdot'.
Not Great But Could Be Worse (Score:2, Insightful)
I just need to know one thing (Score:2)
There's also a saying about too many cooks that might apply here.
Re:I just need to know one thing (Score:2)
For fucks sake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For fucks sake... (Score:2)
This issue is being used by foreign political leaders as a jumping off point for rhetoric, but the issue is really a minor one.
To me, the real news here is that the US's relationship with the rest of the world has gotten so bad that countries are starting to needlessly pick unproductive fights.
I'm selfish, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm selfish. But I suspect I could be representitive of a fair chunk of the population.
I live in New Zealand, live for computers, love my internet, games(many violent), and my credit card gets a workout on porn sites.
My concern for many of the world's events is orientated around how it might affect my internet.
However, in NZ, our tech infrastructure is near 3rd world, We rank 22 in OECD broadband surveys. We have a fibre optic cable that runs from our coast to the US west coast(Oh how I wish they'd run it to Taiwan).
All this stirring by the US worries me:
- The re-interpetation of the US 2257 porn laws, with examples of prosecutions now. - The
The only saving grace might be the fact the cable runs thru us from Australia, who are effectively, just another state of the US now. Thus they need us.
I fear the US's attitude to that uppity free thinking(anti-nuclear) nation, New Zealand. Where the Crazy frog ring tone videos play at prime-time with his attributes non-censored.
I can hear the sound of US scissors snipping my beloved fibre optic cable.
9000 mile fiber optic link? (Score:2)
Re:I'm selfish, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, the US isn't going to disconnect New Zealand from the internet or cut anyone's fiber.
Second, the "reinterpretation" of the laws is designed to make sure that porn performers are of legal age. Period. If you have problems with that and think they should be able to be younger than 18, or that porn sites shouldn't be able to produce records that indicate that they ARE over 18, then we probably won't see eye to eye on this. No matter how
US as the world's only superpower? (Score:2, Funny)
it's not that simple (Score:5, Informative)
Address allocation (to ISPs) is carried out by Regional Internet Registries, from their allocations. For Europe, it is RIPE. ARIN controls the Americas. APNIC controls the Asia and Pacific regions. AfriNIC is Africa. LACNIC does Latin America and the Caribbean. Allocation of addresses TO those organisations (from the scarce IPv4 address pool, and the much more abundant IP v6 pool) is a different question. ISPs allocate addresses in turn to their customers. IPv4 and IPv6 can interoperate (sort of) and IPv6 is quite widely deployed in Asia, where IPv4 addresses are in short supply.
Protocols are defined by groups like the Internet Engineering Task Force and working groups - any internet user can participate, if they know what they are talking about. They are adopted by consensus among internet users (and major ISPs and vendors). To a large degree, the protocols determine how much control there can be over any given internet application (like email, or the web, or internet telephony).
Top Level Domain Names are split into Country names (generally controlled by countries, or their nominees), and Generic ones (where control is awarded by ICANN).
This depends entirely on individual ISPs and Users taking their DNS information from the base name servers (and their descendents) controlled by ICANN. There are alternatives, like OpenNIC, which administer their own root servers and top level domains, like
It's more complicated than that even
But yes, the US Dept of Commerce controls the department that awards ICANN its power. The rest of the world COULD ignore ICANN if they wanted - but they probably won't. Mostly they don't need to.
It's not THAT bad yet. And the UN could be worse... more interfering... more clueless... more corrupt...
for me... (Score:2)
if all the national us commersial sites would move to the correct domain and stop grabbing every
hmm, maybe we should just remove all those non-national TLDs? then there would not be a problem...
"Superpower" (Score:2)
I love this bit of political spin (and I'm American)- nothing like ignoring all those pesky countries with nukes (and armed forces big enough to "project" their power anywhere in the world.) I thought the term "superpower" really wasn't used anymore, since size doesn't really matter in a lot of ways.
It's a "white elephant" issue if I ever saw one...
Internet vs DNS (Score:5, Insightful)
Common Quote - We invented it, we want to keep it.
This of course is a stupid argument - the Internet is many things - WWW being the most obvious. And the Web was invented where?
Common misconception - repressive countries need to control DNS root servers to repress......not so.
Cisco and other vendors sell products that today succeed in blocking site not allowed. Most Arab countries filter the internet behind proxy servers and cisco firewalls.
The real issue at stake is that ICANN is an opaque organization that was handed control of the root file with no REAL input from ALL internet stakeholders. ICANN today holds the power to drop any country off the DNS system. The EU itself had to apply for permission to ICANN for the
The real issue is that prior to 1998, IANA had plans to open up hundreds of top level domains......which plans were then shelved with no open process by ICANN. http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive
The reality? Most Americans have no idea where ICANN came from or how it works or how it is not really beneficial for them, but they invoke this maddening knee jerk blind patriotism - it's ours and we run it. Sad that they have no idea who "we" is. ICANN is not "we". ICANN is undemocratic even for Americans, and is secretive. ICANN is in bed with WIPRO and seems to have a policy that supports big business. ICANN has no idea of trademark law. in short ICANN is NOT the answer for DNS governance.
Re:Internet vs DNS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Internet vs DNS (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly what we got was worse than Postels management.
Some things matter, but not this one (Score:2, Insightful)
Today, the 2000th American soldier died for his country in Iraq (of all rotten places, fgs).
Today, it also looks as if indictments are just about to be handed down on two of the President's key aides.
And this is the news that, allegedly, preoccupies us all.
Are politicians that desperate to distract attention from far more important matters? Let's forget about brave men dying like dogs and worry about whether we'll still be able to order groceries online next Tuesday!
Yawn... (Score:2)
Horrible Article.. How about telling the Truth (Score:3, Interesting)
More info here:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/article
That's from the Liberal "Boston Globe" newspaper. No choir boys there... They hate this administration, but it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the UN being inept at doing anything correct.
"imagine a UN member with a lot of clout, and a very low regard for freedom of speech -- China, say. ICANN accredits the companies that sell domain names to Internet users like you and me. Suppose a democracy activist wants to register domain names like downwithchina.com. If China had a say in ICANN affairs, it could push to have such domain names prohibited."
That article speaks volumes, and is a HELL of a lot better written then the parent post.
Re:Horrible Article.. How about telling the Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
What you hate is that you believe that the US deserves some special pantheon to sit astride the world.
The UN is a place where ALL nations meet. Many European countries abhor the state killing in the US yet still enter into dialogue with the US at the UN.
That you select certain anomolies in the nature of world bodies t
I think the danger is the US having its own Net (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:I think the danger is the US having its own Net (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what I got out of the article. So, basically, EU got its panties in a wad over not getting a porn domain?
Geez...can't they use USENET or Google for web based porn like the rest of us?
Re:*yawn* - We dare you ... (Score:2)
I liken the situation as such.
...because you have no clue about what you are talking about?
So seriously, get your own frakking networks and services, you Kato Kaelins. No one's asking you to stay.
They have their own networks, services, and servers. We have been charging them for permission to use them with the root list the U.S. maintains. They have had enough, the question is, what will businesses do when the US does not play ball and companies need to pay the US to register a domain on their server
Re:*yawn* - We dare you ... (Score:3)
Get your head out of your ass. The root list that the US maintains (as you put it) is the property of the US, and by extension, property of the citizens of the US. This list constitutes alot of work, information, and as a result, power. I can't think of a single reason we have for wanting to give it away.
I da
Re:*yawn* - We dare you ... (Score:3)
You may support a world government but I do not. The UN has long been trying to
ban guns and create a world tax to support itself.
The UN was set up solely as a place where nations could discuss their problems.
It was not supposed to have "authority" to do anything. I have enough problems
with my elected officals, who supposedly represent the interests of american
citizens. I do not want another layer of unelected idiots deciding what is best
Re:We Built the House - It's Our House (Score:4, Insightful)
The US cleared a patch of land and built a house and a road. Others came along, used the same idea to clear their own patches of land and build houses next to the road (and built other roads).
The US says, "We were here first so we get to name all the houses".
Everyone else says, "No thanks - we'd prefer to pick our own names".
The US says, "HaHa! Just for that,
Re:EU should back off... (Score:3)
From a technical standpoint, the EU is at least the equal of the US - some would say better in some matters.
From a free speech standpoint, the EU was there first and has a much longer history of knowing what 'free' means and what the consequences are. Lessons learnt the hard way.
In that vein you might like to remember this little phrase about freedom from Europe of 2000 years ago, it would serve the present day US well - "Quis custodiet ipsos cus