European Union Asks US To Free ICANN 503
An anonymous reader writes "Viviane Reding, Information Society Commissioner of the European Union, is calling for the United States to hand over control of ICANN (Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers). She said that the organization running ICANN needs be free of control by a single nation, and rather controlled by a private entity and governed by multiple nations. ICANN, headquartered in Marina Del Rey, California, was created in 1998 to oversee a number of Internet related tasks. Reding said, 'In the long run, it is not defendable that the government department of only one country has oversight of an internet function which is used by hundreds of millions of people in countries all over the world.'"
Uh, no (Score:3, Insightful)
We can see how well the UN has worked out, so no thanks.
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Funny)
We can see how well the UN has worked out, so no thanks.
You're kidding, right? They un-nazied the world! For ever!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on your definition of "United Nations". The current structure of the UN was created after the war, true. But the Allies frequently called themselves "the United Nations" during the war, and the post-war UN was built upon the wartime alliance (there's a reason that the five permanent members of the Security Council were the five major Allied powers).
Gotta give Stalin some credit... (Score:2, Offtopic)
If the dictator Joseph Stalin had not have killed a few million German soldiers and destroyed I think at least 20,000 tanks during the course of the Russio-German war, D-Day would have been awful tough for the United States and Great Britain. What sort of shape would the German army have been in without having endured the winter offensive on Moscow, the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk and then Operation Bagration.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the dictator Joseph Stalin had not have killed a few million German soldiers and destroyed I think at least 20,000 tanks during the course of the Russio-German war, D-Day would have been awful tough for the United States and Great Britain. What sort of shape would the German army have been in without having endured the winter offensive on Moscow, the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk and then Operation Bagration.
For the record, 2/3 of all German casualties in WW2 were on the Eastern front. That is manpower, for artillery and tanks it's up to 4/5. Note also that Germans started racking massive casualties in the West only from 1943 onwards, when they've already had their ass kicked in the East for the most part.
At the same time, you know, Stalin didn't do that. Soviet soldiers did that, and Stalin, in fact, made a lot of blunders, esp. right before and early in the war, that made the Soviet casualties much higher tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the record, 2/3 of all German casualties in WW2 were on the Eastern front. That is manpower, for artillery and tanks it's up to 4/5
Very true... I think it is only really in aircraft that German sustained more losses on the west...
Soviet soldiers did that, and Stalin, in fact, made a lot of blunders,
Tis true that the troops win the war, but the troops cannot win the war unless they are capably equipped, deployed and led. The Germans bungled in all three as the war the progressed whereas the Russians imp
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Funny)
French died fighting while the Yanks made excuses (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of brave French men and women died fighting for their homelands while the Yanks made excuses and sat around eating ice cream in Times Square or whatever they were up to and didn't get involved til 1941. Show a bit of respect.
Ok jokes aside and in Europe we're truly grateful for the Americans finally getting involved in 1941 and for less open but valuable support beforehand, but I think you do the French a disservice, take a look at how many were fighting in different theatres of war and in home resistance. I think over here in Europe we're much more aware about how many nations fought together and suffered terribly. Check how many nationalities fought on the Allies side in the Battle of Britain [wikipedia.org], something like a sixth of the RAF pilots were from countries other than Britain.
I am not sure where American naivety comes from regarding WW2 (though for sure it's not limited to your country)- perhaps because the war was mostly something that happened far away and didn't happen on your home soil except with rare exceptions? I guess the folk-memory of the war is life going on as normal and waving off the brave boys to distant lands. Maybe this is something to do with how that war is perceived differently in the USA from Europe?
Re:French died fighting while the Yanks made excus (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of brave French men and women died fighting for their homelands while the Yanks made excuses and sat around eating ice cream in Times Square or whatever they were up to and didn't get involved til 1941. Show a bit of respect.
The French men and women were brave. The French Government failed them miserably though. Sitting behind their fortifications and ceding the intuitive to the Germans clearly wasn't the best approach to fighting the war. The collaboration of the Vichy regime also comes to mind as a stain on the history of France.
Regardless, I think you misread me. I made a cheap joke at the expense of the French but my underlying point was to dispute the notion that the British and Americans single-handily won the war. It took the efforts of every single Allied nation to defeat the Axis powers. That fact is beyond dispute for anyone who has bothered to give the subject even a cursory reading.
Re:French died fighting while the Yanks made excus (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure where American naivety comes from regarding WW2
Hollywood. Take a look at any US-made WWII film, and you see the French being rescued, the British being helpful to the main American force, and the Russians conspicuously absent (especially on anything made during the cold war).
Then take a look at what history is taught in school in the USA. All (most?) nations are guilty of focussing too heavily on their own history when it comes to education, and for the USA the two world wars were not nearly as major events as they were for most of Europe, and in WWII a lot more focus is given to the Pacific theatre. I'm guessing you have an interest in history, and so have read quite widely on the subject, but try to think back and see if you can remember how much you were taught in school about the Pacific theatre in WWII. Here (in the UK) I don't remember being taught much more than 'oh, and the Japanese, Chinese and Americans were having a bit of a fight over there too'.
Some of the early war films and books in the USA were written based on accounts of US servicemen, but these had a very skewed view of the war; they missed out on all of the early actions in Europe, weren't aware of how much intelligence for the invasion came from various resistance groups, and very few of them came into contact with the Russian war machine that trampled over the Eastern Front. From their perspective, the Americans arrived, landed in Britain, dropped in to France, marked to Berlin, and then went home.
Re:French died fighting while the Yanks made excus (Score:4, Insightful)
Insulting the French is a national pastime for us. I don't really know why, it doesn't make much sense to me. Wikipedia suggested it might be because we have few French immigrants compared to other nationalities, so in effect we're excused from trying to be politically correct to you.
For your information, the people who make jokes about France surrendering often actually believe that France is weak and that their proximity to the Nazis had nothing to do with their country falling. It's an excellent example of the Ugly American archetype.
Re:French died fighting while the Yanks made excus (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree the GP needs to be a bit more respectful, you go to far yourself.
"...while the Yanks made excuses and sat around eating ice cream in Times Square..."
I believe the excuse is "nobody declared war on us", which is a damn good one. The more I read about history, the more I believe that a major issue we have in the US is taking sides in wars that do not involve us. We should let other people fight the wars and have the bravery it takes to sit them out. If that means more disengagement from the world to prevent being dragged-in, so much the better.
Yes, that means we sit idly by while the Germans put up concentration camps. Yes, that means watching the slaughter occur in various places in Africa. Yes, that means...you get the picture.
The only wars we should get involved in are defense of our borders, or defense of allied borders, and we should be very, very picky about who we call "ally".
-Jeff
Re:French died fighting while the Yanks made excus (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody declared war on Britain or France either- they both declared war in support of the Polish.
And there's a reason for this: far and aside from humanitarian arguments, Britain & France both reached the conclusion that Nazi Germany probably wasn't going to stop at Eastern Europe. The realisation that you were probably in the firing line anyway will do a lot to make you stick together with your fellow targeted neighbours.
What do we think would have happened to the United States once all of Europe, Asia and Africa were under fascist regimes? And how well would they have fared, with no allies and the industrial might of a whole world poised against them?
We actually don't really need to ask this. Hitler demonstrated quite amply with his treatment of the Soviets. At the beginning of the war Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact. As soon as the Nazi regime decided that they were able to take them, they turned their attentions on the Soviets. And of course, the US was attacked by the Japanese as soon as they thought they could win, too, despite not having declared war.
All the US could have achieved by staying out of the war longer would have been to deepen the hole they would have needed to get out of. It is good for us and good for history that it didn't turn out this way, and that both the USA and USSR were dragged into the war before it was too late.
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you take your snide 'try reading a history book or two' remark and shove it up your ass? The Soviets and Chinese accounted for 88% (yes, eight-eight percent) of all Allied military casualties. It doesn't matter how important you think the US intervention was. The fact remains that many more Americans and Britons would have died fighting that war if it wasn't for the Soviets and Chinese bleeding the Axis powers.
To discount the importance of the Soviet and Chinese contribution to the war is to suggest to me that you are the idiot who needs to 'try reading a history book or two'
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this marked as a troll? It's well documented that the Soviet army was, especially at the start of the war, terribly equipped and horribly trained (thanks mainly to Stalin decapitating the army in his many purges prior to the outbreak of WW2, leaving no effective chain of command or indeed any combat experience) - witness how poorly the Russians fared against the Finns in the opening stages of the war.
And during Barbarossa, Russia literally threw men at the germans whilst they were still gearing up their war machine. Where they could they retreated eastwards, where they couldn't they fought with whatever they could find. Even when supplies did start becoming available, supplies to "hot spots" like Stalingrad were kept to a trickle as part of the military strategy that culminated at Kursk, resulting in the annihilation of the german 6th and the beginning of the end for Hitler.
Statistically, the russians lost ~13% (23 million) of their population during WW2, second behind Poland with 16% (about 5.5 million dead) - remember lots of Poles who had been lucky enough to escape were first on the beaches of Normandy too - in fact most places in eastern europe suffered much higher rates of civilian death due to internment in labour camps (as the slavic races were considered "subhuman" by the believers in Hitler's regime); Russia's death toll was 50% civilian - much of in labour camps, much of it due to Russia's lack of regard for individuals safety and a callous attitude towards the individual that was, some say, inherent under Stalin's communism. Witness his choice to not evacuate Stalingrad once it became evident that it was going to be a cataclysmic battle - "they will fight harder for a live city than an empty one" - using the lives of the inhabitants as incentive for the soldiers. Similarly, Germans were told that the Soviet's lack of regard for their own was symptomatic of their animal nature. That's the sort of thing that happens when two of the world's greatest fascists go head-to-head in a battle that was more about their personal pride than anything else. Stalin could just afford to lose alot more men than Hitler.
Comparatively, both the US and the UK lost less than 1% of their population. Not saying that the Russian contribution wasn't anything other than catastrophic for Hitler's regime, but alot of the deaths *could* have been prevented had Russia been better prepared (which, in turn, would have relied on Stalin not having shot all of his best men), and neither Hitler nor Stalin were too worried about the lives of their troops by the time of Stalingrad. Parent is spot on about soldier deaths though; Russian weaponry and military expertise were in colossally short supply up until the closing stages of the war in europe.
Mods - if you can't tell the difference between a troll and WW2 military history, please use your points on something else. Even better, use your time to educate yourself on one of the bloodiest and most epoch-defining events of the last thousand years which *still* serves as a reminder why letting fascist bastards get into a position of power over others frequently causes those others to die quite horribly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
More often than not Soviet forces sent out 100 men with half a rifle each (every other carried a rifle; the rest carried the ammo).
The famous line from Enemy at the Gates:
"The man with the rifle shoots! When the man with the rifle dies, the man without the rifle picks up the rifle and shoots!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I may dare to quote an American (Patton) on this subject: "The object of war is not
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Germany suffered around 3.6 million KIAs on the Eastern Front. She suffered around 5.5 million KIAs in the entire war. The Eastern Front contributed to well over half of Germany's military losses.
The fact that the Soviets and Chinese died in far greater numbers doesn't mean their contribution was greater.
You wouldn't see it that way if you were a Russian ;) There are a number of different battles (Stalingrad) and sieges (Leningrad) where the Russians absorbed more deaths than the British and Americans did during the entire war. I really don't think you can make the claim that their contribution wasn't important and I find it questionable that the Allies could have won without them. The US might have been able to defeat Germany but do you really think we would have walked away with a "mere" 418,000 KIAs if we had faced them alone?
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Insightful)
What should they have done differently? Given up because they lacked the resources and training to effectively fight their opponents when the war started? We had the luxury of two oceans between us and time to build up and train our forces. We had the luxury of choosing when we would fight.
You don't have those luxuries when your country is invaded. You fight back as effectively as possible and do what needs to be done to drive the invaders from your homeland. Do you really think we would have done it any differently if someone was invading our soil?
Re:Uh, no (Score:4, Interesting)
The government-issued arms and ammunition would have been the preferred choice, but millions of old .30-30 deer rifles and .45-70 buffalo/elk guns could have been pressed into service at an instant.
And you don't think that fighting such an action would result in higher casualties than the neat set-piece battles we got to fight on the Western Front? The battles that we fought with full benefit of aerial supremacy, attacks on the rear area Axis logistical network and an Ally to the East that had already been bleeding the German Army for three years?
I'm a big fan of the "rifle behind every blade of grass" concept but I don't think for a moment that it wouldn't have been every bit as desperate and bloody as the Eastern Front was.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I agree with you. I would slice the standing army down to a small professional force tasked primarily with training, operating advanced weapons systems (air defense and artillery) and defending important American outposts that aren't attached to the mainland (Guam, the Mariana's and Hawaii come to mind).
I would keep the Navy largely as is but make it solely responsible for our nuclear deterrent. I don't see the point of keeping around expensive ICBMs that are easily located and destroyed when we ca
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Informative)
The Soviets were being taken over by Nazi Germany. Just like Europe was. The Chinese were being taken over by the Japanese. The Soviet Union, Europe, and Asia would all look and sound a lot different if Japan hadn't dragged the US into the war. I'm thinking things like, no Jews, with lots of German and Japanese speakers.
Try reading a history book or two.
Weren't the Soviets the first ones into Berlin?
Also, Battle of Kursk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a troll, guys.
The head of the UN "human rights commission" has been Colonel Gadaffi, for the love of Jebus. The UN does a decent job of preventing major armed conflicts between major world powers, and the food relief missions seem pretty successful - but it is not the forum for all things international in scope.
Even the EU has more limits on speech than the US, and I fear that giving them more control over the internet will result in censorship. I agree that having the US in charge is not ideal,
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Insightful)
That's nothing, the head of the Department of Justice in the USA approved of illegal wiretaps, and the President of the country personally approved of torture, for the love of Jebus.
Re:Uh, no (Score:4, Funny)
But that doesn't count.
You see, those things were done to protect America from the terrorists, and as everyone knows our constitution specifically says the executive branch is free to do whatever it likes - legal or otherwise - without fear of repercussions if it calls any policy it chooses to implement part of a war. (see "drugs, war on" for more details)
Re:Uh, no (Score:4, Interesting)
It was torture when the Japanese did it to Americans, so it's torture now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Japanese version of waterboarding killed people, or injured them for life. Ours does neither.
Interesting. Can you provide a citation for this?
Re:Uh, no (Score:4, Insightful)
The Japanese version of waterboarding killed people, or injured them for life. Ours does neither.
How about we strap you to a board and try it for 10-20 minutes and see if you still don't consider it torture?
Victims of waterboarding may not normally be physically damaged (though lung damage can occur and if done wrong the subject may actually drown) but the psychological damage is often severe and long-lasting.
I'm not inclined to feel a lot of pity for terrorists, but I do feel very strongly that MY nation should not lower itself to that level. We're better than that. I would much rather have another 9/11 every year than to abandon our principles and the pre-eminence of the Rule of Law -- after all, it would still only account for as many lives as about 3 weeks of traffic accidents, and as much property damage as one fair-sized hurricane. We can sustain that, easily. In fact, though, it wouldn't come to that even without "enhanced interrogation", warrantless wiretaps and the rest of the shameful practices justified as part of the "war on terror".
It's comforting to believe that Jefferson's declaration that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots" refers only to the blood of soldiers who volunteer to die overseas, but in fact maintaining liberty and the high ideals upon which this nation was founded also exposes those of us at home to risk. The use of torture is just another example of us trading our ideals for "a little temporary safety" and, as Franklin put it, when we do that we "deserve neither liberty nor safety". To maintain the rule of law, to maintain our liberty and our national conscience requires us to accept some risk. There was a time when we were up to it. I hope we still are, though I often wonder.
Easy solution.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said I hope USA take total and restrictive control over ICANN; simply because I want, and hope, that it will force Europe (and basically all the other nations of the world that want to use a type of internet like service) to think outside the box and find ways to adapt and marginalise ICANN and the current way
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Try to stand on a street corner in France and deny that the Holocaust happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, thanks for pointing out the obvious. The occasionally reliable source [wikipedia.org] known as Wikipedia says that Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland all have laws against Holocaust denial on the books. With the exception of Israel and Switzerland those are all EU members.
So yes, it's true that not every EU member state restricts free speech. But it seems folly to claim that you have the same free speech rights
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, thanks for pointing out the obvious..
The obvious did not seem very obvious when reading your response to AC. The EU do not have any limit on free speech as the fact that there are 15 Sovereign member states that do not have that limit clearly shows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Name me an American state that experienced Nazi invasion. Laws like this are a reaction to precedence, ignorant yank.
Blow it out your ass you arrogant Eurotard. Prior bad experiences do not provide sufficient justification to infringe upon freedom of speech, IMHO.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just fyi, from your link:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that you *can* challenge religion in the U.S. and the worst you do is get picketed, badmouthed, and boycotted by fundamentalists. There are atheist conventions very frequently in the U.S. and that's the worst that happens. Picketing and yelling is also the worst that happens whenever neo-Nazis come and have their marches through town, at least until somebody starts a fist fight or riot. The police actually protect the neo-Nazis. If the neo-Nazis went to Europe and tried to march, the polic
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that there's literally nothing stopping the US doing that if they want to. Sure, you might argue that for the last decade they haven't, but when the administration can change every 4 years, it's a hell of a leap of faith to take.
At least by having it internationally run, there'll be enough red tape and bureaucracy to prevent anything like that from happening.
The UN is more than just the security council (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uh, no (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean like the time when they kicked North Korea's ass out of South Korea? Yeah that was an UN action (Resolution 84). Or how it served as a forum for the US and USSR to work out the Cuban Missile Crisis instead of fighting it out? How about the first Persian Gulf war, the one that's approved by the UN and not based on bullshit? Don't we wish we listened to the UN instead of Bush and Fox News the second time around?
The UN is huge and has many organs. Most of them are successful enough that you never hear about them and the work that they do. Of course there are failures but a world without the UN would be a far worse place.
Stop sucking on Fox News' teats.
Re:Uh, no (Score:4, Insightful)
"You mean like the time when they kicked North Korea's ass out of South Korea? Yeah that was an UN action (Resolution 84)."
That's that war that's STILL GOING ON, right....50 years later?
The one where total US forces were about 480,000, and the total of all the "allied forces of the mighty UN in action" equaled about 135,000?
The one where the ONLY reason that "NK's ass was kicked" was the landing by MacArthur (American general) at Inchon with American forces?
And perhaps we should be candid: it was the only significant action of the UN *only* because the Soviet Security Council Ambassador had left the council in a fit of pique?
"Or how it served as a forum for the US and USSR to work out the Cuban Missile Crisis instead of fighting it out?"
Load of crap; the resolution to the CMC was the result of classic direct diplomacy. What did the UN have to do with ANYTHING aside from a forum for (non-constructive, and in fact inflammatory) public posturing?
"How about the first Persian Gulf war, the one that's approved by the UN and not based on bullshit? Don't we wish we listened to the UN instead of Bush and Fox News the second time around?"
Not going there because I'm pretty certain that no matter what I say it's not changing your mind anyway, so why bother?
"The UN is huge and has many organs. Most of them are successful enough that you never hear about them and the work that they do. Of course there are failures but a world without the UN would be a far worse place."
The list of crises where the UN failed to do anything constructive? Probably a list too big for the whole of the internets to handle. How about last week where UN "peacekeepers" let Palestinians launch rockets from adjacent positions, and then complained angrily about Israeli return fire? Or the UN-soldier juvenile prostitute rings in West Africa? Or the stunning and decisive UN response to Darfur...the Balkans....Rwanda....?
You're right that SOME of the bureaucracies of the UN are effective and useful. The general council? Pretty much a whinging forum for countries that aren't worth listening to.
"Stop sucking on Fox News' teats"
You need help, with this weird Freudian idee fixe about Fox News and breasts. It *could* be that someone merely disagrees with you, or in your worldview does that make them automatically an idiot?
"hand over control" - yum, troll link text! (Score:5, Interesting)
full bit:
"She said that the organization running ICANN needs be one free of control by one single nation but controlled by a private entity and governed by multiple nations."
That's quite a different story than implied by the summary's "hand over control [implied: to the EU]".
I still think it's a bad idea to let 'multiple nations' govern the thing - there's too many nations that would seriously curb what can and cannot be done. I don't think the U.S. having sole control is all that great either, but out of the various options - I'd sooner 'trust' the U.S. with it (given existing records, although I disagree with the whole .xxx domain getting nixed - especially since ICANN has/had plans to offer .anythingyouwant anyway) than, say, the U.N. or a grouping of e.g. U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China to pick a semi-random grouping there.
Re:"hand over control" - yum, troll link text! (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously Canada should govern it. After all it's in the name.
Yes ICANNada!
I CANNada... (Score:2)
ICANNada!
Our 127.0.0.1 and world-wide LAN.
[...]
ICANNada we firewall for thee
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"hand over control" - yum, troll link text! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the cool part.
The US can't abuse ICANN. Well, it CAN, but when it does, it will lose all control over it as the EU/China/Russia/Australia... every other nation works to set up it's own segregated service. The other nations could force the US to release control if the US gave them a reason to. So as long as the US remains a relatively benign aspect of ICANN, it can remain in control.
And that's a good thing, it means that through the Mutually Assured Destruction that would occur in the event of an abuse of ICANN, it generally remains true to what it is supposed to do without becoming more than what it was intended to do.
I kind of view the US' control over ICANN as the Royalty in the UK. Sure, they technically have a lot of power, but the instant they tried to use that power it would evaporate away in an instant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
exactly, ICANN has given control of local domains to local countries... it's just that the "big" names still reside in the US.
Each individual country has control over assigning it's own domain names. The only reason the EU wants ICANN out from under the US government is that it can then be sued within an inch of it's life in every single nation that wants more restrictions. People in the EU don't really understand that all ICANN gives out are names, I believe another group grants IP ranges, so ICANN has no
Re: (Score:2)
Add in that the UN wants the whole world disarmed, and you might figure out why a country like the US might dislike it.
The best defense is a good offense (Score:5, Insightful)
Reding claims that it is indefensible that one country control the internet as if it were prima facie true that this were the case.
However she prefaced that statement with the best defense:
"Reding believes "The US, so far, has done this in a reasonable manner", referring to the oversight that the US government has given ICANN."
So the US is providing oversight in a reasonable manner according to the people who wish to strip that oversight from the US. Then they claim that such "reasonable oversight" is indefensible.
I think Ms. Reding would be surprised how a great many things she doesn't believe in have reasonable and sometimes convincing defenses. I also think she'd be surprised to see how many of the things she holds so dear are actually undefended biases.
Re: (Score:2)
Hat tip!
Re:The best defense is a good offense (Score:5, Informative)
I think Ms. Reding would be surprised how a great many things she doesn't believe in have reasonable and sometimes convincing defenses.
I think you're starry-eyed, and living in a fantasy world. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but usually people don't get to where she is [europa.eu] by believing their own bullshit [europa.eu].
Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The best defense is a good offense (Score:5, Insightful)
As an analogy, consider the Anti-Social Behavior Order. It's a kind of order that a judge can issue to a UK that bans you from doing something. Anything. Right now it's generally used to stop people being douchebags to each other, but there's nothing to stop a judge issuing one banning you from writing anti-authority newsletters, or protesting somewhere, if those are considered "anti-social". That makes people nervous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ICANN does not control anything (Score:4, Interesting)
ICANN consists of multiple parts. The important part is the IANA, which publishes such things as official port assignments, assigning IP addresses, assigning autonomous system numbers, publishing the root zone file, and acting as the registry for the .arpa and .int TLDs.
Virtually all of that it does on behalf of the IETF. That said, some of that is done autonomously without directly involving the IETF. For example, IP address assignment, except for special purpose assignments like assigning the multicast region it does autonomously. (Of note, it only assigns to a small number of other organizations who subassign IP addresses, continuing on down until an IP address gets assigned to your connection.) Similarly, the AS numbering is done autonomously. Of significant note, with the exception of special TLDs like .arpa, determining the contents of the majority of the root domain file is a task done autonomously.
As for the rest of ICANN, pretty much all it does is set policy for the DNS, and arbitrate disputes, etc.
--------
Now, for what should be done with ICANN, the solution is simple.
Split out the IANA as a separate entity under the direct oversight of the IAB, as a group under the ISOC, but not a component of the IETF.
Change the IANA's function to be purely a registry, publishing lists of assignments made by other parties.
Assign the responsibility for assignment of IP address ranges to the IAB. (My understanding is that the IAB is effectively already responsible for those assignments).
Create a fourth significant ISOC organization (Other than the IETF, IRTF, and IANA per above), under the oversight of the IAB. This organization would take the role of setting policy for the DNS, effectively performing all functions of the current ICANN, except those the IANA.
-------
So rather than hand ICANN over to the EU or UN, we hand it over to an existing international organization who is already effectively in charge of the Internet, the ISOC, who breaks it into two separate pieces, and incorporates it into its organizational structure in the usual fashion.
-------
Acronyms:
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
IETF - the Internet Engineering Task Force
IAB - the Internet Architecture Board
IESG - the Internet Engineering Steering Group
IRTF - the Internet Research Task Force
IRSG - the Internet Research Steering group
ISOC - the Internet Society
RFC - "Request For Comments"
For a more detailed description of those terms see RFC 2860
European Threats (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no. Here comes the sternly worded letter if we don't comply.
On a serious note, they have a point.
Re:European Threats (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet, and the protocols it uses, were invented in the United States. Until recently, the vast majority of users were still in the United States. If others wanted to follow suit and join in... fine. The United States formed an organization to oversee the network. But it isn't "theirs". They have no "rights" to it. If they don't like it, they can always just form their own damned network.
Imagine that I invented a cool new kind of telephone network. I build up a network in my own neighborhood, complete with switching station. Then, other nearby towns get wind of the network, and want in. So, out of the goodness of my heart, I let them hook up to my network, and I even update my switching station to handle the traffic.
Then, after they have used it for a while, and decide they like it, those neighboring towns start demanding that I turn my switching station over to them. The one that I built, with my own time and research and money.
Huh? By what right do they presume to demand such a thing?
Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
"ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internetâ(TM)s unique identifiers."
So it's already private and even countries that US companies cannot legally trade with still manage to get Internet access (North Korea). So there seems to be a solution without a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So there seems to be a solution without a problem.
Power-grabbing bureaucrats trying to fix what's (imperfect but) not broken? I'm shocked!!!!
Complaints? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the unease that the rest of the world has with a single nation controlling ICANN. However, much as I often ask with engineering requests that seem spurious; what is the ROI to justify the change?
What is going wrong, which could reasonably be expected to go better, if we make the change? I'm not saying our stewardship of ICANN has necessarily been perfect, nor that we have a divine right just because we built the Internet. I do believe that the Internet is now a global resource, and that everyone has a very strong vested interest in it. And I am, generally speaking, a globalist -- I'd like to see us all spending more time on bettering all of us.
However, if there are not specific complaints, with a clear and significant path to improvement, it seems difficult to justify transferring control. Making the rest of the world feel good about Internet stewardship is not a good enough reason to risk the gridlock, posturing, saber rattling, and horse trading that could result from U.N. control.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, I'm not sure that more international oversight would solve this. We'll probably just see
Re: (Score:2)
nor that we have a divine right just because we built the Internet
You're absolutely right. We don't have the divine right just because we built it. We have the divine right because we built it AND because we can blow anyone who tries to take it away into tiny pieces.
Or better yet why? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't divine right but the right of doing it first. The US did build the Internet and most of the tech that it runs on. "Thanks CERN for that http thing BTW".
So now the EU wants the US give up control. Okay what are you going to give us in return? Respect? I doubt that. Less scorn? Sure....
I have to say that I see no good reason for the US to give up control of ICANN any more than I see a good reason for France to give up control of the FAI.
I doubt that it will improve any service on the internet, increase cost, and potently aid censor ship. There are a lot of countries in the UN that do not value free speech at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the one hand, I'm itching to go over who invented/developed what, invested what, and using who's resources. I'd like to see what this "US-only" internet would look like if it really *were* limited to US residents.
And yet, pragmatism forces me to acknowledge that nothing globally beneficial would come of this. It's not in ICANN's interest to *do* anything that would in any way stifle or harm the network as it is now. This is just some form of territory marking on the EU's part. It's what they're "expected
Multinational control (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no problem with allowing ICANN to be controlled by a group of nations which all have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with allowing ICANN to be controlled by a group of nations which all have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Heh! And how many of them are there?
Re:Multinational control (Score:4, Interesting)
group of nations which all have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Like France, Germany and England, all of which have speech restrictions which I find disturbing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. Not every nation puts that sort of thing in their constitution; Australia certainly doesn't, the UK (as I understand) doesn't have a written constitution. You might have better luck in the civil law states, but the only one that I can say for sure does so is China. No state allows unrestricted free speech, and requiring that they claim this fiction provides no gain whatsoever.
But that aside, why? Why should some states have no say regarding shared infrastructure? Ought the ITU be re
Reply: No (Score:2)
Strong free speech rights in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an American, but I'm glad that ICANN is run by Americans. For the most part, the United States has a great deal of respect for different view points and allows for free thought. I can certainly imagine Europeans banning Internet websites for fear that they will anger Muslims, gays, atheists, Christians, animal rights activists, etc.. You can imagine European bureaucrats coming up with a handbook of acceptable thought and using that as a guide for website banning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
fear that they will anger ... Christians
Do they really give a rat's ass about angering Christians? I didn't think so either...
Re:Strong free speech rights in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with having ICANN controlled by a US corporation is that it is subject to US laws and, more importantly, US court rulings. This has caused some problems in the recent past, because even state courts can issue judgements which affect ICANN. It's not just US law, for example, it's California law which governs ICANN.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're already trying to ban the words Miss and Mrs. [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You can imagine European bureaucrats coming up with a handbook of acceptable thought and using that as a guide for website banning."
I don't have to IMAGINE that as they are already DOING it!
Germany: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22feb22,0,2752813.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions [latimes.com]
U.K.: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97127 [wnd.com]
France: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/20/202040.shtml [newsmax.com]
Those are just the tip of the iceberg. France started doing
You are RONG! Root servers are around the world.. (Score:2)
Stupid as it sounds, i like the idea of having the root dns servers operating behind the worlds largest military.
That does sound kinda' stupid. At least it makes it hard to seize power from those who have it when they misuse it.
It's actually also wrong. I spent two seconds on google for you, and found this nice map of the root servers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Root-current.svg [wikipedia.org]
Re:Let's play point-counterpoint (Score:4, Informative)
No, our law-makers really only care about what angers law-makers. Thus, they ban child porn and the pirate bay.
Even if the Pirate Bay is banned in the United States, which I have no idea what you mean by that, I can still happily go to that site by typing in the domain name. There is nothing suspicious going on with the DNS servers stopping me from resolving their address. GP's worry is that the EU would impose such restrictions.
Also, I heard that after 9/11, people weren't supposed to play "Leaving on a Jetplane". And Comedy Central put a black box over Mohamed in Cartoon Wars (a South Park episode) after the big Mohamed hubbub, despite Mohamed being depicted in Super Best Friends (an earlier episode).
Those were private corporations making those decisions, Clear Channel and Viacom respectively.
So if the internet was a road system.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea it would be like if you became part of the world air way system and build airports and all your pilots and ATC people had to speak English!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corrected: What the road system is really like (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets consider a better analogy.
We build at OUR EXPENSE an entire series of roads, spanning both countries and continents, and we tie the traffic system into YOUR control system.
We REIMBURSE you for your troubles, paying you a small fee for each traffic light you operate (DNS Registration), resulting in cheaper operational costs for everyone.
We however have grown concerned over your ability to operate our traffic as a neutral controller, as some of your states believe they can hijack and disable our traffic lights, if it bothers their locals. They have not been entirely successful yet, but they have caused disruptions that should never of been possible in the first place.
http://blog.cdt.org/2009/01/24/kentucky-court-rules-that-domain-names-arent-craps-tables/ [cdt.org]
The options we have available to us to minimize US laws/regulations on both our local and international traffic, we have the following options:
1. We leave the system in your hands (and whim), and hope for the best.
2. You hand over the control to an multinational committee
3. We sever our dependence on your system, and create our own. This however will more then likely cause international traffic crashes.
Anyone who thinks that its America's right to retain control over the entire INTERNATIONAL internet will suffer when countries develop their own control system in disgust.
Anyone who thinks America is more reliable then a committee might have a point, but 'because were better then you', is never going to be an accepted reason.
why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can have my ICANN (Score:2)
what will they call it? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, you build enough corruption into it to make people a large group support it. Political solutions for political problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always wondered... How such an important function was run by a single country.
Simple: that's the country that created the Internet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:4, Insightful)
That was way back in 1958
Ummm, no. The first two computers in the nascent Internet were linked in 1969, and Cerf and Kahn didn't start designing TCP until 1973.
things could have moved on by now considering North America only contains 5% of the World's population.
So... majority rule? Give the most control to India (with more religious factionalism and caste poverty than you can shake a stick at) and the PRC (which is a paragon of tolerance and enlightenment if there ever was one)?
STOP SMOKING THAT ADULTERATED WEED!!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Simple: that's the country that created the Internet.
Yep. The US created the internet. If you want to be the ultimate authority, or let a group of countries have a consensus over a network--go create your own damn internet.
How about the rest just ignores the US? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. The US created the internet. If you want to be the ultimate authority, or let a group of countries have a consensus over a network--go create your own damn Internet.
I know I'll get modded troll, but here goes.
An interesting idea (that will never happen in practice) would be to mirror all the DNS data that's only stored in the US, and probably the RFCs too, then (from the non-US side) drop all packets crossing the US/non-US border.
There we go, now we have our own Internet. What's that, US? You want on it?
I hope it doesn't happen (all my cool shit is in the US). But in case US really becomes too much a problem for everyone else, there's the solution.
Imagine the nightmares when both sides allocate IP addresses previously used by the other side, and the networks have to be merged again...
Speculation: oh the fun! :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Very simple: It doesn't have much authority, unless it acts in the interest of the international network operator community. If ICANN were to do something unpopular, particularly something which openly favors US interests over those of other countries, providers in other countries would quickly band together and form an opposing organization. We'd see the network administration split for a while, but the network doesn't really need ICANN day-in day-out, so there would not be immediate problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NO. (Score:5, Insightful)
We made it, it's our toy, and we'll do with it what we please.
Not really. ARPANet was your toy. The original core protocols were developed with ARPA funding, but the current generation of the Internet Protocol (version 4, with version 6 being slowly deployed) was created as an international effort. The physical bits of the Internet in the US and some outside were created by US corporations, some with funding from the US government, but most of the current infrastructure is not US-owned.
In reality, ICANN does not control very much. They control the root DNS servers (most of which are outside the USA, by the way [root-servers.org]). If the UN set up a competing ICANN and mandated that ISPs in their member regions use the new DNS root servers - which could potentially include all of the existing ones outside the USA, since they are not actually run by ICANN, they just carry ICANN's configuration) then there isn't much ICANN could do. US ISPs would have the choice of either switching to the new roots or having their customers potentially have links incorrectly handled in the future, if the two organisations didn't keep their configurations in sync.
Seriously, multi-nation governance over the Internet is a terrible idea. Excellent decisions are never made by committee (let alone one with multi-national components), and when you cloud the waters even further with political motivation it makes for an excellent tasting recipe for disaster.
I can make a telephone call to almost any country in the world from here. The UN doesn't seem to have done a bad job ensuring that this works correctly, in spite of the committee that controls the international telephone system having multi-national components.
Unless you can make a better argument than "we use it too so we get some say as well", I see no reason for this to happen.
I seem to recall reading that a variant of this phrase was the rallying call for the American Revolution.
Don't like it? Invent your own interweb.
I assume you know that the web was invented by an Englishman in Switzerland.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the benefit of your proposed action?
We should do this WHY precisely?
To give the PRC, Saudia Arabia, and every other two bit tin horn dictator a shot at democratically censoring the web?
So that Germany, France, the U.S., and others can censor the web to remove torrents over Intellectual Property concerns?
I'm REALLY failing to see an upside to any action at all!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)