EU Claims Internet Could Fall Apart Next Month 1401
freaktheclown writes "The battle for the control of the Internet could hit a climax next month, with the EU saying that it could 'fall apart.' From the article: 'The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the Internet will split apart. At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the Internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under contract to the US Department of Commerce.'"
Icann's motto... (Score:5, Funny)
EU should be careful (Score:4, Funny)
Don't taunt the Gore.
Never Say Never Again (Score:5, Funny)
Random target selection: the
Value: one billion, eight hundred seventy million dollars.
Play.
Go ahead, break it! (Score:5, Funny)
A month from now... (Score:4, Funny)
The internet is over.
Thank you for playing.
A winner has been declared! Congratulations to:
The Star Wars Kid
Re:Icann's motto... (Score:5, Funny)
go there but all I find is a webcam of some ugly guy jacking off to his computer screen.
Re:Imminent death of the Net predicted (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Imminent death of the Net predicted (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Imminent death of the Net predicted (Score:4, Insightful)
The US and its private companies built and paid for the Internet. Billions were spent on research and development. We've been at it for over 40 years.
The European countries and its private companies built and paid for the US. Billions were spent on development, people, ships, technology, etc. We've been at it for over 500 years.
Essentially, we stole half the world's resources and shipped them to the US. Can we now have them back?
Re:Icann's motto... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it obvious... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, their citizens will realize that this effectively isolates them from anyone smart enough to stick with the current, very functional, system. Then, the break away group will begin bickering back and forth as some members want to use their control of DNS to influence both local and international political views. It will further splinter into smaller useless segments.
At some point the citizenry in some of the smarter countries that broke away will realize how stupid this is when they can't use credit cards controlled by US banks, or interact with US companies easily. They will usher the bureaucrats out to the gallows and the hole problem will be solved.
====
This whole thing is about controlling the flow of information. The currect (US led) system has 0 political control of domains. The US government doesn't tell ICANN to remove a root DNS entry if they have a problem. The find the server and seize it according to the law. If it is overseas, they work with the local government.
We bitch about the government restricting freedom of speech here in the US in general, but Europeans and especially China and the middle east are the the people with no real freedom in that respect (they can't even legally complain about not having freedom of speech in may cases). Allowing governments like that any control over the Internet on the international scale would be a disaster for free speech and a victory for dictators and autocrats that want complete control.
The hole solution (Score:5, Funny)
I assume by this you mean filling said holes with bureaucrats after they are finished with Project Gallows.
Happily, this may also reduce required funds for road maintenience so it's really a win-win.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:4, Interesting)
A few questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Is every solution that guarantees free speech dependent on ICANN remaining under US control?
Which principle should be safe-guarded, and which one is negotiable?
If this is really what the debate is about, I can kind of understand the EU's concerns in specific hypothetical circumstances, though I don't understand the intransigence of the US representatives.
I suspect though that this is just a dick-size war, and we'll find out later on that it's really all posturing to show a position of strength for GATT negotiations.
Re:A few questions (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll second the dick-size war when we are talking about US-EU. When talking about US-China or some other, I'd say control (dam anonymity on the internet kind of thing).
Is every solution that guarantees free speech dependent on ICANN remaining under US control?
When the solution is under the US or under the UN and free speech is the topic
Re:A few questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that so? I keep hearing this parroted, but I haven't really seen a decent breakdown of what constitutes our incredible free speech lead. We have obscenity laws on the books, right now, that are being used to prosecute citizens of the U.S. for exercising their dear 1st amendment rights. We have "free speech zones" outside of which protest is illegal.
By comparison, some of the EU member states have laws against hate speech.
According to Reporters Without Borders [rsf.org], much of Europe kicks our ass at press freedom as well.
Re:A few questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that so?
When it comes to speech on the internet: yes. I only know the situation in Germany:
But you're right, in the real world Europe typically has more freedoms than the US.
Re:A few questions (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. It's perfectly ok to be anonymous, as long as you don't do any business over your website. But I agree with the rest.
Battling American Arrogance: At what cost? (Score:4, Interesting)
This part is absolutely correct. Whether we're talking about forking the root servers, negotiating peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, or removing Saddam Hussein, the primary European concern is battling American arrogance.
I understand why Europeans feel this way. When you encounter somebody who is wildly successful and totally full of himself, it is only natural to want to knock him down a peg.
The question is, what price is Europe willing to pay for this?
Do Europeans think it is a good idea to fork the root servers?
Do Europeans think it was a good idea for Chirac to encourage Arafat to walk away from the Paris accords in 2000?
Do Europeans think that Iraq deserves Saddam Hussein?
Do Europeans think that a strong PRC without human rights reforms is a good thing?
For a great many Europeans the answer to all of these questions is a firm NON.
The European response in each case is that those Arrogant Selfish Americans are acting as if they own the World, the Internet, or the Middle East. "We don't disagree with their goal, just the way they go about it."
You're right. We have acted arrogantly, as if we own the world. Its an arrogance that comes in part from a history of looking back on the consequences of our past arrogance and being satisfied with the results.
Not least of these results is the Strong, Free and Democratic Europe which hates our guts and which would not exist (twice over) were it not for the American desire to remake the world to conform to American values.
Europeans Beware!!!
If Europe keeps on fighting America, Europe will eventually start winning some battles.
You may fork the Internet.
You may destroy American efforts at peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
You may prevent the United States from attacking the next Saddam Hussein (can you say Kim Jong Il?).
You may create a dominant PRC that doesn't have any reason to care about human rights.
Europe has to decide which European values can be sacrificed on the altar of sticking it to the Americans, and which European values must be upheld, even if it means tolerating American Hubris.
I know this much:
If European leaders think that setting up their own root servers or sabotaging a diplomatic accord here or there will cure the Americans of their Arrogance and end American Unilateralism, they fundamentally misunderstand America and the American Spirit.
Re:Battling American Arrogance: At what cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the root servers are outside US. What other coutries want is just a system where one stupid president cannot shut off the whole (or part of) internet in his fight agains "terrorism".
Do Europeans think that Iraq deserves Saddam Hussein?
Maybe we should let the Iraq-people decide ?
You cannot believe that US attacked Iraq because of Iraqians' human rights ?
It was NOT because of terrorism or WMD, it was NOT because of human rights, it was because of controlling oil reserves.
Do Europeans think that a strong PRC without human rights reforms is a good thing?
You say that the US was/is preventing it somehow ?
For a great many Europeans the answer to all of these questions is a firm NON.
You and Your fellow Americans always think You know everything. Youre wrong.
We have acted arrogantly, as if we own the world. Its an arrogance that comes in part from a history of looking back on the consequences of our past arrogance and being satisfied with the results.
Your history is actually very short.
Not least of these results is the Strong, Free and Democratic Europe which hates our guts and which would not exist (twice over) were it not for the American desire to remake the world to conform to American values.
Now don't forget that the american civilization would not exist without european immigrants.
If Europe keeps on fighting America, Europe will eventually start winning some battles.
I heard there were some other parties around this table too...
You may destroy American efforts at peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
You must be joking. It is the US which has kept the war between Israeli and palestinians going. Without US support Israeli would have agreed to a Palestinian nation long ago, and that would have soothed the area.
You may prevent the United States from attacking the next Saddam Hussein (can you say Kim Jong Il?).
You think that US is entitled to attack Korea ?
You may create a dominant PRC that doesn't have any reason to care about human rights.
Again, do You really think the US is somehow helping the chinese human rights ?
How ?
If European leaders think that setting up their own root servers or sabotaging a diplomatic accord here or there will cure the Americans of their Arrogance and end American Unilateralism, they fundamentally misunderstand America and the American Spirit.
We have seen that it is "the American Spirit" which allows a coutry to start a war without a reason. Before Bush it was latest done by Hitler and Stalin.
Few Americans know that attacking Iraq was not accepted in ANY other country. Even UK officially supported, the majority of people were against.
Re:Battling American Arrogance: At what cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Impressive. I don't think I've ever seen such a one-sided view put so eloquently.
Do Americans think it is a good idea that their government can exercise control over the DNS (even if they haven't done so so far)?
Do Americans think it is a good idea for their government to fund an army that keeps a system of apartheid alive using unlawful violence in illegally occupied territories?
Seriously, I call bullshit on this one the most. It's American money more than anything that's preventing peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Do Americans think that Iraq deserves al-Zarqawi? No? Then why did they allow him in, by removing Saddam in such a braindead way?
Do Americans think the same? Wherever did you get the idea that the US does more about human rights in China than the EU?
Erm, for your information, a great many Europeans don't speak French.
Really, you write pretty well, your thinking is a lot less up to scratch though. Learn to look beyond your local propaganda.
Re:Battling American Arrogance: At what cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. We have acted arrogantly, as if we own the world. Its an arrogance that comes in part from a history of looking back on the consequences of our past arrogance and being satisfied with the results.
Thats just scary. Satisfied with Vietnam and Korea? Satisfied with Iran? (if America and Britain hadn't installed the Shah over the more democratic government there would have been no Islamic revolution). How about backing brutal regimes like Pinochet or these days Uzbekistan? Hey they may be brutal dictatorships that kill there own people but at least that stops them being socialist/Islamic.
Deciding to join WWII (even if it was late and only after being attacked) only buys so much gratitude. Everyone is very grateful but it was 60 years and you can't expect people to just keep on being grateful and ignoring what happened afterward. America has proved it is happy to screw over other countries when it suits is purpose, and its refusal to join international efforts like Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court make people wary.
Not that the the Europeans countries were any better back when they were the main powers, worse probably because they had empires, but I don't think many modern Europeans would be 'satisfied' with, say, the way Africa was carved up.
Nor do I think America arrogance would be "cured" by anything other than when another country (or block) overtakes them economically and maybe militarily. It would be stupid of European politicians to do something to disadvantage Europe just to stick it to the Americans, but its equally stupid for American politicians to unnecessarily antagonise Europeans.
In the case of the Internet, is it possible for other countries to control copies of the roots such that the US could not turn them off, but that wouldn't impact people in the US, or the US control of their own copies. Seems there is room for reasonable compromise here but both sides are being arrogant.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that it is a bad idea to have a country without a strong right to free speech to have control over root DNS servers.
But the arguement isn't to transfer control from the US to another country; rather, it's to transfer control from one country to all countries (or, strictly, an agency representing all/most countries).
I don't trust any country to act in anything other than their own self-interest. Hell, I'd personally lynch a politician if I thought they'd rather represent foreign interests above their own constituents. It's for that reason that I believe control should pass to a pan-national body - so the Internet is governed by consensus rather than hope (that the US won't pull the plug on, say, Venezeula).
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
So what did you think when the SCOTUS cited "foreign laws" when stiking down death sentences for juvenile offenders?
I believe control should pass to a pan-national body
Like the UN and how famously well that group agrees and gets things done efficiently? To whom, exactly, is a theoretical "pan-national" body accountable?
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:4, Insightful)
to transfer control from one country to all countries (or, strictly, an agency representing all/most countries).
The internet is the greatest vehicle for free thoughts and free ideas. This is incompatible with many governments who you would want to give representation over how the internet is run. To me, that is simply not acceptable. No country (especially corrupt totalitarian states) has a right to have a say in the internet is run. I don't care if they're in the UN club or not.
Why on earth would you want to give countries like Iran, China and South Korea a say? They're already limiting internet access for their own citizens, let's not allow the UN to elect them to the "international internet governence and taxation council" shall we?
that the US won't pull the plug on, say, Venezeula.
If Venuzuela is worried about their government web sites going down they can easily force all their ISPs to reroute all DNS requests to government websites to the appropriate servers.
Re:What of pornography? (Score:5, Insightful)
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
This is an officially prepared statement from Brazil's UN rep during a summit about Internet control. This isn't an off the cuff remark by a public official looking for some political points on a TV show somewhere. With that said, take a look at some of these justifcations for wresting control of the internet from ICANN. The key words are "values", "my country" and an over all naive approach to pornography in that a domain name would encourage porn rather than provide a mechanism to limit it to audiences that want it. Right now, you can find anything on the Internet. Anything from forums on Quilting, twins in latex to political freedom for Taiwan sites. This isn't about fear of the US controlling the Internet for some diabolical purpose, it's about other countries implementing some sort of content control.
Also, don't believe for a second that these countries see this as some public service. There's money to be had. UN administration taxes for the win!
Re:What of pornography? (Score:4, Informative)
Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
All these comments and more can be found at http://www.wgig.org/June-scriptmorning.html [wgig.org] at the fourth meeting of this body on Internet "governance". "Governance" by the way isn't my term, it's theirs.
Re:What of pornography? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because no matter how much we pay lip service to the idea that our values are for us and their values are for them, we don't really believe it. Deep down inside, we believe that everyone should agree with us, unless they're stupid or evil.
This is the general case. In some specific cases, we're willing to overlook the wrong values of others, but in other specific cases we're not.
(The "we" is applicable to anybody.)
Free(er) Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free(er) Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in NZ, we didn't require the Black Eyed Peas to rename their song "Don't Phunk With my Heart", we don't have a corronary when a breast is exposed on TV (I mean, for fuck's sake!). We have adverts using sware words and lewd humour that wouldn't be played in the US. Actually, the Black Eyed Peas were complaining how conservative the US is in comparison to places like NZ when they were here recently.
You Americans are so blinded by your own hype you think the entire rest of the world is some 3rd world dictatorship. Grow up, actually LOOK at the rest of the world and realise it doesn't match your cardboard cutout preconceptions. The average US slashbot view of the rest of the world is laughably naive.
Re:What of pornography? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, most people are reasonably happy with ICANN. I wish they were going after Verisign and the root certs instead, those are the real bastards.
Re:What of pornography? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this is all academic. It's easy enough to set up your own root servers and just peer into the ICANN ones, append all .com, .net, .org, .info, .biz, .etc entries found there with .us, and go from there. Anyone outside the US then just uses slashdot.org.us instead of slashdot.org, and life goes on as normal. Just like with telephone country codes.
No I wouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think it would be ideal to have multiple root authorities. Have one per country, or maybe one per region. They can then administer regional domains, and they can all vote on new generics (like
Then, once this credible mirror system is running, talk to the US about peering. Say "Look, we think that our roots are as capable as yours, and we'd like to have control of the domains that relate to that such as our contries' domains. You keep your stuff and we mirror that, however we'll take the European stuff and you mirror it." My bet? The US would be totally fine with that. Then we have two peer root authorities. Hopefully more people would then start doing the same thing.
That would also allow each nation or area to have a root that conforms to their values. They can block domains if they don't like them. Of course people can always go use the roots from other countries, unless they do some Great Firewall of China thing, but it would solve the majority of the bitching.
But that's not what these nations want. They want UN control over DNS, and more than DNS, so they can force other nations to implement their restrictions for them. They don't like a free and open Internet.
Well, I'm glad that's settled. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, shit. Wait. Never mind.
Re:What of pornography? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, while you're at it, google for 'free speech zones', as pertaining to protesters in the US.
No matter what the supremes have done in the past (and there is none, with the new appointee(s)), you're losing it in the US. Just ask the guy who was against the Iraq war in a red state; just because it's not written into the law but enforced by your neighbours (who'll beat you up for wearing anti-bush t-shirts), it's still censorship.
"It's intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that the reason behind this EU and UN grab for internet power is in order to suppress speech they disagree with."
No, it's not obvious. What is obvious is that it's a power grab. 'Why' is open to speculation, but I'd say 'because they don't want a bullying, uni-lateraly acting, militaristic, way-too-opertunistic and aggressive nation headed by an illiterate imbecile to make decisions and exert undue influence on a system which by now is quite important to nation's economies' is much more likely than your, quite mistaken, belief that Europe is living in censorship.
Which is kind of odd, when you live in a nation which fines people up to half a million for saying 'fuck' on radio, and a nation cries out in uproar when a breast is kinda-sorta-not-really shown on tv during of all things a football match.
However, if by cencorship, you mean 'looking at intelligent design and deciding we don't want 'magic' taught in science classes'...well, then you're right.
Re:What of pornography? (Score:5, Interesting)
In my opinion this is a mistake, but please look up the difference between porn and obsenity. You can start here here [wikipedia.org]
Obsenity by definition is neither porn nor protected speech.
Re:What of pornography? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's exactly the point. As obscenity is defined in the US, it depends on the local community where it is provided, how this works on the Internet isn't entirely clear. But I would say that on average, the threshold in Europe is a bit higher than in the US, especially since the TheoCons have gained more influence.
There is one example listed in the Wikipedia article, another one is of the guy who runs nowthatsfuckedup.com. He has just been arrested [theregister.co.uk] for obscenity. Interestingly, his site also shows images provided by soldiers in Iraq in exchange for free access, some of which put a somewhat unfavourable light on war.
The current US administration has a history of acting unilaterally, and that of course raises some doubts if it is sensible to let them be in control of what the world has become dependent on. I realise the US has a high standard for free-speech, but it isn't unlimited, either. There's also the issue with the US' weird obsession with patents and strange understanding of copyright, which could have unpredictable consequences.
So, instead of leaving one country in control, it would be good to give control to one international body that guarantees the Internet can not be affected by individual countries' decisions. That body doesn't have to be the UN, but could be something completely new. Maybe it would even be an opportunity to get a "no-censorship rule" into its charta, since the US is still in the position to make demands that have to be met in order for them to let go of control without making much fuzz about it. That would also act as a safeguard against future changes of the US' stand on this.
Re:What of pornography? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty weak strawman (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
The currect (US led) system has 0 political control of domains.
Do you really believe this?
We bitch about the government restricting freedom of speech here in the US in general, but Europeans and especially China and the middle east are the the people with no real freedom in that respect (they can't even legally complain about not having freedom of speech in may cases).
First it s
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it is working, and is not being abused. Why change something that continues to operate effectively ? If the EU cuts off US DNS servers, the only people who will suffer are the EU citazens and buisnesses. I just can't see this happening.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd love to see a more recent compilation like this, but if true, then the US is increasing their share of websites, while those in EU states are decreasing. If still trending this way, the EU will effectively lock themselves out of the majority of the Internet if this does occur and subsequently fails.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:4, Interesting)
The EU/China wants to mess it all up... "or we'll take our websites and go home."
I don't CARE if someone hates the US... I hate China.... There is nothing "US-centric" about DNS other than possibly geographic location. Taking DNS admin from the US is not a "victory for the good guy" by any stretch of the word.
It's sour grapes... nothing more.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, things are broke. Due to certain global events, most of the world doesn't trust the USA anymore. In fact, I'd say the attitude is one of fear and suspicion. You were warned this would happen, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike many, I do actually understand how exactly the US government has no influence over ICANN, especially those in the whitehouse. However, things change. Expect to be bombarded with the phrase "cyber-terrorism" over the next five years. Here's one scenario I made up for shits & giggles:
"Bring the internet under direct government control is essential for the freedoms it brings. Cyber-terrorist threaten to attack it and America must defend it in order to ensure the prosperity of our country. People who 'hate our freedom'(tm) seek to put up hate sites to aid terrorists, and because of this we must be able to control them. Today we present a bill giving federal agencies easier access to the internet. All internet sites from now on must be registered against the owners social security number to aid investigators hunt down evil doers. This bill will be called the 'Internet Freedom Act' and those who seek to oppose it are unAmerican and threaten the very freedoms on which our country was founded."
Now, in all seriousness, is any of the above all that unrealistic? I based it largely on how the Patriot Act was passed, perhaps the most unpatriotic law to ever come out of the US legislators.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too good to last, maybe, without the politicians getting some sort of local control.
Internet... fall apart? (Score:5, Funny)
Fall Apart? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fall Apart? (Score:5, Interesting)
They will enact laws requiring it. Then the customers will start pointing their workstations and access points at open DNS servers in the Free portions of the Internet, the Great Firewall of Europe will be erected to block access to the Free DNS servers and finally people will be fined for pointing at the 'wrong' DNS servers. THEN the heads will start going up on pointy sticks. The big question is whether there remains enough of a spark of Freedom to make it the government officials heads the ones on the sticks or whether it will be the 'traitors' among the users who refuse to use the state sponsored servers.
Re:Fall Apart? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it is what governments DO. If they don't mandate something this stupid by law everyone will simply snicker at the foolish old men with their quaint nationalistic notions and continue using the perfectly functioning DNS system as it exists. But once they make it a matter of patriotic pride and national security that Europe have a DNS system it controls, the logic of government will require mandating it's usage. When people have the good sense to still ignore them by the millions the same logic will require enforcement action, i.e. the Great Firewall of Europe and fines for violators. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it consume your destiny.
Re:Fall Apart? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Various govs. set up their own root servers. People in that country use their root servers.
2) The operators of the various root servers keep them synchronized with each other.
3) The internet continues to operate just fine.
Re:Fall Apart? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fall Apart? (Score:4, Interesting)
If that happens, some people will inevitably patch their DNS resolvers so that everything under ICANN's root will go under ".us" (e.g. google.com.us or google.de.us), and everything under the EU's root will go under ".eu").
Then somebody will come along and start selling "super-top-level" domains under this system...
Re:Fall Apart? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is quite possible for the resultant scenario to be peachy, however, I'd like to throw a wrench into your "likely" conclusion.
Perhaps the EU and others are pushing for more control of the DNS root server administration simply out of spite for the US. Or they could have intentions which are contradictory to current DNS administration policies.
If it is the later and they do setup their own DNS servers then the synchronization will eventually become borked as they add their own flavor to the DNS results. If that happens then I predict an exodus from the borked EU system, or whoever's system, back to what already works being administered by ICANN.
If on the other hand they do intend to run the DNS as before but with shared control then I see no reason to argue over it and they SHOULD setup their own DNS system. There is nothing forcing anyone to use the system which is controlled by ICANN.
What would be nice is to hear some specifics from both sides as to the WHYS of their demands. So far it sounds like the EU and other nations are saying "give us more control of it because" and so far the only arguement out of the US is "we wont because you guys will use the control to censor". Both arguements are weak, but the just because arguement is definitely the weaker.
burnin
Sounds like... (Score:5, Funny)
Bush was right (Score:5, Funny)
Just to be clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to restate - the internet's not going to "fall apart" on it's own. They're planning on breaking it. The terminology they use makes it sound like the network's fragile and about to break. That's not the case.
Rubbish (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rubbish (Score:3, Interesting)
You do assume they won't do something insidious like have all DNS queries to the root servers redirected to their own name system, by rerouting their ip blocks, or pass laws to mandate a transition away from the "Legacy" domain name system.
It could be like you say, but it is no means certain -- if the EU bureaucrats know enough to be dangerous, they could really make a mess of the internet.
But it wouldn't be that the internet fell apart on its own -- it would mean they broke it, through incompetent
Re:Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
Newsflash (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Newsflash (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it obvious? European governments weren't involved in designing or running it. Is it a coincidence that as soon as they decide to inject themselves into the situation that now the net is going to "fall apart"? I don't think so.
It's like when you buy that new DVD player, and only allow the adults in your house to use it. It works fine, right? But as soon as you let your five year old kid near it, all of a sudden it's clogged up with peanut butter. This is no different.
Not on its own it isn't (Score:3, Insightful)
I would expect to see a huge demand for access to the primary Internet, and the new one would just sortof shrivel up and die.
They're Dreaming (Score:3, Insightful)
The Financial Motivation Behind This (Score:3, Insightful)
Help me out here: I understand the politics here. That part makes sense.
But who are the corporate winners? Call me a cynic, but I'm far too jaded to believe this is all one big "f*ck you" to the US. And I refuse to believe its about "control" when our control isn't the least bit restrictive.
Someone's going to make bank off this. Politicians are puppets not puppetmasters.
Who profits?
Follow the money.
Any insights?
Universal Service Charge (Score:3, Interesting)
Lucky for us, this whole thing is retarded, and we'll just keep our resolvers pointed where we want while anybody else does fuck all for what we care.
Re:The Financial Motivation Behind This (Score:5, Interesting)
Cuo Bono? Who knows, for now. But as cyberwar becomes a reality, and access to the internet becomes evermore an economic necessity, the EU is not happy with one nation having too much control over teh internets.
Would any nation willing cede control of its highways to another nation? I think not.
So, to answer your question of who benefits:
Potentially, any nation that is not the US. Any company doing internet business within any country not in the US. The politicians, who gain a better public image by standing up to the unpopular US.
If you're looking for corporate profits, I'm sure there are some companies that stand to make some cash. Enough to create a diplomatic crisis? Doubt it.
Re:The Financial Motivation Behind This (Score:5, Insightful)
In some countries, the problem IS that the US "isn't the least bit restrictive". Remember, there are some countries out there that don't have Freedom of Speech, Religion, Protest, Anonymity or many other things. Think of the Great Fire Wall of China for starters. Then there are those that also want to eliminate all the porn on the internet. So yes, I'd say it is about "control", or lack there of.
Someone's going to make bank off this. Politicians are puppets not puppetmasters. Who profits? Follow the money.
Only is some places are Politicians puppets, not all. Tell me Castro is a puppet, or that Stalin was one as well. Money isn't the end all of everything, "power" is. It's just that in some places, money can give power. At best, the only company I can think of to make some money off of this is Cisco, selling more hardware, but probably not as some countries are looking at implementing their own standards that are incompatible with what everyone else uses. Those who provide filtering technologies and fire walls stand to lose a great deal. No nead to filter if the nets are physically seperate. Those are just the major players I can think of.
Alternative (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to 1983, Europe. (Score:5, Interesting)
Film at 11. USENET cliche [google.com] by 1989. EU resolution in 2006... 2017? 2038?
The problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
Wanna read something scary? (Score:5, Interesting)
The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours.
"We really can't have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us."
As I've said before, I'll be happy if the issue of IP address allocation is handled by the ITU. DNS should not be under the control of a central organization.
Notice that in the U.S. you are permitted to use any DNS you may like? Sure the root DNS server is Icann moderated, but you can select anything?
Anyone believe Iran (I'm 1/2 Persian) will allow that? Or China?
Or that China will permit a Taiwanese TLD in the New, UN-moderated, EU-sponsored DNS governing association?
Places like S. Arabia, China, and Iran can't wait for DNS to be controlled by the UN, because all kinds of silly nonsense happens in UN politics. Although China may have its sights set on the RoC, as of know, its insane to posit that Taiwan isn't an independant nation.
Yet the UN does not recognize it as such.....
Just my 2 cents.
Re:Wanna read something scary? (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of a quote I'm going to paraphrase (don't remember the speaker - Churchill?):
I'd rather argue against a hundred idiots than have one agree with me.
I'm reminded of the birds in Finding Nemo (Score:3, Insightful)
So long spammers, and thanks for all the phish (Score:4, Funny)
Future news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Future news (Score:3, Insightful)
A brief word of sense to the EU bashers out there. (Score:5, Interesting)
They are trying to act as brokers between this position, which is not in the interest of the EU, and the maverick US position, which flatly disclaims any notion of international coordination on these issues. Repeat after me: the EU is not trying to split the internet, they are trying to maintain the current cohesion.
They are a broker between two arguments, and should be applauded as such, rather than vilified and slandered as 'splitters' or malcontents.
'The EU does not intend to scrap Icann. It would continue in its current technical role.
Instead Europe is suggesting a way of allowing countries to express their position on internet issues, though the details on how this would happen are vague.
"We have no intention to regulate the internet," said Commissioner Reding, reassuring the US that the EU was not proposing setting up a new global body.
Rather she talked of a "model of cooperation", of an international forum to discuss the internet.'
[Taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4327928.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:A brief word of sense to the EU bashers out the (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry, but what exactly prevents countries from expressing their positions on internet issues?
If Iran or China or whoever wants to set up its own root DNS servers it can do it right now, without asking anyone. That's rather suicidal, of course, and I am all for letting them find it out the hard way...
Oh, B.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no grievance except that:
1) Iran, China et. al *do* want to censor the net. They don't like the current situation.
2) The EU is trying to be relevant here. And they'd like a way to control the internet for taxation purposes. They've stated that many times in the past.
3) The EU is teaming together with a bunch of 3rd world, tin-pot countries to "demand" something from the U.S. that we built and administer perfectly. Oh, except for giving EU taxation powers, and third-world countries censorship powers.
4) Lets fact it the EU has a fundamentally different view of free speech than the U.S. we can't reconcile it here or anywhere, so that disagreement will always be there.
5) The EU is only fooling idiots in that its trying to be an independant broker.
6) The U.S. is running the DNS servers the way they ought to be run: free from governmental control.
If China, Iran, and Brazil break away, I don't care. It doesn't affect me even a little bit. If the EU breaks away. Fantastic. CU later. Buh Bye. Sorry to see you go.
blackholes.us (Score:4, Insightful)
If China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states start their own Internet like networks I can get rid of the RBL lookup code on my mail system. Excellent!
Beat the rush! Use OpenNIC instead! (Score:4, Informative)
Corrected URL (Score:4, Informative)
UNcooperative (Score:3, Insightful)
The Main Problem EU has with current situation (Score:5, Insightful)
The Almighty Buck (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, customers in those countries may be upset over not being able to access their favourite US-based websites, but how upset do you think the large US multinational corporations are going to be when the lose their entire overseas web customer base overnight?
I think the EU is playing it smart, betting on the fact that the buck has such powerful sway in the US that if the government doesn't agree, they will be made to in very short order when the large US corporations start pressing to get their customers back.
Poli-ticks == multiple bloodsuckers (Score:5, Insightful)
There's just no way that ICANN should be involved at all in the delegation of the country-code domains. That's a task for a globally-accepted multi-lateral bureaucracy, like the ITU or ISO. Most of those organizations get their legitimacy from the UN, and ICANN doesn't want to go there.
Now
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever you may think of the United States (Score:4, Informative)
And who exactly is it that wants control of DNS? France, so they can shut down Nazi websites and threaten E-Bay into removing WWII memorabilia listings? China, so they can be absolutely sure that their population is ignorant of anything the Glorious People's Revolution doesn't want them to know about (like say, Tinamannen Square or the Great Leap Backwards)? Iran and Saudi Arabia, so they can block out the evil west and keep their people from finding out that all Westerners are not, in fact, evil blood-crazed monsters who want to destroy them? Cuba and North Korea, so they can block the websites of the Evil Capitalist Exploiters of the Common Man?
In other words, politicians whose agenda involves using DNS to censor the Internet and pervert it into nothing more than a state-controlled interactive TV. Say what you will, but so far the United States has done a remarkably good, fair, and unbiased job of handling DNS. Those who want to take control hate the fact that it's been fair and unbiased because they want to use it against their 'opponents.'
Dear North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, France, China, Russia and co: Leave your meatspace BS in meatspace. I refuse to let your petty bureaucratic empire-building destroy the greatest medium of information exchange ever to exist.
Control (Score:4, Informative)
"The EU proposal, announced by Britain, which currently holds the EU's rotating presidency, was intended as a compromise between the UN supporters and America. It would create a new organisation to set policies over distributing routing numbers, creating new domains and the like. Because of its role as chair, Britain, usually America's closest ally on internet issues, had to stay neutral and could not beat back calls by Denmark, France, Spain and the Netherlands for greater government influence over the internet. After the announcement, Brazilian and Iranian delegates rushed to congratulate British officials, whose faces dropped when they realised the EU policy was being lauded by America's loudest opponents."
"However, the disingenuousness of the position was made clear during the meeting last month in Geneva. Some countries demanded that groups representing business and public-interest causes be thrown out of the room when governments drafted documents for the summit in November. In one instance, delegates from China and Brazil actually pounded on tables to drown out a speaker from industry."
"The good news from the UN meetings is that governments increasingly understand the importance of technology to society. The bad news is that the internet risks becoming suffocated in their embrace."
NOTHING will happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we apply that old Watergate adage, "Follow the money", and examine the financial implications of this, we quickly see that multinational corporations are the ones whose oxe gets gored.
What will happen to Wal-Mart (or any of a bazillion other companies) if they cannot easily communicate over the internet between Arkansas and China? How will Apple ship iPods in a timely manner, given the very close connections between the Apple Web Store and the manufacturing plants in China?
There's an incredible amount of money riding on the continued smooth operation and openness of the internet. Globalization depends upon it.
Maybe Kim Jung Il will be able to live without the commerce managed over the internet, but the list of countries that are so isolated as to be able to get by is a very short one.
The internet will continue unchanged, due to its dual nature, the other side being globalization. As soon as anything upsets the rivers of money flowing around the world via the internet, the true rulers of this small blue orb, the multinationals, will stomp it to death and return things to their previously smooth operation. Not even China dares disrupt the flow of commerce. One might say that China has the most to lose by tinkering with the internet. If the Euros would shut their collective pie-hole and think for just a second, they would see the reality of the situation as well.
Re:Internet Climax Next Month (Score:4, Funny)
Damn pirates!
Re:Never mind DNS; I'm worried about routing (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end, this will be a
ICANN does not control IPs or routing in any way (Score:5, Interesting)
Routing is different still. No registry guarantees the IP blocks they allocate will be globally routable. Most network providers have their own criteria for determining which networks they will accept routes for.
So, as you can see, ICANN has no part in the allocation or routing of IP addresses.
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were to be cutoff the rest of the internet, you'd most likely have more spam than ever.
Re:Year 2000 crisis all over again. (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, this is strictly a case of the EU posturing, and is a political rather than a technical problem. Other than being completely and utterly different in cause and potential threat than Y2K, your comments are r
Re:Color me stupid.. (Score:5, Interesting)
But don't be afraid - most of the internet content is not in mine anyway - so I adapted and learned to read and write in other languages.
Which obviously helped me a lot in getting a bigger view of the world.
Have you ever been to wikipedia? Look at the main page at http://www.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org] and note that there are some languages there. And some content. The German has half of the content of the English. If I sum up the other languagees that I can read I almost come to the number of English pages.
Just an example.
Mark
Re:Fun spam (Score:3, Funny)
Hello Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you in request for some assistance. My name is John Smith and I work for the US Treasury Department as a Foreign Aid Director. A few years ago there was a government plan to hold aside some money to help poorer nations in Africa, particularly Nigeria. Over the years, this fund has grown to nearly $300 Million US dollars. Unfortunately the money cannot be released due to bureaucratic red t