UE/UN wants to take control of the INternet from the US
 

From the Guardian:
Breaking America's grip on the net
Read the whole thing

My question is, what's the point? How is ICANN running things on the internet that the UN doesn't agree with?

I'd also be extremely loath to let china have any hand in internet regulation, they already censor much of what people in their country can access.

Al Gore should control it.

What's the point in hanging on to overall control?

Why are Americans always crying out when they're asked to share power or control? And yet surprised by their bad image abroad?

Quit playing dumb. You've answered yourself.
If it's worth giving someone grief about, then there's obviously a point to hanging on to it.

Screw this shit. Let's invade the UN headquarters, install a puppet regime and arm them to the hilt like we do anywhere else in the world.

Shit, nevermind. They don't have any oil.

To :

"Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states"

Shut up or go build your own internet.

They have. You have no apparent understanding of how the system works.

So this is an issue over DNS not the internet. Who gives a fuck and why? Honestly, this is petty. I could see getting my panties in a bunch if DNS was handled unfairly. I have not seen much evidence to support an unfair deal to other nations regarding DNS.

It makes sense for it to be controlled internationally, since it is an international system. The US did not give a good reason when they refused to give up control, so the UN/EU is probably reasonably justified.

The point isn't that other nations are getting an unfair deal, it's that a system which is international has one component centralised in a single nation, which doesn't make sense, really. It'll have little or no effect on the end-user, but this is all politics. The US appear to have refused the UN's request for purely political reasons, so the rest of the UN are pushing forward with the proposal, it seems.

Coming from Europe that arguement would make sense, but that's really just not how we do things on this side of the pond.

The UN's more corrupt than the Bush administration, why give them anything?

That's not the point. It's an international system, therefore it should be controlled internationally. This is a simple concept to grasp, the only real reasons to avoid it are politics and technical reasons, the latter of which are not a huge problem.

As for allegations of corruption, the UN is not, in general, a corrupt organisation, although as in all large organisations like this there are elements of corruption. This is not an issue here, however, since this is not a system which is particularly open to corruption.

I exactly understand how the system works and the fact that the root servers of the internet are under USA control pleases me.

Why?. I like it the way it is.

Like I said, go make your own web.

/me flys bird at EU, UN, China and Iran

I worked for a French company... Sounds like the Euro way of thinking... 'let's run everything by committee'.

End result: Nothing gets done.

Is there something wrong with the way it is now? If it aint broke don't fix it... or do you just want it for yourselves?

You're talking in circles.

More accurately, it's a U.S. System that happens to be utilized internationally. It's like arguing that since the whole world watches movies produced in Hollywood, Hollywood should be governed and regulated by the UN.

Actually, no. Root servers are already located around the globe and have been for some time.

http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm

This includes India, Turkey, Russia, Singapore, Australia, Netherlands and London. In fact out of 13 root servers only four are located in the USA and one in Canada.

As the root servers are the primary component of the entire internet the US already does not have total control of them as they are not located on US soil so it is already being controlled internationally.

ok, root servers are found around the world. so no big deal. why raise a stink?

aside from that, you own something and then someone wants to take it from you simply because it is "international?" does that mean the UN should control fedex, ups, microsoft, linux, apple, cell phones, or whatever the hell else you can think of that has an international base of people or operations? i think you would wholeheartedly answer no (please don't mention anything about microsoft domination, that gets old). unless we wish to live in totalitarian govt with a single power controlling all people and things that can oppress anything they deem wrong and promote something that we as people might not like, then be glad for the personal freedoms we have and the ability to hold onto something that you create as your own and not be taken over by some foreign power. if you want this, go buy your own island somewhere and see if you can start your own cult there.

They're still, to the best of my knowledge, administered by the US, no? This is the point of all of this nonsense - it's almost a formality. The US appear to be resisting for reasons of political posturing.

This is a business thing which is just as prevalent in the US as in Europe. Normally I'd agree with you though (other than the "Europe" part), but in this situation we actively want nothing to get done.

I repeat myself when people don't reply to the point the first time.

That's a pretty falicious statement.

The US way is better. Bomb everyone that doesn't agree with us and then have the europeans form a committee.

lol @ hippie. now, is that committee formed to discuss the new power the US has gained or to discuss what we did wrong and slap our wrists?

Expound.

We're not really sure what that committee does?. But know it exists somewhere dammit!.

Wasn't there a committee to investigate where all the committees are?.

Even if we can't remember exactly what or where it was...... rest assured the EU and UN are having having a committee right now, to form committees to examine both how much power the US gained, and how to slap our wrists without seeming too committal about it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

:)

Well, then, if your point is that the US is resisting for reasons of political posturing...

...how can you not agree that the UN WANTS control for reasons of political posturing?

With the US, it's more like evil mutt dog posturing. Our ancestors were thrown out of every decent country in the world.

Like most mutt dogs, we get our dandruff up if someone interrupts our nap.

While the european community has it's committees, you'll find our face firmly planted, like a rottweiler that learned to open a reefer.

Bad dog!......

RRRRRRRR ......

I think we better have a committee to figure out how to keep the bad dog from biting us.

Maybe we better find the Krispi Kreme, this dog looks pissed. Oh shit!. Max heard Krispi Creme!. Who's got the Volvo?.

I'm not putting Max in the Volvo, last time he ate the back seat......

committee?."

lol... i love it rock out hippie

Well, the reasons are fairly logical. International system, having it controlled by one country is just a bit silly. It's an easy system to migrate in this way. There's little political to gain, either. It just makes sense.

*shrug*

well.... take a look at the first 100 companies on the fortune global 500 list....

There is 47 European companies, and 34 American... you don't get there by not getting anything done, do you?

Or look at at the EU law catalog, 80.000 pages, superceeding the member-countries national laws, most of which have been (and have been required to be) agreed by concencus.

Europe have learned the value of compromise, and international cooperation the hard way. Which is why we're so hell bent on using it. And, i presume, unlike the United States, we've also seen how succesfull this path can be.

The EU/UN didn't make the internet, why should they get to control it? Why do they think they ought to control it anyway? What about the way the US is running things would they change?

Like Zootm said, it is a bunch of political posturing. The EU/UN is trying to prove that they have some power over the US. Trying to steal ICANN from us is just a way of flexing that (supposed) power. We'll see if they succeed, but I don't think they will.

what i don't like about zootm's line of reasoning is that because it is an international system, it should be controlled internationally. however, as i said in an earlier post, this line of reasoning would lead to all international companies being under UN/EU control. you let me know, does it make sense for that to occur? i think we all would say no.

as ertmann said, there is a slew of international companies that have to conform to international laws. but that is all they have to do, conform. he doesn't say that they have to be taken over. so how does this change? just because the internet is so large and influential, doesn't mean that ownership should change especially if all international laws are being met.

No, but it was not Americans either... Besides the current US administration have clearly shown it cannot be trusted in international affairs, so offcourse there is bound to be a reaction.

That said, The only real positive thing i can see comming out of this would be that the electronic alphabet extended beyond the 26 letters of the english alphabet. Scandinavians have been screaming about this fovever but ICANN couldn't possibly care less about æ ø å ä ö ð ß etc. While it poses a very real problem to us on a daily basis...

Common company email adresses in Denmark f.x is usualy made from this formula firstname.lastname@companyname.dk, so if I want to send an email to christian.sørensen@iss.dk i have to guess if it's transliterated christian.soerensen@iss.dk or christian.sorensen@iss.dk

another common problem is domain piracy, ørlingegård.dk for example, the company registers oerlingegaard.dk, and some domain pirate registers orlingegaard.dk, orlingegard.dk or oerlingegard.dk to sell dildoes, penis enlargements or other weird stuff.

getting this out of ICANNs control, might very well help aliviate that problem.

The Danes should really start putting real letters in their language, then we wouldn't have to worry about æ ø å ä ö ð ß etc.

It's just really unamerican to use a bunch of whacky letters.

ok, i assume that you mean it was american's who did not make the internet? to that, i call BS. it was created in the US as a way to share information.

as far as domain squatting, i know the US has set some precedents to try and prevent that. of course, that is completely up to country powers to enforce.

as far as an expanded alphabet, i don't know what to tell you. that is an unfortuanate side effect. there may be some reason as to why it is not included that i don't know of, but can't say for sure. i would agree that they should be there.

Nothing. It just makes more sense to have it controlled internationally. Every other section of it is decentralised, it makes no sense to have it centralised.

Besides, although the US invented the internet, Europeans invented the web, which is its largest use.

Nobody's trying to steal anything, it just makes more sense, posturing or no. The fact that it's been blown to such a proportion by the US is the posturing.

Also, please don't capitalise my (internet) name.

hehe, so the US is the one blowing it out of proportion even though it is the UN/EU that wants the control out of the US's hands? do you see the problem with that statement? after all, everything is working great as is. as is said, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

the major problem i see with decentralizing and making the internet a world domain is the time that it will take to come to a decision. every decision that needs to be made will have to go through panels, advisory committees, votes, etc before anything can get done. if you say that won't happen and that some group will be able to make immediate decisions then you run the risk of having the same problems or potential problems as you do now.

and really, who does it make sense to? to you? to the world community? to the EU/UN? me, i'm not affected one way or the other. as has been noted, it is purely political? why does anyone care? the only valid reason i have seen is the expanded alphabet. other than that, is issues that some have of who has control.

Only if you're not in the USA. I guess it'd be ok if the Scots controlled the internet, but the EU and the UN?.

Get Sean Connery.

Nah, I wouldn't be best pleased if we were controlling the internet on our own either.

Although theoretically it'd be possible for the UN to just take control, at the risk of temporarily alienating the US. Not a good plan of action, though.

Somehow, zootm, I can't just sit with the explanation that "it just makes sense." You've said that several times now, and that sense has yet to become apparent to me. I mean, basically you're saying that you can't really fault the US in what they've done, or really give a good explanation of what the UN could do better...it just "makes sense." To me, the "sense" would have to be either how the US is doing it wrong or how the UN would necessarily do it better.

Without either of those (you don't even need both!) there is no reason for action whatsoever.

as said. if it aint broke, don't fix it.

To be honest I'm playing devil's advocate to some degree. There's no good reason for the US to keep control, but on the other hand there's no really convincing reason to take it from them. The UN are the better organisation to be in charge though, since they're less susceptable to more petty meddling. That said, where it is, it works fine (other than the US government's fabulously poor choices of administrators for various TLDs, but that's not something I know a lot about other than "they chose badly"), and it's not something serious.

It's disappointing that the .gov/.edu TLDs are american, more because it's inconsistent than any particular bias, though. Historical reasons have made it that way. It's good to see that most other TLDs are seen as international these days, it's a good sign that people don't think of the internet as American, since it's really, really not.

This is essentially, however, non-news. There's a lot of people trying to make it into a power move by the UN, which it isn't (or it's a really bad one, if it is).

That very much depends on the definition of the internet, while it is true that americans institutions had a net that they used to share information, the modern internet was created by Tim Berners Lee, a UK citizen, working on CERN in switzerland.

Some wikipedia quotes for you

Sir Timothy John "Tim" Berners-Lee, KBE, FRS (TimBL or TBL) (born June 8, 1955) is the inventor of the World Wide Web and Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, which oversees its continued development.

From the Tim Berners Lee article on wikipedia

The first TCP/IP wide area network was operational in 1984 when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF) constructed a university network backbone that would later become the NSFNet. It was then followed by the opening of the network to commercial interests in 1995. Important seperate networks that have successfully entered the Internet include Usenet, Bitnet and the various commercial and educational X.25 networks such as Compuserve and JANET.

The collective network gained a public face in the 1990s. In August 1991 Tim Berners-Lee publicized his new World Wide Web project, two years after he had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few web pages at CERN in Switzerland. In 1993 the Mosaic web browser version 1.0 was released, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic/technical Internet. By 1996 the word "Internet" was common public currency, but it referred almost entirely to the World Wide Web.

From the Internet article on wikipedia

And it's not just a Danish problem, Germany (ß ö ü ä), Denmark & Norway (æ ø å), Iceland (Þ ð), Sweden (å ä ö), Poland (ł) the Faroe Islands (ð æ ø), all have an extended latin alphabet, and then theres all the accentented variants of the Latin and Eastern European languages on top of those, but that's less of a problem.