Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10th October 2005, 00:12   #41
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
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.
As I think I said above, the Internet was created by the US, the web was created over here. The web is the main use of the net, and the reason there's arguments at all. The web is also a system which is decentralised by nature, which is the way that most things are going, and it means that noone can "claim control" over it.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2005, 00:14   #42
theknub
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Peoples Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 530
i was aware that a man from the UK did invent the WWW. but, that was a development that came out of the net that was first developed in the US.

as far as the alphabet, i did say that is something that should be included and is unfortuanate that it is not. however, i did preface that with the fact that i don't know much about it and that there is some other issue as to why it was not.

When you take a hand and chop the fingers off... what do u get?

That would be the knub.
theknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2005, 00:25   #43
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by theknub
i was aware that a man from the UK did invent the WWW. but, that was a development that came out of the net that was first developed in the US.

as far as the alphabet, i did say that is something that should be included and is unfortuanate that it is not. however, i did preface that with the fact that i don't know much about it and that there is some other issue as to why it was not.
I wasn't targeting you especialy, i was just trying to get the point across that this is more than a negliable problem to alot of countries, and i see alot higher chance of something geting done about it, if it was administered internationally. A real example of the problems with an american administered internet, instead of lofty international politics.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2005, 19:29   #44
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
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? ...
Hmmm... how many countries did you say are in the EU? divide 47 by that number then compare country to country.

Quote:
Originally posted by theknub
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.
Domain squatting is a fact of the Web... It happens here too, just like spam. If there is a possible buck to be made someone will figure a way.

There are only 256 possible characters in a byte... I guess if you didn't design it, you shouldn't bitch too much. There are various extended character sets for most every language - what is the problem? Maybe the bitchers are still using DOS!

Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
and i see alot higher chance of something geting done about it, if it was administered internationally. A real example of the problems with an american administered internet, instead of lofty international politics.
I don't see what problem you are referring to. If a domain is available, you pay your money and its yours. Oh, I get it... you want the money to go somewhere other that to the US.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2005, 19:34   #45
theknub
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Peoples Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 530
cabo, i agree about squatting, it happens. but if i remember, some cases have been tried that prevent some forms of squatting.

about the alphabet, i have no idea regarding bytes. thus my statement that extra characters should be included, but i have no idea how that effects other things or why it may not be done.

When you take a hand and chop the fingers off... what do u get?

That would be the knub.
theknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2005, 20:04   #46
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
The first systems used 256 characters for the character set because this is the number of possible combinations in an 8 bit byte. It was convenient, and it worked for ASCII, EBSIDEC, BCD, etc., etc.

It don't work for the languages that have more than 256 letters in the character set. So a compromise was designed... Use two bytes and you now have 65,536 possibile characters. It works. How well it works is a matter of opinion. It seems that some people gotta bitch about something or another.

Let 'em bitch. Water off a duck's back - know what I mean?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th October 2005, 20:05   #47
theknub
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Peoples Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 530
cabo, thank you for the clarification. i didn't know of this limitation but it does make sense.

When you take a hand and chop the fingers off... what do u get?

That would be the knub.
theknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2005, 00:07   #48
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Hmmm... how many countries did you say are in the EU? divide 47 by that number then compare country to country.
How many states did you say were in the Union?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2005, 03:42   #49
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
So you want to compare our states to your countries... pitiful comeback!



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2005, 08:37   #50
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
EU countries are not states and US States are not countries. Does your country recognize Texas as a sovereign nation?
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2005, 11:13   #51
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
So you want to compare our states to your countries... pitiful comeback!
I get to refer to Scotland as a country, so it's a distinction that escapes me easily . The point appears to have escaped you though - the number of actual countries is not the point here, and is as meaningless as the number of states in the Union.

The point is that people were arguing that the US was the controller of the business world, and that therefore they had a right to controlling ICANN, which is simply untrue. The only half-decent argument is "it ain't broke...", but since the plan wasn't to change ICANN itself at all, it seems a little wrong.

Article on subject. It's getting pretty hard for me to write stuff on here because I've been playing devil's advocate for so much of it it's going to be difficult to distinguish my actual opinion


Last edited by zootm; 11th October 2005 at 11:43.
zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2005, 13:20   #52
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Countries already control their own TLDs. IDNA already exists, and is in the process of being rolled out.

ertmann|CPH, .dk already supports IDNA, and therefore all of Unicode with a modern browser (Opera and Mozilla, at least). If there is a problem with æ, ø, or å, it's a problem with the Danish sponsor organization (http://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/), or the browsers. It's nothing to do with ICANN.

As far as your example problem with emails, that also has nothing to do with ICANN. ICANN only deals with the part after the "@" in an email address, and, as I said before, that part is already solved by ICANN. The first part of the email is not actually controlled by any organization, really. The behavior is determined by RFCs, which are "controlled" by the IETF. The IETF is *not* controlled by the US. In fact, the IETF is not controlled by anyone but its members. Join and write an RFC, get it approved by the IETF (and wait for application developers to implement the RFC) if you want Unicode email addresses.

So tell me again what ICANN is doing wrong (zootm, I'm digitally looking in your direction).

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2005, 14:12   #53
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
ICANN is the organisation that has the reponsibility for the creation and arbitration of new TLDs, and they are controlled entirely by one country. As I think I mentioned before, the originally-US "non-country" TLDs are now (other than .gov and .edu, offhand) treated as international, so this is no longer a single-nation issue.

ICANN themselves are doing nothing wrong, other than being overly-susceptible to the influence of a single government when their actions are international. Ideally, the US should have unilateral control only over the .us TLD, and the rest should be international, although the historic position of .gov/.edu is understandable and not the issue.

The biggest problem of international characters is that they make spoofing a much larger problem (no browser has found a good solution to this yet, although Mozilla say they've been "investigating", assumedly with a non-modal information panel to inform the user the website has international characters in it) as it is so much easier.

Edit: Forgot .mil up there as a US-controlled "generic" TLD, and .um (minor outlying islands) as the US's other "country" domain.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2005, 03:50   #54
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Right. So ICANN is doing nothing wrong. So the idea is to replace it based on the premise that it might do something wrong in the future. Because the US is bad and evil. DNS came from the US, and that effectively gives the US the right to control it. Arguments about the web springing from Europe are irrelevant - HTTP needs no central coordination - nor does HTML - nor, in fact, does any other major and fundamental part of the Internet, other than IP assignment (and of course, this, which the ultimate responsibility of can be split up, has already been - ARIN remaining in the US, with IANA holding final responsibility - but even this does not require central servers).

If it became necessary, the US could be "severed" from the rest of the Internet, and the root DNS IPs quickly reassigned to new servers. I really see this as the only time having ICANN as the administrative overseer of the DNS system would be a downfall - because ICANN does its job damn well, and there's no reason to say that it won't in the future.

You see DNS as an international system. It's not. It's actually a US system that the US permits international use of.

Personally, I'm very fond of non-governmental controlled Internet resources (as much as possible), and since ICANN is as close to possible to that (and an international equivalent is quite impossible), I think changing would be a bad idea.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2005, 14:28   #55
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Arguments about the web springing from Europe are irrelevant - HTTP needs no central coordination - nor does HTML - nor, in fact, does any other major and fundamental part of the Internet
Guess it's a good thing we don't have software patents then!

But that's an aside.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
If it became necessary, the US could be "severed" from the rest of the Internet, and the root DNS IPs quickly reassigned to new servers. I really see this as the only time having ICANN as the administrative overseer of the DNS system would be a downfall - because ICANN does its job damn well, and there's no reason to say that it won't in the future.
Slow erosion tends to be the way of these subtle things - there will be no "straw" to break the proverbial camel's back, there will be no single act that can justify such an extreme action. But that does not mean it will not be justified, if that makes sense. I agree that it's unlikely it'll get terrible though.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
You see DNS as an international system. It's not. It's actually a US system that the US permits international use of.
That is exactly what people are trying to change. ICANN does its best work when it's acting completely independently from the US government. The proposal is not to remove ICANN altogether, it's to move its control.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Personally, I'm very fond of non-governmental controlled Internet resources (as much as possible), and since ICANN is as close to possible to that (and an international equivalent is quite impossible), I think changing would be a bad idea.
The "it ain't broke" philosophy carries a lot of weight, but as the recent debacle over .xxx has shown, as the internet gets more and more ubiquitous, there will be political pressure put on these minor facets of the system. Still, as I've mentioned, I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree. I don't actually care particularly one way or another.

This statement perplexes me though: "an international equivalent is quite impossible". Do you really believe it's impossible? It seems completely feasible to simply transfer the administration of ICANN to a central authority. The root nameservers are already international, and they have stated that there's no plans to remove the authority itself. It simply wouldn't "belong" to the US any more.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2005, 13:22   #56
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Guess it's a good thing we don't have software patents then!

But that's an aside.
Quite, but I agree, the concept of a "software patent" seems analogous to a patent on adventure novels or the like.


Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Slow erosion tends to be the way of these subtle things - there will be no "straw" to break the proverbial camel's back, there will be no single act that can justify such an extreme action. But that does not mean it will not be justified, if that makes sense. I agree that it's unlikely it'll get terrible though.
Quite, but what reason justifies this, other than the UN trying to wrest all control within its grasp?

Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
That is exactly what people are trying to change. ICANN does its best work when it's acting completely independently from the US government. The proposal is not to remove ICANN altogether, it's to move its control.
I would be in support of ICANN becoming a completely governmentally-free-from-control institution, but not to move from the US to the UN. We move from one set of oppression to another - one which I'm not at all conviced is lesser.

Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
The "it ain't broke" philosophy carries a lot of weight, but as the recent debacle over .xxx has shown, as the internet gets more and more ubiquitous, there will be political pressure put on these minor facets of the system. Still, as I've mentioned, I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree. I don't actually care particularly one way or another.
And do you think the political pressure from the UN would be any less harmful?

Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
This statement perplexes me though: "an international equivalent is quite impossible". Do you really believe it's impossible? It seems completely feasible to simply transfer the administration of ICANN to a central authority. The root nameservers are already international, and they have stated that there's no plans to remove the authority itself. It simply wouldn't "belong" to the US any more.
ICANN is already as internationally diverse as it gets, except for the overarching control is still retained by the DoC. What I meant is that recreating an international equivalent would not be possible (well, strictly, would not be feasible). Of course it would be possible to transfer control of an organization.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2005, 13:59   #57
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Quite, but I agree, the concept of a "software patent" seems analogous to a patent on adventure novels or the like.
Yes. Bad things all around. I hear the latest fun thing is that only one company in the US can offer metered wireless internet access. Fun.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Quite, but what reason justifies this, other than the UN trying to wrest all control within its grasp?
My point was that many small reasons would make a justification, which in political terms isn't something that can be actioned upon without looking ridiculous, no matter how justified one is.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
I would be in support of ICANN becoming a completely governmentally-free-from-control institution, but not to move from the US to the UN. We move from one set of oppression to another - one which I'm not at all conviced is lesser.

...

And do you think the political pressure from the UN would be any less harmful?
I doubt the UN would be able to conclusively decide on anything to do to the system, and in any case the US would have veto power, so in that sense, yes, I think it'd be less harmful.

Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
ICANN is already as internationally diverse as it gets, except for the overarching control is still retained by the DoC. What I meant is that recreating an international equivalent would not be possible (well, strictly, would not be feasible). Of course it would be possible to transfer control of an organization.
It's that "overarching control" that's being struggled for, yes. The problem is obviously that with the internet growing (and illegal use of technology with it) the temptation to use whatever systems are under the government's control to "restrict" the internet gets far higher. Since a government like that in the US is so strongly influenced by those with money (the "Sonny Bono Act" CTEA is a beautiful example of this in terms of the US, but it is not only the US government which is affected in this way). The benefit of the UN is that anything which is likely to be harmful at least has to be looked over by more governments, while the US retains its ability to stop it. As for changes for the better, I believe that we've already concluded that ICANN does not need to change.

I realise the implementation of this could be a little different, mind

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2005, 17:16   #58
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
So you feel the UN is better because there is less chance of anything getting done at all within it - is that what you're saying?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2005, 22:14   #59
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Methinks.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 11:49   #60
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
So you feel the UN is better because there is less chance of anything getting done at all within it - is that what you're saying?
Basically, yes. It's a fun viewpoint, because it's easy to be contrary with people with.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 16:15   #61
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
The UN, useful in its uselessness...
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 16:24   #62
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
I wouldn't say it was useless, but it's in no position to do anything unless it's absolutely sure it's the right thing to do. Which is unlikely.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 16:26   #63
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
you can never be absolutely sure, therefore the UN is useless.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 17:02   #64
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Flawed logic. Hurrah.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 17:20   #65
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Basically, yes. It's a fun viewpoint, because it's easy to be contrary with people with.
Ha. "This organization is so stagnant, it couldn't possibly do harm!".

The US government is far too large and slow by my reasoning, and the UN is just worse. But I guess my libertarian values are showing through: Government is a necessary evil, to be minimized as much as possible.

I think of government like the bacteria in my stomach. I need them for life to run smoothly, but when they grow too much, it makes me want to throw up.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump