US Insists on Keeping Internet Control

30 Sep 2005 ~ 10:58pm Jengo I agree, each country can control what comes into their country anyway, i dont see why people are being stupid about this anyway...

30 Sep 2005 ~ 11:03pm TheHeartSmasher That's a good point. The US proabably controls these servers because it is the most secure country in the world. I mean as in protection of the physical servers.

1 Oct 2005 ~ 1:34am kanezfan Why do we even put up with the UN anymore? I mean we run it, we control it, without us it's dead, we fund the majority of it. Why?

1 Oct 2005 ~ 2:08am pseudonym Internet by committee!!! YAY!!! The UN can eat it, we built it, we paid for it, ours.

1 Oct 2005 ~ 2:19am TheHeartSmasher That's right it is ours if it wasn't for our contributions to the internet we would even have optimal OC-192 connections to connect the countries together with reliable servers.

Dell, Intel, Gateway, Alienware, etc.

1 Oct 2005 ~ 2:37am Camman haha yeah PC manufacturers had a lot to do with the proliferation of the internet, Alienware in particular

1 Oct 2005 ~ 2:37am djstubbs lol

1 Oct 2005 ~ 3:36am Shorty ahahahahahahaha

Keep posting guys, I love threads like this

1 Oct 2005 ~ 5:04am Thrax Xerox + Intel + DEC = American = Internet = The UN can FOAD.

Besides, countries can control their own servers.

1 Oct 2005 ~ 6:19am TheHeartSmasher Last time I checked I don't see any foriegn internet gods anywhere

1 Oct 2005 ~ 11:54am Qeldroma

FormFactor wrote:

Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development.

Actually, I'm not sure the US is in charge of it anyway. Isn't much of the damage on the Net anymore is started somewhere else? Wasn't a lot of credit card numbers that were stolen recently a non-US job? Aren't some of these nasty web attacks and spyware servers started somewhere else? If we are in charge of it, we must suck at it and should give it to space aliens. Just don't know enough about it.

Maybe someone who does might be able to say if IPV6 makes this pointless anyway?

Internet n00b Qel

1 Oct 2005 ~ 12:11pm deicist Qeldroma: As I understand it the argument is about control of the top level DNS servers. DNS is the process by which you entering a website name (www.short-media.com for example) gets translated to the ip address of the server on which the website resides. DNS works in a heirarchical (tree) arrangement, ie: each server checks it's own records for the DNS entry, if it hasn't got it it passes the request upwards. at the top of the tree are the servers that control the DNS records for the top level domains (things like .com, .net etc...). It's these servers that are being argued about. The UNs stance is that the internet is a global information service, that control of such an important tool shouldn't be given to any one country. In theory there's nothing to stop the US government (AFAIK the company which deals with DNS registration is a subsidiary of the US department of er..something or other) removing any DNS entry they wanted, thus making any webiste they wanted invisible to the rest of the internet. Of course, there's nothing to stop anyon else setting up their own top level DNS servers, but computers connected to one set wouldn't be able to look up addresses of sites on another set, in effect this would fragment the internet and create multiple seperate internets. I think the real issue here isn't 'UN wants charge of internet' it's 'UN doesn't trust US to have control of something so important'.

1 Oct 2005 ~ 12:51pm Qeldroma

deicist wrote:

I think the real issue here isn't 'UN wants charge of internet' it's 'UN doesn't trust US to have control of something so important'.

Thanks, deicist. Didn't know the US maintained that kind of control. And yep, I think you're correct here. And I'm sure the US has no confidence in the UN to run them either.

It's like something needs to change on a more fundamental level than even economics before anyone proves "trustworthy".

1 Oct 2005 ~ 5:56pm airbornflght I think the un needs to shut the fuck up, we've ran it for many many years and its doing just fine. if it was up to the un, theyd place the servers in china, and the only website left would be chinarocks.china and then it would get blown up.

1 Oct 2005 ~ 10:22pm Private_Snoball RE: Airbornflght

That was hilarious.

if it was up to the un, theyd place the servers in china, and the only website left would be chinarocks.china and then it would get blown up.

Seriously, if the UN ran this, what good would it do. Hey sorry guys, the worldwide web will be down for the next 9 years while the UN moves the servers from the U.S. to random place and then the U.N. will need to set up 900 committees to make sure everyone is happy with the colors of the servers. Sorry we had to do this, the U.S. was doing too good of a job for us to handle.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 10:14am Linc I don't want to join in on the bash-the-UN party wagon, but any process that might give China or Russia veto power over the governance of internet infrastructure gives me great pause.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 10:21am TheHeartSmasher Why the US because that's where all the superior web hosting companies, reliable ISP except for a few which I won't mention because of their horrbible down time and blocked ports and web server hosting restrictions that really make me mad.

Other than that US all the way we are the internet and without us everything would shut down, and nothing would work and then horrible mad websites would pop up no where with no meaning and the world would shut down.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 11:49am RADA UN take control of the Internet!!!! :shakehead :shakehead

That would be like giving jewel thieves the key to the jewelry store.....

UN =

UNneeded,
UNhelpful,
UNwanted

Let this bad experiment in Quasi-socialism die the horrible death it deserves.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 4:01pm Jimborae This thread is very funny reading.

America, land of the free, home of the xenophobic.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 4:05pm Leonardo Jim, I'd much rather see the UK take "control" (or a UK-based private company) than the UN. I think the concern that many are expressing is that the UN would not be a good choice for top level administration of the Internet. Take any big bureaucracy - the US, UK, Germany, the old Soviet Union and multiply it several times and you have the UN. Not that the UN is evil or not well-intentioned; it's just the way things are. If the UN had a high influence on the Internet, we'd still be deciding which was to be the international standard for 56K dialup modems.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 4:11pm profdlp Let's not veer off into politics here, guys.

I'd be willing to bet that most Americans would have no problem with shifting (at least partial) control to another country, so long as that country was perceived as being responsible and reliable. The UK, Australia, Japan, etc, come to mind.

I don't see it as a matter of wanting to piggishly maintain control ourselves, so much as it is a case of keeping control out of the hands of those who are irresponsible and unreliable.

EDIT: Leo beat me to it. Well said, sir.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 5:08pm Thrax Truth.. I wouldn't have an issue shifting some of the control to any other primary country like Japan, Germany, Australia, the UK, etcetera. What I do take issue with is the United Nations.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 5:26pm TheHeartSmasher I am American and I like the fact that I can register a domain name and webhosting account and in about 5 minutes be able to use the accournt and webhosting with the domain name. Now if it was another company they would be trying to log all your personal information and send it out to SPAM companies or advertisers like Gay(A)OL and they would send you stupid little CDs that you'll never use because the service sucks.

The only thing with some domains is it takes 72 hours for them to work now for other countires it would probably take about umm lets say 2-5 weeks which you could be using to make websites.

Us Owns ALL other countires. Pure Pwange

2 Oct 2005 ~ 5:58pm Linc

President Pain wrote:

Us Owns ALL other countires. Pure Pwange

Just stop it now, all right? We can only handle so much in one thread. You're even offending me as an American.

Jimborae wrote:

America, land of the free, home of the xenophobic.

Ditto that. Sheesh, guys...

I think it's important to remember that the other nations at least need to ask for this... they'd be perceived as weak by their constituencies if they didn't. And, I'm sure they knew in advance the US had no interest in giving it up. There was no mystery here. It's just political intrigue playing itself out. I would be very surprised if this dialogue escalates unless the US somehow abuses its control.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 6:06pm Leonardo We'll settle this once and for all. Upon inspiration of Larry, Curly, and Moe, we'll cede top DNS control to the country of Moronika.

(please - no one gets offended - it's a fictitious country, right next to Upper Revolta)

2 Oct 2005 ~ 10:04pm RADA

Jimborae wrote:

This thread is very funny reading.

America, land of the free, home of the xenophobic.

Being xenophobic has nothing to do with it, the UN is a corrupt, untrustworthy organization.

I wouldn't have a problem with a country like Japan or Britain sharing the load with the US, but never the UN.

2 Oct 2005 ~ 10:15pm TheHeartSmasher Alright to really settle it les give the right to Antartica.

It's cool, it's secure, and not many people will try to mess with the main servers. The firewall(s) can be called Icebox so if you try to break in your connection freezes up and your computer turns to ice, and ice cream squirts out of your computer with hot fudge and rainbow sprinkles.

3 Oct 2005 ~ 12:23pm Tim "Pure Pwange"? WTF is that?

The USA should keep control of the internet because all other countries would be too incompetent. Not that the USA is perfect, but it's the best country to handle the job. Our free enterprise system makes ISP providers WANT to do a good job, whereas other countries would run their internet servers off government subsidies and not be in a hurry to do anything.

I only partially have an idea of what I'm talking about here.

3 Oct 2005 ~ 1:58pm Jimborae

General Keebler wrote:

Just stop it now, all right? We can only handle so much in one thread. You're even offending me as an American.

Ditto that. Sheesh, guys...

I think it's important to remember that the other nations at least need to ask for this... they'd be perceived as weak by their constituencies if they didn't. And, I'm sure they knew in advance the US had no interest in giving it up. There was no mystery here. It's just political intrigue playing itself out. I would be very surprised if this dialogue escalates unless the US somehow abuses its control.

Thanks Keebs, at least somebody got the point i was trying to make & my tongue was planted firmly in cheek when making my post, hence the smiley.

Sit back & relax guys, and remember that this is an internationally owned & read forum. Not everyone shares the same views or world opinions as you, that's what make this place so special.

3 Oct 2005 ~ 2:50pm TheHeartSmasher Sitting back in my chair folding and looking in the forums

.......ahhhhhhhhh refreshing................................

3 Oct 2005 ~ 3:34pm Jimborae

President Pain wrote:

Sitting back in my chair folding and looking in the forums

.......ahhhhhhhhh refreshing................................

That's the spirit, lol

3 Oct 2005 ~ 4:13pm FormFactor One positive point in shifting the responsibility to other countrys that has not been mentioned here yet is, it may take some of the **AA ability to sue people so easily, and take some of their authority away. (although I doubt it if its merely DNS were talking about here).

The **AA are already investing in the IPv6 Internet in order to have more control on that front, which is really very scary.

3 Oct 2005 ~ 5:28pm TheHeartSmasher I think it is DNS servers, pipeline, backbones, access points, something about the rules on what can be on the internet (something the US is really laid back on) and the speed caps that are allowed and the price for internet service, etc.

3 Oct 2005 ~ 10:07pm Camman

President Pain wrote:

I think it is DNS servers, pipeline, backbones, access points, something about the rules on what can be on the internet (something the US is really laid back on) and the speed caps that are allowed and the price for internet service, etc.

Dude seriously, what are you talking about?

The thing the US "controls" is only the DNS system/ICANN. The "pipelines, backbones, access points" are all privately owned by telecom companies. The issue of "shifting control" would be only of the DNS system which is controlled by ICANN. And as for "rules on what can be on the internet" (none) and 'speed caps' well I suppose that would be an ISP thing, but the US Government doesnt say "okay comcast now you're allowed to up your service speed"

And also, the reason it takes "72 hours for some domains" is called DNS propagation which has to filter down to all the DNS servers to point your domain to the right IP address, it wouldn't take "2-5 weeks" for other countries' TLD's it is the same time and all depend on how quickly your DNS record propagates

4 Oct 2005 ~ 8:42am jradmin I say if it ain't broke...dont fix it.

The world gets enough from the US already.

4 Oct 2005 ~ 10:46am TheHeartSmasher

Camman wrote:

Dude seriously, what are you talking about?

The thing the US "controls" is only the DNS system/ICANN. The "pipelines, backbones, access points" are all privately owned by telecom companies. The issue of "shifting control" would be only of the DNS system which is controlled by ICANN. And as for "rules on what can be on the internet" (none) and 'speed caps' well I suppose that would be an ISP thing, but the US Government doesnt say "okay comcast now you're allowed to up your service speed"

And also, the reason it takes "72 hours for some domains" is called DNS propagation which has to filter down to all the DNS servers to point your domain to the right IP address, it wouldn't take "2-5 weeks" for other countries' TLD's it is the same time and all depend on how quickly your DNS record propagates

Actually it would have been done instantly by a person at the webhosting company just needed to reset the apache server.

So when are the ISP's going to drop dial-up and upgrade everyone to broadband?

4 Oct 2005 ~ 1:56pm Camman

President Pain wrote:

Actually it would have been done instantly by a person at the webhosting company just needed to reset the apache server.

Hey chief, maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about but setting up a domain to point to a webserver is, in fact, not done "instantly" and usually takes 24-48hrs for domain propagation.

4 Oct 2005 ~ 2:01pm Linc

President Pain wrote:

So when are the ISP's going to drop dial-up and upgrade everyone to broadband?

This isn't at all germane to the topic at hand, but broadband access is actually plateauing in the US, so not for a long time.

4 Oct 2005 ~ 2:02pm GHoosdum There are two proposals at work in the article:
1) Europe is pushing for cooperative governmental control over DNS servers. I think this is a bad idea because things are done on a nearly private level now, and to my mind that is a safer, less expensive, and more efficient situation than any government or governments being in control.
2) "Developing Nations" want the UN to control DNS servers. IMHO, this is probably because the US has one of the strongest stances against piracy, spam, scamming, and hacking (the mainstays of some of these countries' economies).

ICANN is controlled by a multinational board anyway... Personally I don't care whether it's US-based, so long as it is based in a developed nation and remains privately controlled.

If that's Xenophobic of me, then yeah I'm a xenophobe against pirates (the software type, not the "ARR, MATEY" type), spammers, Nigerian Princes-In-Exile, and hackers.

They are fundamentally alien to me.

5 Oct 2005 ~ 5:30pm Daniel-Welch Someone correct me if I am wrong here. Anything the UN does since the proven connections to weapons supply and involvment in the Afgani,Iraqi wars have been proven does not sit well with me. This organization has proven itself corrupted. Now we are supposed to put such an obviously powerful tool into their control? I think NOT! The US developed it, if anyone should have control over it, we should, I am sure our tax dollars paid for it.
The Internet is a great thing, but it can be a very dangerous thing in the wrong hands. Our government is as close as I want to get to Big Brother.

5 Oct 2005 ~ 5:34pm airbornflght hmph..i still think it should stay right where it is. maybe have some "back-up servers that mirror the mainones and can go online at a moments notice.

5 Oct 2005 ~ 5:35pm airbornflght let me just add that other conuntries what the un to take controll because they think there will be more laxed controll on hocking and piracy and the such.

6 Oct 2005 ~ 12:42pm BlackHawk I'm not gonna get into the whole US vs UN thing but to me, don't fix it if it isn't broken. It's perfectly fine how it is and it's not like the US is banning French or Iranian websites.

6 Oct 2005 ~ 1:09pm CB No country actual has control of any of this stuff anyway, they're just foolong themselves.

We might as well just give all the control to Gates officially, instead of pretending like he doesn't rule the whole thing to begin with...

6 Oct 2005 ~ 3:22pm BlackHawk

After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments.

You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of the internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media scrums and a charismatic frontman working the crowd.

But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for generations to come.

Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet.

Continued

6 Oct 2005 ~ 3:47pm profdlp

Will a governmental body running the internet add unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system?

I'd like to see the bookmaker's odds on these two possible outcomes.

6 Oct 2005 ~ 4:08pm GHoosdum I'd like to bet $2 on the dark horse in that race - I could make millions!

6 Oct 2005 ~ 4:15pm profdlp

GHoosdum wrote:

I'd like to bet $2 on the dark horse in that race - I could make millions!

Or lose two bucks.

6 Oct 2005 ~ 4:23pm Thrax "US of A, this is a mandate by the other countries of the globe who contributed neither time nor resources to the development of the internet until it became popular through the efforts of DARPA, the DoD, Intel, Xerox and DEC. We demand you cease and desist the lawful use of your own invention.

Thank you for your consideration,
The undersigned:"

6 Oct 2005 ~ 4:26pm profdlp I'd like to know what Al Gore is feeling right now.

6 Oct 2005 ~ 4:30pm GHoosdum

profdlp wrote:

Or lose two bucks.

More than likely, yes.

\____UN____/
The Clownboat 2.0

6 Oct 2005 ~ 5:55pm Linc I'm hazy on how the UN, majority or not, could force this change. Are they going to invade the centers where the root servers are kept?

But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies"?

No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users."

I mean, at least they have the right idea. But sweet Jesus... Communist China and dictorships at the table making top-level decisions about the internet? I want more details about how this body will work. On the security council, it only takes one veto to shut something down. Would China veto a standard that won't allow it sufficient control?

Make no mistake. In this world, Information Is Power. The wrong management of the Internet could be the modern-day equivalent of the Catholic Church usurping control of the written word during the Dark Ages.

14 Oct 2005 ~ 1:01am Camman Related note I just found, this article (found on digg.com) has some leaders in the European Union warning that the internet could "start falling apart" as early as next month because countries will start breaking off to form their own networks which they will have control over, sounds like a bunch of nutty stuff to me, and I don't really care anyway, here's the list of nations the author cited to fall off the bandwagon first:

that article wrote:

Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear.

Uh oh, not that.

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,16559,1589967,00.html

14 Oct 2005 ~ 1:10am profdlp

...countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet...

With the exception of Brazil, what has that bunch accomplished of note regarding the Internet?

Within their own borders, China already locks down the web tighter than...well, tighter than something that's really tight...

The rest are either non-players, or in the case of Russia, a haven for spammers.

In other news, I've decided not to play point guard for the Cleveland Cavaliers this season. Think they'll miss me?

14 Oct 2005 ~ 2:33am Leonardo Prof, I won't restate what you were wrote, but that it was what I was thinking. One minor correction - Russia is not the haven for Spammers that it used to be. That's an ever changing demographic (if that's the right word).

As for me, I've decided not to play point guard for the White Sox!

14 Oct 2005 ~ 4:11am Thrax No, Russia is now a haven for master telecine creators. :bawling:

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

US Insists on Keeping Internet Control

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Talk to Us

The 5¢ Tour

Obligatory Blather

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

US Insists on Keeping Internet Control

More Icrontic awesomesauce

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Talk to Us

The 5¢ Tour

Obligatory Blather