US Insists on Keeping Internet Control
FormFactor
At the core of forgotten
Business Week reports that the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy, David Gross rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.
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.
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.
Source: Business Week"We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet," said David Gross. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."
0
Comments
Dell, Intel, Gateway, Alienware, etc.
Keep posting guys, I love threads like this
Besides, countries can control their own servers.
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
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".
That was hilarious.
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.
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.
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.
America, land of the free, home of the xenophobic.
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.
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
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.
(please - no one gets offended - it's a fictitious country, right next to Upper Revolta)
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.
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.
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.
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.
.......ahhhhhhhhh refreshing................................