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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
edited October 2005
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.
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...
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
edited October 2005
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.
"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:"
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.
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:
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.
...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?
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited October 2005
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!
Comments
That's the spirit, lol
The **AA are already investing in the IPv6 Internet in order to have more control on that front, which is really very scary.
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
The world gets enough from the US already.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
Thank you for your consideration,
The undersigned:"
More than likely, yes.
\____UN____/
The Clownboat 2.0
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.
Uh oh, not that.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,16559,1589967,00.html
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?
As for me, I've decided not to play point guard for the White Sox!