Whose Internet Is It, Anyway?

Should America Control the Internet?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/10/20/congress.internet.reut/index.html
from JoeUser Forums
If you browse the Internet (and if you don't you're not reading this!) the websites that you visit ultimately get their names from ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.) ICANN is a non-profit agency, based in California. Which means that they are regulated to one degree or another by the US Commerce Department, a part of the US Government.

Which means that the US Government controls the Internet. And some nations have a problem with that.

Countries such as Brazil and Iran have argued that the Internet is too important a resource for one country to control. Hence, the argument goes, an international body such as the UN should have the final say. In response, Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has introduced a bill calling for the addressing system to remain under US control.

The first thought that occurs to me is the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The second, is that there is no body more capable of administering the naming conventions. The UN? With its glorious history of efficiency and expedient action? Ha! The only problem that would solve is finding a new job for some of Kofi Annan's unemployed relatives.

Perhaps Iran itself? Peace-loving, law-abiding Iran? You can visit Iran' s website at www.wearebuildinganuclearreactorforpeacefulpurposessniggersnigger.com (Not a real website in case you haven't gathered that. A little sarcasm.)

Or that model of efficient governance, the EU? Would it be "Le Internet" or "Das Internet?" Oh, and by the way, the Internet will be closed during August.

At the risk of invoking Al Gore jokes, the United States built the Internet and has done a remarkably good job of maintaining it. What is broken that needs fixing, one should ask, and who would be better at maintaining it? Internet-wide problems have been, with some exceptions, few and far between. Legislative interference has been almost unknown. There is no reason for change that I can see.

I do understand the concerns of countries that fear that, at some future time, the Internet could be politicized. But, until that happens, leave well enough alone.
internet
59,712 views 52 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Somehow the idea of nations who can't universalize phone service and electricity strike me as dubiously suited to oversee the Internet. France, a nation where thousands of people die when the summer gets too hot, well, I think it's pretty obvious that they would use the Internet any way they could to stifle all the horrid cultures that are polluting their pure Arya... um... Amphib... urr... French culture.

The fact they endanger the lives of thousands of their weakest citizens over dubious environmental stances makes me wonder where free speech would go. Ideals over reality and all that silliness. France and Germany are notorious about trying to stifle free speech on the Internet, as are Arab nations and many others who would suddenly have a big hand in management were it to become a UN-style endeavor.

It doesn't seem fair, granted, but I can't think of any other nation worthy of the task, frankly, that wouldn't be just as self-centered as the US. The part I thought was really funny was when some EU nations threatened to splinter the Internet if we didn't agree last week. They would just "close the doors." The fact that they thought they could pretty much says what needs to be said, I think. I can imagine all those Frenchmen having to make due with French porn...

Reply #2 from WinCustomize Forums Top

France, a nation where thousands of people die when the summer gets too hot,

Oh, Baker...such poor timing......New Orleans isn't in France...it just sounds that way.

Better be careful with the racial jibes....they can and do always come back to bite you...

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Better be careful with the racial jibes....they can and do always come back to bite you..."


Calling France racist is racist? Wow. A nation that is afraid of other cultures, of religious expression, history, etc., seems a strange place to shelter from critism, and the last bunch that I would want governing the Internet.

P.S. New Orleans was hit by a Cat 4 hurricaine. France was hit by survivable temperatures and bad environmental policies.

The point isn't France is evil, France can do whatever it wants in France, I don't care. The point is many of these nations have very dubious agendas that they have tried to impose internationally, and I believe that they would abuse governance of the Internet any way they could to further those ideals.
Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top

No, claiming it's Govt clearly doesn't handle temp extremes causing people to die....extrapolated from the quote I used....compares well with the US Govt [at whatever level] that allows people to die in preventable floods.

France isn't so much 'racist' as 'arrogant', again something definitely NOT limited to one country's ethos...

I am absolutely CERTAIN that were ANY other country on the planet solely in charge of a global communication system as the US is then there'd be 250 million Americans feeling squeamish and vulnerable, too....

But they aren't, so they don't.

In a parallel universe.....who knows?....

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's ours and we are keeping it!! do not like it?? make your own internet, let us see how well that one functions.

The whole world is jealous of the united staes and wants all we have.



A real american patriot,

MM,
Reply #6 from WinCustomize Forums Top
america's continual refusal to even contemplate discussing the kyoto protocol is probably the biggest threat to the world's enviroment...this thread is turning much too political...the french just have a different world view to yours, bakerstreet...it doesn't make either of you right or wrong...

everyone uses the internet...maybe more people should be given a chance to say how it is controlled...nobody is suggesting the america hands over control to iran, just that perhaps other voices could be heard....

i personally believe that things work fine as they are, but debate is always a positive thing

and, no, the whole world is not jealous of the united states
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Kyoto? Huh? 

The US doesn't really "control" the Internet anymore than I "control" the sidewalk that goes through my yard.  Sure, if the US really wanted to mess with it it could but as a practical matter, no one is going to touch it.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jafo and Baker, thanks for the comments...slightly off topic, but still....

Much of the world's "information assets" run on the Internet and those assets are, in one wise or another, controlled by companies based in the US. That makes some parts of the world nervous, not without justification. But if not the US, then who? Will anyone speak for the UN controlling it? I think not.

The point is that there is no more qualified nation or organization available.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The point is that there is no more qualified nation or organization available.

The posts so far fail to distinguish several technical details that make the whole topic viable:

- the Internet itself was designed by the US military to be a network that could survive node loss by routing around dead connections
- BY DEFINITION the Internet is a distributed network with no central control and, once outside US territory, it IS effectively controlled by "foreign" countries, organizations and companies
- Early expansion of the Internet outside of US territory also involved distributed services that do not rely on a central authority (e.g., gopher, WAIS, etc.)
- HOWEVER services later tacked on (e.g., especially DNS) that have proven especially valuable for making the Internet usable to the "common folk" and (most importantly?) for common commercial activity have their core/root servers in the US
- DNS, by far the most important of these latter protocols, is strictly controlled and managed by the US government and ICANN, an organization that is ultimately only responsible to the US Commerce Department

The problem for other countries is that a hostile US government can effectively shut down Internet access that relies on DNS to their countries (or selective parts). While everything remains accessible by IP address, most people and many programs rely on name resolution to get any work done.

Part of this issue is actually inherent in some design choices (flaws, perhaps) in DNS. But considering how much business and people rely on Internet use now, it's certainly a fair point of contention that a possibly significant (and growing) portion of its economy is entirely at the whims of the US government.

People outside of the US can (and have) established alternate root servers, but true effectiveness requires global acknowledgement and cooperation (i.e., the key routers must defer to these new servers for name resolution). Even though the rest of the world is catching up (and in many cases overtaking) the US in terms of personal and business use of the Internet, currently it's just not possible to bully (i.e., by setting up alternate root servers and everyone else acknowledging them) the US into an alternate arrangement -- too much traffic, bandwidth and (to be frank) business/money sits in the US.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is if the rest of the world get too impatient and think the US is being unfair you could get the situation where the US internet can only see US sites and the rest of the world can only see sites outside of the US. Such a situation is not in anybodys best interest which is why some sort of compromise needs to be reached whether its as simple as saying the domains for countries come under the authority of that country but are administered by ICANN or something else.
Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top
where are your arguments ??
cuz what i've just read is bull....
Americans....pfft...
ok, not all Americans, just you !!!
Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ozzy, its true... the *majority* of the internets resources are centered in America, under the control of the government (even indirectly).
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
sunwukong, I did not detail the Internet's origins from ARPANET simply because it is not germane to this issue. If anyone wants, they can read all about the history of the Internet here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

You further stated: "The problem for other countries is that a hostile US government can effectively shut down Internet access that relies on DNS to their countries (or selective parts)." I think that I made that point. Regarding an "alternate arrangement," my point is that there is NOT a viable alternative. Would anyone suggest that ICANN be forced to move to the Hague, for example, to promote fairness? Not really. The Internet works and we are all glad of that.

Except for maybe -OZZY-. Don't worry -OZZY-, you are free to express your opinions. As long, that is, as the Internet is under US control. If that control were to shift to Beijing or Pyongyang, well that might be a different case.

Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top
yeah right, and in europe u can't express your opinion...
what irritates me is that u think americans are so much better...
you failed to give one good reason why, let's say europe cuz i'm from holland, can't control it. U say cuz it will be called Le internet or Das Internet and will be closed in august....where do you get that idea ? do you know anything about europe ??
and that's why i think all this is bull....
Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think people are people. Being an American, I can say that I do not think I am better and that many Americans walk aroung with blinders on in regards to how the world views us. I am friends with a number of people who moved here from Asia and Europe and I can honestly say that many of the times we have "helped" them, their opinion was "we don't want / need your help. Who asked you?".

But that is entirely off topic. The internet is evolving and someday may take this plunge into "U.N. Control". Nothing lasts forever.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

U say cuz it will be called Le internet or Das Internet and will be closed in august....where do you get that idea ?
I can't speak for Larry but I know that I have done a lot of business with France in the past and witnessed the "Sorry, we don't do business during the month of August".  I found that inconceivable that a whole month be shut down but that is just my American way speaking.  Oh, and to be fair, it would probably be "L'Internet"

 

This might be a stupid question but what keeps other countries from having their own DNS?

I don't know, I think the whole argument that anyone else telling the US how to deal with the internet is silly.  Sure, the internet is globally used but it wasn't globally developed, right?  It is like the JU community telling Stardock that they shouldn't be able to control the JU website.  JU is what it is because of all of the participants (bloggers) from around the world but it wouldn't even exist without Stardock and I dare say there isn't any other group on here that could/would take better care of the place.  The reality is, you can either come up with your own alternative or follow the rules put down by the developer.

All these other countries could boycott and see how that works out for them.  I don't see how any other entity could "take control" though.  I think the only way control will change hands is if the US offers it up.

 

Reply #17 from WinCustomize Forums Top

The only thing that 'saves' the Internet is NOT the US Govt...or any vested commercial interest/s.... but the US 'Joe Public' themselves.

Vested interests wouldn't DARE mess with it and face the wrath of their OWN public, irrespective of how 'good' or 'bad' it might be to upset people outside of the US.

We're all in the same boat......or in the same hand-basket....

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Better be careful with the racial jibes....they can and do always come back to bite you...

Ok, I will say it then.  Since I am half french.

And last I checked on N'orlins, there were not thousands of deaths, and it was not the heat that killed them.  God Forbid if France had a hurricane.  Dorothy would not be alone in Oz after that.

And Larry, if France had it, it would be L'Internet.  You drop the vowel when the noun starts with a vowel.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

This might be a stupid question but what keeps other countries from having their own DNS?

Most do.  But to get to foreign (i.e. non owned by the originating entity) server, the DNS has to go to the root servers, and those are controlled by the US.  Any country could set up their own root servers, but that would probably break DNS for their country as the rest of the world would still be pointing to the designated authorized DNS.  They could still play in their pond, but not really anything else would work.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

The argument takes squatters rights to a whole new level.  When other countries decided to make use of the US DNS system, they knew what that meant. 

To use an analogy, it is like a bunch of people deciding to set up a village in a farmer's field.  The farmer doesn't use that part of the field and doesn't really care what the village is doing.  But then one day some of the squatters decide that they should own that field because the farmer COULD one day come in and wreak havoc. 

The Internet is going to remain the way it is unless there's a good reason to change it.  Monkeying around with something as important as the root DNS system simply because a handful of left-wing Europeans are throwing a tantrum is silly.  The system, as-is, works fine.  And there's no viable alternative being proposed that the US government would ever go along with (such as the "UN").  And there's no way that the US can be coerced forcibly to give up the root server control.

Ultimately, these topics devolve into base rantings of anti-Americans using this as a blunt instrument to express their hatred of all things US. 

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
To use an analogy, it is like a bunch of people deciding to set up a village in a farmer's field.

Bad example -- there are many instances of where something like this has forced the farmer to give up at least total control (sometimes without or fair compensation) of the village land for the "common good".

The system, as-is, works fine.

Well no -- it works but needs a lot of improvement especially in reliability. There are a few proposals for improvements to DNS plus some alternatives. The key issue remains though -- everybody needs to change over for it work. Like the move to IPv6 or the many and various changes to SMTP to stop spam, people are reluctant until the advantages far outweigh the costs.

The issue isn't just the root servers, though. ICANN itself is a pretty opaque organization to outsiders and they have acted in odd ways (e.g., retraction of .TLDs) and have historically been only semi-cooperative with national authorities over ccTLDs. That they answer to the US government and control name resolution policies makes people all over the political map nervous.
Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Mine! Mine! It's all mine! rhaaaarh!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
What are these other countries doing for the Internet, besides using it? If somebody were to come along with additional resources, energy, and commitment, and offer to join forces with the current Internet administration to cooperatively improve service and stability, I'd be pretty interested.

But if these other guys want to do the job, shouldn't they start by convincing us that they can do the job better than the current guy?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
sunwukong, allow me to summarize the arguments for Internationalization of the Internet:

The United States created a wonderful tool, which had its origins in a Federally funded program, as you yourself pointed out.

American corporations invested substantial amounts of capital and research in growing this tool and establishing the protocols that make it successful.

Other countries have used this tool as a means of creating wealth within their borders to such an extent that large portions of their economies are now dependent on it.

So, they want control of this tool.

And that is fair how exactly? Or beneficial to the world economy for that matter? Let us assume that control was transferred over to Iran, one of the complainants. Would Iran not use that control as a weapon against, say for example, Israel? Or the United States?

-OZZY-, I said "If that control were to shift to Beijing or Pyongyang, well that might be a different case." and you replied " yeah right, and in europe u can't express your opinion." Beijing is in China and Pyongyang in North Korea. But let me not quibble. In France, Moslem girls cannot wear their religious head coverings. In your own country of the Netherlands, prejudice against people of Arab decent is a growing problem. "In the Netherlands, a new study shows that employers in the building sector are prejudiced against students with Moroccan-sounding names who approach them for work placements" is the headline from an article on Radio Netherlands (http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/ned050829?view=Standard)

Don't even get me started on European anti-Semitism. In all fairness, I should point out the the Netherlands has the lowest score of any European nation in terms of anti-Semitism, but 60 years ago...ask your parents where they were on May 10th, 1940 when the German armies invaded. On that date, there were 140,000 Jews in the Nethelands. At the end of the war, there were 30,000 left alive. One that died was a young girl named Anne Frank.

Ask if they remember the NSB, the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_SS_Volunteer_Panzergrenadier_Brigade_Nederland for details. Most Dutch opposed the Germans, but not all. Some volunteered to be part of the Waffen SS.

So no, I don't think that Europe has a history of free speech.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

So no, I don't think that Europe has a history of free speech.

Cookie time!