AP: Much of world vexed about U.S. control of Net

[question everything]

Much of world vexed about U.S. control of Net

As sole Net ruler, U.S. to take heat at U.N. talks in Tunis
By Matt Moore, Associated Press
LA Daily News

FRANKFURT, Germany - On the global Internet these days, the United States is less trusted and more alone. The worldwide network was born on U.S. shores, but that matters little to the growing number of nations demanding shared control.

An escalating feud over Internet governance is threatening to transform a United Nations summit in Tunisia next week into an acrimonious showdown between the United States and challengers including the European Union.

The debate is over whether Washington, through its oversight of a quasi-independent agency, should continue as the ultimate administrator of all the Web's domains - not only over ".com" but also over country-specific domains including ".cn" for China.

In essence, the struggle is over an information superstructure that is already the main conduit of world commerce. It is also about free speech and information control. The arbiters of Internet policy could profoundly shape international relations in coming years.

(snip)

http://www.dailynews.com/business/ci_3203134

[gordianot]

1. Internets anyone? n/t

[DemInDistress]

2. I'm against any controls over what I write on the nets..

I did like the "sting" done by NBC catching unsuspecting pervs who
prey upon kids.I also like to see "net scammers" hunted down,other than that its an open world where anything should go.I feel the Bsuh Crime Family wants to control the entire world,outer space and inner space {cyber space}....

[PerceptionManagement]

3. We did invent it, support it, pay for it and let them use it.

I mean, who are THEY to bitch about it?

[merwin]

4. We support the internet outside of the USA?

[Wilms]

5. They may not doubt any of that...

...though they probably have some coin in the net's structure.

Rather, this seem a lack of trust in the USA. A shame when you consider we were a baecon in a dark world for a time.

[ShockediSay]

7. But are we now?

Methinks the exact opposite.

[pop goes the weasel]

6. cow's outta the barn now

So your Henny Penny attitude doesn't mean squat. Other nations can simply decide to set up a parallel system. We're already cutting ourselves out of the global research community with our visa policy. Shall we make it official and just let down a Red, White and Blue Curtain against the outside world?

[Ms. Clio]

8. LOL

JA

[chenGOD]

11. Your argument fails on many levels.

You don't pay for my internet usage anymore than I pay for yours. Your ISP doesn't provide support for my ISP anymore than my ISP provides support for yours.
Yes DARPAnet invented some of the protocols that are used in the internet as we know it, the WWW was inventned by a British citizen (Sir Time Berners-Lee) while he was working at CERN (which is in Europe). So yeah, I guess USians inveted it.

In other news, the Chinese called, they said you should stop using gunpowder, and James Watt has said he refuses to support American usage of the steam engine.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

14. I agree with those sentiments

I mean with that mentality, we shouldn't have mac because microsoft invented a lot of computer innovation, and vice versa. What can we really claim that much control over anyway when it comes to warez in china and the like?

I think what the debate really is, is...'should the united states be allowed to pretend it runs the free world any longer, starting with telecommunication and the internet'. My answer is no, let the facade end...in hopes things like iraq never need happen again.

[VegasWolf]

24. Total nonsense!

We did invent an old form of packet routing switches way back in the old DARPA days. All interesting modern use of the internet standards have been developed and invented by corporations and standards bodies across the world. The old DARPA guys wouldn't even know what Google was.

[cosmicone]

9. The US will have to back down

The rest of the world can set up a parallel system only by installing their own root DNS servers and ignore all protocols set by US.

[0007]

10. If we don't change it will come down to a parallel system, and the

U.S. will further it's case as a pariah.

[DrDebug]

12. But you have to have the root server somewhere

and that's the problem. There are already many mirror DNS servers all around the world, because that's easier and faster. However where will you put the central administration of .com domains. Right now it's with ICANN however that's part of the Department of State so George Bush can say fuck it, we'll take control of the internet and nobody can stop him. And that's the real problem. The problem is not ICANN, but that ICANN is part of the Department of State and not independent. So the UN has a point about wanting UNICANN or a similar horrible abbreviation.

And you cannot set up two administrations for .com because that means that democraticunderground.com can be this site in the US and in China it can lead to "404 - Site not found"

[foo_bar]

15. the internet doesn't "have to have" dns root servers

If you wanna visit DU without involving ICANN, http://216.158.28.196. The beneficiaries of this "globalized name space" are corporate personages like McDonalds, not people named McDonald. The internet would slog on without cnn.com, we'd just have to scrawl ip addresses into a little black book.

"The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it."
- John Gilmore

[DrDebug]

16. democraticunderground.com is slightly easier than 216.158.28.199

http://3634240711 is not that bad though. 363-424-0711

[foo_bar]

17. it's easier to remember, but the ip is half as many keystrokes

This sort of problem has cropped up before, so it doesn't hurt to keep a Plan B handy. Here's an online tool to convert domain names into ips: http://www.itools.com/internet/

[DrDebug]

18. I never knew that

The only time the internet failed big time was during 9/11. I remember somebody coming into the office with a ridiculous story that the WTC was under attack and the Pentagon was on fire. So I kinda typed in cnn.com and ... nothing happened and it timed out. So bbcnews.com ... nothing happened and it timed out. And most other sites couldn't be reached either. After many tries cnn finally appeared, because they reduced their site to a single web page which loaded at 100 bits / second or so.

[foo_bar]

19. most "MSM" sites didn't have capacity to spare, but meanwhile...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID5&mm=3440&archive=yes

[DrDebug]

21. foo_bar. You find some fascinating stuff

Because I just read this:

Sep-11-01, 09:12 AM (ET) Ignatius wrote: Iraq shot down one or our spy planes last night. Is this the start of his war?

Since it's O/T for this conversation, I started a post in the correct forum. Let's hope somebody knows some more about this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x59568

[high density]

20. That wasn't the internet's fault

That happened because CNN/BBC/etc didn't have the capacity (both raw bandwidth and server capacity) to handle the amazing amount of requests they were getting at the time. I seem to recall that the internet worked just fine on 9/11 and CNN was back up after they went to a bare bones front page.

[rolleitreks]

13. Not broke. Don't fix. It would be the end. n/t

[DS1]

22. My Dearest World, Get Fucked

:hi:

[xxqqqzme]

23. theses rat bastard think they

can 'fix' anything whether it is broken or not. Since usually it is NOT, they 'fix' it anyway.