October 11, 2005
Strangling the Internet in its crib
Move over corruption reform, we’ve got a new priority at the UN! For the good of the world the UN must be in control of the Internet! Why, you ask? Well, for one, it’s too important to be left in the hands of non-beauracrats, and two, it’s presently being run by a non-profit (drop into loud Homer Simpson whisper-shout) ‘American corporation’.
I love it. Just think of the innovation and improvement that will happen once the UN has it's greedy little hands on this 'global resource'. They did a great job with Oil-For-Food, so why not?
As ludicrous as it sounds the UN is serious about this. The question you have to ask is: Why? The UN isn't exactly known for its computer science acumen. Hell, it's not even known for its accounting acumen. Unless you admire their bribery and embezzling skills.
So why are countries like China and Iran demanding that control be wrested away from American hands? Hmm, let me think... control perhaps?
I think there are two things going on here. At the surface level the UN is a group of Uber-Leftist-bureaucrats. Like any bureaucracy they have to have a reason to exist. I mean besides the real reason: doing next to no work and making the lives of real people a living hell. Up until now the UN was supposed to be a bureaucracy in the service of world peace. However, that cover story is obviously wearing thin. So, why not something with zing, something hip and sexy, like controlling the Internet?
Just think of all the babes you could pick up as a UN diplomat, "Whoa... pretty lady alert! Hey, you know I control the Internet. Yeah, we're all over this tech thing. So you wanna come back to my place and get digital? Heh."
The whole world peace thing is over rated anyway. So why not get into the tech sector. That's where all the money's at right? And who controls the Internet now? Why it's the arrogant, powerful Americans. They don't deserve to control the Internet. They don't care about the welfare and equality of all people on the earth like we, the paper pushing, declaration producing UN does.
Breaking America's grip on the netA number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge.
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.
But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.
The Internet is going to play a more important role in the lives of everyone in the future. Giving the UN control of that future will basically ensure that the internet will not live up to its potential but rather will be hamstrung by the numerous dictatorial regimes and corrupt officials who now inhabit the UN. The corrupt regimes of the UN wisely see that the Internet poses a huge threat to their way of life. After all how can you control the population when they can freely communicate with any one in the world?
Bypassing the state run media? Preposterous. Posting arguments of dissent for all the world to read? UNacceptable. All the carefully controlled media and communication channels, at great expense to these regimes, is all for naught if the Internet is available to everyone.
Despite assurances that they don't want to 'control' the Internet, they nevertheless are insisting that they control it. There is irony in even the place of the next 'take control of the internet' summit; Tunisia, a country that actively suppresses its people and more importantly attempts to control Internet access.
"Putting a summit on the future of Internet in society in a country like Tunisia is like holding an environmental summit in a nuclear power plant," says Alexis Krikorian, director of Freedom to Publish, International Publishers Association in Geneva. "We believe it is a very inappropriate place for such a meeting to take place."..."The government controls domestic broadcasting, as well as the circulation of both domestic and foreign publications. In addition, the government uses newsprint subsidies and control over public advertising revenues as a means for indirect censorship," the report says. "Since President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's ascent to power, Tunisian journalists who are critical of the regime have been harassed, threatened, imprisoned, physically attacked, and censored… Internet access is tightly controlled, and the government will at times intervene to block access to opposition Web sites."
Says the 2005 report of Reporters Without Borders, a group that monitors press freedom around the world, "It is a cruel irony that Tunisia will host the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in November 2005." msnbc
Asked why the summit is being held in Tunisia the UN could only say that members wanted it there. So what about when the members want to start messing with the structure of the Internet? The UN is powerless against these dictators and doesn't make any distinctions (or value judgments) between free states and non-free states in its membership so how can we expect that the pie in the sky promises of UN do gooders are anything less than cover for the tyrannies that are pulling the strings here?
But, he noted, such decisions are taken by votes of the member states, "and if the member states want something, it is their right to vote for it." He also noted that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is currently lobbying for changes that would make such situations far less likely in the future. msnbcPosted by Eric Simonson at October 11, 2005 05:39 PM
Eric, shocking as it is, I agree with the gist of your article. However, nowhere in your article do you outline or define what this “control” would be and how. Afterall, even if the US shut down or limited access to the internet, another set of connections would rise up in its place. This is a pervasive technology we are talking about here built on worldwide pathways of communications infrastructure, a good deal of which exists outside of US territory.
If China wants to restrict its population’s access to the internet, there is nothing the US can really do about that in the first place. And China is powerless to influence, with or without UN sanction, how American’s use or access the Internet.
So, take a moment, please, and describe for me which sky is falling when the UN talks about taking control of something they can’t possibly control in the first place. What are you worried about, a UN boycott of all email from the US? Really, what is the basis for your apparently overexercised alarm here? Nuts and Bolts, please!
And I guess the push by world leaders to wrest control of the Internet from America has nothing to do with an attempt to stem the destructive tide of American style globalization? No, that couldn’t be it at all, now could it? Because, as Thomas L. Friedman has pointed out, the Internet represents the “democratization” of technology (assuming that, by democracy, is meant control by large transnational corporations whose only concern is profit, regardless of the impact that may have on any number of things).
Posted by: ant at October 11, 2005 07:09 PMEric Simonson:
I don’t remember you whining like this when the Bush Government was trying and STILL IS trying to control the Internet for “National Security” reasons.
Posted by: Aldous at October 11, 2005 08:39 PMThe internet represents free flow of information, and its infrustracture is already highly decentralized and becoming more so, so subjecting it to any direct control by the mass of undemocratic regimes whose interests are represented by the UN would be a recipe for disaster. Why does the UN want to control it—what possible good, either for technological innovation or the spread of information could come of China, the Sudan or Syria having their hands on the reigns?
But for me, it raises a larger issue—that of proprietary interest in technology. When you look at computer technology in general, the U.S. is getting robbed blind as it is, and I see no reason to hand over control of technology that American companies and the American goverment developed.
Outsourcing and the US trade imbalance with countires like China and India get a lot of press, but far too little attention is given to the fact that Indian and Chinese companies (to cite only two of the largest offenders) run their firms and factories with pirated and unliscensed software.
An American company has to pay signifcant fees for the software on each and every work station, raising their overhead considerably, while foreign firms just steal it and then use this advanatage to export cheap goods to American consumers.
The wholesale theft of American technology is yet another area with a huge negative effect on the average American worker that the goverment is doing next to nothing about.
Posted by: sanger at October 11, 2005 10:00 PMEric,
If the United States Government can’t control the internet, how on earth do you expect the UN to be able to?
The whole concept is laughable.
How can this possibly be an issue?
This is an American system in origin, but it’s rapidly become something truly international.
Because you are only interested in further ill-informed fear mongering about the UN, you are forgetting some facts and failing to make observations.
This is mainly about naming. take note of the Guardian’s address, then look at ours. was the Guardian American and not British, it would be a .com just like us. I think the people of the world want a system that treats their nations as equals in the system, not johnny-come-latelies.
This is not about control the web within countries. This is about conventions, mainly. They are unlikely to create a system that can’t communicate with ours, as that would be economic suicide.
What this is about is power, and if we fail to be a part of this, and it grows without us, we’ll be marginalized. Better to get in on the inside, and assert our power from within, than to take the first step in making America irrelevant in deciding the course of the information age in the rest of the world.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2005 11:37 PMRocky, the worry is that somebody would TRY to control it, as many despotic regimes around the world would love to attempt (and which DO attempt). China in particular is famous for its interenet censorship and its jailing of both internet-providers and/or bloggers.
A better question is this: why fix something that isn’t broken? Why hand control of the internet to somebody else for the asking?
Posted by: sanger at October 11, 2005 11:42 PMStephen, that it’s already rapidly becoming something truly international—as you accurately point out—is precisely why a suspicious eye should be cast on any suggestion to change it.
Who wants to change this proliferation and growth of the internet? If fear-mongering about the UN is a problem, so is slavish subservience and submission to the UN’s every wish to grab power.
I’ve yet to hear a single cogent explanation of why or how the UN could or should manage the internet better than is already being done.
Posted by: sanger at October 11, 2005 11:57 PMPlease forgive my ignorance, but does the U.N. really have the power to just take over the internet? is it really as easy as them just saying “we want it” and they get it? I mean, bush blatantly disregarded the u.n. when he went into iraq. Can’t something similar be done for this issue?
Posted by: Will at October 12, 2005 01:03 AMWill:
Relax. Eric Simonson is just spreading hysteria. Always nice to mention the UN Oil-For-Food when The Dimwit appoints his Horse into the Senate.
The UN can only promote enforcement using Treaties signed by willing Nations. You know like the Geneva Conventions that the US no longer follows? Stuff like that.
Also, I am still waiting to hear from Eric Simonson about the 8 BILLION DOLLARS the US stole from Iraq. He always forgets to give me updates.
Posted by: Aldous at October 12, 2005 04:34 AMFor about the first time ever, I kind of half agree with Eric. However, in your first quote from the Guardian you spectacularly miss the point. For some reason you didn’t analyse the middle paragraph:
Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it “can’t in any way allow any changes” that went against the “historic role” of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.
Why has “Concerned Women for America” been saying “Citizens concerned about the proliferation of pornography should call the Department of Commerce and urge the DOC to refuse to approve the .xxx TLD.”? Why has the “Family Research Council” got this statement from their senior legal advisor on their website: “The U.S. Commerce Department, which maintains oversight responsibilities for ICANN, must insist that the .XXX domain be killed. It is an idea that cannot be fixed,”? Could it be that there is already a Government which exerts control over ICANN?
The fact that the choice is now between US control and UN control is to a large part due to the US Governments refusal to accept any negotiations, any alteration of the status quo. And in fact, any change in the overall responsibility of DoC for issuing top level domain names would probably require an act of congress, seeing as the DoC doesn’t actually have the authority to hand this power over to ICANN. So even if there is agreement to hand this power to the UN, or even solely to ICANN (which is surely preferable), the USG could simply block it.
I would ask if you could see why this hypocrisy would annoy other nations, but from the GPS/Galileo arguments to the chemical and biological weapons treaty inspections, the US has shown a remarkable dedication to hypocrisy of this kind.
Posted by: Paul at October 12, 2005 05:45 AMEric,
Too bad your post is full of UN-bashing. The title should have been “Irrevelant UN wants to control Internet” to reflect more on its content.
Anyway, this bashing drastically impact your arguments about Internet DNS root control issue, even if I actually agreed with you on the fact that’s China and Iran are the countries putting presure here is hironic considering the censorship they applied to Internet domains access in their respective country!
Sanger,
When you look at computer technology in general, the U.S. is getting robbed blind as it is,
Robbed blind?
Isn’t Microsoft the richest of all IT companies in the World? And what about Google? Apple? Intel? Adobe? Name one well-known rich IT company that is not USA-based? What’s the proportion of US’s IT in US incomes?
Robbed blind. You should be kidding!
I see no reason to hand over control of technology that American companies and the American goverment developed.
You’re actually posting using HTTP protocol and HTML, both of these technologies were developed in Europe at CERN. Maybe you’re using FireFox browser, a great browser developed by a great international developers community.
Sure, Ethernet and TCP/IP origins are in ArpaNet project. But what about all these RFCs who specify how each protocol, IP, ARP, ICMP, UDP, TCP, FTP, TELNET, etc should be implemented? Notice how the reviewers of these drafts are coming from several places over the world, not only USA?
Maybe you’re a MacOS X user? Notice it’s an os based on BSD and Mach, both open sourced and contributed by an international developers community too. Linux? Idem. Windows? Maybe in some countries pirating licenses are very common, but in Europe we can’t even buy a PC computer without paying the Windows OEM license, even if you don’t need Windows and plan to install another operating system on the computer. Go figure. Who’s robbing who here? But I’m disgressing…
Back to Internet technologies, one can’t put its inner details to public access, ask for international proofreading and contribution (a very good practice IMHO) and later tell “stop using it outside our control, it’s our technology!”, that’s stupid. And it doesn’t works. It can’t. It’s just way too late.
Internet start very early to be and is even more now an international infrastructure. No way back. Get over it.
A better question is this: why fix something that isn’t broken? Why hand control of the internet to somebody else for the asking?
AFAIK, nobody said that ICANN broke Internet so far. No, it’s more about having a very clear and open and democratic and inclusive mechanism of overview of certain functions that today are performed by ICANN with no kind of supervision, as said Brazil’s UN diplomat.
ICANN control the white pages of the global economy. And, like every others, this monopol can be dangerous.
Internet is now the World Net. It should be controlled by world members, no only one of its member, even if he’s at its (the Net, not the World ;-)) origin. First step is the Internet white pages service, because name resolutions are the first step of most of Internet communications…
Being under a new UN agency or another international body, I really don’t care. In fact, most of international bodies move under UN umbrella, no?
Beside irrevelance, UN stands for United Nations, right?
Will,
Does the U.N. really have the power to just take over the internet? is it really as easy as them just saying “we want it†and they get it? I mean, bush blatantly disregarded the u.n. when he went into iraq. Can’t something similar be done for this issue?
I can’t tell for the diplomatic side, but for technical point of view, it’s just a matter of switching countries main backbones to use alternative DNS root servers instead of ICANN’s ones. Something that nor US nor UN nor even Bush ;-) can’t block. Sorry.
Welcome to Internet, the place where you MUST communicate to make it works.
From EuroLand,
subjecting it to any direct control by the mass of undemocratic regimes whose interests are represented by the UN would be a recipe for disaster.
I can only assume you’re talking about the Bush regime. A while back, George Tenet was pushing for tighter controls on who can use the internet and what they’re allowed to publish.
“I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability,” he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, “but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control.”
Maybe the UN wants to keep the Internet free from US censorship. :)
the worry is that somebody would TRY to control it, as many despotic regimes around the world would love to attempt (and which DO attempt).
sanger, you can’t control the Internet from some central agency like the UN. It’s a network. Even places like China (and Singapore) can only control access, because they make everyone connect through the state-run media.
Unless Adelphia and Cox come under the control of the UN, this is a silly issue.
Eric, every time you bring up the $1.7 billion Saddam bilked the UN for, I keep thinking about the $8 billion Bush’s CPA misplaced. I don’t know that the UN would guide the Internet’s future any better than we will, but you haven’t given me any reason to think they wouldn’t.
Under UN control every Watchblog post will be routed to a Central Routing Approval Panel (CRAP).
E-mails going out of a country will be analyzed by the Sanctioning House of International Transmission (SHIT)
Any correspondence that identifies civil rights, freedoms, political views and religious choice will self destruct in that these are not worldwide practices and would be offensive to some nations.
Diplomatic immunity will be extended to all UN Ambassadors who agree not to frequent porn sites.
Posted by: steve smith at October 12, 2005 09:59 AMSteve, beside the usual UN bashing and sarcams, don’t you have anything to argue about moving Internet naming services responsability away from one country policy to international, shared responsabilities?
Sigh. Well, until we can at least appreciate your effort searching acronyms. It could have been funny if Total Information Awareness was not the name of an actual US George Orwellian’s system…
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 12, 2005 10:48 AMTHE UN IN CONTROL OF THE INTERNET?
What a scarry thought. I can see it now, they,ll set the prices of access.
You third world countries will pay $1 per person while you US imperialist will have to pay $100,000,000 per person.
Ron,
I can see it now, they,ll set the prices of access. You third world countries will pay $1 per person while you US imperialist will have to pay $100,000,000 per person.
Hey, that’s not a bad idea!
I wont be against paying a tiny ($1 or even below) tax per month on my ISP bill to help funding UN’s international aids programs, like the tax on flight tickets proposed during last UN summit.
It’s not like netsurfers of developed countries can’t affort it…
From EuroLand,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 12, 2005 11:38 AMWhat the UN is wanting control of is the DNS root servers. It is thanks to these servers that you can type http://www.google.com instead of http://64.233.187.104/ . I personally think we should just let individual countries control the DNS server for the TLD related to their country. I’m not sure about generic TLDs such as .com, .org, .net, .biz, .info, .aero etc. but I do think UN should have control of the .int (international organization) TLD.
Posted by: SirisC at October 12, 2005 12:03 PMPhilippe,
Perhaps you could detail why it is necessary for the UN to control the internet.
As far as I know, the UN does not control the telephone system, TV satellites, telegram and telegraph, postal services, FAX machines, etc.
Posted by: steve smith at October 12, 2005 12:54 PMEric,
Great post - it’s one more example of how paranoid the right has become.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 12, 2005 01:15 PM“It’s not like netsurfers of developed countries can’t affort it…”
I love how you guys always assume I can afford whatever it is you want me to pay for. How much Foreign Aid do you get from the US?
Posted by: JayTea at October 12, 2005 01:37 PMAs far as I know, the UN does not control the telephone system, TV satellites, telegram and telegraph, postal services, FAX machines, etc.
Good point!
Maybe when I see that the UN is capable of successfully carrying out any of its current responsibilities, I could begin to even entertain the idea…….
David,
Afterall, even if the US shut down or limited access to the internet, another set of connections would rise up in its place.
There is no reason technical reason for the UN to control the DNS root servers. This is a bid for political control of the internet.
I don’t think they even understand the DNS system much less how to control it, but they could sure as hell screw it up. Essentially what they want to do is take it out of the hands of a mostly non-political body (albeit not completely non-political), and make it completely political. That’s a bad bad move.
When countries like Saudi Arabia are using the argument that governance of the internet is not democratic enough, an alarm goes off inside my head.
What’s the danger? The danger is that once subjected to the political decision making of the UN there is no telling what kind of moronic backazzwards ‘standards’ and ‘technical improvements’ they might dream up. What kind of governance do you think Iran would like to have included in the allocation of domain names?
Some background: The Internet’s 13 root servers guide traffic to the massive databases that contain addresses for all the individual top-level domains, such as .com, .net, .edu, and the country code domains like .uk and .jp.Whoever controls what goes into the root servers has the final authority about what new top-level domains are added or deleted. The Bush administration doesn’t particularly care for .xxx, for instance, and could conceivably move to block its addition even if the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers approves it.
…In the nuclear option, some national governments would continue to follow the U.S. lead while others would switch their root servers to point to the U.N. list of top-level domains. Eventually, different top-level domains would be added, and the Internet would bifurcate. news.com
Let me go on record as saying that there should be no political control of the internet whatsoever.
The UN is laying claim to the ‘governance’ of the internet in the name of eradicating poverty and every other social ill they can name. How will controlling the internet eradicate poverty?
Turning over control of key Internet functions to the U.N. would invite a debacle. This is the bureaucracy that gave rise to the Oil for Food scandal and counts as its major accomplishment in the last decade a failed attempt at nation-building in Somalia. U.N. control would usher in higher fees for domain names—to pay for development aid to third-world nations with dysfunctional governments.The autocratic, bellicose Bush administration is no paragon of civil liberties virtue, but letting delegates from Cuba, Iran and Tunisia decide on the principles for an open and democratic Internet would be an even worse alternative. [I disagree with this statement, but it shows the author is not a Bush supporter by any means.]
That’s why the next few weeks before the final meeting in Tunisia will be crucial.
The Bush administration’s negotiating skills will be severely tested. State Department officials will have to find a way to allay fears of a U.S.-dominated Internet while avoiding any path leading to a bifurcated root. It won’t be a trivial task, but the alternatives are even less savory. news.com
By the way, no one has commented on my profile.
Posted by: esimonson at October 12, 2005 03:24 PMAldous,
I don’t remember you whining like this when the Bush Government was trying and STILL IS trying to control the Internet for “National Security†reasons.
That’s highly illogical and untrue. From whence do you read these conspiracy theories?
Posted by: esimonson at October 12, 2005 03:29 PMStephen,
This is not about control the web within countries. This is about conventions, mainly. They are unlikely to create a system that can’t communicate with ours, as that would be economic suicide.
Logically, I understand why you would assume that. But I think you are overlooking the fact that this is not about the technical administration of the internet. It is about the political administration of the internet.
What this is about is power, and if we fail to be a part of this, and it grows without us, we’ll be marginalized. Better to get in on the inside, and assert our power from within, than to take the first step in making America irrelevant in deciding the course of the information age in the rest of the world.
You’re right, it is about power. But you’re wrong about how to deal with it. It’s fundamentally wrong to go along with something like this and attempt to ‘have influence’ when the UN is not the proper authority for controlling the internet and the reason they want control is not appropriate. It would be to our complete disadvantage to simply accede, as though nations like Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea should have their way and we should just go along.
Posted by: esimonson at October 12, 2005 03:51 PMBy the way, no one has commented on my profile.
Posted by: esimonson at October 12, 2005 03:24 PM
Eric, I certainly like your political position. I thought you had more hair than your picture shows.
Posted by: steve smith at October 12, 2005 04:24 PMFirst and foremost let’s consider the awful truth: the Internet is already under government control. By definition, it’s interstate commerce. It also falls under the rubric of the FCC, if i’m not mistaken. There are already tons of laws and regulations out there as to how that system can be set up, and content is also already a subject for regulation. The Telecommuncations Decency Act and the DMCA, not to mention the PATRIOT act already enable that. Additionally, the regulation by sovereign nations of the internet is already common practice, and they’ve been pretty much acting as they please, with American control of the system for naming doing jack-squat to change that.
What this failure of ours to cooperate in the internationalizing of this system stands to do is isolate us behind a wall of red tape, which will discourage international business from basing their internet operations in America. We also can’t take our internet ball and go home with it by cutting off access to these new domain names, so we might as well get in on the action and get a piece of the action, because we’ll have to acknowledge their system anyways.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2005 04:55 PMI have to agree with some of the comments. The thought of the U.N. having ANY control over the internet does sound a bit freaky, but the reality is that if there were any way for outside forces to control what goes on in the American sector of the web, they would have already been doing it by now. The way the internet is structured—or unstructured—prevents any prevailing force from having any real control. The web is like a giant neural network. If even the most significant pathway deteriorates or is roadblocked, there are an unlimited number of alternate routes to take.
Fortunately, the part the U.N. wants to control is the distribution of IP addresses, currently done by ArpaNet. This isn’t that big of a deal. There are a little over 4.2 billion IP addresses (255*256^3). Even if someone immediately takes control and doesn’t allow any more distribution of addresses, the existing addresses out there will already be privately owned and their owners can do what they wish with them. In fact, they could even DIVIDE them into more, per say, by distributing access within a single adderss by port #’s. There are thousands and thousands of available port #’s that could be used for internet communications within a single IP address. It would be very easy to start using them all for other purposes.
Posted by: Bryan W at October 12, 2005 06:10 PMJayTea,
How much Foreign Aid do you get from the US?
Being french, dunno. According to some, me and all my family line are in debt for eternity with US for not speaking german. According to recent reality, I’ll said “none”.
Why?
Philippe Houdoin,
The idea of completely decentralizing the DNS root has definite merit. Your link had some food for thought.
This is also a good overview of the system and criticism of ICANN.
If part of the problem now is that it is too centralized, it is definitely not a good idea to keep it centralized but under UN control.
Posted by: esimonson at October 12, 2005 09:02 PMI am not a technical person, but I kind of like the Internet as it is today. The people most interested in changing it are the people like the Chinese and Iranians. I don’t expect that they want to do it for any good reasons.
Don’t be so sure that the UN couldn’t screw up the Internet. Look at what government control and consensus did to telephone services. Think of how high the prices were and inefficient the service BECAUSE of the various attempts to regulate it.
The Chinese have managed to interfere with the Internet. We should not take too much solace and pride in our ability to get around determined despots.
We are all at risk from this international body. Everything we post on the Internet goes worldwide. All of us have written things that would run afoul of the authorities in Zimbabwe, Iran, Cuba or China. Right now we can raise our electronic middle finger to these clowns. What if we had to respect their authority?
Is there any real reason to give Robert Mugabe a say in what the Internet does? I can think of many ways the system could get worse as a result of UN interference. I can’t think of any ways it could get better.
Eric,
If part of the problem now is that it is too centralized, it is definitely not a good idea to keep it centralized but under UN control.
That’s too centralized (a weakness in any distributed system, Internet included) *and* without any supervision. That’s the issue at point I think.
I agree that keeping it centralized while moving under UN wont change anything or can be even worst, more due to bureaucracy than political risk in my mind.
I disagree though that these issues should not be fixed until “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” prove to be too risky.
Part of the problem I think is US want to keep control for political power on a world infrastructure they, indeed, started but since have grew way bigger outside your borders while so many foreign countries interconnected their own WANs together. Now it’s the de-facto world countries’s networks distributed system. Interconnected Networks. InterNet. One of the biggest progress in communication area since… ever.
Internet is not controllable anymore. It can be damaged, sure, but until world power dry off somewhere the Internet will run.
In fact, every day one or more parts of the Net change because of routers faults, DNS changes or whatever.
It’s a distributed system. Each part control its subnetwork(s) and nobody have some control on all interconnected networks.
Nobody except for DNS roots.
That’s a weakness of the system.
Anyway, there’s in this World issues way biggers and urgent to fix than this one…
Jack,
Don’t be so sure that the UN couldn’t screw up the Internet. Look at what government control and consensus did to telephone services.
But the foreign telephone services were not damaged in the process. Telephone worldwide infrastructures are very similar to Internet in fact, and are merging more and more.
That’s the beauty of distributed systems. One can screw the parts it has control on, but not the others parts.
I’m not for a centralized DNS control, being under UN or as today US.
I’m for a really distributed DNS roots all over the world, each countries assuming both control on their and cooperation with others. As it’s already done for routing IP packets worldwide. Technology is already there, DNS protocol support (and was designed for) a fully distributed design. Let’s start using it.
BTW, in the process, name resolutions performance should raise a little bit too, due to a better DNS topology than the hierarchical one today.
Oh yeah!!! Paranoia at it’s best!!! I’ll bet something big is gonna come out of the White House soon. Gotta get that attention diverted elsewhere, and fast.
I read through the Declaration from the UN and didn’t even come close to thinking that they are asking for complete control. Their intent here is to promote, standardize, and build internet connectivity, particularly in poor and undeveloped regions.
Posted by: MyPetGoat at October 13, 2005 06:04 AMPhillipe
The telephone system was damaged. Innovation that could have happened a generation ago is happening only now. And the State telecoms resisted bitterly. You and I and everyone else paid billions of dollars to subsidize our bad service.
I understand that potential problem with “if it is not busted don’t fix it” but the proposed solution is one with a proven track record of not being able to innovate or handle any contentious issue. Technological progress does not come from consensus and caution. Even defenders of the UN admit those are the hallmarks of the institution.
Posted by: Jack at October 13, 2005 06:58 AMJust to note, that without the pushing of the ELECTED 43rd President, Al Gore, there would be no internet. Not because he “invented” it, but he was one of the main pushers for funding when it first came out.
Posted by: Matt at October 13, 2005 10:26 AMMatt,
Saying that Al Gore was elected as anything is ridiculous. It’s the same as saying that when instant replay overturns a referees decision that the replay is wrong.
Posted by: steve smith at October 13, 2005 12:05 PMAll i can say is that it is a good thing that Al Gore had the insight tho invest the resources to get the internet off the ground.Did’nt “invent it”,never said that even though the uninformed say so. I belive he recieved an award for his efforts this year,How about that
Posted by: Alan at October 13, 2005 12:36 PMRon,
I can see it now, they,ll set the prices of access. You third world countries will pay $1 per person while you US imperialist will have to pay $100,000,000 per person.
Hey, that’s not a bad idea!
I wont be against paying a tiny ($1 or even below) tax per month on my ISP bill to help funding UN’s international aids programs, like the tax on flight tickets proposed during last UN summit.
It’s not like netsurfers of developed countries can’t affort it…
From EuroLand,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 12, 2005
11:38 AM
Now I AM scared, someone believed me.
Posted by: Ron Brown at October 13, 2005 07:47 PMI have to agree with those that don’t believe that anyone can control the internet.
They might try to tax it and someone will figure a way to avoid it and make it available to everyone.
They might try to limit excess to the elite and again someone will find a way around it and make it widely availible.
Anything anyone does to try to control it will meet with a way around it.
speaking of Oil For Food, did you mean oil money that you gave to Allawi and his gangs and dissapeared with billions? aha! did you ask Bush about that?
Posted by: tirusew at October 14, 2005 08:10 PMRon,
Now I AM scared, someone believed me.
:-)
I have to agree with those that don’t believe that anyone can control the internet. They might try to tax it and someone will figure a way to avoid it and make it available to everyone. They might try to limit excess to the elite and again someone will find a way around it and make it widely availible. Anything anyone does to try to control it will meet with a way around it.
Yep, I share this view too. Just see how peer-to-peer networks still escape most regulation/law-enforcement efforts. There’ll more and more underground activities in a controlled Internet.
So, stop trying to control Internet, whoever you are. What? ICANN is under US’s DoC governance?!?
Damned.
- From EuroLand
