NationStates Jolt Archive

I just came across this article (http://sympatico-msn-ca.com.com/Power+grab+could+split+the+Net/2010-1071_3-5886556.html?part=sympatico-msn-ca&tag=ca_home&subj=ns_5886556) and found it a tad worrisome. What say you people?

For the first time in its history, the Internet is running a real risk of fracturing into multiple and perhaps even incompatible networks.
At a meeting in Geneva last week, the Bush administration objected to the idea of the United Nations running the top-level servers that direct traffic to the master databases of all domain names.

That's not new, of course--the administration has been humming this tune since June. What's changed in the last few months is the response from the rest of the world.

Instead of acquiescing to the Bush administration's position, the European Union cried foul last week and embraced greater U.N. control. A spokesman said that the EU is "very firm on this position."

Other nations were equally irked. Russia, Brazil and Iran each chimed in with statements saying that no "single government" should have a "pre-eminent role" in terms of Internet governance.

Meanwhile, the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. body, offered to take over from the United States.......

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.

Other governments lack that power, and don't exactly like George W. Bush and his administration enjoying a monopoly over it.

What will happen to our beloved internet?

this sucks, why cant we all just get along and stop missusing technology then sh** like this would never happen.

What will happen to our beloved internet?
we'll all have to become AOL customers!

*bursts into tears*

IIRC, the Internet began as a US network called ARPANET.

There is already a separate network here in the US for the government, called SIPRNET.

If you want another network, there's not much stopping you.

BTW, I don't know about Europe, but all of the Internet backbone here in the US is owned by either Qwest or MCI. All of it (in this country).

IIRC, Qwest had a lot of similar Internet backbone in Europe (but maybe not all of it).

we'll all have to become AOL customers!

*bursts into tears*
Or just all become rather well re-acquainted with the good old days of Tetris and Solitaire....

Never happen …online trade is WAY too massive … in the end they will HAVE to figure it out the backlash would be insane

I'll give you all a big hint.

Qwest and MCI, here in the US, own the Internet backbone in the US.

It takes the form of a fiber optic cable that runs all over the US, and is run mostly alongside railway lines.

Out of all the fibers in that cable, 22 out of the 24 are dark - that is, they are not being used.

All of the Internet traffic in the US is being routed over two fiber optic cables.

So, there's plenty of room for the rest of us to start another network - right here - if we don't like the one that's there.

You can probably do the same thing elsewhere.

I'll give you all a big hint.

Qwest and MCI, here in the US, own the Internet backbone in the US.

It takes the form of a fiber optic cable that runs all over the US, and is run mostly alongside railway lines.

Out of all the fibers in that cable, 22 out of the 24 are dark - that is, they are not being used.

All of the Internet traffic in the US is being routed over two fiber optic cables.

So, there's plenty of room for the rest of us to start another network - right here - if we don't like the one that's there.

You can probably do the same thing elsewhere.


Cant forget AT&T and the now gone @home

And have you caught digg? with GOOGLE suposidly making a movie to purchace a big chunk of the darkfiber for distributed applications

Meh. No big deal.

So the UN starts its own competing top-level domain service. It simply includes that of the US and expands it as it wants to. There are already a couple of organizations that do this. Individual ISPs and users then choose which service they default to using. I imagine there'd be a plug-in for firefox to use the UN's within a day.

It comes down to simple competition, and given how the internet is used, my money is on the one with the .xxx domain if we assume service and cost are the same otherwise. Eventually, when enough users have moved over, the UN or whoever else simply stops synching their database with the US one. That's the interesting time -- the same website address could be a very different site depending on which browser your using.

Meh. No big deal.

So the UN starts its own competing top-level domain service. It simply includes that of the US and expands it as it wants to. There are already a couple of organizations that do this. Individual ISPs and users then choose which service they default to using. I imagine there'd be a plug-in for firefox to use the UN's within a day.

It comes down to simple competition, and given how the internet is used, my money is on the one with the .xxx domain if we assume service and cost are the same otherwise. Eventually, when enough users have moved over, the UN or whoever else simply stops synching their database with the US one. That's the interesting time -- the same website address could be a very different site depending on which browser your using.

You may be forgetting why other nations want to control the Internet.

China, in particular, wants to be able to have complete control over content.

Imagine applying to the UN board for your domain name, and once they find out you're posting anti-Chinese government news, they pull the plug.

Nice idea.

You may be forgetting why other nations want to control the Internet.

China, in particular, wants to be able to have complete control over content.

Imagine applying to the UN board for your domain name, and once they find out you're posting anti-Chinese government news, they pull the plug.

Nice idea.Uh-huh.. which is where the competition thing comes in again.

Although, given the US's recent behaviour, I daresay I'd trust the UN more with my website than the DMCA.

hm...

first off, why should the EU 'acquiesce to the Bush administration's position'? the article sounds suprised :confused:

and second off, no one country should be allowed such control over such an international and important tool for world business. the US having control over this is, in principle, just as 'bad' as the Chinese or Russians, Koreans, or any other single government having control. the UN may not be perfect, but it is preferable.

the US stance on this matter, particularly in the face of potential problems, is yet another example of the unilateral style, single-mindedness and selfish nature of the Bush administration.

This is part of a much bigger picture.. as I wrote here almost 3 years ago...

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:



* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;

* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;

* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;

* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;

* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Sound familiar?

This is part of a much bigger picture.. as I wrote here almost 3 years ago...

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:



* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;

* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;

* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;

* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;

* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Sound familiar?


Yes. And?

I guess you're not thinking that other nations may be thinking along the same lines. China, for instance. Wants to assume true superpower status - to include a large manned base on the Moon. They've already radically increased their defense spending.

Or do you only point out what PNAC does? Hmm?

Meh. No big deal.

So the UN starts its own competing top-level domain service. It simply includes that of the US and expands it as it wants to. There are already a couple of organizations that do this. Individual ISPs and users then choose which service they default to using. I imagine there'd be a plug-in for firefox to use the UN's within a day.

It comes down to simple competition, and given how the internet is used, my money is on the one with the .xxx domain if we assume service and cost are the same otherwise. Eventually, when enough users have moved over, the UN or whoever else simply stops synching their database with the US one. That's the interesting time -- the same website address could be a very different site depending on which browser your using.
Say more about this, please.

Say more about this, please.

Porn rules the Internet - so if Bush is trying to keep down porn, it's not going to work.

China has much more success in filtering out political content than anyone ever will in filtering out porn.

Porn rules the Internet - so if Bush is trying to keep down porn, it's not going to work.

China has much more success in filtering out political content than anyone ever will in filtering out porn.


Fundamental difference here.

As you point out, China has pursued a policy of filtering content available to a domestic market. I have, frankly, seen NO indication that they have much opinion on that content available to the rest of the world.

But by attempting to take control of the central name servers the US is seeking the ability to take control of what content may be placed on the web worldwide.

If the US wants to slap a big-assed netnanny on their own backbone like China because it's poor citizens can't handle freedom of the internet, well you can do that to yourselves if you want.


But the notion that the US government wants to have defacto control to possibly limit political discussion or other content availability in my country as it relates to domestic issues is abhorent to me.

Fundamental difference here.

As you point out, China has pursued a policy of filtering content available to a domestic market. I have, frankly, seen NO indication that they have much opinion on that content available to the rest of the world.

But by attempting to take control of the central name servers the US is seeking the ability to take control of what content may be placed on the web worldwide.

If the US wants to slap a big-assed netnanny on their own backbone like China because it's poor citizens can't handle freedom of the internet, well you can do that to yourselves if you want.


But the notion that the US government wants to have defacto control to possibly limit political discussion or other content availability in my country as it relates to domestic issues is abhorent to me.


So far, no one has been restricting content. But in a UN-controlled system, I see no reason why China could not complain and have a politically negative site taken off the Net.

The US isn't putting a netnanny on the backbone. There's some argument about whether porn sites should be considered part of the .xxx domain or not. But no net nanny in sight.

So take off the tinfoil hat.

As you point out, China has pursued a policy of filtering content available to a domestic market. I have, frankly, seen NO indication that they have much opinion on that content available to the rest of the world.

But by attempting to take control of the central name servers the US is seeking the ability to take control of what content may be placed on the web worldwide.

yeah, its not controlling just what your own population has access to... by retaining this power the US has control over what the rest of the world has access to - and nobody can tell me that is right.

So far, no one has been restricting content. But in a UN-controlled system, I see no reason why China could not complain and have a politically negative site taken off the Net.


Assumes facts on actions not in evidence. And that beats any ONE country having the unilateral ability to do the same.


The US isn't putting a netnanny on the backbone. There's some argument about whether porn sites should be considered part of the .xxx domain or not. But no net nanny in sight.


Didn't say that their wAS a netnammy in sight. Just pointing out that that is what China is doing rather than your tin-foil delusion that they are attempting to restrict content posted to the web outside their own borders.

So take off the tinfoil hat.

So, explain again why the US should have full control over content worldwide. You've missed that part. All you've said is "better us than China" without any evidece that China is seeking that power.


Really. Explain WHY I should trust the US government for honesty and transparency in decision making over a multilateral effort.

Assumes facts on actions not in evidence. And that beats any ONE country having the unilateral ability to do the same.

Didn't say that their wAS a netnammy in sight. Just pointing out that that is what China is doing rather than your tin-foil delusion that they are attempting to restrict content posted to the web outside their own borders.

So, explain again why the US should have full control over content worldwide. You've missed that part. All you've said is "better us than China" without any evidece that China is seeking that power.

Really. Explain WHY I should trust the US government for honesty and transparency in decision making over a multilateral effort.

1. China is filtering what its people see - filtering outside content to prevent their own people from seeing it: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/

So, de facto, China is already trying to exercise that power.

2. The US has not controlled content at the backbone, the way the Chinese are doing in their own country.

So, you've got some explaining to do.

1. China is filtering what its people see - filtering outside content to prevent their own people from seeing it: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/

So, de facto, China is already trying to exercise that power.

2. The US has not controlled content at the backbone, the way the Chinese are doing in their own country.

So, you've got some explaining to do.

He didnt say the US has controlled content yet, he asked why should they be able to?

Say more about this, please.
Here's some basics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

The idea of alternative top level domains is not new. After all, it's just a big database that your computer refers to in order to find out that say "www.nationstates.net" is actually at "213.208.119.243" It's all stored in a master database, which is replicated outward to various domain name servers and routers across the net.

The hard part is getting buy in from everybody else (which is why the UN is asking for the US to back out) so that they start using your master database rather than say, ICANNs.

The .xxx domain I think just makes a lot of sense. People looking for porn know where to go, people not looking for it know where to not go, and unless you're a really scummy porn seller, you generally prefer people who want your product -- chances are much better of them paying you and the payment not being taken away (such as when dad gets the credit card bill).

So given similar service and price, I think the database with the .xxx TLD will, over time, out-compete the one without. The kicker is the reliability factor. Other places have tried it, but they simply haven't been seen as big enough or reliable enough. I think the UN might be able to overcome that obstacle.

He didnt say the US has controlled content yet, he asked why should they be able to?
Right here:

So, explain again why the US should have full control over content worldwide. You've missed that part. All you've said is "better us than China" without any evidece that China is seeking that power.


Really. Explain WHY I should trust the US government for honesty and transparency in decision making over a multilateral effort.

Right here:

So, explain again why the US should have full control over content worldwide. You've missed that part. All you've said is "better us than China" without any evidece that China is seeking that power.


Really. Explain WHY I should trust the US government for honesty and transparency in decision making over a multilateral effort.

Yeah, so he didn't say the US has control yet, he was asking you why they should? I'd also be very interested in THAT answer.

Right here:

So, explain again why the US should have full control over content worldwide. You've missed that part. All you've said is "better us than China" without any evidece that China is seeking that power.


Really. Explain WHY I should trust the US government for honesty and transparency in decision making over a multilateral effort.

Whats your point? He asked : why should the US have full control over content worldwide?

Thats the question. You could try answering it instead of just quoting the post again.

Whats your point? He asked : why should the US have full control over content worldwide?

Thats the question. You could try answering it instead of just quoting the post again.

We already do.

He's implying that we'll abuse that control.

Which we haven't.

And which I've proven that China does on a large scale.

We already do.

That is simply not true. End of story.

We already do.

He's implying that we'll abuse that control.

Which we haven't.

And which I've proven that China does on a large scale.

Ok ok we know china does it. In that case why should a single country (the US) have control instead of the UN?

And I didnt see any implication of abuse.

That is simply not true. End of story.

Maybe you need to see what would happen if Qwest and MCI shut off the backbone over here.

You would never reach a root server.

Maybe you need to see what would happen if Qwest and MCI shut off the backbone over here.

You would never reach a root server.

Yes, in the short term that would be true, until we re-directed to European root servers, however in the meantime you'd have an awful lot of angry Americans on your hands and before you had a chance to deal with Canada, we'd already be back up. ;)


Oh and as a side note, Canada isn't exactly dependant on you if push came to shove, Nortel is a Canadian company.

The US has control over ALL (or as near to it as matters) content, as of yet, they have not abused it.
China has control over content available TO ITS OWN CITIZENS. They have abused this control. China has made NO ATTEMPT to extend that control beyond its own citizens.

As to what would happen if control was handed over to the UN, many things could happen. In all likelyhood...
A resolution would be required to govern the uses of the control. That resolution (ideally) would be voted on by the entire UN Assembly. This would essentially create a set of laws restricting the use of control (read: restricing abuse) and detailing the process through which changes in that control could be accomplished (ideally another vote by the Assembly, likely passed to a subsequently created Internet Council).

Yes, in the short term that would be true, until we re-directed to European root servers, however in the meantime you'd have an awful lot of angry Americans on your hands and before you had a chance to deal with Canada, we'd already be back up. ;)


Oh and as a side note, Canada isn't exactly dependant on you if push came to shove, Nortel is a Canadian company.

Nortel might have problems.

Qwest and MCI are the only ones with fiber leading off the North American continent.

Nortel might have problems.

Qwest and MCI are the only ones with fiber leading off the North American continent.

Source that statement! Link?

Source that statement! Link?
I'll have to find a link. My sister, before she became the director of wireless security at the Dept of Justice, ran the Qwest backbone and the connection to Europe.

I'll have to find a link. My sister, before she became the director of wireless security at the Dept of Justice, ran the Qwest backbone and the connection to Europe.

Yeah well from what I always understood all that meant nothing without Nortel and Cisco switches. However my husband is the l33t programmer, so I maybe a little off on that. But I don't think so.

Out of all the fibers in that cable, 22 out of the 24 are dark - that is, they are not being used.

All of the Internet traffic in the US is being routed over two fiber optic cables.

So, there's plenty of room for the rest of us to start another network - right here - if we don't like the one that's there.

You can probably do the same thing elsewhere.
The problem is the connections to tie into that network currently cost wayyy too much to manufacture and install.

It's ultimately the decision of the US, since it is US property. Considering its vitalness to US National Security, I do not think it would be a good idea to allow it to be controlled by some untrustworthy organization like the UN.

If Bush causes the internet to become fractured, I will kill him.

Nortel might have problems.

Qwest and MCI are the only ones with fiber leading off the North American continent.


You'd have a point....

Except for that minor little detail of Hibernia Atlantic's (http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com/hibernia/Main/Home.htm) DUAL fibre connections to Europe from HAlifax.

It's ultimately the decision of the US, since it is US property. Considering its vitalness to US National Security, I do not think it would be a good idea to allow it to be controlled by some untrustworthy organization like the UN.

yeah right, the UN is untrustworthy, but the Bush administration is not?

I'd prefer the UN controlling international things instead of ONE country having the say....

Dear Rest of the World,

Invent an internet on your own time. We created one that you like. It's ours. We won't give it to you just because you bitch about it.

Signed,

USA

Dear Rest of the World,

Invent an internet on your own time. We created one that you like. It's ours. We won't give it to you just because you bitch about it.

Signed,

USA
Dear USA;

What will you do if YOUR internet becomes truncated due to heavy handed tactics by your politicians?

Surely you wouldn't want to see the end of the world wide web?

Signed,

Rest of the wide world.

Dear USA;

What will you do if YOUR internet becomes truncated due to heavy handed tactics by your politicians?

Surely you wouldn't want to see the end of the world wide web?

Signed,

Rest of the wide world.
Thats ok ... I am preparing

I got another 2 300 GB SATA drives coming to officialy download all overseas acessable only porn

Dear USA;

What will you do if YOUR internet becomes truncated due to heavy handed tactics by your politicians?

Surely you wouldn't want to see the end of the world wide web?

Signed,

Rest of the wide world.

No one is, or has, truncated the Internet in the US. Surely you've heard of the First Amendment?

Our government's policy on the Internet, cable, and satellite transmitted information is that anything goes except child porn - and they don't filter that - they merely look for it. And not half as aggressively as the UK, which leads the world in child porn investigations and arrests.