NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Want to make sure the Internet stays as free as possible? Don't hand it over to any "International group" to manage! This article explains why.


Web of the Free (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/opinion/23silberschatz.html?th&emc=th)


By MARK A. SHIFFRIN and AVI SILBERSCHATZ
Published: October 23, 2005
New Haven

THERE is a move afoot at the United Nations and in the European Union to get the United States to give up control of the Internet - a medium that America created and on which it now critically relies.

Disingenuously calling for a "model of cooperation" in Internet governance in advance of the World Summit on the Information Society to be held in Tunisia in November, the European commissioner for information society and media is opening the door to Internet regulation while saying that "we have no intention to regulate the Internet."

This maneuver amounts to a call for the United States to depend on the kindness of strangers in maintaining basic infrastructure that underpins our national security and economy. Moreover, it threatens to whittle away the freedom of the Internet with a series of seemingly minor and well-intentioned compromises that begin with something that sounds as reasonable as a "model of cooperation."

Any society needs certain basics to enable it to function. If the United States had not created a postal service and post roads, for example, national commerce could not have developed. Airports and air routes, railways and highways are just modern-day post roads. The Internet is one more step in this evolution. It provides new tools for communication (supplementing regular mail with e-mail), buying and selling goods (electronic retailing with goods delivered by public and private mail services), financial transactions, and much more.

The Internet has become an integral part of the global economy, in large part because the United States has also provided the genius of our technology to other societies that use it to benefit themselves, including in doing business and competing with the United States. So it was only a matter of time before foreign powers began asking who should control the electronic superhighway on which they now rely for their national well-being, something that America has built, paid for and maintained.

Their eyes have turned to a California-based nonprofit organization created by the Commerce Department in 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, that administers and keeps track of all Web addresses worldwide. Icann, as it is called, operates largely free from government interference - the Commerce Department has never overruled an Icann decision, believing that government should not become involved in Internet governance. And local authorities in other countries are free to set policy for their country-specific extensions (.ca for Canada, .de for Germany, etc.). But only Icann ultimately has the authority to allow a site onto the Net, or not, by virtue of its role of maintaining a master list of domain names. Imagine how much certain governments would covet such power.

American values caused the Internet to emerge and evolve as a medium of freedom. While there is a standard of transcendent decency that can and should regulate Internet communication in such matters as child pornography, there are standards of national self-interest that vary from country to country. China sees the Internet as part of its internal infrastructure and seeks to govern it as such, monitoring and censoring communications that include words like "liberty," "Tiananmen Square" or "Falun Gong," and going after dissidents who use the Internet.

Internationalizing control of a medium now regulated with a loose hand by a nation committed to maximizing freedom would inevitably create more of an opening for countries like China - a strong proponent of imposing some international supervision of Icann - to exert more pressure on internet service providers. More broadly, international regulation could enable like-minded governments to work in concert to deem certain thoughts impermissible online. It is all too possible that minority political or religious expressions would be widely repressed under a doctrine of the greater good imposed by a collective of governments claiming to know what's best, limiting what may be expressed online to whatever, say, the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union, or the Arab League, might deem reasonable.

Any society may, of course, choose to create its own balkanized domestic version of the Internet, an Intranet within its borders that it regulates as it pleases. It could then still do within its borders many of the things done by the Internet, like Brazil's online tax collection system, but would not enjoy the online privilege of worldwide interaction.

The Internet is an attractive commercial infrastructure for all societies, even oppressive ones. But the string attached to its creation by America is that it must be used within a context of freedom, both economic and political. That is a democratic value that we should not be shy about exporting. Accepting that commitment to online freedom should be the price that foreign governments must pay for the blessing of the Internet in their national economic lives.

Mark A. Shiffrin, a lawyer, is aformer Connecticut state consumer protection commissioner. Avi Silberschatz is a professor of computer science at Yale.

COMMENTARY: Want to make sure the Internet stays as free as possible? Don't hand it over to any "International group" to manage! This article explains why.
I pretty much agree. Generally, turning anything, be it sovereignty or control over the Net, over to international control doesn't bode well with me...

This maneuver amounts to a call for the United States to depend on the kindness of strangers in maintaining basic infrastructure that underpins our national security and economy.

Oh, the irony.

No doubt! I'll bet Al Gore is pissed! HE HE HE

On a serious note, I don't see what the problem with the current situation is. The only two reasons I can see that other nations want control of the net are these.
1)They want to be able to regulate and censor it as they see fit
2)They just can't stand to see the U.S. control anything.

Seriously, what has Icaan done that could warrant a change in the current system? Maybe the fact that it isn't taxed, or censored?

I don't see it happening. The U.S. government isn't dumb enough to habd ove the most powerful tool on the planet to Europe. Besides, we started it. Let them make their own. We'll get to see who has more virus's on their networks!

BTW, we missed ya Eut! Good to see ya back!:p

I don't understand. Why should the USA have complete control over something integral to the world economy, on the basis that it was invented there?

Should Germany claim the rights to the Automobile? Should Russia claim the rights to all space exploration because it was there first? Where does it end?

This maneuver amounts to a call for the United States to depend on the kindness of strangers in maintaining basic infrastructure that underpins our national security and economy.

Oh, the irony.

Exactly. Hypocrisy much?

Eutrusca. I believe this is only in response to the USA wanting to control the net. No one body should control it. In fact I'd go one step further and say no one should control outside of illegal activities that one may dabble in and ONLY when it's against the laws of THEIR country. Besides, what the net is today was not just created by the USA, it may of started that way with the very early BBS boards, however as the net has evolved, many countries have help the net evolve, not just the USA. However, as stated, no one should control the net. It would be like being in a freaking George Orwell book. ;)

Didn't Tim Berners Lee, a Briton, invent the web but just never patented it?

Kind of like British scientists did all the theory for the A bomb but just never built it. After centuries of being most inventive nation, we still got it ;)

Why should the US control the internet?

The US should give up its powers to "influence" ICANN by overruling it. I don't care that this power has not been used in the past; it should not exist. When the US gives up its authority over internet content, then I'll agree with the article.

No one should have control of the internet, be it the US or an international body.

There'll be outrage when US companies find out their .com domain name is going to change com.us ... :D

I don't understand. Why should the USA have complete control over something integral to the world economy, on the basis that it was invented there?

Should Germany claim the rights to the Automobile? Should Russia claim the rights to all space exploration because it was there first? Where does it end?
It ends at the point where your analogy makes no sense. If the Europeans want to control the internet, and feel it is so important to do so, then they can create their own competing infrastructure in Europe. You'll note that German car companies weren't suddenly put under international control, other groups saw what the Germans had done and replicated it at home, well if the EU is suffering from that much penis envy, then they can construct their own Interweb.

On a serious note, I don't see what the problem with the current situation is. The only two reasons I can see that other nations want control of the net are these.
1)They want to be able to regulate and censor it as they see fit
2)They just can't stand to see the U.S. control anything.

The USA already pays dissidence-enabling software like Freenet to market in Iran and China, at least; I don't know about other places. ICANN is pure at the moment, but these may be the good intentions which pave the road to Hell. After all, the Internet shocked the world; for years, nobody knew what to do with it, and in that time it was hailed as the ultimate freedom, the unrestrictable domain where anything went. Now its institutions, its aristocracy and its mythology are better developed, so the world's real aristocracy are scrambling for control of it, as a tool of indescribable power.

I am willing to bet £10 with anyone who cares to take me up on it that in 25 years (that is to say, by October 23rd 2030) ICANN or its successor within the USA (if and only if the Internet is still in American control in a manner analogous to now) will be partisan at the very least, corrupt at the worst.

To answer Sick Nightmares, the problem with the situation as it stands is that, well, one nation has ultimate control of something which every nation on Earth has access to. In a sense, this is analogous to one country being able to control every word printed, and if it were to choose any book which it found unacceptable (if, say, it had child porn in it), it being able to destroy all copies of that book extant in the world with the flick of a switch. ICANN can and must be trusted for the time being, but there will come a time, as with all institutions, when the power-hungry come to use it as a political tool.

I am willing to bet £10 with anyone who cares to take me up on it that in 25 years (that is to say, by October 23rd 2030) ICANN or its successor within the USA (if and only if the Internet is still in American control in a manner analogous to now) will be partisan at the very least, corrupt at the worst.
Hey buddy! This here is the American net! Only U.S. Dollar betting please!:D

To answer Sick Nightmares, the problem with the situation as it stands is that, well, one nation has ultimate control of something which every nation on Earth has access to.
But it's OURS! Make your own! For more insight, please see Mr. Fiddlebottoms.(jesus christ!, did I just say that?)

Germany did not invent the auto they may have made improvements to it but they did not invent it. So the Right Brothers should the US confiscate all the planes since the first airplane was flown in the US? The desgin taken and modified by each government?

Same with the US and Icann. Let the EU, China and Russia make there own. Have the internet in their regions be run off of their servers. Let them destroy freedom on their own terms and not take something from the US. This is why I think the world is in such bad shape. One wants what another has and wont stop bitching until something happens.

This is the one of the few times I agree with the others from the US. Let the other nations make their own damn internet.

If you don't want the US to have control over the internet, raise the venture capital or tax money, install the equipment, hire the workers and set up your own corporation or government entity. You're going to have to compete if you want to have control over the internet; no one has to give you the right to control the internet. You have to earn it through competition just like the US did.

And anyway, has there ever been a documented case of outright abuse by the ICANN? If not, what incentive is there to take it away from its rightful owners, who earned it through competition, and give it to an international organization that did nothing but complain to get it?

But it's OURS! Make your own! For more insight, please see Mr. Fiddlebottoms.(jesus christ!, did I just say that?)

It's not that simple, as well you know.

A) The Internet was created, in its current form, by a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee, working at a Swiss (international) scientific research centre, CERN.

B) This isn't a technology capable of being independently created more than once. It's far, far, far too pervasive. You have not answered the analogy of the printing, which I feel is accurate.

Hey buddy! This here is the American net! Only U.S. Dollar betting please!:D
But I was just about to raise him 5 Shekels and a Brazilian Real.
But it's OURS! Make your own! For more insight, please see Mr. Fiddlebottoms.(jesus christ!, did I just say that?)
I gots de insite!!! OH YEAH!
Anyways, I think the reason that EU is trying to snatch the US interweb is due to the fact that in all their alliances and coming together, they have forgotten that sometimes you keep what you make, or at least that is what you can say if you think that the EU has any dignity to it.
I'm going to say that it is the nationalist dick waving of a group that is eager to prove that theirs is bigger by sticking it to the bad ole US.
It is times like these that I wish Gore were in charge, he wouldn't let anyone put their paws on his precious interweb, which he made out of logs with his barehands.

It's not that simple, as well you know.

A) The Internet was created, in its current form, by a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee, working at a Swiss (international) scientific research centre, CERN.

Yes, but it was the US that provided the money, equipment, and people that made it what it is today. He may have invented the Internet in its current form, but it was the US that made it a worldwide entity.

B) This isn't a technology capable of being independently created more than once. It's far, far, far too pervasive. You have not answered the analogy of the printing, which I feel is accurate.

Has anyone tried?

It ends at the point where your analogy makes no sense. If the Europeans want to control the internet, and feel it is so important to do so, then they can create their own competing infrastructure in Europe. You'll note that German car companies weren't suddenly put under international control, other groups saw what the Germans had done and replicated it at home, well if the EU is suffering from that much penis envy, then they can construct their own Interweb.
Couldn't agree more. I'm not hot on anyone really "controlling" the internet, but if push comes to shove I'll keep the infrastructure intact here at home, thank you.

If you don't like it, get to work creating that brand new internet your country wants so badly! We've got some bright minds here... I'm sure you'll think of something. :p

Anyways, I think the reason that EU is trying to snatch the US interweb is due to the fact that in all their alliances and coming together, they have forgotten that sometimes you keep what you make, or at least that is what you can say if you think that the EU has any dignity to it.

*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet)

"The collective network gained a public face in the 1990s. In August 1991 Tim Berners-Lee publicized his new World Wide Web project, two years after he had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few web pages at CERN in Switzerland. In 1993 the Mosaic web browser version 1.0 was released, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic/technical Internet. By 1996 the word "Internet" was common public currency, but it referred almost entirely to the World Wide Web."

Two points.

A: "World Wide Web"
B: "You keep what you create", huh? Funny, then, that the Internet runs on a system created by a research lab run by most of the nations of the EU, then.

*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet)

"The collective network gained a public face in the 1990s. In August 1991 Tim Berners-Lee publicized his new World Wide Web project, two years after he had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few web pages at CERN in Switzerland. In 1993 the Mosaic web browser version 1.0 was released, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic/technical Internet. By 1996 the word "Internet" was common public currency, but it referred almost entirely to the World Wide Web."

"In August, 1994, NCSA assigned commercial rights to Mosaic to Spyglass, Inc., which subsequently licensed the technology to several other companies, including Microsoft for use in Internet Explorer. The NCSA stopped developing Mosaic in January 1997. "

Almost immediately after its invention, these developers sold the Mosaic browser to American companies who then marketed it to consumers. It was the American companies that disseminated the product and made it a commericial success.

Two points.

A: "World Wide Web"
B: "You keep what you create", huh? Funny, then, that the Internet runs on a system created by a research lab run by most of the nations of the EU, then.

A. So what? The US provides almost all of the money, expertise, and equipment to run it.

B. Start your own company, compete with the US companies currently running it, and then try and gain control of it.

My only question is why now? As become politically convienent to try and take something away from the US. Granted it may have been started in Europe but many projects that started in the US are now world wide. Airplanes, cars, television, x-rays. Most of the medicial and science machines mostly came from the US.

Soo how about we make a trade. The US gives you the internet and you give us back everything that started in the US? Like nuclear power, electricty and all the things that make the modern world run. And then you can start all over and do it yourself.

*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet)
YAY! Wikipedia, for when you want to say the same thing as the last ignoramous who edited the article.
Two points.

A: "World Wide Web"
So a name is the legal basis for something? What about the posters on NS who use "international" in their name, are they now equal property of the world?
B: "You keep what you create", huh? Funny, then, that the Internet runs on a system created by a research lab run by most of the nations of the EU, then.
I was refering to the physical Infrastructure. Look, if you want it so damned much build your own. The US took what Europeans did, and institutionalized/one-upped it.
Why don't you just quit whining about our interweb, get off your asses, and do the same! In fact, some competition would probably be a good thing. Go out there Make EuroNet or EUWebPowerBetterThanUSTimesInfinity or whatever the hell you want to call it. Quit demanding control over our toys and make your own!

Soo how about we make a trade. The US gives you the internet and you give us back everything that started in the US? Like nuclear power, electricty and all the things that make the modern world run. And then you can start all over and do it yourself.

They should have a fun time getting the internet running, especially since they have to reinvent the computer, the server, fiber optic cable, programming languages, and the telephone before they can even begin.

Yes, but it was the US that provided the money, equipment, and people that made it what it is today. He may have invented the Internet in its current form, but it was the US that made it a worldwide entity.

I sense shifting ground, from "You keep what you create" to "You keep what other people create and you use."

Has anyone tried?

Okay, allow me to continue my analogy: can you think of a pre-electronics method for communicating information as conveniently, as efficiently, as error-free and as reliably as printing?

The Internet may well be reinvented in a vastly more efficient way in the future, but this is genuinely comparable to the invention of the printing press; a technology which, once created, cannot be recreated. Different types of "press" can be invented - HTML, XHTML, PHP, Java etc. - but the concept of mass-printing was out there like the concept of mass online information transfer is out there, and that's what this is about. Nobody could ever control all the world's books, but here we have one partisan organisation controlling (so close to as makes no odds) all the world's electronic information transfer.

It's not that simple, as well you know.

A) The Internet was created, in its current form, by a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee, working at a Swiss (international) scientific research centre, CERN.

B) This isn't a technology capable of being independently created more than once. It's far, far, far too pervasive. You have not answered the analogy of the printing, which I feel is accurate.
First person to come up with the idea of "packet switching" (http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/)

The first person to describe an Internet-like worldwide network of computers, (http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/licklider.html)

Created the first functioning long-distance computer networks in 1965 and designed the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the seed from which the modern Internet grew, in 1966. (http://www.ziplink.net/~lroberts/)

OOHHHHHHH, FACE!!! Should I go on? CERN? PPFFTTTTT!!

a) Its quite meaningless whoever created the Internet, the question is who can control it, and how.

b) I don't vote in american elections, and I don't recognize american legitimacy of the control of the internet

c) Europe can demand its share of the control of the Internet, and there is nothing americans can do but whine about it. Should you try to deny Europeans (and other nations) their own control, you just lose the current power you have over the internet. Since we don't have any control, we dont have anything to lose, at the moment. You can lose much.

You bomb countries, we whine, we take away your global dominance, you whine. Fair enough.

It ends at the point where your analogy makes no sense. If the Europeans want to control the internet, and feel it is so important to do so, then they can create their own competing infrastructure in Europe. You'll note that German car companies weren't suddenly put under international control, other groups saw what the Germans had done and replicated it at home

How can people be so ignorant of how the Internet works? The thing about replication and setting it up at home? That's already been done - how the hell do you think I am accessing the Internet - by some magical connection to cables in the US without any sort of Swedish (and European and Atlantic) infrastructure inbetween?

What this is about is that everbody was silly enough to let a few servers in the US do most of the DNS stuff - you know, the thing that lets you type "jolt.co.uk" instead of "82.133.85.65" - not because it needed to be there, but because it was there previously, they couldn't be bothered to reproduce it themselves as the Internet was never meant to be what it is today and the US was thought to be trustworthy enough to be trusted with it. It can no longer be trusted, the sentiment is, or it shouldn't be trusted from a security point of view. If these servers were in Europe, the US would be bitching for the exact same security reason.

I sense shifting ground, from "You keep what you create" to "You keep what other people create and you use."

I don't support that "keep what you create" idea. I support gaining the right to own it through competition, and keeping it until someone else comes along who can do it better and more efficently and takes it from you. I believe in competition. If Europe wants it, they need to start the companies and take it through competition.


Okay, allow me to continue my analogy: can you think of a pre-electronics method for communicating information as conveniently, as efficiently, as error-free and as reliably as printing?

The Internet may well be reinvented in a vastly more efficient way in the future, but this is genuinely comparable to the invention of the printing press; a technology which, once created, cannot be recreated. Different types of "press" can be invented - HTML, XHTML, PHP, Java etc. - but the concept of mass-printing was out there like the concept of mass online information transfer is out there, and that's what this is about. Nobody could ever control all the world's books, but here we have one partisan organisation controlling (so close to as makes no odds) all the world's electronic information transfer.

Again, if you want to stop ICANN from controlling the Internet, you have to take it from them via the free market. Until you can do their job better and cheaper than they can, you don't deserve the control of the internet. International bodies fail because they don't have to compete with anyone for anything, and there are always going to be countries to bail them out when they fail.

It is times like these that I wish Gore were in charge, he wouldn't let anyone put their paws on his precious interweb, which he made out of logs with his barehands.
And peanut butter! I believe he also used peanutbutter!

I agree with the article completely, let's keep the internet here since we are the ones who invented it. Let the EU and China complain as they will, the Internet is ours and if they don't want their connection cut they should shut up.

I sense shifting ground, from "You keep what you create" to "You keep what other people create and you use."
You keep what you create is my line, hers could be something completely different. However, what we created is the infrastructure.
Okay, allow me to continue my analogy: can you think of a pre-electronics method for communicating information as conveniently, as efficiently, as error-free and as reliably as printing?
And remarkably enough, other people created printing presses (and even made better ones, some of them can print pictures, doncha know). Not all books are run off of the old Gutenburg thingy, you know.
The Internet may well be reinvented in a vastly more efficient way in the future, but this is genuinely comparable to the invention of the printing press; a technology which, once created, cannot be recreated. Different types of "press" can be invented - HTML, XHTML, PHP, Java etc. - but the concept of mass-printing was out there like the concept of mass online information transfer is out there, and that's what this is about. Nobody could ever control all the world's books, but here we have one partisan organisation controlling (so close to as makes no odds) all the world's electronic information transfer.
First, you are the one who is shifting, orginially you said that it would be over 2 decades for ICANN to become partisan, well it has been signifigantly fewer than 2 decades.
Second, other methods of printing have been invented. Typewriters, Laser Printers, etc. Unless you think that the idea of printing is somehow sacred, in which case you are a crazy person, and I don't talk to crazy persons (it upsets the voices in my head).
This isn't about the idea of the Internet being US, it is about the EU trying to muscle in and play bully boy on US turf, which isn't going to work, see?

Again, if you want to stop ICANN from controlling the Internet, you have to take it from them via the free market. Until you can do their job better and cheaper than they can, you don't deserve the control of the internet. International bodies fail because they don't have to compete with anyone for anything, and there are always going to be countries to bail them out when they fail.

For all efects, Icann IS an international body, or at least a body that has a monopolistic international influence, though it is controled by the US.

Silly Euros, give it up! If I can admit to myself that we won't have a Libertarian Party president in '08, then you can face the obvious...

America pWnS the net, and we're not handing it over to anyone at anytime in the forseeable future. You're pissing in the wind, simply put.

It's not that simple, as well you know.

A) The Internet was created, in its current form, by a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee, working at a Swiss (international) scientific research centre, CERN.

B) This isn't a technology capable of being independently created more than once. It's far, far, far too pervasive. You have not answered the analogy of the printing, which I feel is accurate.

Lets play "magical dates"


Tim Berners-Lee = With a background of system design in real-time communications and text processing software development, in 1989 he invented the World Wide Web, an internet-based hypermedia initiative for global information sharing. while working at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory. He wrote the first web client (browser-editor) and server in 1990.

Truth = J.C.R. Licklider was the first to describe an Internet-like worldwide network of computers, in 1962. He called it the "Galactic Network."

Larry G. Roberts created the first functioning long-distance computer networks in 1965 and designed the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the seed from which the modern Internet grew, in 1966.

Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf invented the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) which moves data on the modern Internet, in 1972 and 1973.

By 1983, TCP was the standard and ARPANET began to resemble the modern Internet in many respects. The ARPANET itself was taken out of commission in 1990. Most restrictions on commercial Internet traffic ended in 1991, with the last limitations removed in 1995.

BTW
In case you didn't know, were all communicating over tcp/ip, standardized in 1983,6 years before "Mr. Cern" created the net.

For all efects, Icann IS an international body, or at least a body that has a monopolistic international influence, though it is controled by the US.

It is powerful, but it isn't immune to competition. They can't buy out your company if you have the money, determination, and product superiority.

It is powerful, but it isn't immune to competition. They can't buy out your company if you have the money, determination, and product superiority.


AHAHAHAAHH!

Like your state department would allow that :rolleyes:

If they are willing to interfere in Icann's decisions, what makes you think that they would allow anyone to just take Icann away from the states? ahahahah

How can people be so ignorant of how the Internet works? The thing about replication and setting it up at home? That's already been done - how the hell do you think I am accessing the Internet - by some magical connection to cables in the US without any sort of Swedish (and European and Atlantic) infrastructure inbetween?

What this is about is that everbody was silly enough to let a few servers in the US do most of the DNS stuff - you know, the thing that lets you type "jolt.co.uk" instead of "82.133.85.65" - not because it needed to be there, but because it was there previously, they couldn't be bothered to reproduce it themselves as the Internet was never meant to be what it is today and the US was thought to be trustworthy enough to be trusted with it. It can no longer be trusted, the sentiment is, or it shouldn't be trusted from a security point of view. If these servers were in Europe, the US would be bitching for the exact same security reason.
Have you noted the given response, perhaps you missed it in all the words. BUILD YOUR OWN! The EU doesn't like US having the DNS stuff? Build your own and register all of your names onto that one. Then you can cackle as USians have to connect to your servers for Domain Name info.
Why should the US start handing things over, when the EU could simply build equivalents?
Finally, why does anyone think that an Internation Body would be more competent than a US one? If there is anything that the UN could tell you, at best international powers are just as likely to be petty, corrupt, and/or abusive than national ones.

I sense shifting ground, from "You keep what you create" to "You keep what other people create and you use."



Okay, allow me to continue my analogy: can you think of a pre-electronics method for communicating information as conveniently, as efficiently, as error-free and as reliably as printing?

The Internet may well be reinvented in a vastly more efficient way in the future, but this is genuinely comparable to the invention of the printing press; a technology which, once created, cannot be recreated. Different types of "press" can be invented - HTML, XHTML, PHP, Java etc. - but the concept of mass-printing was out there like the concept of mass online information transfer is out there, and that's what this is about. Nobody could ever control all the world's books, but here we have one partisan organisation controlling (so close to as makes no odds) all the world's electronic information transfer.
You have an excellent point with printers. Here my excellent point. We get our own printers. We don't bitch at the E.U. to give us theirs.

A world encompassing entity controlled by the international community? Oh the horror!

This whole topic is crap.

Well, why don't you quit your bitching, type in the i.p. address instaed, and leave the big boys (U.S.) alone?


Apparently, that seems what is going to happen.

THe US will keep its internet, and it will be the only one using it, sinse everyone else will work to have a fairer inviroment were everyone has a say.

Why does this forum always result into a pissing contest between the US and Europe? None of you all are perfect in any shape or form. Looking back on Europes history I see many more horrible things done, granted the US as not had long enough for mass murder of innocent people like the crusades or inquistion but give it time.

And like the other poster as said. What makes the EU so much better than the US? Or is it the simple face that "We have it and you do so nyah!" I am inclined it is to think for exactly that reason. And the US would probably bitch or we would make our own and be done with it. Simple as that. As much as I dislike the US, listening to you people from Europe, that is not any better.

Well, why don't you quit your bitching, type in the i.p. address instaed, and leave the big boys (U.S.) alone?
Because that would take work, and the whole point of this is, apparently, to negate any possibility that the EU might actually have to work to obtain additional power.
The bitchy and lazy shall inheret the Earth sort of thing, I think.

Apparently, that seems what is going to happen.

THe US will keep its internet, and it will be the only one using it, sinse everyone else will work to have a fairer inviroment were everyone has a say.
MMMmmmm A socialist Internet. You can keep it!

Apparently, that seems what is going to happen.

THe US will keep its internet, and it will be the only one using it, sinse everyone else will work to have a fairer inviroment were everyone has a say.

So having everything censored or changed to fit the model of a few in power is a more fair enviroment? Or have you no sense of personal freedom and expression?

Okay, I'll admit, fine on the invention thing; I was merely responding to a claim as ridiculous as that that Al Gore crafted the Internet himself; that the US can claim full rights to the workings of the Internet due to... its idea, or its money that it put into the technology, or whatever else; I'm trying to fight an incoherent position from too many people here. However, yes, okay, I wasn't right to try to stand up for that as strongly as I did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, nobody has answered my comparison to printing, which is powerful. Allow me to restate it.

What if China (or maybe Germany) claimed the rights to every single book printed in the world, ever? Moreover, what if it had set up a system (out of convenience), to print every book anyone ever wrote en masse using its own huge and fast printing presses, such that anyone could get a copy of anything they wanted? What if, too, if it didn't like any copies of that book, it had the power to recall them all by magic and shred them on command?

Now, for the first fifty years of its life, the organisation set up to do this in China was nice and fair. Then an ambitious man from Qinghai province is chosen to be head of that organisation, because he's a friend of the Emperor. He promises that books promoting Mongol incursions into China should be recalled immediately, and in the current political climate, it is only twenty more years before the next commissioner decides that books supporting rebel factions should be withdrawn. And so on.

Knowledge is power. That's not a crass oversimplification; information transfer is what keeps society running. And one organisation, more than theoretically at the mercy of a national government with, let us say, a noted tendency to interfere with other nations' affairs, has that power to recall every book which says "maybe group X has a point, y'know?"

Okay, I'll admit, fine on the invention thing; I was merely responding to a claim as ridiculous as that that Al Gore crafted the Internet himself; that the US can claim full rights to the workings of the Internet due to... its idea, or its money that it put into the technology, or whatever else; I'm trying to fight an incoherent position from too many people here. However, yes, okay, I wasn't right to try to stand up for that as strongly as I did.
I give you massive respect for that!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, nobody has answered my comparison to printing, which is powerful. Allow me to restate it.

*shakes head* Should've quit while you had massive respect. Now I'm giggling uncontrollably.

It's simple. WE WOULD HAVE MADE OUR OWN PRINTING PRESSES! Oh wait, we did.

Yes, but it was the US that provided the money, equipment, and people that made it what it is today. He may have invented the Internet in its current form, but it was the US that made it a worldwide entity.


Just curious, but are you suggesting that the US provided the telco's around the world with all of the infrastructure required? Because last time I checked Bell South wasn't installing T1s anywhere outside their area.

And certainly many of the switches and technologies were designed by companies like Nortel, Newbridge, and carried over fibre lines developed by companies like JDS Fidel.

In Canada.

Not to say that Cisco, Bay Networks, and many others didn't get in that game either and make their mark, but it was hardly a US-only effort in any of the three areas you list.

Frankly each country with an internet pressence had to build up their own backbones to carry the traffic, and I think you will find that they paid for it themselves.

Yes the US put in the first heavy connections between North America and other places, but it's not as if that were done entirely at taxpayer expense. They are commercial installations that paid for themselves by charging for bandwidth.



So, can you please explain how it is that the US paid for the internet around the world, because I'm pretty darn curious about that claim.....

My only question is why now? As become politically convienent to try and take something away from the US. Granted it may have been started in Europe but many projects that started in the US are now world wide. Airplanes, cars, television, x-rays. Most of the medicial and science machines mostly came from the US.

Soo how about we make a trade. The US gives you the internet and you give us back everything that started in the US? Like nuclear power, electricty and all the things that make the modern world run. And then you can start all over and do it yourself.

Oooh! So we get to only use what a person from our nation invented then? Deal!

*Confiscates all jet air planes, radar, A bombs, computers, TVs, penicillin and trains, then uses total air dominance/threat of nukes to rule the world and get everyone elses inventions* Muahahaha...

Oh, and here's an interesting web page for those who believe America invented everything. http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/BestifBrits.htm

I especially like the introduction

"Over the past 50 years, according to Japanese research, more than 40 per cent of discoveries taken up on a worldwide basis originated in the United Kingdom."

40 per cent from a tiny population like the UK? Told ya we were the most inventive :P

Oh wonderful. They're all getting it wrong. Let's take an analagous situation: Every country in the world has its own separate telephone network. And yet, it's possible for someone in the US to call someone in Europe and vice versa. - the phone networks interoperate. And what UN body regulates this? Surprise - there isn't one. Nor does any single country decide how the world's phone networks work together. Nonetheless, there is a common global standard for how phone networks can access each other, which has been worked out by international agreement but not by an international regulatory authority. There's a strong motivation for different nations to have common phone standards: Sure, the Belgians (for example) could invent their own telephone standard that isn't compatible with the rest of the world - but then Belgium would effectively be cut off from the world's telephone networks, to the detriment of the Belgian economy.

In the same way, the Internet is not a single network, but is and always has been a network of networks. So every nation could (and largely does) have its own "Internet", as long as everyone follows the standards that allow the various networks to communicate with one another. And sure, you could create your own incompatible network standards, at the risk of cutting your country off from the global Internet. Who's going to take that risk?

So there doesn't need to be any UN body controlling the Internet. Nor does there really need to be an ICANN, as long as the different Net providers are able to agree on a common standard to allow their networks to work together. The global phone networks shows that it's possible, so why does the Internet need to be different?

:p

Oh wonderful. They're all getting it wrong. Let's take an analagous situation: Every country in the world has its own separate telephone network. And yet, it's possible for someone in the US to call someone in Europe and vice versa. - the phone networks interoperate. And what UN body regulates this? Surprise - there isn't one. Nor does any single country decide how the world's phone networks work together. Nonetheless, there is a common global standard for how phone networks can access each other, which has been worked out by international agreement but not by an international regulatory authority. There's a strong motivation for different nations to have common phone standards: Sure, the Belgians (for example) could invent their own telephone standard that isn't compatible with the rest of the world - but then Belgium would effectively be cut off from the world's telephone networks, to the detriment of the Belgian economy.

In the same way, the Internet is not a single network, but is and always has been a network of networks. So every nation could (and largely does) have its own "Internet", as long as everyone follows the standards that allow the various networks to communicate with one another. And sure, you could create your own incompatible network standards, at the risk of cutting your country off from the global Internet. Who's going to take that risk?

So there doesn't need to be any UN body controlling the Internet. Nor does there really need to be an ICANN, as long as the different Net providers are able to agree on a common standard to allow their networks to work together. The global phone networks shows that it's possible, so why does the Internet need to be different?

:p

*hands you a big box of cookies*

I wish I had thought of this when I said earlier that I didn't want the internet to be regulated by any central authority, be it ICANN, the US, or some international UN body.

Oh wonderful. They're all getting it wrong. Let's take an analagous situation: Every country in the world has its own separate telephone network. And yet, it's possible for someone in the US to call someone in Europe and vice versa. - the phone networks interoperate. And what UN body regulates this? Surprise - there isn't one. Nor does any single country decide how the world's phone networks work together. Nonetheless, there is a common global standard for how phone networks can access each other, which has been worked out by international agreement but not by an international regulatory authority. There's a strong motivation for different nations to have common phone standards: Sure, the Belgians (for example) could invent their own telephone standard that isn't compatible with the rest of the world - but then Belgium would effectively be cut off from the world's telephone networks, to the detriment of the Belgian economy.

In the same way, the Internet is not a single network, but is and always has been a network of networks. So every nation could (and largely does) have its own "Internet", as long as everyone follows the standards that allow the various networks to communicate with one another. And sure, you could create your own incompatible network standards, at the risk of cutting your country off from the global Internet. Who's going to take that risk?

So there doesn't need to be any UN body controlling the Internet. Nor does there really need to be an ICANN, as long as the different Net providers are able to agree on a common standard to allow their networks to work together. The global phone networks shows that it's possible, so why does the Internet need to be different?

:p

::Hands him even more cookies:: Right on! Huzzah!

The article is a blatant piece of simplistic US propaganda. "Web of the free...", right...


a medium that America created

Nope. A Brit did.


The Internet has become an integral part of the global economy, in large part because the United States has also provided the genius of our technology to other societies that use it to benefit themselves,

Nope. See above.


something that America has built,

Nope. See above.


American values caused the Internet to emerge and evolve as a medium of freedom.


Ah, propaganda... Don't you love it.


But the string attached to its creation by America

Nope. See above.

Interesting article. It would seem it advocates turning control of the Internet over to the UK. :D

Why the hell should the US control the internet?

I say let the internet be like international waters. No laws.

However if you're doing something like buying/selling kiddie porn online you should be prosecuted by the country you live in.

I dont think putting the internet in the hands of those who want to control it to "create a fair enviroment" or to "take it out of US control" in all the years it as been in "US control" have there ever been cases of it being hacked, or the US doing something to it, to warrant such a drastic change?

And why does the EU want it? Solely because they hate the US or is it so they can access information sensitive to the US. The very thing they claim the US may do?

It ends at the point where your analogy makes no sense. If the Europeans want to control the internet, and feel it is so important to do so, then they can create their own competing infrastructure in Europe. You'll note that German car companies weren't suddenly put under international control, other groups saw what the Germans had done and replicated it at home, well if the EU is suffering from that much penis envy, then they can construct their own Interweb.
Hehehe! Well said! :D

Far to many male horomones get in the way of rational thought. I say if we put woman in charge the world would be better. Except for that one crazy week. But one week is better than all the time I would say.

I dont think putting the internet in the hands of those who want to control it to "create a fair enviroment" or to "take it out of US control" in all the years it as been in "US control" have there ever been cases of it being hacked, or the US doing something to it, to warrant such a drastic change?

And why does the EU want it? Solely because they hate the US or is it so they can access information sensitive to the US. The very thing they claim the US may do?

You haven't answered Laenis. When are you going to stop using planes, your TV, penicillin, trains... and the Internet? :p

I personally dont care who invented what or by who. What I do care about is all this penis waving around trying to show theirs is bigger and they can do more with it. It ties in with all my other posts about cooperation and being human.

What the EU wants is not cooperation they want control. And why Scum's idea is far better than what as been said by others, including myself. When we cooperate we get more done. Not with this constant bickering.

No. The U.S. government isn't dumb enough to habd ove the most powerful tool on the planet to Europe. Besides, we started it. Let them make their own. We'll get to see who has more virus's on their networks!


America did not invent the internet as we now know it. That was Tim-Bernards Lee. While the Americans inveted the basic physical hardware, the more complex element of the software was a British invention

Silly Euros, give it up! If I can admit to myself that we won't have a Libertarian Party president in '08, then you can face the obvious...

America pWnS the net, and we're not handing it over to anyone at anytime in the forseeable future. You're pissing in the wind, simply put.
ROFLMFAO!!!!! You GO, Eichen! [ High fives! ] ROFLMAO!!! :D

How about everyone meets in the middle? It was an international effort that brought the internet as we know it into making. It was the expertise of Amercia, the UK and others that put it all together. While no one should control it, it needs to be regualted for the protection of the innocent.

The EU wants to censor it and make it fit with their model. The US may use it in time of war. Who knows how the Russians and Chinese want to use it. Why not have it like Scum posted? Or each nation as its own DNS but they are all compatiable with each other so it facilitates communication between nations?

I think you should let me control the internet. Sure commercial pop-ups and cigarette ads would come up every few minutes, but I'd be fair.

I think you should let me control the internet. Sure commercial pop-ups and cigarette ads would come up every few minutes, but I'd be fair.
Hmm,GI'lligladlyvhelpeyoumgetetheyinternetoifuyourletcmerstarteputtingisubliminaltmessagesainrit,dpr ettysplease?

I personally dont care who invented what or by who. What I do care about is all this penis waving around trying to show theirs is bigger and they can do more with it. It ties in with all my other posts about cooperation and being human.

What the EU wants is not cooperation they want control. And why Scum's idea is far better than what as been said by others, including myself. When we cooperate we get more done. Not with this constant bickering.
Egggg-xactly! Kudos! :D

Hmm,GI'lligladlyvhelpeyoumgetetheyinternetoifuyourletcmerstarteputtingisubliminaltmessagesainrit,dpr ettysplease?
Yes,together we will rule the internet.

Far to many male horomones get in the way of rational thought. I say if we put woman in charge the world would be better. Except for that one crazy week. But one week is better than all the time I would say.
Would you like some wine with your sexism?:)

Would you like some wine with your sexism?:)

Depends on the wine :D

What women in charge of the internet? What will happen to manly mascunlinity of manly internet? No more porn!

What women in charge of the internet? What will happen to manly mascunlinity of manly internet? No more porn!

Woman who say they dont look at porn... lie... through their teeth. I would keep porn but thats just me :D

Screw this! I OWN THE INTERNET! Any one who would like to continue using it, please send $5.00 check or money order to:

I Have the biggest Net Penis
10102 Big Penis Rd.
Big Wang, Giantschlongsylvania
00700-4220
Please, no international currency.

Depends on the wine :D
I was joking. I only serve beer and Yukon Jack.

Beer is ucki gross. I perfer Sex on the Beach or Slow Comfortable Screw. A nice mixed drink that tastes fruity.

Yep, the US never interferes with the internet, that's why we have that .xxx domain :rolleyes:

What women in charge of the internet? What will happen to manly mascunlinity of manly internet? No more porn!
AndSwithouteporn,nwhatnotherdwaysmcaneIBfindatorbrainwashrpeoplelwithsmyohiddenfmessages?
FUNmFACT:oWhennIegetyjoint-controlooverrtheoInternet,neveryi5thoframeninsevery porno will have "You have aismalltpenis"iwrittensintonerofutheecorners.

AndSwithouteporn,nwhatnotherdwaysmcaneIBfindatorbrainwashrpeoplelwithsmyohiddenfmessages?
FUNmFACT:oWhennIegetyjoint-controlooverrtheoInternet,neveryi5thoframeninsevery porno will have "You have aismalltpenis"iwrittensintonerofutheecorners.
Now you're just trying to hard.

Would you like some wine with your sexism?:)
Exactly! That was so sexist, I felt like cockwhipping him into getting his balls back from what's-her-name that keeps them in a drawer for "safekeeping".

HIM!?!?! No my friend I am thanful that is not the case or horomones would have destroyed my mind long ago. I am female. But its hard to tell gender by the way a person posts so I will forgive you.

Now you're just trying to hard.
IPdidn'taputythatnthereoandmIihave,nIdhavetnooideatwhathyouearewtalkinghabout.iIttiseobviouslytt3heC 0N5P1R4CYxagainsttme!

It ends at the point where your analogy makes no sense. If the Europeans want to control the internet, and feel it is so important to do so, then they can create their own competing infrastructure in Europe. You'll note that German car companies weren't suddenly put under international control, other groups saw what the Germans had done and replicated it at home, well if the EU is suffering from that much penis envy, then they can construct their own Interweb.

The problem is, there are national infrastuctures, but the main say in in the United stated. Instead of running your country with unbridled greed, why not have a little faith. So what if the UN wants control? Isn't the US a part of the UN? Wouldn't they be able to bicker about how they feel it shold be controlled with other nations?

The problem is, there are national infrastuctures, but the main say in in the United stated. Instead of running your country with unbridled greed, why not have a little faith. So what if the UN wants control? Isn't the US a part of the UN? Wouldn't they be able to bicker about how they feel it shold be controlled with other nations?

There it is again. Control. Why not cooperation. Or does everyone fail to realize that simple word would end many of todays problems. How hard would it be for each nation to have its own DNS that are connected to others. We did it with the phones. And each nation as a different way of doing phone numbers. It would be the same thing. Different DNS but same damn thing on its own.

There are resources in Europe to make this happen. There are companies to ask for help in setting them up. If you dont like the US as the central hub then make your own central hub. Just be sure to include everything works with one another. Which will require cooperation. Which those in the US and the EU fail to see.

HIM!?!?! No my friend I am thanful that is not the case or horomones would have destroyed my mind long ago. I am female. But its hard to tell gender by the way a person posts so I will forgive you.

[Brief Hijack] That was still an incredibly sexist comment that woudn't have flown had a man said something similar (and you know it). Don't hand me that "women are precious sweethearts who'd never hurt a fly" bullshit. Women are just as greedy and manipulative as men, and they're willing to have men in the Armed Forces do their dirty work for them. History is full of mean-spirited bitches willing to shed blood and oppress people to further their own selfish agendas. Don't delude yourself. [/Brief Hijack]

If you can tell, I'm not fond of double-standard hyperbole.

The problem is, there are national infrastuctures, but the main say in in the United stated. Instead of running your country with unbridled greed, why not have a little faith. So what if the UN wants control? Isn't the US a part of the UN? Wouldn't they be able to bicker about how they feel it shold be controlled with other nations?
Why should the US give up a national resource (located on that nations soil) to an international committee simply because of the other members' penis envy and laziness?
Why can't they put forth a little effort and build their own national DNS systems if they are so concerened about the US?
And why is it greed for one nation to protect its control over its own resources? Fine then, I want all oil producing nations to start sending free oil to the US, the British will allow the US a ten percent share in control over Big Ben, the French will let Viagra start putting ads on the Eifel Tower (the Italians will due the same for the Leaning Tower of Pisa), the Chinese should give the US control over the far northern part of the Great Wall (so we can put advertising slogans on it), and the Beligians can send us . . .
Okay, so the Belgians are safe because they have absolutely nothing anyone else could want, but the rest of you all: Fair is Fair, ante up your goodies and will let you play with ours.

You people just dont understand cooperation :(

The servers that control the root zone files are almost all in private hands. The government only owns a few of them.

You people just dont understand cooperation :(
No, you don't understand cooperation. Cooperation is working together to accomplish something, for some reason you are using a different definition where in you wait until the accomplishment is finished, and then you start demanding control over other people's work.

They can have the internet, if we can have Sweden, so we can use it as a staging grounds to invade Europe, and take it back!:cool:

I dont demand control over other peoples work. Every nation as its own agenda in wanting to control the internet. That is all well and good. But if you do then make their own DNS to control the internet in their regions not the entire internet. Why should someone in Europe determine what can and cannot go online in the US? Its not fair and not cooperating since you are violating the rights of another in a land with different laws.

If each nation had their own DNS then there would be no problem would there? And then we could all go on like nothing has happened and be all hunky dorey.

No, you don't understand cooperation. Cooperation is working together to accomplish something, for some reason you are using a different definition where in you wait until the accomplishment is finished, and then you start demanding control over other people's work.

I think the reasoning behind international requests is to share control of the technology so that we can accomplish something further than the state at which it already is. But why should America be concerned with sharing?

I think the reasoning behind international requests is to share control of the technology so that we can accomplish something further than the state at which it already is. But why should America be concerned with sharing?
Sharing is teh k0mmunizm!

Sharing is teh k0mmunizm!

Boy, is that a narrow view of how the world works... of course, it sounds like a typical American response

Boy, is that a narrow view of how the world works... of course, it sounds like a typical American response

Dude! Buy a sarcasm detector already!!

Boy, is that a narrow view of how the world works... of course, it sounds like a typical Sarcastic response
There, I fixed the quote for you, but I won't save you from your foolishness again.
QUICK TIP: If a poster who seems to have some level of intelligence suddenly starts using 1337/whimsical spelling, they are probably being sarcastic.

There, I fixed the quote for you, but I won't save you from your foolishness again.
QUICK TIP: If a poster who seems to have some level of intelligence suddenly starts using 1337/whimsical spelling, they are probably being sarcastic.

My apologies

Dude! Buy a sarcasm detector already!!
I sell them along with my ten dollar "Jew wave disrupter" tinfoil hats.

I sell them along with my ten dollar "Jew wave disrupter" tinfoil hats.

LOL!

I think the reasoning behind international requests is to share control of the technology so that we can accomplish something further than the state at which it already is. But why should America be concerned with sharing?
If you want the US to start giving you power over major US accomplishments, you had better damn well offer returning favors.
Like I said in my earlier post, let us plaster advertising on some small sections of Big Ben, the Great Wall, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Eifel Tower, etc. and then we'll let you start controlling our internet.
Until then, get your own!

If you want the US to start giving you power over major US accomplishments, you had better damn well offer returning favors.
Like I said in my earlier post, let us plaster advertising on some small sections of Big Ben, the Great Wall, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Eifel Tower, etc. and then we'll let you start controlling our internet.
Until then, get your own!

Funny... I don't remember the internet being an accomplishment of the US and the US alone. Perhaps I'm just not dumb enough.

Sarcastic? I was being completely serious. No one ever takes me seriously. *eats a baby*

On a more serious note, I agree with what Dishonorable Scum said a few pages ago.

If you want the US to start giving you power over major US accomplishments, you had better damn well offer returning favors.
Like I said in my earlier post, let us plaster advertising on some small sections of Big Ben, the Great Wall, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Eifel Tower, etc. and then we'll let you start controlling our internet.
Until then, get your own!

I just don't understand that sort of selfishness. Is it wrong to take your accomplishments and let others help you to use them?

I just don't understand that sort of selfishness. Is it wrong to take your accomplishments and let others help you to use them?
Only when it's by force.

the Internet is ours and if they don't want their connection cut they should shut up.

Precisely the reason that the argument is being made to have servers located in more than one nation. Also in the case of disaster the servers in various locations could help protect the integrity of the Net.:headbang:

I just don't understand that sort of selfishness. Is it wrong to take your accomplishments and let others help you to use them?
I never said that we wouldn't share, just that other nations have to share back. When you are willing to put your accomplishments under international control, we will do the same.

It's worked fine under US control. The question is: What's the pressing need to hand it over to a group known for bureaucratic ineptness?

If you want the US to start giving you power over major US accomplishments, you had better damn well offer returning favors.
Like I said in my earlier post, let us plaster advertising on some small sections of Big Ben, the Great Wall, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Eifel Tower, etc. and then we'll let you start controlling our internet.
Until then, get your own!

We let you watch whatever you want on OUR invention - TV. And look where that got you - American TV sucks. So...yeah...we sure share our accomplishments. Although it would be better if we maintained control ;)

We let you watch whatever you want on OUR invention - TV. And look where that got you - American TV sucks.
I believe it was the Brits who invented "reality" t.v.

I never said that we wouldn't share, just that other nations have to share back. When you are willing to put your accomplishments under international control, we will do the same.

Okay, that's legitimate. I just think that what the world shares with the US shouldn't be defaced and cheapened by advertisements.

I believe it was the Brits who invented "reality" t.v.

The Dutch invented Big Brother, and that was the first big reality TV show over here. Don't blame us.

Ignorance is bliss!! Man goota love the narrowminded and selfish veiws of the world!!

The Dutch invented Big Brother, and that was the first big reality TV show over here. Don't blame us.
Then I'm going to invade the Netherlands.

[QUOTE=Laenis]We let you watch whatever you want on OUR invention - TV. And look where that got you - American TV sucks. So...yeah...we sure share our accomplishments. Although it would be better if we maintained control ;)[/QUOTE
Fine then, you can have Katie Courik and that ass wipe from Fear Factor (is that show still on? I dunno) and do whatever you want with them in return for our using British television programs.

The internet shouldnt be under control of the Americans because the internet is not an American entity. Of course it should not be under control of the EU either, it should be under the control of no one nation.

I never said that we wouldn't share, just that other nations have to share back. When you are willing to put your accomplishments under international control, we will do the same.
I know your response was tongue-in-cheek, but there's a good point to be made here. Sharing isn't a one-way street. And altruistic (feel-good) motivations alone don't really cut it for a capitalist nation ("But wouldn't it make you guys feel better?").
You've got to have something better to offer. So the only question here that deserves an answer (or go fuck yourself, basically) is what would a "share" of the ICAAN infrastructure be worth to you?
If you can answer that question to our liking, than perhaps you'll have a chance. But don't expect us to hand over that goldmine because you think it's the right thing to do. I can tell ya now, you'll be wasting your prescious time.

Ok you know what? NO MORE INTERNET FOR THE EUROPEANS! Until you accept the fact that there is no way in hell America will just GIVE UP control over the Internet you don't get a drop of Internet Access.

Until you learn to obey the dictates of America... Soon to be the Evil Empire under the rule of a psychotic Emperor (me)... MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!;)

Ok you know what? NO MORE INTERNET FOR THE EUROPEANS! Until you accept the fact that there is no way in hell America will just GIVE UP control over the Internet you don't get a drop of Internet Access.

Until you learn to obey the dictates of America... Soon to be the Evil Empire under the rule of a psychotic Emperor (me)... MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!;)
Dude, get out of my computer room, and get back to sweeping the floor, infidel. You'll be lucky if you don't get a flogging for that!

wouldnt it be hilarious if they did regulate the internet,but some enterprising chap re-invented the internet and called it something else(to avoid copyright and patent laws and what not) and started giving it away for free.hilarity and vast amounts of porn would surely be the result

I know your response was tongue-in-cheek, but there's a good point to be made here. Sharing isn't a one-way street. And altruistic (feel-good) motivations alone don't really cut it for a capitalist nation ("But wouldn't it make you guys feel better?").
You've got to have something better to offer. So the only question here that deserves an answer (or go fuck yourself, basically) is what would a "share" of the ICAAN infrastructure be worth to you?
If you can answer that question to our liking, than perhaps you'll have a chance. But don't expect us to hand over that goldmine because you think it's the right thing to do. I can tell ya now, you'll be wasting your prescious time.


But but but.. no one is actually expecting you to o.o

Its just GPS systems. We will build our own :)

But but but.. no one is actually expecting you to o.o

Its just GPS systems. We will build our own :)
So, the internet is run through Global Positioning Satellites? Very interesting. I feel threatened by your vast technological knowledge.

So, the internet is run through Global Positioning Satellites? Very interesting. I feel threatened by your vast technological knowledge.
Ouch! And here I thought I was sarcastic! :eek:

Ouch! And here I thought I was sarcastic! :eek:
Sorry, I hate it when people feign technological knowledge. Kinda like how you'd feel if someone told you they were in 'Nam, and when you ask where, they say " the front lines".:p

~EDIT~ BTW Eut, congrats on the successful operation! Glad your still in one piece. (or two or three, whatever) I had you in my thoughts!

COMMENTARY:snip[/I]
The sad thing is I am more scared of what will happen to the internet if the USA keeps controll of the internet and the fundies continue to build power

I personaly would rather get controll out of the usa to someone historicaly neutral lite switzerland

I personaly would rather get controll out of the usa to someone historicaly neutral lite switzerland

I definitely wouldn't trust Switzerland. "Neutral" is just a code-word for "we sell to the highest bidder".

I definitely wouldn't trust Switzerland. "Neutral" is just a code-word for "we sell to the highest bidder".
Either way I was talking location not necessarily control

Either way I was talking location not necessarily control

I'd put it on Christmas Island. That way, every domain name would end in .cx...

I'd put it on Christmas Island. That way, every domain name would end in .cx...
Lol well ... sense we would be moving the root and all the sub domains I have a feeling they would all act fairly simmilar

Though I have been wating for a new answer to DNS organization anyways then the standard address hierarchy

I don't understand. Why should the USA have complete control over something integral to the world economy, on the basis that it was invented there?

Should Germany claim the rights to the Automobile? Should Russia claim the rights to all space exploration because it was there first? Where does it end?

America does'nt tell Germany how they should build cars. There's the difference.

America does'nt tell Germany how they should build cars. There's the difference.
Are you suggesting that America doesn't set special rules for the internet?

Are you suggesting that America doesn't set special rules for the internet?

Besides child porn? No not really. You can find practically everything on there. Hell even terrorist websites. If they can get a website up and Icann doing nothing, then what the hell does it matter if it is in the US?

The US doesnt limit free speech, unlike the vast majority of other nations, which makes this the most ideal place for the center of the internet. Giving other nations a say would BREAK the internet.

Besides, the root zone servers are property of several corporations that just happen to follow basic rules set down by ICANN. The servers the internet is based on are PRIVATE PROPERTY

Besides child porn? No not really. You can find practically everything on there. Hell even terrorist websites. If they can get a website up and Icann doing nothing, then what the hell does it matter if it is in the US?
The lack of casual toplessness shows the affect of the US on the internet.

The lack of casual toplessness shows the affect of the US on the internet.

Excuse my ignorance, but I dont know what you are talking about with this comment.

The lack of casual toplessness shows the affect of the US on the internet.
I can't perform a google image search with the word "eat" in safety, and you think that there isn't enough pr0n on the net?
Or is it just boobies that are in short supply?

I can't perform a google image search with the word "eat" in safety, and you think that there isn't enough pr0n on the net?
Or is it just boobies that are in short supply?
I said casual.

I don't understand. Why should the USA have complete control over something integral to the world economy, on the basis that it was invented there?

Should Germany claim the rights to the Automobile? Should Russia claim the rights to all space exploration because it was there first? Where does it end?
No no no, invented it, built it, maintained it, and owns it. The fact that we invented it is largely unimportant.

Are you suggesting that America doesn't set special rules for the internet?

This server is not on US soil. Do with it what you want under British Law....

I said casual.
Tell me when Max (Non-American) allows for boobs to be in every post here.

Tell me when Max (Non-American) allows for boobs to be in every post here.
He could'nt do that because Americans do and might possibly visit this site so it has to clear all the bs rules.

He could'nt do that because Americans do and might possibly visit this site so it has to clear all the bs rules.
Bullshit ... it is max's decision if he wanted general toplessness all he would have to do is make sure that was indicated in the signup for an account and bam no issues

He could'nt do that because Americans do and might possibly visit this site so it has to clear all the bs rules.
They'd be too busy masterbating to do it.

You fail to realize the type of people that actually bother to come to these forums. :D

THERE is a move afoot at the United Nations and in the European Union to get the United States to give up control of the Internet - a medium that America created and on which it now critically relies.
America didn't create it. The DoD created the TCP/IP model, which is closely related to the OSI model, which is am ISO standard that was developed in order to circumvent the proprietary nature of computer technology and to overcome incompatibility.

The first internet like development came from Hawaii where they developed AHOLA net, which used CSMA/CD. (too technical).

The IEEE and IETF are the ones who developed and created it into the monster that it is today. The only reason the Americans can take credit is because of the central protocol that is used for communication. It's only used because of the stability of TCP as a connection oriented protocol, which allows for the delivery of data from source to destination...

Damn... I'm such a nerd... :p

The first internet like development came from Hawaii where they developed AHOLA net, which used CSMA/CD. (too technical).
The Web was invented in Europe, in CERN, by Tim Berners-Lee.

Furthermore the same bloke is the director of international W3C which oversees future development of the World Wide Web (not to be confused with IETF and its role in developing Internet protocols).

Returning to the topic...the two distinct problems with the current setup is that US holds so many critical root-servers and the rather troublesome situation with ICANN: Lack of independence from the government and the need for breaking even. What this means is that US can monitor and thus control the internet's traffic and limit it in such a way that suits its interests the best.

If the goals is to keep Internet free from *any* governmental agenda then the only way to achieve this is to make Internet truly international and thus independent from the oppression of any single state or coalition.

Bullshit ... it is max's decision if he wanted general toplessness all he would have to do is make sure that was indicated in the signup for an account and bam no issues

Actually, the forums are run by JOLT, not Max Barry himself. He pretty much has no say on more mature content.

It ends at the point where your analogy makes no sense. If the Europeans want to control the internet, and feel it is so important to do so, then they can create their own competing infrastructure in Europe. You'll note that German car companies weren't suddenly put under international control, other groups saw what the Germans had done and replicated it at home, well if the EU is suffering from that much penis envy, then they can construct their own Interweb.

Come to think of it, sometimes an internet without Americans would be pretty awesome.

No offence.

However, the point of the internet is to connect the world, not be divided into hundreds of different competing networks.

Come to think of it, sometimes an internet without Americans would be pretty awesome.

Dude!

*dumps a bucket of bacon grease on your head*

*is still pissed off*

If we paid for it, it is ours. If other people want to pay for their own stuff, let them. It will be theirs.

Why the HELL however are we going to give up stuff that is ours? To hell with that. I like the internet how it is. If other people don't like it, they can make their own stuff. Its that simple.

People all over the world hate us anyway, the hell is the point in giving them concessions now? They are just greedy, spoiled, jealous punks.

I SAY AGAIN. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE INTERNET AS IT EXISTS IN YOUR COUNTRY, MAKE YOUR OWN AND GET OFF OUR BALLS ALREADY.

Dear US People.

The term "No taxation without representation" rings a bell? Yes? Was one of the key phrases that made your old men throw a bunch of tea into the pond and start calling old George an a..hole.

You (erh, the guys that were, currently I'd not be so sure if you pulled a stunt like that) took "his" land from him 'cause it's no good idea to be ruled from afar without having a say in it.

This is, granted, not directly reaching into our wallets. Well, unless you plan to register a domain name, but for you, the everyday surfer, it means little. It means a lot, though, if you plan to register a .com domain. Your chances are slim if a US company has the same idea.

This, in turn, means that the US company has a significant market advantage. Be honest, if you were looking for pink poodles, would you first go for www.pinkpoodles.com or www.pinkpoodles.co.tw?

When the day will come...

...when no such threads are started with another european-american clash intended

...when we have a real free internet (I know I´m a dreamer)

...when such a thread does not quickly degenerate into a barely concealed flame-changing

...then I will answer to such a thread

:rolleyes:

I'm sure someone mentioned it, but America didn't create the internet.

I'm sure someone mentioned it, but America didn't create the internet.
Apparently. no body read this, so I'll post the relavant links for the late comers claiming CERN as creaters of the net.


First person to come up with the idea of "packet switching" (http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/)

The first person to describe an Internet-like worldwide network of computers, (http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/licklider.html)

Created the first functioning long-distance computer networks in 1965 and designed the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the seed from which the modern Internet grew, in 1966. (http://www.ziplink.net/~lroberts/)

OOHHHHHHH, FACE!!! Should I go on? CERN? PPFFTTTTT

AND THEN THERES THIS. It goes well with the above links!


Lets play "magical dates"


Tim Berners-Lee = With a background of system design in real-time communications and text processing software development, in 1989 he invented the World Wide Web, an internet-based hypermedia initiative for global information sharing. while working at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory. He wrote the first web client (browser-editor) and server in 1990.

Americans = J.C.R. Licklider was the first to describe an Internet-like worldwide network of computers, in 1962. He called it the "Galactic Network."

Larry G. Roberts created the first functioning long-distance computer networks in 1965 and designed the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the seed from which the modern Internet grew, in 1966.

Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf invented the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) which moves data on the modern Internet, in 1972 and 1973.

By 1983, TCP was the standard and ARPANET began to resemble the modern Internet in many respects. The ARPANET itself was taken out of commission in 1990. Most restrictions on commercial Internet traffic ended in 1991, with the last limitations removed in 1995.

BTW
In case you didn't know, were all communicating over tcp/ip, standardized in 1983,6 years before "Mr. Cern" created the net.
__________________

Apparently. no body read this, so I'll post the relavant links for the late comers claiming CERN as creaters of the net.


First person to come up with the idea of "packet switching" (http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/)

The first person to describe an Internet-like worldwide network of computers, (http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/licklider.html)

Created the first functioning long-distance computer networks in 1965 and designed the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the seed from which the modern Internet grew, in 1966. (http://www.ziplink.net/~lroberts/)

OOHHHHHHH, FACE!!! Should I go on? CERN? PPFFTTTTTCute. Let's see: We're talking about the internet (as in the internet).
The ideas of paket switching:
Dr. Leonard Kleinrock created the basic principles of packet switching, the technology underpinning the Internet, while a graduate student at MIT. This was a decade before the birth of the Internet...
Describing a worldwide network compared to creating a worldwide network:
Much like Vannevar Bush, J.C.R. Licklider's contribution to the development of the Internet consists of ideas not inventions.
ARPANET isn't a commercial network and wasn't open to the public...

Bullshit ... it is max's decision if he wanted general toplessness all he would have to do is make sure that was indicated in the signup for an account and bam no issues
Wrong. You have to make sure everyone is 18, and make sure all models are 18 and have paperwork to prove it.

Dude!

*dumps a bucket of bacon grease on your head*

*is still pissed off*

You could always move to mexico.

Wrong. You have to make sure everyone is 18, and make sure all models are 18 and have paperwork to prove it.
You don't need to have paperwork if they aren't "your" models. If I posted a naked chick on here that looked 16, Max would be fine as long as there was a disclaimer I clicked on saying that I agree not to post anything illegal.

Of course thats just in the U.S., don't know about anywhere else. We have this thing called evidence, which you need to prosecute someone.

Now if it could be proved that Max knowingly encouraged underaged pics here, he'd be in trouble. But if he said, "ok guys, do whatever the hell you want, just nothing illegal,k?" he'd be fine in America.

You don't need to have paperwork if they aren't "your" models.
Yes, you do. Another site was almost shutdown for it

It ends at the point where your analogy makes no sense. If the Europeans want to control the internet, and feel it is so important to do so, then they can create their own competing infrastructure in Europe. You'll note that German car companies weren't suddenly put under international control, other groups saw what the Germans had done and replicated it at home, well if the EU is suffering from that much penis envy, then they can construct their own Interweb.
its amazing how much some people don't want to share their shit :rolleyes:

if the US's lack of cooperation in this matter leads to europe setting up its own 'internet', and china and asia setting up their own (as china is believed to be doing, according to last weekend's times), then the world wide web ceases to be just that, and becomes useless as an international business and communications tool. yay for the age of information protectionism :headbang:

I believe this is only in response to the USA wanting to control the net. No one body should control it.
indeed, and the best way to achieve that is for the UN to control it.

This maneuver amounts to a call for the United States to depend on the kindness of strangers in maintaining basic infrastructure that underpins our national security and economy.

:p oh thats good
what about the 'strangers' who rely on the kindness of the US? shoe on the other foot? seeing things from other people/countries' point of view much? nope.
lovely and americanocentric :rolleyes:

Moreover, it threatens to whittle away the freedom of the Internet with a series of seemingly minor and well-intentioned compromises that begin with something that sounds as reasonable as a "model of cooperation."

where is the proof or evidence that the web is more "free" under american control than it would be under international control?



its as simple as this: every country uses the internet, and it is becoming more and more a cornerstone for the economies and communications of all (developed) nations. it is an international tool, so as such it should be 'owned' and operated by all/no countries in keeping with this international nature and importance.

Woot! Let's just give the internet over to a world in which vast ammounts of political power is held by such paragons of democracy as China and Russia! While we're at it, let's just get rid of the military and put a big sign in California that says "Take our Freedoms; Please!"

Sarcasm aside...

The Internet is (for the most part) a commercial entity. Why should we change that? Why should we allow a control of the internet in excess of what controls exist? Right now, the Internet is not truly controlled by any government. We should make a point of KEEPING it that way!

So....

All those who feel that "We built it therefore we own it if you want one make your own" - I assume you feel for example that Microsoft has not only the right, but also an implied obligation to use their monopoly position to make their product the only viable option for home operating systems by buying out anyone elses start up companies?

This is accepting a rather dubious definition of building the web as constructing the infastructure within America only...

So....

All those who feel that "We built it therefore we own it if you want one make your own" - I assume you feel for example that Microsoft has not only the right, but also an implied obligation to use their monopoly position to make their product the only viable option for home operating systems by buying out anyone elses start up companies?

This is accepting a rather dubious definition of building the web as constructing the infastructure within America only...
You say that as if ALL companies can be forcefully bought. Only companies that go public can be taken over by force. If you wanted to compete with Microsoft without being bought out, just stay private.

It is beyond stupid to hand control of the whole Internet to people to Iran, Libya, and France, just so they can stifle innovation, bundle it, tax it, sue everybody for violation of some European speech codes, and finally help a terrorist/Chinese consortium to crash our banking, communication, and defense systems in return for $2,000 in illegal oil kickbacks.

You say that as if ALL companies can be forcefully bought. Only companies that go public can be taken over by force. If you wanted to compete with Microsoft without being bought out, just stay private.
But then microsoft in a unregulated monopoly position could manipulate the market for long enough to destroy any profitability of start-ups for long enough for them to go under. Not to mention the current practice of most home computers coming with microsoft built in as standard - thus damaging competiveness in the market.

I hope the EU doesn't get control of it. If it does, bye bye online free speech.

The whole point of an international body controlling the internet is that there are so many conflicting interests and people who would demand vetoes that nothing can really be done. If I were an American, like the poster of this thread, then I might agree with the topic, because of course I would think that my country is better at handling it than you damn foreigners over there. However, this view is short-sighted. Although the American Government may be preferable to many other governments, despite bringing us such monuments to freedom as... err.. Guantanimo Bay and, err... the destabilisation of democratic governments in South America, no single government can be trusted with control over the internet.

The author of the article appears to agree - he doesnt want it controlled by China, or the EU. Nor do I. He is, however, missing the point. An international body controlling the internet would not be the EU, the African Union, China or the Arab League, it would be all of these, and no one of these would be able to have their views take precedence over those of the others. In this way, it would be practically impossible to shut the internet down, or censor it. As it stands, the US is perfectly capable of doing both of these things (and no doubt wants to keep its ability to do so) and I do not believe that we can rely on the beneficience of the American, or any other, government indefinately.

The whole point of an international body controlling the internet is that there are so many conflicting interests and people who would demand vetoes that nothing can really be done. If I were an American, like the poster of this thread, then I might agree with the topic, because of course I would think that my country is better at handling it than you damn foreigners over there. However, this view is short-sighted. Although the American Government may be preferable to many other governments, despite bringing us such monuments to freedom as... err.. Guantanimo Bay and, err... the destabilisation of democratic governments in South America, no single government can be trusted with control over the internet.

The author of the article appears to agree - he doesnt want it controlled by China, or the EU. Nor do I. He is, however, missing the point. An international body controlling the internet would not be the EU, the African Union, China or the Arab League, it would be all of these, and no one of these would be able to have their views take precedence over those of the others. In this way, it would be practically impossible to shut the internet down, or censor it. As it stands, the US is perfectly capable of doing both of these things (and no doubt wants to keep its ability to do so) and I do not believe that we can rely on the beneficience of the American, or any other, government indefinately.


Oh you've just changed my mind. I had totally forgotten about Guantanamo Bay, the only concentration camp where you leave weighing more than when you came in.

I'm no technogeek (I just want the damned thing to work; I don't care how), but I agree with the view of Dishonorable Scum (I like saying that; and my enemies have always suspected it anyway). The internet is public property only in an academic sense. It works very much like phone systems, which do not need governmental control to be internationally compatible. They are that way because the market/consumers demand it. The internet will have to go that way also, or else become useless. The US or the EU controlling the internet is just a pipe dream on both sides. Telecommunications corporations control it, and it will go well or badly depending solely on who they make their deals with. The consumers must make their demands clear -- to the providers, not the governments.

And besides, who controls it is really dependent on how it is controlled. This whole argument might change with the technology in much less than 10 years (possibly as little as 5).

Just curious, but are you suggesting that the US provided the telco's around the world with all of the infrastructure required? Because last time I checked Bell South wasn't installing T1s anywhere outside their area.

And certainly many of the switches and technologies were designed by companies like Nortel, Newbridge, and carried over fibre lines developed by companies like JDS Fidel.

In Canada.

Not to say that Cisco, Bay Networks, and many others didn't get in that game either and make their mark, but it was hardly a US-only effort in any of the three areas you list.

Frankly each country with an internet pressence had to build up their own backbones to carry the traffic, and I think you will find that they paid for it themselves.

Yes the US put in the first heavy connections between North America and other places, but it's not as if that were done entirely at taxpayer expense. They are commercial installations that paid for themselves by charging for bandwidth.



So, can you please explain how it is that the US paid for the internet around the world, because I'm pretty darn curious about that claim.....

Yes, I was trying to explain this in a post on the second page, but you did a better job of explaining what I too was trying to say. Thanks.

I'm no technogeek (I just want the damned thing to work; I don't care how), but I agree with the view of Dishonorable Scum (I like saying that; and my enemies have always suspected it anyway). The internet is public property only in an academic sense. It works very much like phone systems, which do not need governmental control to be internationally compatible. They are that way because the market/consumers demand it. The internet will have to go that way also, or else become useless. The US or the EU controlling the internet is just a pipe dream on both sides. Telecommunications corporations control it, and it will go well or badly depending solely on who they make their deals with. The consumers must make their demands clear -- to the providers, not the governments.

And besides, who controls it is really dependent on how it is controlled. This whole argument might change with the technology in much less than 10 years (possibly as little as 5).

Not much would be gained by any government having control over the internet.what could they do with it that would benefit them in any way?if they turned it into a propaganda machine peple would stop using it,apart from people who already love the government in question.

I hope the EU doesn't get control of it. If it does, bye bye online free speech.
If that isn't a ridiculous statement in a ridiculous thread..

Not much would be gained by any government having control over the internet.what could they do with it that would benefit them in any way?if they turned it into a propaganda machine peple would stop using it,apart from people who already love the government in question.
Exactly. Before long, we'd just be using the official propaganda sites to hide our real surfing (sex, money, politics, and sex -- woohoo!), and freedom will reign again.

All the development is along the lines of greater individual control, greater portability, lower costs, more private ownership of infrastructure (satellites, etc), all of which will eventually decentralize both control and access. This issue will be obsolete as soon as its resolved.

It was compared to print -- well, once upon a time there was only one printing press in the world. That's not the case anymore.

Yes, you do. Another site was almost shutdown for itwhat site?

*cough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet)

"The collective network gained a public face in the 1990s. In August 1991 Tim Berners-Lee publicized his new World Wide Web project, two years after he had begun creating HTML, HTTP and the first few web pages at CERN in Switzerland. In 1993 the Mosaic web browser version 1.0 was released, and by late 1994 there was growing public interest in the previously academic/technical Internet. By 1996 the word "Internet" was common public currency, but it referred almost entirely to the World Wide Web."

Two points.

A: "World Wide Web"
B: "You keep what you create", huh? Funny, then, that the Internet runs on a system created by a research lab run by most of the nations of the EU, then.


Then you have to admit, Lee did not create it.

The infrastructure, and addressing systems, presently known as the "Internet" has been in operation since 1968.... The network, packet-switching, etc. systems are used by various differing protocols developed over time...

TCP, along with the very term "Internet" came into use by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn in 1974

USENET, by Steve Bellovin, a graduate student at University of North Carolina... in 1979

TCP/IP became the offical standard of use on ARPANET (as it was known then) in 1983


Lee didn't "invent" the internet any more than that troll Gore.

I sell them along with my ten dollar "Jew wave disrupter" tinfoil hats.

Ohhhh... I bet those would be big sellers around the neo-nazi's! if any of them had jobs...

While TIm berner-Lee didn't invent the infrastructure he did invent the first viable way of widespread usage.

Ona side note i would liek to point out that BT (British Telecom) do actually own the patent on Hyperlinks, Anyone else remeber thier bungled attempt to sue all the big players a few years ago as the 20year period was comming to an end?

If that isn't a ridiculous statement in a ridiculous thread..

Europe is an Orwellian nightmare of political correctness, where saying things that aren't sugar-coated and politically correct are construed as "hate crime." In many European countries, even displaying a Nazi flag is evil. Don't get me wrong, I hate Nazi fuckers as much as the next guy, but everyone deserves free speech, even scum.

Europe is an Orwellian nightmare of political correctness, where saying things that aren't sugar-coated and politically correct are construed as "hate crime." In many European countries, even displaying a Nazi flag is evil. Don't get me wrong, I hate Nazi fuckers as much as the next guy, but everyone deserves free speech, even scum.Maybe thats why Nazi flags are forbidden here in NationStates...the Servers are located in Europe.

Europe is an Orwellian nightmare of political correctness, where saying things that aren't sugar-coated and politically correct are construed as "hate crime." In many European countries, even displaying a Nazi flag is evil. Don't get me wrong, I hate Nazi fuckers as much as the next guy, but everyone deserves free speech, even scum.
you can be a nazi and believe in facism and national socialism, go on marches and do whatever the hell you want to in the name of free speech... but you just can't be a Nazi (note the capital 'N'), and the flag of the Nazi party is part of that.
the reason stems from this little thing called world war two.....

Europe is an Orwellian nightmare of political correctness, where saying things that aren't sugar-coated and politically correct are construed as "hate crime." In many European countries, even displaying a Nazi flag is evil. Don't get me wrong, I hate Nazi fuckers as much as the next guy, but everyone deserves free speech, even scum.
I would like you to call your local police and ask if you can burn a cross in your own lawn.

I would like you to call your local police and ask if you can burn a cross in your own lawn.

What's that supposed to mean?

What's that supposed to mean?
Nothing if you don't live in the US.

Afraid of the internet being controlled by national goverments eh? Too late (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/17/tech/main781967.shtml).

Afraid of the internet being controlled by national goverments eh? Too late (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/17/tech/main781967.shtml).too late...indeed.

Afraid of the internet being controlled by national goverments eh? Too late (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/17/tech/main781967.shtml).
WTF all that creating that domain name would HELP parents IDENTIFY these sites
It would not encourage or discourage adult sites

Friggin idiots

WTF all that creating that domain name would HELP parents IDENTIFY these sites
It would not encourage or discourage adult sites

Friggin idiots


That link clearly demonstrates that the US goverment does have a finger in domain name creation. Since the US goverment is not my goverment, I don't trust it to "run" the internet.

(Before any flames, I again repeat my opinion that the EU should create/help create an international body were all countries can have a say about the direction of the Internet, even if the US is against it, even if that demands the creation of "a new internet" or whatever it would be).

That link clearly demonstrates that the US goverment does have a finger in domain name creation. Since the US goverment is not my goverment, I don't trust it to "run" the internet.

(Before any flames, I again repeat my opinion that the EU should create/help create an international body were all countries can have a say about the direction of the Internet, even if the US is against it, even if that demands the creation of "a new internet" or whatever it would be).
What we should really do is have (as far as DNS) goes a truly geographic organization of domains with each of their name servers run by said country controlling admission

So root would be controlled by a third party (or consensus organization) but really root does not offer much in the way of control besides assigning the majors (root defines locations of the sub domains such as .com .edu .us . Uk ....) once thoes are added and located there should be no real mass modification to it so “decision making” really is not an issue

From that point each country can handle each of their own mains (for example .us handling us registrations)


This would allow each country to control who gets each domain

At that the REAL majors such as .edu .com and so on should be run by a neutral party and name registrations handled in a similar manner


The only “decisions” made by the root are what counts for a domain name (like the .xxx) the rest is handles by designated parties (it the most case countries)


It would be so simple

... the creation of "a new internet" or whatever it would be).It would be...2 Internets...

The World Internet and the US Internet...

All the servers located in Europe, Asia and the ROW would be hooked to the World Internet...and all the Servers located in the US would be hooked to the US Internet.

end of the problem.

It would be...2 Internets...

The World Internet and the US Internet...

All the servers based in Europe, Asia and the ROW would be hooked to the World Internet...and all the Servers located in the US would be hooked to the US Internet.

end of the problem.
I don't see a practical way of accomplishing this ... not without more changes then I think anybody is willing to make

I don't see a practical way of accomplishing this ... not without more changes then I think anybody is willing to makeThe only changes would be that people in the US can only talk with each other.

I would be able to access the NationStates site and NS forums...because I expend most of my time overseas. :D

But you wont be able...from Minnesota :p

The only changes would be that people in the US can only talk with each other.

I would be able to access the NationStates site and NS forums...because I expend most of my time overseas. :D :D :cool: :D

But you won be able...from Minnesota :p
Ment technological changes

There is no practical way of seperating the LOGICAL traffic out ... with routing rules as are next hop sorting from sender and reciver would be

Intensive
and buggy

I have never seen it sucessfully done on any scale larger then a university

Ment technological changes

There is no practical way of seperating the LOGICAL traffic out ... with routing rules as are next hop sorting from sender and reciver would be.

I have never seen it sucessfully done on any scale larger then a universityI have never seen it done unsucessfully...have you?

'No one' controls the internet, and NO ONE should, they may claim that the US does but the internet is worldwide and outside of control as it were. I'd only support it if the international commitiee would arrest Spyware producing companies. Which they won't

I have never seen it done unsucessfully...have you?
No I ment we have tried with a scale larger then a university (the idea is simmilar to packet shaping) with the minnesota school system

The hardware does not exist that can handle reading packets on that scale

I HAVE seen it fail at the larger then university level

I see no way to push it to entire country level

No I ment we have tried with a scale larger then a university (the idea is simmilar to packet shaping) with the minnesota school system

The hardware does not exist that can handle reading packets on that scale
You are probably thinking "filtering" the Packets traffic...like filtering Porn and stuff...

But I am talking "Cutting" the Traffic.

Like in cutting the (trans-oceanic) Optical cables...that links the US backbones to the EU/Asia/ROW Backbones.

What we should really do is have (as far as DNS) goes a truly geographic organization of domains with each of their name servers run by said country controlling admission

So root would be controlled by a third party (or consensus organization) but really root does not offer much in the way of control besides assigning the majors (root defines locations of the sub domains such as .com .edu .us . Uk ....) once thoes are added and located there should be no real mass modification to it so “decision making” really is not an issue

From that point each country can handle each of their own mains (for example .us handling us registrations)


This would allow each country to control who gets each domain

At that the REAL majors such as .edu .com and so on should be run by a neutral party and name registrations handled in a similar manner


The only “decisions” made by the root are what counts for a domain name (like the .xxx) the rest is handles by designated parties (it the most case countries)


It would be so simple

Yeah, ICANN only controls domain traffic, and the DNS root. (This could be easilt split, and to some extent, already is).

The actual physical addressing, on the other hand, is a problem. IANA becomes more of a challenge... While the ICANN/InterNIC DNS services are easily spread.... IANA requires central authority and control.

You are probably thinking "filtering" the Packets traffic...like filtering Porn and stuff...

But I am talking "Cutting" the Traffic.

Like in cutting the (trans-oceanic) Optical cables...that links the US backbones to the EU/Asia/ROW Backbones.

Well, given the massive agreements, and reliance that telecoms in those areas have with Exodus.net and Above.net [the massive corporations that own 90% of the trans-oceanic cabling infrastructure across the globe); I seriously doubt they would be willing to "cut" those lines.

This is all really going to far. If the internet splits with the US and then EU/Asia/ROW having all your own. There would be economic collapse. Despite how much everyone around the world hates the US. And how much ignorance clouds the minds of those in US to make rational decisions. The internet is so vital that if the US does not agree then the other nations cannot really do much since there are companies in the US that the world relies on.

So alright you cut the transatlantic cables, why not cut the rest of the ties that bind the US to the world and see how long everything lasts before the collapse comes. Because that is what you are practically preaching.

Well, given the massive agreements, and reliance that telecoms in those areas have with Exodus.net and Above.net [the massive corporations that own 90% of the trans-oceanic cabling infrastructure across the globe); I seriously doubt they would be willing to "cut" those lines.The Telecoms you are talking about...they are regulated...the Govs tell them what they can and what they cant do.

This is all really going to far. If the internet splits with the US and then EU/Asia/ROW having all your own. There would be economic collapse. Despite how much everyone around the world hates the US. And how much ignorance clouds the minds of those in US to make rational decisions. The internet is so vital that if the US does not agree then the other nations cannot really do much since there are companies in the US that the world relies on.

So alright you cut the transatlantic cables, why not cut the rest of the ties that bind the US to the world and see how long everything lasts before the collapse comes. Because that is what you are practically preaching.I am not preaching anything...

I am simply *reminding* some...that The only infrastructure that The US owns...is the one located in the US...

In a way, I am addressing the dudes saying "We own the Internet...go and make your Own Internet"...Those dudes they are *how can I say politely*...They are...Idiots.

would you say they got the message?

I am not preaching anything...

I am simply proving that The only infrastructure that The US owns...is the one located in the US...

The people saying "We own the Internet...go and make your Own Internet"...Those peoples they are...how can I say this nicely...They are...Idiots.

would you say they got the message?

And why cant each nation have their own DNS location? Every country as its own telephone companies and seperate telephone numbers. What would be the difference if they all had their own but still connected with almost no change?

And why cant each nation have their own DNS location? Every country as its own telephone companies and seperate telephone numbers. What would be the difference if they all had their own but still connected with almost no change?Good question...(translation: I dont know aboit it)