News US in charge of the net till 2011

[Garside]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/08...le_of_the_net/

[sinizterguy]

Theyll probably ruin a good chunk of it. But I hope not.

[DougEdey]

If they shut down the Net ANYWHERE there will be a huge uprising. Especially for a country which believes in "freedom"

[mmorgue]

Well, for a country that is supposed to be the "land of the free", they certainly seem to be telling everyone else what to do and how to do it.

And if they feel that a certain country isn't "democratic" enough to meet the US' criteria, they could do whatever they want if they can control domain names.

Nope - not a good state of affairs. I don't trust the US (politics/policy/govt) -- never have and never will.

[Cthippo]

Generally I would agree with you, but their track record so far has been fairly harmless, so while this isn't necessarily good news, I don't think it's bad either. I think iCANN has done a good job running things thus far, and I don't have any problem with them keeping the contract. I would prefer to see that contract let by the UN rather than the US though.

[bender386]

I dont trust them either but these days what doesnt the US run

[specofdust]

I dislike this, but I doubt it'll cause any harm. It just makes me uneasy. It'll be nice if it gets turned over to an independant UN funded body sometime though.

[DXR_13KE]

if they wage war against a country they can simply close their internet....... bah!!!! another WMD for USA.

i seriously hope this comes under control of the EU soon.

[specofdust]

I highly doubt it'll ever come under EU control, the US would probably feel that was too much off a loss to an inferior power. Independant UN funded control, as I've argued in the past, is the best answer.

[chunky_monkey]

The US should not be in control of anything that extends beyond their borders but they don't seem to realise this. Internet, other countries, all the same to them.

[cpemma]

Originally Posted by The Register

However, on 28 July 2005 at a special board meeting of internet overseeing organisation ICANN, ownership of both Iraq (.iq) and Kazakhstan (.kz) was changed in a way that soon after saw a change in ownership for South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (.gs) and Tokelau (.tk).

At that meeting, consciously and for the first time, ICANN used a US government-provided reason to turn over Kazakhstan's internet ownership to a government owned and run association without requiring consent from the existing owners. The previous owners, KazNIC, had been created from the country's Internet community.

ICANN then immediately used that "precedent" to hand ownership of Iraq's internet over to another government-run body, without accounting for any objections that the existing owners might have.

Previously it had always been the case that ICANN would take no action (and only ICANN, through IANA, can actually change ownership of a ccTLD) unless both sides were in complete agreement. Now, ICANN had set itself up as the de facto world authority on who should run different parts of the Internet.

I don't think UN control would be much better - all governments like to have things under their influence, witness the many "watchdogs" on UK utilities, or the way in which Camelot give a majority of lottery funding to subsidise government spending.

There's no easy answer, also witness the way the independent Firefox team couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

[mikeuk2004]

lol wouldnt supprise me if there is secret code in MS. So when a the USA is at war someone they can send a code to all the enemies pc's and MS blows them up. Then the USA can shut down their internet too.

[specofdust]

Originally Posted by cpemma

I don't think UN control would be much better - all governments like to have things under their influence, witness the many "watchdogs" on UK utilities, or the way in which Camelot give a majority of lottery funding to subsidise government spending.

There's no easy answer, also witness the way the independent Firefox team couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

Assuming that was in response to me, I don't want UN control. I want control to be independant of any other bodies, except for in funding. Since something like 190/220(IIRC) countries in the world are part of the UN, it would mean that funding for this independant group would be provided by all nations. It would also have the cause of making the body apolitical, and if based somewhere in Switzerland(the logical choice), fairly unlikely to be invaded too.

[Asphix]

A solid argument could be made from either perspective. Personally, I believe that since the internet was developed in the US and much of its design and concept was drawn up here, that the US has a right to maintain control over it for the time being.

Its sort of like an IP of sorts.

However, I can see the argument against and sympathize with it as well. If i didnt live in the US.. i'm sure my opinion would be different. There is no easy solution to this dilema, as any solution would require a collaborative effort between multiple nations similar to what happens in the UN.. and we all know how well that works out in most situations. *sarcasm*

In the conext of technology and how quickly it moves.. I believe there is better consumer benefit (both for users inside and outside the US) with the US in control of the internet. However, there is the potential of the US using it as a barganing chip and what not as a possible negative.. and its quite a serious negative if used in that form.

I've no doubt a solution will be found some day. Things like this take time, and bringing attention to the issue is the first step towards finding that solution. Even if the US agreed to hand over control.. it wouldnt be in one year. Regardless.. we would need a worth while solution both to national interests (not having the net held over countries heads for political reasons) and consumer interests (having an organization in control of it who can act quickly to keep up with technological changes) before making any moves for change.

[EK-MDi]

I'm not particularly happy about this at all, and I think the power should be handed over to the World Wide Web Consortium. Not the UN.

[quack]

Most of ICANN's duties aren't even relevant to the World Wide Web, they manage the allotment of IP addresses and DNS.

P.S. The guy in charge is Paul Twomey, not Towmey.

[Lonesarah]

Originally Posted by mmorgue

Well, for a country that is supposed to be the "land of the free", they certainly seem to be telling everyone else what to do and how to do it.

And if they feel that a certain country isn't "democratic" enough to meet the US' criteria, they could do whatever they want if they can control domain names.

Nope - not a good state of affairs. I don't trust the US (politics/policy/govt) -- never have and never will.

You trust the current US (politics/policy/govt), but i'm sure once bush leaves office your in love us again.

The u.s has done a decent job of controling the internet and we have never used for war yet?. I think the control of internet shouldn't be in the hands of govermants at all, the internet should belong to private companies.

--P.P.S. - Flaming is a no-no. Keep it civil, and keep it on topic. (Da Dego)

[Stuey]

Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

i seriously hope this comes under control of the EU soon.

What - are you kidding me? How's THAT going to be better?!

Anyways, the US is in charge until 2011. I see no problems with that.

Seriously though, I agree that perhaps an independent controlling party would be an adequate alternative. Perhaps the Swiss like spec said.

Originally Posted by lonesarah

the internet should belong to private companies

Yea, ok. What's worse than a manipulative and lying politician? A greedy money-grubbing corporate slease-ball executive.

mmorgue, please... if the US wanted a country to be cut off from the internet, it wouldn't mess around with domain names when it could mess things up in so many other levels. I remember a little while back when an underwater pipeline were severed and most of a country (I forgot which) had no internet access while the other untouched pipeline was uber-congested until repairs were made.

[Lonesarah]

Originally Posted by Stuey83

What - are you kidding me? How's THAT going to be better?!

Anyways, the US is in charge until 2011. I see no problems with that.

Seriously though, I agree that perhaps an independent controlling party would be an adequate alternative. Perhaps the Swiss like spec said.



Yea, ok. What's worse than a manipulative and lying politician? A greedy money-grubbing corporate slease-ball executive.

mmorgue, please... if the US wanted a country to be cut off from the internet, it wouldn't mess around with domain names when it could mess things up in so many other levels. I remember a little while back when an underwater pipeline were severed and most of a country (I forgot which) had no internet access while the other untouched pipeline was uber-congested until repairs were made.

Well what's the altertive let some happie like you and your pals have contorl

[specofdust]

Originally Posted by Lonesarah

Well what's the altertive let some happie like you and your pals have contorl

There are plenty of alternatives.

P.S. **** Europe

P.S. Grow up

edit: And also, google the word "spellchecker".