Article

2005-10-06 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-10-06 11:30|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Good for them, create your own internet and control whatever part you want. I will bet that the U.S. will retain control over it's resources and let the others flounder. The first elected official that votes in favor of this might as well kiss his political career goodbye.

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2005-10-06 12:01|| 2005-10-06 12:01|| Front Page Top

#2 It certainly will be interesting for multi-nationals that use the inet.

otoh, it may cut down on my e-mail from nigeria.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-10-06 12:04|| 2005-10-06 12:04|| Front Page Top

#3 Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.

But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.

But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies"?

No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users."

And how would they do that? LOL! Asshats will scream and kick their little feet. We could just create a US-only internet and shut out their servers....how much good would that do for anyone?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-06 12:08|| 2005-10-06 12:08|| Front Page Top

#4 I think they'll try to have an internet that does not accept connections from the US, isolating us. It'll work, too, if they can get everyone else to agree. But that won't happen on the first pass, certainly. Maybe, however, if our Int'l "standing" continues to fall, there will, indeed, be a TranziNet and a USNet. Since the great preponderance of online data resides here, in the US, they'd better start stealing now to stock their servers up for the cold season ahead. As the studies show, the research data, medical, tech, et al, originates in large degree from the US. We're the world's seed corn, at the moment. What will they eat next spring, I wonder?

Posted by .com 2005-10-06 12:16|| 2005-10-06 12:16|| Front Page Top

#5 Should be titles "How To Fragment the Internet", as that's what will happen. You'll have 2, 3, 4 networks, all with their own name spaqces, and controlled by different groups.

China in charge of MY network?

Cold dead hands, bay-bee...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-10-06 13:21|| 2005-10-06 13:21|| Front Page Top

#6 It's all in the name of $ and power: a global tax on the net and information-screening by the dictators and insecure. The UN is in on this of course, for both reasons.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-06 13:26|| 2005-10-06 13:26|| Front Page Top

#7 The internet - managed by those who brought us the Oil-for-Palaces and food-for-nookie programs.

As anyone asked Al Gore about this?

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-10-06 13:31|| 2005-10-06 13:31|| Front Page Top

#8 Great! Spyware for EVERYBODY!!!

Posted by tu3031 2005-10-06 13:39|| 2005-10-06 13:39|| Front Page Top

#9 ..now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control.

Wow, it all sounds so International Criminal Court-ish.....

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-06 14:03|| 2005-10-06 14:03|| Front Page Top

#10 The internet is not controlled by anybody. Though the root servers are in the US, name servers are located throughout the world. Those are the servers users connect to get around the net, and ther US does not control whether the name servers accept updates from the root servers.

More power to any dictatorships/wannabes want to slice off their own little bit of nirvana. All I ask is that the US impose a tariff to access any US data goodies on those that do so.

Posted by ed 2005-10-06 14:17|| 2005-10-06 14:17|| Front Page Top

#11 Question: How much will the deal actually DO, as opposed to put on paper? (i.e. what's the status of ICANN, and what can Congress do.)

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-10-06 14:28|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-10-06 14:28|| Front Page Top

#12 Good idea Ed. I think that the Europeans should be careful what they ask for. They have never grasped the law of unintended consequences.

Posted by RWV 2005-10-06 14:28|| 2005-10-06 14:28|| Front Page Top

#13 I think the Europeans know what will happen so, given their irrelevance to the disposition of the issue, they decided to join with the turd world to get brownie points.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-10-06 14:31|| 2005-10-06 14:31|| Front Page Top

#14 But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies"?

No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users."

Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."

Uh huh. Sure. Yewbetcha.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-10-06 14:33|| 2005-10-06 14:33|| Front Page Top

#15 We should also note that the World Summit on the Information Society is being held in that beacon of international freedom and respect for human rights, Tunisia.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-10-06 14:38|| 2005-10-06 14:38|| Front Page Top

#16 The Declaration of Principles, adopted in Geneva 2003.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-10-06 14:42|| 2005-10-06 14:42|| Front Page Top

#17 Thanks, Seafarious. I love the part about "we rededicate ourselves to upholding the principle of the sovereign equality of all States".

Posted by Darrell 2005-10-06 14:56|| 2005-10-06 14:56|| Front Page Top

#18 Kind of like the EU Constitution, isn't it? I wonder if anyone in the world has actually read it from beginning to end in one sitting.

Posted by Darrell 2005-10-06 14:59|| 2005-10-06 14:59|| Front Page Top

#19 Heh. From http://www.zigguratofdoom.com/?p=923, via Daily Pundit:

In other news, these world governments voted themselves three unicorns, two fairies, a troll, a hundred bajillion lollipops, and everyone liking each other.

Look, Iâm not saying the DoC having control over the root servers is the best solution, but if these twits think they are going to wrestle it out of the DoCâs hands, theyâre delusional

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-10-06 15:28|| 2005-10-06 15:28|| Front Page Top

#20 I'd like to see where the ACLU stands on this one. I can imagine the free speech violations that might occur. The UN or whoever could monitor each computer. They would be able to dictate what's appropriate speech on the net. Could a country be sanctioned because another country was critical of Islam?? What if you were critical of the UN??

Posted by macofromoc 2005-10-06 15:42|| 2005-10-06 15:42|| Front Page Top

#21 It all comes down to cnesorship and control of content. The elites in the rest of the world can't abide the freedom of communication that is the internet. It bypasses all their carefully constructed controls of information. Information is power.

I will still have access to much of what I use the internet for even if cut off from the rest of the world so I could care less. Enjoy your "internet" UN. No one here will use it.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-10-06 15:54|| 2005-10-06 15:54|| Front Page Top

#22 I meant that as an honest question. How will the deal actually, in a meaningful way (towards the censorship intent) actually render "real" control of any portion of the Internet?

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-10-06 16:12|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-10-06 16:12|| Front Page Top

#23 Currently regimes (China, Saudi,..) use firewalls to filter adresses and content. It is a time consuming and compute intensive process. But dissidents can register new domains as old ones are firewalled. By having control of the registration process, they can make it harder for "unhealthy" information to jump around the net. Also by threathening to cut off access to domains with content that they disagree with (by either disappearing or rerouting their IP adresses), they can get sites (e.g. groups.yahoo.com, geocities) to self censor content.

Posted by ed 2005-10-06 17:05|| 2005-10-06 17:05|| Front Page Top

#24 The article is from the Guardian. I think I'll wait a little longer before I get all exercised about it.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-10-06 17:08|| 2005-10-06 17:08|| Front Page Top

#25 Let them build their own, they can even have their own extensions:
.comeu pronounced dot commie-you
.neteu pronounced dot net-ewwww.
or maybe they can just use .duh

Why don't they replace the WWW with 666 while they're at it.

Posted by wrinkleneck_trout 2005-10-06 18:29|| 2005-10-06 18:29|| Front Page Top

#26 trout, Ima gotr an extra scarf for sale. interested?

Posted by Dianne Feinstein 2005-10-06 18:54|| 2005-10-06 18:54|| Front Page Top

#27 Slashdot is discussing the same thing.
Link here

Posted by 3dc 2005-10-06 18:55|| 2005-10-06 18:55|| Front Page Top

#28 The /. crowd will be all for it, why bother to read it. Most ./ers are moonbats, comunists or anti-US anarchists.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-10-06 19:26|| 2005-10-06 19:26|| Front Page Top

#29 So ed, how would the deal actually allow them to seize control of the registration process?

Posted by Edward Yee 2005-10-06 19:28|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-10-06 19:28|| Front Page Top

#30 lol - thanks for the laugh/visual "Dianne"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-06 20:32|| 2005-10-06 20:32|| Front Page Top

#31 This whole control thing might be in the talking process, but if the UNiks and EUniks have their way, they will get control of it, at least their part. And there you go: unelected bureaucrats controlling the medium, or taxing it, etc etc. It will be attempted, as it is viewed as an attack on the US. What hurts the US is good for everyone else. And those with control will set the rules, and more freedom is NOT part of their agenda. After all, THEY know what is best for us.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-10-06 23:23|| 2005-10-06 23:23|| Front Page Top

#32 Indeed, AP - this is about

1) Creating a means of controlling public discourse / curbing free speech - firewalling info (the bad actors don't want disseminated) for everyone, not just their own poor captive people

2) Attacking the US in any and every way

3) Creating a potentially vast pot of money

Posted by .com 2005-10-06 23:29|| 2005-10-06 23:29|| Front Page Top

#33 Personally I think that control of the Internet should pass to a neutral third party. Perhaps a large software corporation that can ~~monopolize~~ guide the Internet in a strictly non-partisan independent manner.

Posted by William Gates 2005-10-07 00:00|| 2005-10-07 00:00|| Front Page Top

00:27 JosephMendiola
00:00 William Gates
23:54 JAB
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:46 DMFD
23:37 jules 2
23:30 Ernest Brown
23:29 .com
23:26 Captain America
23:23 .com
23:23 Alaska Paul
23:20 .com
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:16 jules 2
23:10 jules 2
23:02 SteveS
22:58 .com
22:55 .com
22:44 jules 2
22:37 Frank G
22:35 Frank G
22:15 Alaska Paul
22:08 OregonGuy
21:47 3dc