Comments on: Senator: Keep U.N. away from the Internet

The United Nations has no place controlling the Internet, says a Senate resolution introduced before a summit next month.

We will not let the Ayatollah censor US websites.

That is what the third world wants. Really.
Why do you think that the meeting is being
held in Tunisia?

[casper2004]

Re: WE WILL NOT LET THE AYATOLLAH CENSOR US WEBSITES.

We don't have the Ayatollah to worry about. Osama is the one who took away america's rights when he executed 9/11

[Far Star]

Ayatollah? In Tunisia?!

You really need to **** and read some books ... or maybe pass the 6th grade, take your pick.

Tunisia is a Republic. There is no Ayatollah, they have a President. They have a democracy very similar to the USA, including a Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

Go back to whatever you were doing and don't ever come back here unless you have something to add to the discussion that is materially relevant to said discussion.

We will not let the Ayatollah censor US websites.

That is what the third world wants. Really.
Why do you think that the meeting is being
held in Tunisia?

[casper2004]

Re: WE WILL NOT LET THE AYATOLLAH CENSOR US WEBSITES.

We don't have the Ayatollah to worry about. Osama is the one who took away america's rights when he executed 9/11

[Far Star]

Ayatollah? In Tunisia?!

You really need to **** and read some books ... or maybe pass the 6th grade, take your pick.

Tunisia is a Republic. There is no Ayatollah, they have a President. They have a democracy very similar to the USA, including a Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

Go back to whatever you were doing and don't ever come back here unless you have something to add to the discussion that is materially relevant to said discussion.

[thoolis]

Too Many Cooks

For me, the concern isn't what WILL be done if control changed, but what WON'T be done.

"Too many cooks spoil the broth", as the saying goes, and I don't believe that any international committee approach to governance of something so technical and complex will allow for the necessary evolution of the net.

UN representatives will put incredible amounts of time and effort into negotiating the smallest net-related issues, in an effort to get whatever it is they need from the UN. Net issues become a political bargaining chip for nations either too poor to benefit from it in the first place, or with views on governance that are incompatible with free speech and expression. The net will stagnate, and eventually become useless to a technologically progressive world.

Folks can argue whether the US or UN are good or evil entities until their faces turn blue, but I don't think that part of the argument decides anything. For me the issue is flexibility and adaptability. (And I usually don't hear those words mentioned in the same sentence as "U.N.") ICANN has demonstrated its ability to manage things well so far.

Here's a thought. Rather than debating whether the US or UN is better suited to run things, how about answering this: What has ICANN done to convince anyone that they SHOULDN'T be allowed to continue doing the job?

[thoolis]

Too Many Cooks

For me, the concern isn't what WILL be done if control changed, but what WON'T be done.

"Too many cooks spoil the broth", as the saying goes, and I don't believe that any international committee approach to governance of something so technical and complex will allow for the necessary evolution of the net.

UN representatives will put incredible amounts of time and effort into negotiating the smallest net-related issues, in an effort to get whatever it is they need from the UN. Net issues become a political bargaining chip for nations either too poor to benefit from it in the first place, or with views on governance that are incompatible with free speech and expression. The net will stagnate, and eventually become useless to a technologically progressive world.

Folks can argue whether the US or UN are good or evil entities until their faces turn blue, but I don't think that part of the argument decides anything. For me the issue is flexibility and adaptability. (And I usually don't hear those words mentioned in the same sentence as "U.N.") ICANN has demonstrated its ability to manage things well so far.

Here's a thought. Rather than debating whether the US or UN is better suited to run things, how about answering this: What has ICANN done to convince anyone that they SHOULDN'T be allowed to continue doing the job?

Go stuff it, Kofi

If the UN thinks it can do it better than the US, then they're welcome to set up their own dns system. The protocols & physical infrastruture are already in place. Then, when they have it running, with the rest of the world holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I'm sure the U.S. - with it's economy ruined from isolation - will come crawling back to them asking to be part of the UN-run net.


haha, sometimes I crack myself up.

Kumbaya, Kofi

>If the UN thinks it can do it better than the
>US, then they're welcome to set up their own
>dns system. The protocols & physical
>infrastruture are already in place. Then, when
>they have it running, with the rest of the
>world holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I'm
>sure the U.S. - with it's economy ruined from
>isolation - will come crawling back to them
>asking to be part of the UN-run net. haha,
>sometimes I crack myself up.


Damn, that's funny.

Go stuff it, Kofi

If the UN thinks it can do it better than the US, then they're welcome to set up their own dns system. The protocols & physical infrastruture are already in place. Then, when they have it running, with the rest of the world holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I'm sure the U.S. - with it's economy ruined from isolation - will come crawling back to them asking to be part of the UN-run net.


haha, sometimes I crack myself up.

Kumbaya, Kofi

>If the UN thinks it can do it better than the
>US, then they're welcome to set up their own
>dns system. The protocols & physical
>infrastruture are already in place. Then, when
>they have it running, with the rest of the
>world holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I'm
>sure the U.S. - with it's economy ruined from
>isolation - will come crawling back to them
>asking to be part of the UN-run net. haha,
>sometimes I crack myself up.


Damn, that's funny.

What's the point?

What's the point of wresting the registry from
one troop of baboons and then just handing it to
another? At least with the US at the helm,
you've got someone to villify when things are
bad. If you hand control to the UN, nobody is
responsible.

It would be nice to think the UN is a competent
organization with the best interest of mankind
at heart, but even the staunchest supporter of
the UN has to admit it's beset by bureaucracy,
squabbles, and corruption to the extent that
it's utterly ineffectual as coordinating body.
It's not supposed to be anything more than a
forum.

No, the UN is a poor choice to manage the
top-level DNS servers. Such is much better
served by non-governmental interests. Preferably
those with a vested personal interest in
maintaing a stable and open architecture
unimpeded by the fickle motives and whims of
various nations.

I don't think the US ought to claim hosting the
top-level servers as their prerogative -- doing
so isn't just petty and makes us look bad, but
as a practical matter the system as it is is not
working out so well because of domestic
political and corporate meddling. Better for all
if that doesn't happen.

My guess is that we the people (i.e. citizens of
Earth) will collectively and corporately get
screwed yet again by well-meaning but myopic
governments sticking their nose where it doesn't
belong. Like fido-net before the Internet, it
will be up to the people to pick up the pieces
after the governments break it (if we're even
interested at that point). To an extent, you
already see that happening with the advent of
new routing and privacy technologies like Tor
and Freenet and circumventing local broadband
monopolies using municipal wireless networks.

If they screw up DNS they'll make it irrelevent.
We'll implement an alternate solution.

[Far Star]

The point is ...

"At least with the US at the helm, you've got someone to villify when things are bad."

Heh, and we might be the only nation that can take said vilification and keep on going.

"I don't think the US ought to claim hosting the top-level servers as their prerogative -- doing so isn't just petty and makes us look bad, but as a practical matter the system as it is is not working out so well because of domestic political and corporate meddling. Better for all if that doesn't happen."

Two comments on the above:

1) The USA does not in fact even control all the root servers, we only control 4 of the 13. All those servers are replicating servers thus the IP tables on each are mirrors of the others. This critical fact is being missed. DNS control is already global ... and no UN was needed.

What the USA could be viewed as 'controlling' is ICANN. However this is not really true either. ICANN was spun off from the US government years ago and is now a nonprofit corporation charged to maintain and govern all the root servers and tld name spaces. Thus even though they exist in the US they are basically independent from US control. The only thing they are is a US corporation with a mandate from the US government to do what they do.

2) Domestic (i.e. regional), political and corporate meddling is one of the big reasons why we dare not let the UN take over. The UN has all the above but on a grand scale that would cause things to unravel quickly. Remember the UN is NOT a governing body but a venue for discussion and debate between nations so that compromises can be made to keep us all from going to war (and some will argue it ever sucks at doing that).

Now ICANN is not a great organization, they are seriously f'ing up on a regular basis, but I seriously doubt the UN would do any better. In fact I can see them doing far worse considering the backstabbing, bureaucratic nightmares, corruption, and partisanship that regularly make up the UN. No, not a good idea to let them have control, we'd see the Internet split up far sooner if they do.

Only a strong government with a foundation of freedom can keep things truly free for all. Is the US the best for this? Some say yes, some say no, but honestly it IS the best at this time and is a far better steward than the UN would be ... ever.

Peace.

What's the point?

What's the point of wresting the registry from
one troop of baboons and then just handing it to
another? At least with the US at the helm,
you've got someone to villify when things are
bad. If you hand control to the UN, nobody is
responsible.

It would be nice to think the UN is a competent
organization with the best interest of mankind
at heart, but even the staunchest supporter of
the UN has to admit it's beset by bureaucracy,
squabbles, and corruption to the extent that
it's utterly ineffectual as coordinating body.
It's not supposed to be anything more than a
forum.

No, the UN is a poor choice to manage the
top-level DNS servers. Such is much better
served by non-governmental interests. Preferably
those with a vested personal interest in
maintaing a stable and open architecture
unimpeded by the fickle motives and whims of
various nations.

I don't think the US ought to claim hosting the
top-level servers as their prerogative -- doing
so isn't just petty and makes us look bad, but
as a practical matter the system as it is is not
working out so well because of domestic
political and corporate meddling. Better for all
if that doesn't happen.

My guess is that we the people (i.e. citizens of
Earth) will collectively and corporately get
screwed yet again by well-meaning but myopic
governments sticking their nose where it doesn't
belong. Like fido-net before the Internet, it
will be up to the people to pick up the pieces
after the governments break it (if we're even
interested at that point). To an extent, you
already see that happening with the advent of
new routing and privacy technologies like Tor
and Freenet and circumventing local broadband
monopolies using municipal wireless networks.

If they screw up DNS they'll make it irrelevent.
We'll implement an alternate solution.

[Far Star]

The point is ...

"At least with the US at the helm, you've got someone to villify when things are bad."

Heh, and we might be the only nation that can take said vilification and keep on going.

"I don't think the US ought to claim hosting the top-level servers as their prerogative -- doing so isn't just petty and makes us look bad, but as a practical matter the system as it is is not working out so well because of domestic political and corporate meddling. Better for all if that doesn't happen."

Two comments on the above:

1) The USA does not in fact even control all the root servers, we only control 4 of the 13. All those servers are replicating servers thus the IP tables on each are mirrors of the others. This critical fact is being missed. DNS control is already global ... and no UN was needed.

What the USA could be viewed as 'controlling' is ICANN. However this is not really true either. ICANN was spun off from the US government years ago and is now a nonprofit corporation charged to maintain and govern all the root servers and tld name spaces. Thus even though they exist in the US they are basically independent from US control. The only thing they are is a US corporation with a mandate from the US government to do what they do.

2) Domestic (i.e. regional), political and corporate meddling is one of the big reasons why we dare not let the UN take over. The UN has all the above but on a grand scale that would cause things to unravel quickly. Remember the UN is NOT a governing body but a venue for discussion and debate between nations so that compromises can be made to keep us all from going to war (and some will argue it ever sucks at doing that).

Now ICANN is not a great organization, they are seriously f'ing up on a regular basis, but I seriously doubt the UN would do any better. In fact I can see them doing far worse considering the backstabbing, bureaucratic nightmares, corruption, and partisanship that regularly make up the UN. No, not a good idea to let them have control, we'd see the Internet split up far sooner if they do.

Only a strong government with a foundation of freedom can keep things truly free for all. Is the US the best for this? Some say yes, some say no, but honestly it IS the best at this time and is a far better steward than the UN would be ... ever.

Peace.

[onexge]

international organisations

I don't know what you people mean when you talk about "the UN", and I don't think you do either. But international cooperation to define standards and allocate resources through treaty organisations has a long history: the Universal Postal Union, the International Telecommunications Union, the International Standards Organisation, the International Maritime Organisation, the World Health Organisation, and so on. Of course Senator Coleman would rather engage in beating straw men with red herrings, like so many policitians.

[onexge]

international organisations

I don't know what you people mean when you talk about "the UN", and I don't think you do either. But international cooperation to define standards and allocate resources through treaty organisations has a long history: the Universal Postal Union, the International Telecommunications Union, the International Standards Organisation, the International Maritime Organisation, the World Health Organisation, and so on. Of course Senator Coleman would rather engage in beating straw men with red herrings, like so many policitians.

The New World Information Order

Anybody remember the "World Information Order"?
It was a UN-sponsored proposal to have an
international system of licensese for newspapers,
radio stations, tv networks, etc. The best part
was that you could have your license revoked for
saying anything bad about any government on the
planet.

It was a tin-foil-helmet UN-hating-nut's worst
wet dream, but it was seriously proposed by
UNESCO in the late 1970s (I think). At that
time, the US run run by some weak-kneed people
who were trying to make nice with Qadaffi and
people like him, so we actually made like we were
open to this stupid idea for a few months.

Why do I bring this up?
To show that the UN hasn't changed.

http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/50721/

[Too Old For IT]

The UN is a weak sock puppet ...

... of all the strong-arm dictators of the world. It is THEY who want to power to block any ideas of democracy or (GACK!!) a constitutional republic from their oppressed people. And the UN (or any UN sponsored organization) is the perfect spineless patsy to do it through.

Other than that, the UN is a good place for all the US haters to collect and vent. It is real good at coming in after-the-fact and keeping the peace, once peace has been established. Wasting money is a good UN task as well. Supporting tyrants and oppressing democracy are well within the UN's watch.

Other than this short list, the UN is absolutely incapapble of anything more than pouring pee out of a boot with instructions written under the heel. Some days I wonder if they can even do that correctly.

The New World Information Order

Anybody remember the "World Information Order"?
It was a UN-sponsored proposal to have an
international system of licensese for newspapers,
radio stations, tv networks, etc. The best part
was that you could have your license revoked for
saying anything bad about any government on the
planet.

It was a tin-foil-helmet UN-hating-nut's worst
wet dream, but it was seriously proposed by
UNESCO in the late 1970s (I think). At that
time, the US run run by some weak-kneed people
who were trying to make nice with Qadaffi and
people like him, so we actually made like we were
open to this stupid idea for a few months.

Why do I bring this up?
To show that the UN hasn't changed.

http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/50721/

[Too Old For IT]

The UN is a weak sock puppet ...

... of all the strong-arm dictators of the world. It is THEY who want to power to block any ideas of democracy or (GACK!!) a constitutional republic from their oppressed people. And the UN (or any UN sponsored organization) is the perfect spineless patsy to do it through.

Other than that, the UN is a good place for all the US haters to collect and vent. It is real good at coming in after-the-fact and keeping the peace, once peace has been established. Wasting money is a good UN task as well. Supporting tyrants and oppressing democracy are well within the UN's watch.

Other than this short list, the UN is absolutely incapapble of anything more than pouring pee out of a boot with instructions written under the heel. Some days I wonder if they can even do that correctly.

net needs no control....

since our leaders are "all knowing", then they must certainly unsterstand chaos theory... or maybe they dont actually practice what they preach... maybe they have no practice at all... freak ass puppets

net needs no control....

since our leaders are "all knowing", then they must certainly unsterstand chaos theory... or maybe they dont actually practice what they preach... maybe they have no practice at all... freak ass puppets

UN in charge of anything?

The UN has become this bloated corrupt venue for hateful world government sucking resources from the U.S. (and other nations that are rich, democratic and peaceful) like a tick. Anytime the UN wants to "police" a nation whose military do they use? Whose monies support the programs that the UN comes up with? And in the general assembly things (like personal rights) can be voted away from us by the likes of N. Korea, Sudan and communist China (though they can create loopholes or just ignore the rules the UN makes at a whim)

My greatest desire would be tell the UN to move out and that we will no longer be their sugar daddy (if they have a just mission we can support ok else just go away)
Let the UN control the best information resource in the world is like giving keys to the asylum to the inmates

UN in charge of anything?

The UN has become this bloated corrupt venue for hateful world government sucking resources from the U.S. (and other nations that are rich, democratic and peaceful) like a tick. Anytime the UN wants to "police" a nation whose military do they use? Whose monies support the programs that the UN comes up with? And in the general assembly things (like personal rights) can be voted away from us by the likes of N. Korea, Sudan and communist China (though they can create loopholes or just ignore the rules the UN makes at a whim)

My greatest desire would be tell the UN to move out and that we will no longer be their sugar daddy (if they have a just mission we can support ok else just go away)
Let the UN control the best information resource in the world is like giving keys to the asylum to the inmates

[H Voyager]

It's the way the system is designed

If the DNS aren't mirrored and aren't reading from the same tables, then they aren't necessarily going to direct people to the same addresses.

It's like reading maps that don't use the same street addresses. On one map, 611 N Sycamore may be in the middle of East Texas, while on the other map, 611 N Sycamore may be in the middle of western Wisconsin. If the spot you're looking for is the one in East Texas, and you're reading the Wisconsin map, you won't get to the site you're trying to.

Same deal with the DNS root servers.

The only way to prevent this from happening is by coordinating the DNS root tables, and that requires some form of central DNS authority.

Harry Voyager

[H Voyager]

It's the way the system is designed

If the DNS aren't mirrored and aren't reading from the same tables, then they aren't necessarily going to direct people to the same addresses.

It's like reading maps that don't use the same street addresses. On one map, 611 N Sycamore may be in the middle of East Texas, while on the other map, 611 N Sycamore may be in the middle of western Wisconsin. If the spot you're looking for is the one in East Texas, and you're reading the Wisconsin map, you won't get to the site you're trying to.

Same deal with the DNS root servers.

The only way to prevent this from happening is by coordinating the DNS root tables, and that requires some form of central DNS authority.

Harry Voyager

[tahbasco]

Not a big deal....

Why is this a hot issue? The US doesn't and shouldn't give up "control" of the Internet. I coud understand the uproar if this was a country ruled by dictatorship, but it's not. It's a free thinking country and I see no cause for us to hand it over to the UN. I doubt there will ever be any censorships or regulations on the Internet as long as we are in charge.

[tahbasco]

Not a big deal....

Why is this a hot issue? The US doesn't and shouldn't give up "control" of the Internet. I coud understand the uproar if this was a country ruled by dictatorship, but it's not. It's a free thinking country and I see no cause for us to hand it over to the UN. I doubt there will ever be any censorships or regulations on the Internet as long as we are in charge.