October 30, 2006 5:52 AM PST

U.N. proposes changes to Net's operation

ATHENS, Greece--A top United Nations official on Monday called for changes in the way the Internet is operated, taking aim at "self-serving justifications" for permitting the United States to preserve its unique influence and authority online.

Speaking during opening ceremonies at a four-day U.N. summit here, Yoshio Utsumi criticized the current rules for overseeing domain names and Internet addresses, stressing that poorer nations are dissatisfied and are hoping that this week's meeting will erode U.S. influence.

"Many of them are tired of hearing 'You just don't understand,'" said Utsumi, a lawyer and former government official who is the secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency. "Many do understand."

He added: "No matter what technical experts argue is the best system, no matter what self-serving justifications are made that this is the only possible way to do things, there are no systems or technologies that can eternally claim they are the best."

Human rights groups, however, have warned that many of the nations most critical of the current arrangement--Tunisia, Cuba, Iran, China--rank among the world's most repressive. The worry: If those governments have their way, the current, virtually limitless amount of free expression on the Internet may come to an end.

The Paris-based advocacy group Reporters Without Borders last week called those reform proposals alarming and asked: "Do we really want the countries that censor the Internet and jail cyberdissidents to be in charge of the online flow of information?" (The group also noted that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights counted, as members, nations such as Libya and Sudan, no champions of human rights themselves.)

Similarly, Amnesty International has sent a delegation here to the Internet Governance Forum to emphasize the need for protecting free speech. "The Internet Governance Forum needs to know that the online community is bothered about free expression online and willing to stand up for it," said Steve Ballinger, part of Amnesty's delegation.

Since 1998, domain names and Internet addresses have been overseen by the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce. The U.S. government has occasionally used that unique relationship to its advantage, for instance when the Bush administration objected to a .xxx adult domain--an objection that ended with ICANN abruptly reversing itself and rejecting the domain suffix.

Recent changes (click here for PDF) to the Commerce Department-ICANN relationship haven't been enough to quiet anti-U.S. rumblings at the Athens summit.

The prime minister of Greece, Konstantínos Karamanlís, took a swipe at the U.S. during his opening speech, saying attendees should work to "enhance democracy in the Internet itself." Nitin Desai, an adviser for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, called this week's event a "harbinger of a new type of multilateralism."

The only speaker on Monday who dwelled on free expression for more than a moment was Viviane Reding, the European Commission's Commissioner for Information Society and Media.

"Freedom, ladies and gentlemen, is sometimes seen as a threat to those who do not value human rights or want to impose their vision of the world or their religious belief" on others, Reding said. She urged the attendees to preserve the Internet as an "open and censorship-free zone."

The official purpose of the Internet Governance Forum, which was created at a similar U.N. event last year in Tunisia and is scheduled to convene annually for five years, is to discuss everything from domain names to spam and security. But many critics of the United States hope that the forum will contain the seeds to an organization to supplant ICANN, perhaps organized under the auspices of the United Nations.

Even though the U.S. has the most sophisticated Internet infrastructure, last year's meeting was held in Tunisia and this year's in Greece. Not one meeting is scheduled to be held in North America, though Brazil, India, and Egypt have announced their plans to host future ones. In addition, no U.S. government representative spoke during opening ceremonies.

See more CNET content tagged:
U.N., justification, influence, expression, nation

112 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Let them go
Le the UN start their own internet. We really do not need them.
It will remain US controlled. There is no problem there.
I do no want future censoring by the UN.
I do not even think the UN should exists.
Posted by BattleAce7101 (51 comments )
Reply Link Flag
As long as they're on our highway, they need to follow our roadsigns
That says it all
Posted by v_noronha (18 comments )
Link Flag
not suprised
A UN controlled internet would be the worst decision the United States could possibly make. It should not even be on the drawing board.

The UN exists today as a source of power for politically oppressive, weak, and/or economically insignificant countries to push their agendas on others, most often the US or some other "western" nation.

The whole notion is ridiculous, why try to fix what isnt broken? This is a typical attempt to weaken US influence when all that would be accomplished would be a weakening of the internet both in terms of openness/freedom as well as actual infrastructure.
Posted by gsman11 (27 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Really?
And when the current fascist regime in the US starts to control the internet for its own twisted purposes; what then?
Posted by Michael Grogan (308 comments )
Link Flag
Life is rarely fair!
Oh Boo Hoo - In the course of each and every day I find hurdles in my way on my path to completing my tasks. I overcome them. I don't expect that I can whine and stomp my feet and expect to get any satisfaction. The people who control the internet, are the ones who built it - go build your own!
Posted by truemtn (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Aghast
I am absolutely exasperated by these responses to the article. Don't people realize that U.S. ownership and management of the Internet leads to global warming???
Posted by mycroft69 (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No
it's the hot air emanating from you that causes global warming.
Posted by Michael Grogan (308 comments )
Link Flag
UN & the Internet - Now that's scary!
Not only should the UN build its own Internet (seeing how they don't like the one that is out there) they should also have their own country where they can conduct their own social experiments. If it wasn't so close to Halloween I'd swear this was an April Fool's joke.
Posted by grumpyz (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just pull the plug
If you do not like the rules to my game, stop playing. If other countries do not want to join Internet version 1.x, I will not miss them. Most of what I do on the freakin' thing is US based anyhow. The Internet is optional in life, though I am sure many people think it is not.
Posted by Im-Not-TED (21 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Agreed!
Agreed!
Posted by BattleAce7101 (51 comments )
Link Flag
U.N. Crying Again?
The U.N. should design and construct their own. They could call it the "UNternet" and restrict it to use by only the members of their "club"!
Posted by TheZooker (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
U.N.
Any chance the U.N. could keep Nigeria and a few other spam centers on their UNternet and off the current one?:-)
Posted by dland51 (91 comments )
Link Flag
a five year old in a sandbox fighting for the red truck
That seems to sum up this situation most exactly. Countries are asking that an (now grown too) international resource potentially as catalitic as the industrial revolution be managed by an international body.

Your network administrator sits at the same level with upper management; why should the internet administrator not sit at the same level as the other international standards bodies?

So far I've heard nothing but emotional arguments for why this is such a bad thing.

If it can be managed by an international body who can keep the open standards from being invluenced or abused by more opressive country members of the UN then what's the issue?

Oh right, I remember, why better human existance on this lonely little rock if your not getting significant personal gain in return.
Posted by jabbotts (492 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Emotional Arguments?
How about common sense? Things work fine now. They work the way they were designed to. From ArpaNet to the current Internet, it was U.S. all the way. It was our little project from a military aspect then on to education and finally entertainment. It's completely been U.S. driven.

If the U.N. is not happy with the way things are ran, they can always unplug their servers from OUR internet and build there own.
Posted by SeizeCTRL (1333 comments )
Link Flag
RE: a five year old in a sandbox fighting for the red truck
I think most of us here would be all for a governing body that
would improve the internet experience. The problem is that
most of us here in the US feel that the UN just ain't that better
idea. I, personally, would have no objection to an international
body controlling the internet as long as I was guaranteed that I
would have the same rights and privileges I have now. The UN
would be very likely to see that control as a source of income
and would also be likely to bow to pressures by certain countries
to place restrictions and censorship on the content.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
Personal gain?
Personal gain is not a good argument. Almost every decision made in the UN is about personal gain. Nations don't want the US to control the net, but thats also about personal gain. Are you saying the US should value their agenda more that its own? The arguments made for keeping control are very strong. Personal gain is important.

So anything that comes from the US that gains international use should be given up and governed by an international body? Yes countries can ask but we can also politely reject them and get on with our day.
Posted by Akiba (220 comments )
Link Flag
sure thing
If it were up to the UN the US would be devoid of guns and we would be paying for a pipeline to ship the great lakes water to desert Africa. Politicians would be forced to give 40% of their bribe money to insolvent nations and euros would be allowed to vote in our national elections.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Link Flag
Boohoo U.N!
Considering how the US invented the internet, I see no harm in the way things are handled now.

The U.N. should be more concerned with the genocide in Sudan, the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. Who does what with DNS should not be a U.N. problem for them to worry about.
Posted by SeizeCTRL (1333 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Representitive
Given that in a few years white western English speakers will only be a minority group on the web, shouldn't the running of the internet be given over to a group that will actually be representitive of those using it?
Posted by perfectblue97 (326 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The internet is not a democracy
I continually here how western, english speakers will be a minority on the net, this is nonsense. Do you know what the common lanuage of business is...the common language of international air travel...it is english.....and besides, the internet is not a democracy, it is a technology...when the UN actually does something right, then we might consider allowing them to manage something else, but currently they can't even manage themself.

25% of the UN budge comes from the US. If you look at all the money the US gives to the UN I believe we come closer to 40%...there for we are majority stock holders...so we shoudl still be able to control what WE BUILT...
Posted by grossph (172 comments )
Link Flag
"Representitive"
Well if that will be the case, then all the more reason for the U.N. to build it's own internet, for the rest of the world that doesn't speak English! The last thing the internet needs is for countries like China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria,...and others politically like them to have control and be able to track down anyone who says anything they don't like!!
Posted by dland51 (91 comments )
Link Flag
they need a clue
If THEY want a network they can start one any time. Nothing to prevent that. Good luck to anyone giving a s*** though. This one is just fine as it is.
Posted by gggg sssss (2285 comments )
Link Flag
WTF?
Are you suggesting kind sir that we just give up now and turn every thing over to the Chinese? It's a ridiculous notion.

The U.N. right now is completely USELESS! It can't even solve the problems it was created to solve. If they cannot handle the genocide in Sudan and they do nothing when their guys are kicked out of the country... imagine how they will cave when someone hacks U.N. controlled root servers demanding money.

The U.N. as it stands has no backbone... and having them in control of the internet would be a huge mistake. The internet works fine as is and please remember, WE INVENTED THE DAMN THING! If you don't like it, then unplug and build your own.
Posted by SeizeCTRL (1333 comments )
Link Flag
Re: Representitive
"...in a few years, white western English speakers will only be in a minority group."

From a global perspective, "white western English speakers" are *already* a minority and have been from the beginning.

However, the ethnicity of the majority of Internet users doesn't matter. The "running of the Internet" should be the responsibility of the people who built the system, not given to a group of people because of some usage demographic.

By your logic: Since Japanese speakers are a minority of car owners, shouldn't the manufacturing of all automobiles be controlled by a group more representative of those using them (i.e. English speakers)?

By the way, it is spelled "representative".
Posted by jjones730 (10 comments )
Link Flag
UN = Self Serving | US = Serving the World
We actually created the internet, and were nice enough to let the rest of the world use it freely. The UN is the self serving organization. Its not surprising that liberal C|Net reporters would take the UN point of view. I know all the C|Net staff bots are still enraged over losing the .XXX domain.
Posted by gerhard_schroeder (311 comments )
Reply Link Flag
C/NET did not take one side or the other.
If anything they stressed that a UN controlled Internet would be less free.

PS. The XXX domain would make it easer for parents to keep there kids out of porn.
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Link Flag
Sounds like fun
Any changes will first be preceded by discussion. Then a draft resolution. Then modifications to the resolution. Then talking about changing the resolution. Then a discussion about voting on the resolution. Then passing a resolution. Then violations of the resolution. Then a strongly worded resolution demanding compliance with the original resolution. Then a resolution getting REALLY SERIOUS about enforcing resolutions. Then a resolution saying that failure to comply with previous resolutions will result in a new resolution. Finally ending up in the "Oil for Data" scandal, that is repaired by passing a resolution against scandals, etc.
Posted by mmichaels (85 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wow!
That's amazing! Do you work at the UN Building? :D
Posted by Sboston (498 comments )
Link Flag
Another Self Serving notion from the U.S.
Since the U.S. government couldn't convince the world that the have the EXCLUSIVE rights to the Internet, know they are using a novel sale approach. It something like this: "since we are a democracy and all the other guys who question us are dictatorships, then what they want is to censor the Internet and keep their people from knowing the goods of democracy". Yeah. Right.

So then democracy is this superior being that gives enlightenment to countries, just as what happened on the 19th century when Royalty gave the same kind of powers.

C'mon on. The U.S. is as represive as Cuba when
its interest are at stake. Just remeber the AT&T case, and know the H.P. scandal.

Free Internet speech must prevail, without the U.S. stronghold.
Posted by cosuna (378 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Cuba Internet Access
So how do residents of Cuba access the internet? Do they ask Kofi Annan?
Posted by jamesgpeck (1 comment )
Link Flag
Errata on previous post
Just to comment that it's 'now' not 'know'...
kinda got mixed up with the 'k', you know...
Posted by cosuna (378 comments )
Link Flag
Re: Another Self Serving notion from the U.S.
So what your saying is that we can not say what we want on the internet as long as its controled by the US right ?
Funny i have been saying what i want on the net since 1980 when i got my first computer nobody has tryed to stop me from having my say not like my friend SoLing in china his part of the internet is under opservation at all times and he was sent to prison not long ago because he spoke out against the (wishes) orders of his goverment!
Here I can say my goverment sucks the President is a bone head and nothing will happen why because its my right to speak freely which can't be done in other countries.
Those same countries by the way taht want the UN to take control so they can really put a stop to freedom of speach.
Don't believe me the UN just recently held a confrence right here in the US to of all things try to force us to change our Constitution to their liking and if you haven't heard much about it its not suprising since it has to do mainly with the 2nd Admendment.
Check the web you'll find it as long as you live in the US that is.
What i can't figure out is how Barbarians such as us could have built the Internet then offered to let the world in on it.
Posted by grayfrier (63 comments )
Link Flag
'huh?
You must not pay much attention to what goes on in the parts of the world where trying to block internet access to, or discussion of, said democracy and gov't control of the people is the norm, such as China. Go there, set up a blog critical of the way the gov't controls information and find out about repression. Democracy is not a "being" it is a way of government; not always perfect, just as people are not always perfect, but it can be changed if enough people get off their lazy butts and vote! So far without fear of being ran over by tanks, or rounded up and put in prison! The U.S. will be voting in a few weeks, and then again in 2 years, to make sure those types of actions do not become part of democracy as practiced in the United States!
Posted by dland51 (91 comments )
Link Flag
If they can't embrace the net then why should they control it?
China and Iran don't fully embrace the flow of information on the internet so they aren't qualified to make any decisions over who should control it. Its fine that they don't want to be democracies but the existance of the internet confilcts with their existance and therefor they have no business trying to gain more control of it.

It would be like Hillary Clinton complaining that she doesn't have more control over the Republican party. Well it would be logical for her to join the party first and embrace its core ideas.

But I think its all irellevant because the US isn't obligated to give up control just for the sake of goodwill. Yes it is self serving but it is beneficial to US interests. If China retaliates and builds its own incompatible network, well they already sensor all the good content anyways. So have a nice day.
Posted by Akiba (220 comments )
Link Flag
torque
someone torqued your head bolts too tight buddy. As has been stated the "poor" crybabies are allowed to built their own Internet anytime they wish. No one is stopping them, the only roadblock is their lack of technological ability and the lack of funds.

Everyone wants the US to go away but to leave our money at their door-step. Is it any wonder the US attitude is mostly "up yours"?
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Link Flag
RE: Another Self Serving notion from the U.S.
>> "...what they want is to censor the Internet and keep their people from knowing the goods of democracy"

What you intend as irony is the literal truth.

Why is it that governments such as, say, China invest so much effort in removing access to books, public gatherings, websites, etc. that are critical of their regime? At the same time, why is it that I, here in the US, am free to read comments disparaging of our government such as yours (and opinions of many others who are vastly more critical?)

>> So then democracy is this superior being that gives enlightenment to countries...

Again, your "irony" reads as simple fact. Democracy *is* superior to monarchy (or dictatorships, not that different). Look at the last 300 years of history. Carefully consider the reasons behind the French and American revolutions, the fall of British Colonialism, etc. for why rule by the people is better than rule by the privileged few (or the one).

As for your listed examples of U.S. "repression":

HP scandal: Last I heard, former HP CEO Dunn was forced to resign her position over this, and criminal proceedings were already starting, including Congressional hearings. To date, it seems like the U.S. legal system is handling this case effectively. Incidentally, in a truly repressive regime, spying on employees would be mandatory policy, not illegal.

AT&T case: You'll have to be more specific, as I don't know to which "case" you are referring. However, I can tell you that AT&T is a publicly traded corporation and *not* a governmental organization. I don't readily see your logic for citing AT&T as an example repression in our country.

>> Free speech on the internet must prevail.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. And it is prevailing even now, thanks to being created and largely overseen by people who live in a society where they are free themselves.

Imagine the amount of freedom of expression that would be present if the Internet were run by, say, Burma or Iran? Can you name another entity that could oversee internet freedoms more effectively than the US already has? Perhaps the UN (with countries like Libya on the "human rights" council) would be a good choice?

The U.S. is far, far from perfect. But even with the current administration, for now at least we're still as free a people as you can find anywhere on Earth. And that freedom is reflected by the fact that you and I can express our opinions to each other in the first place.
Posted by jjones730 (10 comments )
Link Flag
Do me a favor and learn how to spell
Your argue would have a little more punch if you could spell
Posted by truemtn (5 comments )
Link Flag
Until...
All of the countries of the world and especially the scum ones that keep their people from free and honest thoughts from countries around the world stop repressing their people and how they think and what they read then the US needs to maintain control over our own creation. If the scum countries don't like it let them make their own. When they have 3 users all of whom are forced by their countries to use it maybe then they will be happy. The Internet was mostly our creation, we control it. If they don't like it they can go sit-and-spin. As for the UN, well until they can actually make a country conform to the wills of the member countries they are an impotent bunch of fools. The UN is worthless. Just like Bush.

If American's want true change in Nov. then don't vote for a republican or a democrat. As long as you do you don't want real change. Real change comes with the two main parties are shattered and dispersed with other lesser parties. Give the lessers a chance if you want real change.

Robert
Posted by Heebee Jeebies (632 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: Until...
I agree but the thing most people don't know or ignore is the fact that we have quite a few other political parties to chose from not just the Dems or the Repubs.
here are just a few some i may not agree with but freedom of speech is for everyone right?

Alaskan Independence Party
Aloha Aina Party
America First Party (2002 - Present)
American Party (1969 - Present)
American Independent Party (1968 - Present)
American Heritage Party
American Nazi Party
American Patriot Party
American Reform Party
Charter Party of Cincinnati, Ohio
Christian Freedom Party (2004 - Present)
Communist League (US)
Communist Party USA
Connecticut for Lieberman Party (2006 - Present)
Conservative Party of New York
Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)
Independence Party of Minnesota
Independence Party of New York
Independent American Party
Independent Citizens Movement (US Virgin Islands)
Labor Party (1995 - Present)
Liberal Party of Minnesota
Liberal Party of New York
Liberty Union Party (Vermont) (1970 - Present)
Moderate Party
Mountain Party (West Virginia)
New Party
New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico
New Union Party
New York State Right to Life Party
Peace and Freedom Party (1967 - Present)
Personal Choice Party (1997 - Present)
Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico
Populist Party of Maryland (Nader 2004-affiliated, unrelated to earlier so-named parties)
Populist Party of America
Prohibition Party (1867 - Present)
Puerto Rican Independence Party
Reform Party of the United States of America (1995 - Present)
Republican Moderate Party of Alaska
Socialist Action (1983 - Present)
Socialist Alternative (1986 - Present)
Socialist Equality Party (1953 - Present)
Socialist Labor Party (1876 - Present)
Socialist Party USA (1972 - Present)
Socialist Workers Party (1938 - Present)
Southern Party
Southern Independence Party
United Citizens Party
Vermont Progressive Party
Voter Rights Party
Workers World Party (1959 - Present)
Working Families Party
Workers Party, USA
World Socialist Party of the United States
and if these arn't enough try searching the web i found a lot here
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States</a>
Posted by grayfrier (63 comments )
Link Flag
How come, most routers say "Made in China"
Just another thought. If the Internet is controlled by whom created it, maybe China should have a greater stake.
Posted by cosuna (378 comments )
Link Flag
RE: U.N. proposes changes to Net's operation
As the old adage says: "Be careful what you ask for, you just might
get it".

I kind of hope you do.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Same thing happend when the U.S. fought Spain
I don't know how they do it. But I heard that some have cybercafes. Or else, how could they get in contact with the U.S. Democrats that visited Havana.

Remember the USS Maine. "You fournish the drawings, I'll fournish the war" said Hearst to a reporter.

I see more and more, how "American" minds are poisoned by Bush's propaganda against Iran, N. Korea and now Cuba. They are all bad, no good.

Now they even wan't to censor good-'all Internet.

USS Maine all over again.

Keeps me reminding me of Mel Gibsons frase on Apocalypto trailer:

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.
Posted by cosuna (378 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Cuba
I'm confused: what are you talking about with regards to Cuba? I have no problem with Iran or N. Korea, those 2 I understand, we went after Iraq for who knows what reason when the problem was in Afghanistan. North Korea can be dealt with by China, and Iran will likewise be dealt with by someone other than the U.S.! Bush doesn't have the time left in office, or the political credibility, to convince people that the U.S. needs to deal with them! It is time for the U.S. to let Europe and the Middle East deal with Iran and Syria, or suffer the consequences. If those areas don't clean up their own backyards then they will suffer for it! The rest of the world needs to stop looking to the U.S. to solve all of it's problems and either solve them by doing something, or continue with inaction! We have allowed ourselves to be sucked into everybody's problems because we "care" about people who are being mistreated, and until Bush, have not attacked another country until we were attacked! Hopefully our Congress will get enough balls to pull the war powers back where they belong and restore the balance of powers in our 3 branches of government!
Posted by dland51 (91 comments )
Link Flag
Sorry
Gibson was quoting historian Will Durant about the fall of the Roman Empire.

The real upshot is the UN dosn't have the spine to truly defend Freedom of Expression, they cave fare too easily.
Posted by PzkwVIb (462 comments )
Link Flag
I see Routers with modems i see two level gateways
I see levels and levels i see a PAL internet.
I see world wide web than the american broadband network or NET NATO. I see fools rush in for your money america as you exit stage right.
Posted by cohaver (189 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If the UN wants to set up there own root DNS servers, cool.
Anyone who wants to set up there own root DNS server can. It is not hard. They can manage there own domain names any way they want.

If the UN does a better job than ICANN, the UN DNS system will grow and the US DNS system will disappear. If the USA does a better job, our DNS system will remain dominant.

Lets see some genetic diversity and some competition.
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Reply Link Flag
C/NET did not take one side or the other.
If anything they stressed that a UN controlled Internet would be less free.
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Mis placed post. When will News.com ch
Mis placed post
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Link Flag
I want the UN to set up there own root servers.
Anyone can set up there own root servers. It is not hard to do. If the UN Internet is better, then everyone will use it. If the US Internet is better, people will keep using it.

Genetic diversity is a good thing. Lets have more competition.
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Reply Link Flag
absolutely correct
For that matter they may implement an alternative to DNS. Then there free to administer it however they see fit. There's nothing magical about name resolution. Hey feel free to start rolling out IPv6 within there own countries and stop whining about IP blocks as well.
Posted by logic_ration (4 comments )
Link Flag
yeah, but...
I doubt any delegate in the UN has any idea that they could set up their own DNS servers. Maybe most of the them also think that the internet "is a series of tubes."
Posted by wackozacko (4 comments )
Link Flag
U.N. has no right
History: The internet was created by the US government and over time it grew to include commercial and private activity across the nation. Other countries joined the internet. Today it spans the world and works quite well as it is.
My opinion: THE INTERNET WAS CREATED BY THE US GOVERNMENT. If certain countries do not like how it is being run today, then they can disconnect from the internet and create their own.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not there own internet, just DNS servers.
I think the system for giving out IP addresses should stay the same. If you have more than one group passing out numbers you will get collisions. Honestly if the UN wants to manage IP6 I would not have that much of a problem with it. Just as long as the United States gets enough IPs.
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Link Flag
re
Without the European organization CERT, you likely wouldn't be posting here.

The US developed the internet, but it was made useful due to work outside of, and not funded by the US.
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
are we?
Are we not a soveriegn nation, or are we a stooge nation of the U. N. ?
Posted by speedys_toy (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The US chose this
I am tired of you idiots who go around, acting like the UN is some evil organization out to take control of the US.The US is a willing member of the UN. A MEMBER!! Meaning it joined the organization to WORK WITH other countries, not to dictate to them. Sorry to disappoint. And yes, if the US left the UN, it would STILL be functional due to the other member countries with it. Only then there'd be MORE hostility towards the US, for the REASON THE UN WAS CREATED WAS TO ALLOW SMALLER COUNTRIES TO WORK OUT COMPLAINTS AND DISPUTES WITH LARGER COUNTRIES.

Read a book!
Posted by Stufiano (88 comments )
Link Flag
Internet is an American invention
Therefore the Americans should control its assets and other
countries can add value by connecting to it.

The UN is not telling OPEC to hand over its operations and assets,
nor the Diamond cartel.

The world runs better when value received results from value given.
Posted by davez2006 (17 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not all of it
The one innovation that propelled the internet from a niche geek tool to a worldwide phenomena is the world wide web, which was invented in Europe.

There are several important protocols created by non-Americans as well.
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
Automobiles is a German invention
... so perhaps American car manufacturers should obey what German authorities say?

Also: Are you checking with Italian authorities as to what you can use Volta's discovery - electricity - for?

Then again, with all the scare mongering and War on Civil Rights/Terror, the U.S. might make the Internet as full of restrictions and surveillance as the dictatorships want...
Posted by JadedGamer (207 comments )
Link Flag
No it isn't
Do your research.
Posted by mcgen (2 comments )
Link Flag
New Zealand is really only good country to take control
new zealand shoud take control of the net think about it nice place great views people still trust each other here. Amercains have to look behide them to make sure the person behide hasn't got a bomb
Posted by ddogg2 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Pony Up
Time for the
UN and the cry baby countries to pony up. If they want continued access they need to shoulder the cost. The US should figure out how much it expended to get the Internet off the ground and tell the cry-babies to pay your fair share or just ****.
Posted by R Me (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.