# Who should control the net?



## Andrew Green (Sep 30, 2005)

Seems most of the world says it should be international, but the US says it's not sharing.

 Personally I'm of the opinion that the internet is international, and should not be controlled by any single country, especially not without as little as international oversight.

 Anyways, The EU seems to be leading the fight, Slightly different spins on the same story:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/30/eu_deal_wsis/

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D8CTVNH00.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc


----------



## masherdong (Sep 30, 2005)

I thought Al Gore did, I mean he did invent the internet after all.


----------



## CrankyDragon (Sep 30, 2005)

I think the United States government should monitor, regulate and control the Internet, additionally they should tax it as a main stream communications network.

NOT!


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

I saw that. I don't know what to say. It's nice to have it under our control...but it's not really fair. Yet, the thought of an Internet U.N. managing it doesn't thrill me either!


----------



## TonyM. (Sep 30, 2005)

The NSA and MI5 already control the internet.


----------



## OUMoose (Sep 30, 2005)

Nobody can control the net...


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 30, 2005)

Sounds like what they are after right now isn't content control, but naming control.

 Basically there is a feeling that ICANN shouldn't have control over who gets top level domains and who doesn't.  As well as how IP addresses, which are limited in number, get divided.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 30, 2005)

internet users should control it.  but then again, what do you mean regarding "control"?


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 30, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> internet users should control it.  but then again, what do you mean regarding "control"?


 In this case it is aimed at icann's job, which is controlling ip addresses and Domain name stuff.

 For example, Iraq does not have control over the .iq Top level domain, the US does.  

 They also control who can use which ip addresses, and without an ip address you're not on the internet.

 The internet, as large and wide spread as it is, still has a bit of a pyramid structure.  At the top are servers which all the others rely on.  The top of the pyramid is controlled by the US, and US based entities.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2005)

Sounds fine to me...


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 30, 2005)

I believe the Us should not control the net it should be done by a panel  of experts from all over the world. Just my two cent wroth.
Terry


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2005)

Appointed or elected by whom, though?


----------



## Sapper6 (Oct 1, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Appointed or elected by whom, though?



an internet based poll.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 1, 2005)

Ah yes, the good old days of news.admin.net-abuse.misc and the Usenet Volunteer Vote-Takers!


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

News on this today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_hi_te/info_summit;_ylt=ArkOuh4zZAF1jdHxyOXnWA2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 16, 2005)

I should controll the net.

I know whats best for all of you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2005)

*



			US Keeps Control of the Internet
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Posted by     CmdrTaco     on Wednesday November 16, @08:24AM*
> *from the well-thank-good-thats-all-settled-once-and-for-all dept.*
> Adam Schumacher writes _"As a result of a a deal reached late Tuesday, the US and ICANN will maintain control over the Internet's core systems. A new body will be created to provide international oversight, which will, of course, have no binding authority."_ *Read More...*





Good.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Nov 16, 2005)

I don't think anyone should control the net. It's the best sorce of free speech in the world. In fact in many parts of the world,it's the only sorce. But If someone has to,I vote for Technopunk.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

I'd suggest Kaith, but he's already spending 25 hours/day online as it is.

The thing is, _someone_ has to manage the domain names. Would should do it--the U.N.? This system isn't broke. It sounds fair to internationalize it, but I don't see how yet.

Of course, if we give it to the Saudis, maybe they'll chop the hands off of spammers...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2005)

heh


----------



## Brother John (Nov 16, 2005)

Guess I just don't understand....

what does it mean to "Control" it
and 
why should it NEED to be "controlled"????


thanks



Your Brother
John


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 16, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I'd suggest Kaith, but he's already spending 25 hours/day online as it is.
> 
> The thing is, _someone_ has to manage the domain names. Would should do it--the U.N.? This system isn't broke. It sounds fair to internationalize it, but I don't see how yet.
> 
> Of course, if we give it to the Saudis, maybe they'll chop the hands off of spammers...


 
That's where I'm at. Who replaces the U.S.? A consortium led by various nations with a rotating chairmanship? So Libya and Uzbekistan get their turn after France, Japan and the UK? I would not wish to see a system like that!

The other point is, while it has grown to be international in scope, it is an American innovation, paid for largely by U.S. taxpayers (Arpanet) and I wouldn't like to see us so quickly give away all control over a system upon which our national security depends.

There has to be some sort of equitable system here. I personally wouldn't mind inviting nations such as the UK, Canada, Japan, etc. onto the team. I WOULD have problems putting nations with huge internal human right's violations in charge. The US is far from perfect, but we don't round up dissenters and shoot them.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> what does it mean to "Control" it



It's all about the names and numbers! As far as I can tell, the whole issue is about how to decide that www.martialtalk.com equates to 214.239.36.72, and deciding that the U.S. is .us but South Africa is .za. Is there more to it than that, anyone?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 16, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> That's where I'm at. Who replaces the U.S.? A consortium led by various nations with a rotating chairmanship? So Libya and Uzbekistan get their turn after France, Japan and the UK? I would not wish to see a system like that!



Yes, that's  the question--how would such a body be organized? Would it be elected? Nominated? Rotating? No system sounds good to me.

The U.S. developed the basic Internet. (I think the web originated via CERN, in France and Switzerland.) It's no surprise that the infrastructure for it comes from here. I'd be willing to share...but not if the U.N. is the model.


----------



## Cthulhu (Nov 17, 2005)

Leave ICANN alone.  I think there are too many potential ways for things to get royally screwed up if ICANN's 'control' is passed to another country or to the U.N.  It may not be perfect for some, but their system isn't 'broke', so why **** with it?

Cthulhu
self-censored


----------



## arnisador (Nov 25, 2005)

Meanwhile...here's something from the Dutch:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051125/wr_nm/internet_domains_nodotcom_dc



> A Dutch technology company has breathed life into a project to rid the Internet of suffixes such as .com, and instead offer single names which can be countries, company names or fantasy words.
> 
> Such a system, which enables countries, individuals and firms to have a Web address which consists of a single name, offers flexibility and is language and character independent.
> "The plan is to offer names in any character set," said Erik Seeboldt, managing director of Amsterdam-based UnifiedRoot.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 25, 2005)

I've seen similar before.  Alternic does something like that as well.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2005)

I get little chills whenever anyone starts talking about controlling the net.  It's the only frontier on the planet where a human can do what they wish.  Would controlling the net entail controlling "who" gets IP addresses?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 25, 2005)

of course.  But that already happens. I use 3 nocs, at 2 I get all I want, at the 3rd, I'm given BS about them not being available, etc etc.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 28, 2005)

Control of the Net, as they describe this matter, brings with it surprisingly many decisions to be made:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_hi_te/single_letter_domains



> Although Internet domain names may be getting longer or more complex as Web sites creatively squeeze into the crowded ".com" address space, most single-letter names like "a.com" and "b.com" remain unused. That may soon change as the Internet's key oversight agency considers lifting restrictions on the simplest of names.
> 
> [...]
> 
> (There are no immediate plans to release two-letter combos that have been reserved under some suffixes &#8212; they were set aside not for technical reasons but to avoid confusion with two-letter country-code suffixes such as ".fr" for France.)



Who wouldn't want to be *a.com*--the web's first site?


----------



## JAMJTX (Nov 28, 2005)

"Seems most of the world says it should be international, but the US says it's not sharing."

We invented it and all the technology that supports it, paid for it and built it.  It is ours.


----------

