Whose Internet Is It, Anyway?

Should America Control the Internet?

Published on October 20, 2005 By Larry Kuperman In Internet

If you browse the Internet (and if you don't you're not reading this!) the websites that you visit ultimately get their names from ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.) ICANN is a non-profit agency, based in California. Which means that they are regulated to one degree or another by the US Commerce Department, a part of the US Government.

Which means that the US Government controls the Internet. And some nations have a problem with that.

Countries such as Brazil and Iran have argued that the Internet is too important a resource for one country to control. Hence, the argument goes, an international body such as the UN should have the final say. In response, Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has introduced a bill calling for the addressing system to remain under US control.

The first thought that occurs to me is the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The second, is that there is no body more capable of administering the naming conventions. The UN? With its glorious history of efficiency and expedient action? Ha! The only problem that would solve is finding a new job for some of Kofi Annan's unemployed relatives.

Perhaps Iran itself? Peace-loving, law-abiding Iran? You can visit Iran' s website at www.wearebuildinganuclearreactorforpeacefulpurposessniggersnigger.com (Not a real website in case you haven't gathered that. A little sarcasm.)

Or that model of efficient governance, the EU? Would it be "Le Internet" or "Das Internet?" Oh, and by the way, the Internet will be closed during August.

At the risk of invoking Al Gore jokes, the United States built the Internet and has done a remarkably good job of maintaining it. What is broken that needs fixing, one should ask, and who would be better at maintaining it? Internet-wide problems have been, with some exceptions, few and far between. Legislative interference has been almost unknown. There is no reason for change that I can see.

I do understand the concerns of countries that fear that, at some future time, the Internet could be politicized. But, until that happens, leave well enough alone.

Comments (Page 2)

JillUser

on Oct 21, 2005

U say cuz it will be called Le internet or Das Internet and will be closed in august....where do you get that idea ?

I can't speak for Larry but I know that I have done a lot of business with France in the past and witnessed the "Sorry, we don't do business during the month of August". I found that inconceivable that a whole month be shut down but that is just my American way speaking. Oh, and to be fair, it would probably be "L'Internet"

This might be a stupid question but what keeps other countries from having their own DNS?

I don't know, I think the whole argument that anyone else telling the US how to deal with the internet is silly. Sure, the internet is globally used but it wasn't globally developed, right? It is like the JU community telling Stardock that they shouldn't be able to control the JU website. JU is what it is because of all of the participants (bloggers) from around the world but it wouldn't even exist without Stardock and I dare say there isn't any other group on here that could/would take better care of the place. The reality is, you can either come up with your own alternative or follow the rules put down by the developer.

All these other countries could boycott and see how that works out for them. I don't see how any other entity could "take control" though. I think the only way control will change hands is if the US offers it up.

Jafo

on Oct 21, 2005

The only thing that 'saves' the Internet is NOT the US Govt...or any vested commercial interest/s.... but the US 'Joe Public' themselves.

Vested interests wouldn't DARE mess with it and face the wrath of their OWN public, irrespective of how 'good' or 'bad' it might be to upset people outside of the US.

We're all in the same boat......or in the same hand-basket....

Dr Guy

on Oct 21, 2005

Better be careful with the racial jibes....they can and do always come back to bite you...

Ok, I will say it then. Since I am half french.

And last I checked on N'orlins, there were not thousands of deaths, and it was not the heat that killed them. God Forbid if France had a hurricane. Dorothy would not be alone in Oz after that.

And Larry, if France had it, it would be L'Internet. You drop the vowel when the noun starts with a vowel.

Dr Guy

on Oct 21, 2005

This might be a stupid question but what keeps other countries from having their own DNS?

Most do. But to get to foreign (i.e. non owned by the originating entity) server, the DNS has to go to the root servers, and those are controlled by the US. Any country could set up their own root servers, but that would probably break DNS for their country as the rest of the world would still be pointing to the designated authorized DNS. They could still play in their pond, but not really anything else would work.

Draginol

on Oct 21, 2005

The argument takes squatters rights to a whole new level. When other countries decided to make use of the US DNS system, they knew what that meant.

To use an analogy, it is like a bunch of people deciding to set up a village in a farmer's field. The farmer doesn't use that part of the field and doesn't really care what the village is doing. But then one day some of the squatters decide that they should own that field because the farmer COULD one day come in and wreak havoc.

The Internet is going to remain the way it is unless there's a good reason to change it. Monkeying around with something as important as the root DNS system simply because a handful of left-wing Europeans are throwing a tantrum is silly. The system, as-is, works fine. And there's no viable alternative being proposed that the US government would ever go along with (such as the "UN"). And there's no way that the US can be coerced forcibly to give up the root server control.

Ultimately, these topics devolve into base rantings of anti-Americans using this as a blunt instrument to express their hatred of all things US.

sunwukong

on Oct 21, 2005

To use an analogy, it is like a bunch of people deciding to set up a village in a farmer's field.

Bad example -- there are many instances of where something like this has forced the farmer to give up at least total control (sometimes without or fair compensation) of the village land for the "common good".

The system, as-is, works fine.

Well no -- it works but needs a lot of improvement especially in reliability. There are a few proposals for improvements to DNS plus some alternatives. The key issue remains though -- everybody needs to change over for it work. Like the move to IPv6 or the many and various changes to SMTP to stop spam, people are reluctant until the advantages far outweigh the costs.

The issue isn't just the root servers, though. ICANN itself is a pretty opaque organization to outsiders and they have acted in odd ways (e.g., retraction of .TLDs) and have historically been only semi-cooperative with national authorities over ccTLDs. That they answer to the US government and control name resolution policies makes people all over the political map nervous.

thomassen

on Oct 21, 2005

Mine! Mine! It's all mine! rhaaaarh!

stutefish

on Oct 21, 2005

What are these other countries doing for the Internet, besides using it? If somebody were to come along with additional resources, energy, and commitment, and offer to join forces with the current Internet administration to cooperatively improve service and stability, I'd be pretty interested.

But if these other guys want to do the job, shouldn't they start by convincing us that they can do the job better than the current guy?

Larry Kuperman

on Oct 21, 2005

sunwukong, allow me to summarize the arguments for Internationalization of the Internet:

The United States created a wonderful tool, which had its origins in a Federally funded program, as you yourself pointed out.

American corporations invested substantial amounts of capital and research in growing this tool and establishing the protocols that make it successful.

Other countries have used this tool as a means of creating wealth within their borders to such an extent that large portions of their economies are now dependent on it.

So, they want control of this tool.

And that is fair how exactly? Or beneficial to the world economy for that matter? Let us assume that control was transferred over to Iran, one of the complainants. Would Iran not use that control as a weapon against, say for example, Israel? Or the United States?

-OZZY-, I said "If that control were to shift to Beijing or Pyongyang, well that might be a different case." and you replied " yeah right, and in europe u can't express your opinion." Beijing is in China and Pyongyang in North Korea. But let me not quibble. In France, Moslem girls cannot wear their religious head coverings. In your own country of the Netherlands, prejudice against people of Arab decent is a growing problem. "In the Netherlands, a new study shows that employers in the building sector are prejudiced against students with Moroccan-sounding names who approach them for work placements" is the headline from an article on Radio Netherlands (http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/ned050829?view=Standard)

Don't even get me started on European anti-Semitism. In all fairness, I should point out the the Netherlands has the lowest score of any European nation in terms of anti-Semitism, but 60 years ago...ask your parents where they were on May 10th, 1940 when the German armies invaded. On that date, there were 140,000 Jews in the Nethelands. At the end of the war, there were 30,000 left alive. One that died was a young girl named Anne Frank.

Ask if they remember the NSB, the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_SS_Volunteer_Panzergrenadier_Brigade_Nederland for details. Most Dutch opposed the Germans, but not all. Some volunteered to be part of the Waffen SS.

So no, I don't think that Europe has a history of free speech.

Dr Guy

on Oct 21, 2005

So no, I don't think that Europe has a history of free speech.

Cookie time!

liquidguru

on Oct 21, 2005

wincustomize is an international forum, with people from everywhere...to start pointing out past atrocities and asking

your parents where they were on May 10th, 1940 when the German armies invaded

(why were the states neutral at this time?)
is highly insulting, espeically as the united states of america has committed it's own questionable acts (native-america indians, vietnam, iraq, nicaragua to name a few)
america has huge divisions within it's population, whether divided by money or race..no country is perfect

-OZZY-

on Oct 21, 2005

what the......??

ok ?? well, u certainly showed me wrong !!!

sunwukong

on Oct 21, 2005

Let us assume that control was transferred over to Iran

What exactly would be the issue for giving Iran control over its ccTLD? Because that's the most a single nation can exert direct control over outside of its own borders. Likewise, what's the problem with allowing the US one vote to suspend routing to Iranian netblocks versus Iran's one vote against it?

Ethan Jay

on Oct 21, 2005

C'mon people... take it easy. The whole world pegs its currency to the American Dollar. Now, are you going to start getting mad over that?!?! Or are you going to cry out as to why America has it's international calling code starting with 1? You like it or not, it’s an undeniable fact that United States of America is the most advanced nation in the world where all the money and business is! And… just as Larry has put it… if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

craeonics

on Oct 23, 2005

As the saying goes: garbage in, garbage out. There are some people here with a rather skewed view of the world, politics and history. And I don't mean the occasional drive by posters. They display such poor reasoning skills, that they drag all kinds of unrelated matters into the discussion.

Back on topic: the whole argument stems from the idea that (if I recall correctly), a government controlled agency holds some level of control over the root-system and the top-level domains available. So if the US government does not want there to be an .xxx domain, there will be no .xxx domain.

Some politicians find that, now that the Net is globally used and of global importance, this control should not be in the hands of a single nation. There is some merit in this, 'cause after all, who can you trust these days? So the proposal is that the UN, being pan-national, should handle this. And again, there is some merit in this thought.

Ofcourse, there is opposition to this idea. First and foremost the US, who'd rather not lose control, which is an understandable standpoint. Then there's the argument that the UN isn't the most effective of organisations. Too slow, too bureaucratic. And that too is a trueism. And third, there is the argument that if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it, which has merit as well.

So what it boils down to is a couple of questions:
1. What weighs stronger: national or international interests?
2. Don't fix what ain't broken; or: try to make the system better (which could also end up worse)?

That is what we should be discussing here. But do we see that? Noooo, we only see the typical moronic "French are Evil because they eat toads", "The UN/EU/whatever can't be trusted because it's a bureaucratic entity" and "Americans are filthy capitalist pigs" arguments.

Boo fucking hoo.

Once again, I question the intelligence of the WinCustomize crowd and its staff. And once again it seems Jafo is the only sane being on this site.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!