Shared control over the Internet?

[///M-Spec]

The EU is pushing for UN administration of DNS and IP address blocks. Ostensibly so that EU member countries can control their own TLDs and so IP address can be distributed more equitably as the vast majority of blocks have long been snatched up by US and European providers.

CNN
BBC
Yahoo/AP

Let the debate begin.

EDIT: If you're not sure what a top level domain means, it is a .com, .org, .uk, .tv and so on. If the UN were to control this, it would simply mean that instead of an American company approved by the Dept. of Commerce maintaining the master lists of where all the domains are, an organization that reports directly to the UN will be responsible for part of the TLDs.


M

 

[Solid Fro]

Can anyone say Oil for Root?

The US government does not control the Internet, the CNN headline is factually wrong (how surprising...). If anyone has "control" over the Internet, then that would be ICANN. The UN has no business in trying to control the Internet.

 

[FoolKiller]

I can see nothing good of the UN running these things. I don't like the idea of unelected officials attempting to do things "equitably." How are we defining equitably?

EDIT: Does the UN have power to take this away from a private entity? What if the UN votes for this and ICANN just says no? Will they send in "peacekeepers?"

 

[Young_Warrior]

The US is part of the UN ................when it wants to be that is.Sometimes it gets disregarded.

 

[Solid Fro]

You missed the point (again) Young_Warrior.

This is not about whether or not the US wants to be part of the UN, whether or not the US should make 22% of the UN's income disappear in the blink of an eye, or whether or not the US actually enforced Resolution 1441.

This is about the EU wanting equal control of something it cannot. The Internet is not controlled by anyone. Not by the US, not by the UN, and not by polar bears in the North Pole.

The only entity that comes close to "controlling" the Internet is ICANN. They control top level domains such as ///M-Spec stated in his opening post. As far as I know, the UN cannot take over a privately owned company, and has no business in doing so.

Inform yourself next time, Young_Warrior.

 

[Grand Prix]

Deleted.

 

[Solid Fro]

Shhh! It's a secret!

Maybe I should change that to the North Pole???

 

[Grand Prix]

Sure. I'll delete my post and you edit yours.

 

[smellysocks12]

I think they should change the standard all together. Make it 5 numbers between 1 and 256 instead of 4. When they made up the original IP they never expected the internet to reach a scale like it is now. With another byte added to the IP string there will be more than enough IP's for everyone. Hell... make it 10 numbers... make an IP address like:


###.###.###.###.###.###.###.###.###.###.###.###

That way we have enough IP addresses to populate the entire milky way and all give em internet access. That way nobody has to fight over it.

 

[Freddie]

I've heard that Bush & Co. wants to veto the introduction of .xxx TLD's, with the argument that it makes porn easier to find. Like it isn't easy to find today...

He obviously didn't consider the fact that it makes it easier to censor and block sites that children risk surfing on. So yeah, the US goverment is in some degree trying to control the internet.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've heard that Bush & Co. wants to veto the introduction of .xxx TLD's, with the argument that it makes porn easier to find. Like it isn't easy to find today...

He obviously didn't consider the fact that it makes it easier to censor and block sites that children risk surfing on. So yeah, the US goverment is in some degree trying to control the internet.

That is because .xxx would be required for American sites. Bush is not trying to control all Internet. He is wanting to make an administrative decisioin about regulations for American Internet companies. The move would be no more different than saying movies with a certain degree of graphic material are considered pornography and receive an X rating.

And actually, by vetoing it he would be having LESS control over the Internet. By signing the bill he would be creating more control. So really Bush is wanting less hands on Internet action.

No matter what his reasoning I agree with the hands-off approach for everyone. Does the UN want to give certain sites over to other people because they believe the US has too many domain names? What are they exactly looking to do? Will I get a fine if I create a blog to make fun of Kofi Annan or will they just shut me down and take away my domain name? Perhaps they feel that they willy nilly free speech blogging in America needs to stop? Would they create rules requiring blogs special permission to create a blog?

Essentially, when they get control, how far do they want to take that?

Of course, if they vote to do this, can they actually do it? Can the UN interfere with the workings of a private US company? The history of teh Us nationalizing companies is very small, if any, and the likelihood of the US government allowing the UN to suddenly seize control of a company is laughable.

If anyone has any info regarding these kinds of actions, please let us know.

 

[Pupik]

Is there any good reason for a UN-takeover of domain names? Not that I could tell by reading any of those articles.

- No promise of an uncensored internet for third-world and developing nations. Or for nations that have a tight reign over what sites you can view.

- No promise of control over illegal acts commited on the internet.

- No promise that malicious code or viruses would be stopped by UN control.

If these basic tenets of internet freedom and security can't be prevented with a takeover, then I see this idea as just a special-interest project for a few greedy people.

 

[Solid Fro]

The Internet: Brought to You By Iran, Syria and China