U.S. forced to give up control of internet to Iran & China

"md" not given to avoid spam wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
. ..
When I read this article, my first and only thought was the United
Nations
can stick it collective head up my ass and take a deep breath!

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...585288,00.html

To be forced to give control of the internet

uh.... may I remind you that you are posting this on the internet? and
hence, most of your
audience are people living outside the US ? You expect them to accept a
foreign government
controls their internet???
--

"Their internet"? Who is they? The internet was started by DARPA (read
America) to preserve communications in the event of a nuclear war. We made
it, we developed it, and out of the kindness of our hearts we are letting
"you" use it. If you want rights to something then make one up yourself, do
not try to steal ours. But, that seems to be in character for the U.N. They
are a bunch of thieving disreputable assholes who would rather try to steal
someone else's efforts than to create something unique in their own right.
I am inclined to believe it is because they couldn't make up their own
internet even if they wanted to. Lack of brains... A year from now, if I
tried to post this on the new 'UNternet', I would bet the post would be
removed for being too 'American". Maybe the Chinese would even put out a
warrant for my arrest for committing 'hate speech crimes'.... yeah...and
they can blow me too....

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

"Greysky" wrote in message
t...

"md" not given to avoid spam wrote in message
...

"Greysky" wrote in message
. ..
When I read this article, my first and only thought was the United
Nations
can stick it collective head up my ass and take a deep breath!

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...585288,00.html

To be forced to give control of the internet

uh.... may I remind you that you are posting this on the internet? and
hence, most of your
audience are people living outside the US ? You expect them to accept a
foreign government
controls their internet???
--

"Their internet"? Who is they? The internet was started by DARPA (read
America) to preserve communications in the event of a nuclear war. We made
it, we developed it, and out of the kindness of our hearts we are letting
"you" use it.

clueless.

On a sunny day (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:23:37 GMT) it happened "Greysky"
wrote in
:

When I read this article, my first and only thought was the United Nations
can stick it collective head up my ass and take a deep breath!

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...585288,00.html

To be forced to give control of the internet to such freedom loving and
progressive countries like China, Iraq, and those 3rd world banana
dictatorships represented by the UN governing body is a good excuse for the
United States to re make a new version of the internet and keep it for
exclusive continental use. I still can't believe how easily our leaders are
going to roll over and give away a national treasure to a bunch of
terrorists, communists, and reprobate nations as are represented by the UN.
Without a fight, even. Sigh...
Politics..
I agree, the US has done a great job so far with maintaining the registry.
It sort of concerns me, as I am running a name server......
For me (as European) it does not need to change, US is very much a free
speech country, unlike China and some others, Russia, what not.
Not even the Netherlands is free speech...at least they want to put
legislation through that will jail people suggesting we should nuke Iran
flat.... Or other kind of old fashioned imperialism.
Germany is blocking some (US) ultra right sites... Dunno about France.

So here I clearly divert from the EU point of view, but then EU point of
view need not be EU parliament pov (but dunno on this one).
I would like the US to remain in charge, because of freedom of speech and
freedom of commerce, and proven track record.
And one central point is a good thing in this case.

Jan Panteltje wrote in
news:1128635426.521ad60868c663fdff917b046000ffb4@t eranews:

On a sunny day (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:23:37 GMT) it happened "Greysky"
wrote in
:

When I read this article, my first and only thought was the United
Nations can stick it collective head up my ass and take a deep breath!

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...585288,00.html

To be forced to give control of the internet to such freedom loving and
progressive countries like China, Iraq, and those 3rd world banana
dictatorships represented by the UN governing body is a good excuse for
the United States to re make a new version of the internet and keep it
for exclusive continental use. I still can't believe how easily our
leaders are going to roll over and give away a national treasure to a
bunch of terrorists, communists, and reprobate nations as are
represented by the UN. Without a fight, even. Sigh...
Politics..
I agree, the US has done a great job so far with maintaining the
registry. It sort of concerns me, as I am running a name server......
For me (as European) it does not need to change, US is very much a free
speech country, unlike China and some others, Russia, what not.
Not even the Netherlands is free speech...at least they want to put
legislation through that will jail people suggesting we should nuke Iran
flat.... Or other kind of old fashioned imperialism.
Germany is blocking some (US) ultra right sites... Dunno about France.

So here I clearly divert from the EU point of view, but then EU point of
view need not be EU parliament pov (but dunno on this one).
I would like the US to remain in charge, because of freedom of speech
and freedom of commerce, and proven track record.
And one central point is a good thing in this case.




I agree the US have done a good job. If someone wants to set up their own
root servers then there is nothing to stop them by the way. A while ago a
group (called themselves the "AlterNIC") was threatening to do just that
because they were getting tired of the delays in the new TLD's being
allocated. That issue is now dead. The only ones you see whining are
government bureacracies and the more totallitarian, the bigger the whine.

Klazmon.

"Greysky" wrote:
When I read this article, my first and only thought was the United
Nations can stick it collective head up my ass and take a deep breath!

Why do you want the ITU, a technical organization that publishes the
recommendations that make the global phone systems interoperate, to
shove its head up your ass?

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...585288,00.html

To be forced to give control of the internet to such freedom loving
[ Elided ]

Calm down. The article "isn't even wrong." "Control of the Internet"
is hyperbole on the part of the author of that article.

Here's what I hope is a clearer explanation of the choices being made:

As you all know, there are 13 generally accepted root name servers (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver for a list and explanation
for those who need a refresher). They are well dispersed both physically
around the globe and with regard to fiscal control. As a result, the U.S.
claim to root DNS control is neither more nor less strong than European
or Asian claims. ICANN, a U.S. based organization, ironically has no
direct control over the root name servers. So far as I know, ICANN acts
as a central control for the contents of the root name servers mostly by
accepted convention - there are no contractual or legal obligations
between ICANN and the root servers.

Karl Auerbach, who served on the ICANN board as the first (and last)
North American representative for the short period that ICANN allowed
elected representatives on their board, basically (with the help of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation) had to sue ICANN to get access to ICANN
records so he could perform his board duties. Archives on that legal
fight are he

http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/DN...rbach_v_ICANN/

Karl's opinions (and blog) may be found on his web site:

http://www.cavebear.com/

While I don't agree with Karl on several issues, I agree with his general
assessment that ICANN is not looking after your (or my) interests. Karl
has written on ICANN's abuse and misuse of their status many times -
browse his blog. So long as the U.S. government, and the root name
servers it controls, continues the accepted convention in following ICANN
there is no good end in sight to its misuse of its position.

Now compare ICANN with the ITU. The ITU (International Telecommunications
Union, formerly CCITT) has been around over 100 years and has members
from just about every country on the globe. (ITU lineage predates the UN
by many decades.) The ITU define standards (a.k.a. "recommendations")
that have made it possible for you to pick up your phone and be able to
call anyone else anywhere in the world who has a dialable phone number.
Without them, the global telephone system and the global Internet almost
certainly wouldn't exist as we know it.

If no harm or censor of content has come to the global telephone system
under the gentle auspices of the ITU, then I think fretting over ITU
control of the Internet root domain name servers is probably misplaced.

On a sunny day (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:47:42 -0000) it happened Jim Logajan
wrote in :

So long as the U.S. government, and the root name
servers it controls, continues the accepted convention in following ICANN
there is no good end in sight to its misuse of its position.
So, US controls ICANN
Look at the internet today.
It works great.
Individual countries can ALWAYS cut the (deep sea) glass fiber.

US wants world control, for sure they will use ICANN if they think it helps
achieve that goal.
But this same world control brings us freedom of speech!
So, and that ***at least for me*** is a VERY valuable asset.

You would not believe the ideas for example EU has about storing all internet,
telephone, fax and other data for X years, so then can find that 'terrorist'.
Of cause it sells hard disks... But you will end up a structure in a computer
with links to other structures, with variables of ANYTHING, including the
ID tags in your passport and Tshirt, your political views, who you have sex
with, your complete DNA de-sequenced and zipped, and what not.

Would you rather have this owned by a local small dictator or by a world power
with enough nukes to maintain peace where you live?

It is tricky at least.
Looking at what we have now, of cause US policy is aggressive expansion.
But trust me if *I* was US president (no aspirations actually) I would
nuke Iraq and Iran so there were no life forms left, move the hurricane
victims there (there will only be, more hurricanes in that area because
of global warming), and set up a second US shop there.
OK Bush shocked me and the world by attacking Iraq.
But now he goes back.. it takes too long and too many lives.
He should go all the way, while he can.
And you want to trust internet to people like ME?????????????
LOL

Greysky wrote:
When I read this article, my first and only thought was the United Nations
can stick it collective head up my ass and take a deep breath!

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...585288,00.html

To be forced to give control of the internet to such freedom loving and
progressive countries like China, Iraq, and those 3rd world banana
dictatorships represented by the UN governing body is a good excuse for the
United States to re make a new version of the internet and keep it for
exclusive continental use. I still can't believe how easily our leaders are
going to roll over and give away a national treasure to a bunch of
terrorists, communists, and reprobate nations as are represented by the UN.
Without a fight, even. Sigh...

Because the national leaders are too important to worry about
blase things liket national interests. They are the touched by god,
they are the born again, their only job is represent
Enron before the Supreme Court of Louisiana-Lybian
neo-con Cuisine.

Greysky wrote:
When I read this article, my first and only thought was the United Nations
can stick it collective head up my ass and take a deep breath!

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...585288,00.html

To be forced to give control of the internet to such freedom loving and
progressive countries like China, Iraq, and those 3rd world banana
dictatorships represented by the UN governing body is a good excuse for the
United States to re make a new version of the internet and keep it for
exclusive continental use. I still can't believe how easily our leaders are
going to roll over and give away a national treasure to a bunch of
terrorists, communists, and reprobate nations as are represented by the UN.
Without a fight, even. Sigh...

Any effort to 'control' the Internet will likely by met with strong
opposition by the computer hackers, crackers, and everyday geeks of a
libertarian of anarchist stripe.

Goethe said 'nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action,' but he
never beheld 'organized anarchy.'

I wouldn't give you a plugged Euro for the security of the data on any
server operated by any 'authority' figure involved in trying to control
the 'Net.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Can't happen, won't happen... the Internet is a double-
edged sword. It's design included and anticipated this
situation. Nice bargaining tool, eh? Just ask the ol'
Goremeister. Al is probably giggling in front of his
Jellomac!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Photons!...
Puzzling bursts of energy!
Particles and waves they be!
Pummeling eyes so we may see!
Promises of dreams to be!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Greysky" wrote in message...
. ..

When I read this article, my first and only thought was the United Nations
can stick it collective head up my ass and take a deep breath!

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/wee...585288,00.html
. . .