Who controls the internet

[Chopstik]

An interesting article... Thoughts?

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051...eil-cukier/who-will-control-the-internet.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
- Winston Churchill

 

[kHz]

It started because of some people who dislike the US for some reason.

I am just stating fact based on history.

 

[Sympology]

No it started with me, not disliking the US, but the way the current goverment is ignoring the rest of the worlds views, which in my opion, came across pretty well in that article. It's not even a case of lets discuss and move foward. it was a blatent case of Screw you.

Then someone decided to do the pathetic, "we invented it crap", so i decided to point out some other things that other people invented to show how how without previous inventions, none of this would even be happening.
Who invented what i my opion is a complete waste of time, hey lets find out who invented fire and credit them.

The problem we have is that the internet has evolved into something that no one could of imagined even 10 years ago, the problem is without things being negotiated and compromised, it will collapse under it's own success.
the problems we are facing now are things such as China, not the fact that they are censoring (all goverments do to some extent), but the fact you potentionally have a billion people accessing a system that was not designed for such use (e.g it's not designed for cantonese).
We also have issues where conflicts of issues will and do arise. The US has no problem publishing Names and contact details for .com and .net info, but in the EU it wouldn't be allowed.
If you want a huge display of influence the US gov has over ICAAN, see what happens when it comes to allocating names. xxx was suggested as a domain for porn sites, that way it was suggested, it would be much easier to block such content, even for the average computer user. However, the US goverment put pressure on this to be blocked for it's own reasons (google .xxx domains and you'll find enough to support this).

So it wasn't US bashing, it was showing what happens when a goverement tells the rest of the world FU, no debate, no compromise. Of course it's going to get people backs up (as also pointed out in the article).
The reason I said the web could fragment (remember when we talk about the internet 99.99% think of the web), is that if people are not willing to listen, then people will natually walk away and do there own thing. Let's face it, China with billions of connections, could easily start off their own version, then they may add open it up to other nations, Korea, Iran, Iraq, parts of former USSR and then they could be the dominating force. Imagine 2 webs side by side how awkward would that be.



Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[kHz]

People may complain or dislike the current US administration (I won't get into that debate - every administration will have detractors) because of the perceived "go it alone" attitude, however, most of the world does first look to the US to deal with conflicts.

Look at the cartoon protests taking place in the world. The US is being lambasted even though we didn't have anything to do with them. I mean people seem to hate the US for any reason, even if we didn't do anything.

If 9/11 had happened to another country besides the US, I don't think any other country would have taken action because they lack the military might.

Like it or not, but the US is looked upon as the world's policeman. That may or may not be good, but that is the way it is. Could it change? Possibly. Would it be good to have the US shrink away and become isolationist? Probably not.

This is a tech forum, so I don't want to get involved in politics. I appreciate friends of the US, and I can live with people who question and have opinions, but some people just dislike the US because it is the US. The US just wants freedom for everybody, and it seems that some don't respect the US for what the world has because of our might (economic and military).

 

[dkediger]

Several things from the article referenced in the OP:

After a bitter series of negotiations among the business community, governments, and nongovernmental organizations worldwide, the Clinton administration helped broker a compromise and established ICANN in 1998.

Because the United States' hands-off approach had allowed the Internet to flourish, it seemed appropriate that the new organization be based in the private sector. This would make it more responsive, more flexible, and less prone to bureaucratic and political squabbling.

So, despite "bitter" negotiations, this has been hashed out and agreed upon. I suppose the alternative was to leave it under the absolute control of the US as it was up until that time, likely leading to an earlier "fracturing" and development of regional 'nets rather than the still homogenous 'net we currently have.

Washington had planned to grant ICANN autonomy from its oversight in 2006. But the more other countries clamored for power, the more the United States reconsidered its policy of relinquishing control.

This is especially so since the very countries that most restrict the Internet within their borders are the ones calling loudest for greater control.

Pretty much self explanatory there.

ICANN cannot take credit for any of this, but the group's work has ensured that the network operates smoothly so that these benefits can be realized. As the overseer of the domain name system, the United States has taken a liberal approach in keeping with its liberal values. There is no guarantee that an intergovernmental system would continue on such a course, and so even committed internationalists ought to be wary of changing how the system is run.

Regarding the previously mentioned ITU as an example of a UN group that works succesfully. Don't forget the ITU existed as functioning organization for about 80 years before the UN was formed and the ITU, along with most other multi-national agencies, was "housed" there.

 

[Sheco]

UNICEF isn't so bad.

 

[dkediger]

The lack of full support for extended-byte and pictograph languages is not new nor unique to the internet/domain name system or even computers for that matter. It is simply an artifact from the coding tables used to represent characters in memory. Biased? Yes, but innocently so. There is a well documented and functioning RFC process to address technical changes. Fame (and probably a little fortune) awaits.

I think the XXX TLD is a red herring as well. Although it sounds all nice and fuzzy at first blush (?!), what does it really accomplish? How are you going to force all the existing porn sites with identical names except for the TLD into a single address space? I can certainly see where it would become a tremendous cash grab by first, the naming authority, and second, name brokers, but aside from that, it would accomplish little else.

 

[gbaughma]

Then someone decided to do the pathetic, "we invented it crap"

Yeah, I knew I'd end up flamed by someone.

I've been on the 'Net since 1984. Doing gopher searches and so forth (which I really consider the "spark" behind the web)... I mean, if you think about it, the web is essentially a graphical Gopher search.

I also used to teach Intro to Internet at a local college. The government originally developed what is now the Internet as a decentralized way to communicate. Something that couldn't be "blown up" and disrupted. The idea was a big "Loop" around the U.S., connecting military and some research facilities. This way, if part of the "Loop" got blown up, the rest of the loop could still communicate.

Yes, IMHO, ARPANET was driven by the military for means of communications. Now, fast-forward to the late 1960's... we start flying satellites. Much easier to bounce a signal off a satellite (and much harder to hit with a missile), and you don't have to worry about maintaining the physical wiring "Loop". So... they gave it to the Universities.

Don't forget AT&T's part with the development of UNIX. AT&T was essentially told by the government "You're a phone company, you can't develop and sell software", so AT&T essentially gave it to the universities.

Now, before you turn on the flame throwers again, I still stand behind my idea. Give management of the domains, IP distrubution, etc. back to a consortium of universities. Let them handle disputes about domain names. Let them collect the registration money for the domains, to further education and keep their servers upgraded.

The question becomes, what, exactly, are people wanting to manage beyond that? As I said, I'm not paying Microsoft a nickle for every e-mail that MY OWN SERVER sends (Yes, I know that's an urban legend, and won't happen).

(Happy sigh) Yup... and let the law students at the universities get their feet wet prosecuting the spammers... and let the engineers (who are pretty much doing it anyway) develop the new IP protocols....

And, for that matter, this works for everyone. If the desire is for the entire world to be part of it, that's fine as well. Universities in Moscow, Germany, Switzerland, whatever, can all be part of the consortium. Besides, that communications connection that is bridged for managing the 'Net will undoubtably flourish into more cooperation for other things, such as medical research, electronics design, environmental-safe fuels... as those college students who are part of the consortium start to discover similar projects they're working on.

Am I being an idealist? Perhaps. They say the only difference between an optimist and a pessimist is experience. I take pride in thinking that at 40 years old, I still don't have the experience to be a pessimist.



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[Sympology]

If you noticed I agreed with you on the University idea, the problem is not with how the internet is run, but who.
You CANNONT have an independant body if it recieves the vast majority of it's funding from a single source and let's face it, the real reason everyones clamering for a piece is the big green monster.
I'm not suggesting that the US goverement hand over it's control to other goverments, god no. Our goverement is in it third term and is seen as gone power mad.
People also get the have a completly blinkered view of the UN. It's not all about guns, bombs and who kills who. As someone rightly pointed out UNICEF do a good job, as do the WHO, and if anyone says UN is incompetent. I'd say the erradication of smallpox from the face of the earth was quite a minor achivement.
If the UN or the Universities took over , it would have to be open and free to listen to other peoples ligitimate concerns, where they get their funding from and
To be honest,the system is starting to fall apart now, maninly due to corporations and goveremnts grabbing as much money and power as possible. In the Uk we have so many domains to choose from it's getting beyond a joke. The problem is now, how do we sort the mess out that the net is slowly becoming, I believe that a new completly independant body needs to look and address the situation. While any goverment or large corporation has it's fingers in the pie, it will never be a unbiased system.
And as was pointed out, it's the Universitym that are already driving things like IPv6 and "Web2". They are much better at cross border relations than ANY goverment, so yes it would make sense to hand it over to them.
Stu..



Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[Sensibilium]

That's better, thread back on course.

I agree that control of the internet should handed over to universities (worldwide), but funding is a major issue, those who fund have a thumbscrew to turn if they don't appreciate the way the 'net is going...

There is definitely room for improvement, the fear is that we are heading down the road of to restrictive web, all the news of pay-for-email is just one of the many restrictive ideas that are currently swirling in the minds of those architects of the future net.

However, should everything go restrictive, there is talk of reduction to "private webs", which whilst is far from perfect would at least provide secure communications between private parties. "Who needs ISPs?" so the theory asks.

Ahdkaw

http://www.sensibilium.com/

 

[CajunCenturion]

There is no such thing as an independant body. Everyone has an agenda, including universities. Despite what you may thing, universities get the majority of funding from governments and corporations, not student revenues. Universities are just as competitive for that funding as corporations are for their consumers. Universities must also provide a reasonable return to their investor if they want the investment to continue.

Those who want control of the Internet do so because such control will provide power, money, or both.

I think there is a deeper question in play.

Should the Internet be controlled, or perhaps more to the point, what should be the limitations of that control. Before we intelligently discuss who should control it, I think we try to reach a consensus on what should be controlled, and the extent of that control.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[dkediger]

The original article very briefly touched on the point that the current valuable item, from a supply and control standpoint, is the IP address:

Second, there are Internet Protocol numbers, the up-to-12-digit codes, invisible to users, that every machine on the network needs to have in order to be recognized by other machines. Due to a technical decision made when the network was developing in the late 1970s -- in a world speckled with mainframe computers -- the system was set up to accommodate only around four billion potential Internet Protocol numbers, far fewer than are now necessary. Until the Internet is upgraded, accordingly, Internet Protocol numbers must be allocated sparingly -- and carefully, since accidentally duplicating them creates mayhem for routing Internet traffic.

Telecom operators need access to Internet Protocol numbers to deploy services, making them a major asset for companies and an economic interest of countries.

Its the second quote that presents the value proposition on the supply side - as the IP address is the "Internet" in its most basic and raw form. To a large extent, technologies such as NAT have both decreased and increased tha value of the IP address. Decreased, in that it has been a large factor in the explosive growth of IP enabled machines as we know them; and increased in that it has kept IPv6 at bay and kept the value of the routable IPv4 blocks for those who own them.

So, is our quest for "what" should be controlled focused on IP addresses? I do think domain naming is a very secondary issue and falls as much into trademark territory as anything.

 

[kHz]

http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Networks/wtr_16051,258,p1.html

Just one link regarding the Internet. The NSF, who had control until it passed to ICANN in 1998, is spending $300 million on Internet research.

 

[chiph]

and increased in that it has kept IPv6 at bay and kept the value of the routable IPv4 blocks for those who own them.

Agreed. I would really like for Time Warner to deploy IPv6 on their Road Runner network, but chances of that are slim.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[GwydionM]

Something like the Internet was going to be built, whatever the USA did. In fact Prestel had the basics in the 1970s. It failed, in part because there was not the vast funding from the Military-Industrial Complex. But check also Mintel, the French version.

The World Wide Web is also based on older ideas, but was implemented at CERN right in the heart of Old Europe.

Some trustworthy international body is needed. I agree the UN should be kept away from it.

------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[GwydionM]

PS. Anyone not familiar with the Wikipedia should discover it now. Like the Britannica, but free and at least as reliable. You can also add things if you have something serious to say.

Still time (just) to be one of the first million registered members. But you can use it without registration.

------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[kHz]

In fact Prestel had the basics in the 1970s

And the US started development in the '60s. Hmm, so how is it that the '70s are before the '60s?

And the NSF (USA) is funding research into architecting an entirely new Internet. Any other government doing this that I am unaware of?

 

[MasterRacker]

GwydionM, The study that found Wikipedia comparable to Brittanica was itself flawed and caused quite a firestorm. For one, all innacuracies were treated as equal.

Wikipedia has a fundamental design flaw in that it doesn't recoginze experts. A PhD in Physics and Joe Twelvepack who accidentally thought he was writing about Psychics are treated as equal. Registering to post is a very recent development and is an attempt to improve the signal to noise ratio.

Wikipedia is decent for some technical areas and can be quite poor in other areas.

Here's one of many debates about its merits:

http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5825&highlight=wikipedia

To all: sorry to veer off topic. Any further Wiki discussion shoudl probably go into a new thread.

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[GwydionM]

Fair enough, MasterRacker. I've started the thread. Now please add your views.

------------------------------
An old man who lives in the UK

 

[Sympology]

Oddly enough I was going to say I was on Prestel in 1982 on my good ol' ZX Spectrum.
There is some confusion reigning here over this discussion.
Because the two now are so closely merged, that it becomes difficult to seprate them.

The Internet, is fundmently a means of hooking up multiple computers in very large network.
The

http://WWW is

what sits on much of this network, but when you think about it, many apps do not use the web.
Prestel was an early independant form of the web, indeed BT (or the GPO as it was then) are claiming the invention of the hyperlink, although this is (as always) in dispute. It was a graphical form of presenting information on screen (often a TV as oppossed to very expensive computers). But due to it's high cost, it never really took off.
So, imho, Prestel was the forerunner of the web, but not the internet.


Stu..

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[BocaBurger]

Some trustworthy international body is needed."

Is this an oxymoron?



BocaBurger
<===========================||////////////////|0
The pen is mightier than the sword, but the sword hurts more!