I've just about had it with this bullshit.  Fine, they want the root servers THEN COME GET THEM, MOTHERFUCKERS!



Yeah, I *REALLY* want China, Iran, some piss-ant African dictatorships and the freaking PHRENCH "controlling" how the net operates.  Yeah, that will promote free speech and open exchange of ideas around the world, won't it?  



technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,16559,1589967,00.html

EU says internet could fall apart

· Developing countries demand share of control
· US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform

Richard Wray
Wednesday October 12, 2005
The Guardian

A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control.

The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart.

At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce.

A meeting of officials in Geneva last month was meant to formulate a way of sharing internet governance which politicians could unveil at the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis on November 16-18. A European Union plan that goes a long way to meeting the demands of developing countries to make the governance more open collapsed in the face of US opposition.

Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear.

"We have to have a platform where leaders of the world can express their thoughts about the internet," she said. "If they have the impression that the internet is dominated by one nation and it does not belong to all the nations then the result could be that the internet falls apart."

The US argues that many of the states demanding a more open internet are no fans of freedom of expression.

Michael Gallagher, President Bush's internet adviser and head of the national telecommunications and information administration, believes they are seizing on the only "central" part of the system in an effort to exert control. "They are looking for a handle, thinking that the DNS is the meaning of life. But the meaning of life lies within their own borders and the policies that they create there."

The US government, which funded the development of the internet in the 60s, said in June it intended to retain its role overseeing Icann, reneging on a pledge made during Bill Clinton's presidency. Since Icann was created, the US commerce department has not once interfered with its decisions.

David Gross, who headed the US delegation at the Geneva talks, said untested models of internet governance could disrupt the 250,000-plus networks, all using the same technical standards (TCP/IP), which allows over a billion people to get online for 27bn daily user sessions.

"The internet has been a remarkably reliable and stable network of networks and it has grown at a rate unprecedented in human history," he said. "What we are looking for is a continued evolution of the internet that is technically driven. We do not think the creation of new or use of existing multilateral institutions in the governance of essentially technical institutions is a way to promote technological change."

'Valuable dot'

According to Emily Taylor, director of legal and policy issues at Nominet, which oversees the address categories such as .co or .org - root zone files known as top-level domain names - bearing Britain's .uk suffix, the spat in Geneva was "all about the root - the valuable dot at the end of domain names".

At present Icann decides what new top-level domain names to create and who should run the existing domains, in consultation with a panel called the Governmental Advisory Committee. In practice the GAC exerts more pressure on Icann than the US department of commerce ever has. It was at the GAC's urging that a recent request to create more top-level domain names was reviewed. The commerce department does have the power to clear Icann's decisions.

Icann's president, Paul Twomey, shares many of the US government concerns. He is adamant that his organisation should be allowed to evolve rather than be brushed aside in favour of some untried model of state-led internet governance.

"We are firmly committed to a multi-stakeholder approach," he said. "We expect to evolve, we expect to keep changing. We are concerned about stability [of the internet] and we think it's best to evolve existing institutions. Our present corporate structure is a matter of history, not of any particular design."

But designing new structures is exactly what the international community seems intent on doing. At one end of the spectrum are Iran, Pakistan and other so-called control-oriented states that want to create a new governing council for the web to which Icann would be accountable. The remit of this council seems broad enough to include questions of content, a worry for advocates of free speech on the web.

Two week's ago the EU proposed its own structure, which consists of what it calls a "cooperation model" to deal with Icann and a forum which would allow governments, interested organisations and industry to discuss internet issues and swap best practice.

'Lightweight'

"What we are talking about is a governance structure that is extremely lightweight, where the government oversight of internet functions is limited just to the list of essential tasks," said one EU negotiator.

While the forum "does not decide anything, it is a place where people can come to a view and generally participate in thinking about the internet and the way it is governed".

The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours.

"We really can't have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us."

But EU negotiators are adamant that they reject calls for state control of the content of the internet. "None of this is about content and that is a big difference between the EU position and the position of China and Brazil," the negotiator said. "The proposals that came from Brazil and the others to amend our own proposal were not acceptable, they were trying to drag us closer to their position. We are very alive to that."

Calls from Argentina for a continuing debate while Icann is restructured are believed to have garnered support from countries such as Canada which do not like the perceived power that the US has over the internet but are wary of opening up the web to overall state control.

Just before the meeting in Tunis, there will be a three-day gathering of bureaucrats to try to thrash out a deal on internet governance. Getting the parties - especially the US - to agree to anything looks like a near impossible task but Mrs Reding believes it is crucial to find common ground or see the global communication network disintegrate.

The firm US stand makes that prospect of an end to ubiquity seem imminent. Although any decision from the Tunis summit would have no legal standing, the current deal between Icann and the US government is due to come to an end in September next year, by which time the organisation is supposed to be made independent under the deal made during the Clinton presidency.

Mr Gallagher said that after the Tunis meeting there will be further discussion with governments and the private sector about the future of the organisation. "But we are not going to bureaucratise, politicise and retard the management of the DNS. Period," he said. "That will not happen. We will not agree to it in November and we will not do it in September 2006."

Footnotes

Domain Name System

The DNS is the address book of the internet, matching numeric IP addresses to alphabetic addresses such as www.amazon.co.uk, which people find easier to remember. But instead of one central list of everyone's internet address, which would be massive, it splits addresses into their constituent parts - called domains - and gives each machine in the network enough information to know where to locate the next machine down the line. This is known as a distributed database.

Icann

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is a not-for-profit organisation that manages the DNS. It decides who gets to operate the most basic domains, the top-level domains such as .com and .org as well as all the world's country codes. It is responsible for allocating space on the internet. It was set up in California under contract to the department of commerce and as such it is subject to California state law and any disagreements have to be taken up with that state's courts.

TCP and IP

Internet Protocol (IP) is the technology that allows data to cross networks, using a destination address (IP address) to make sure it reaches the right place. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), meanwhile, ensures the correct delivery of that data or its re-transmission if it gets lost. Together they are the tarmac of the information superhighway.

Root zone file

Although the DNS is a distributed database it needs a starting point, a list of where to go for the first part of an internet address and start a search for a particular machine. This list of where to start is called the root zone file. It is a list of 248 country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) - such as .uk and .fr - as well as 14 generic top-level domains (gTLDs), which are subject-based such as .com and .net and .org. The list, held on 13 machines across the world, says who runs these domains and where to find them.

They can fuck off and die.  The internet is FREE.  That is their problem.  

I'd like to see what TimBL has to say about this.

AR15.com would be banned.

And that's no joke!

Fine with me... Seems like most the major sites and research tools I use and care about are hosted here in the states. Or they are hosted in an ALLY country who doesn't have a special interest in the available content. The few that aren't won't be as big of a loss, compared to the loss of complete freedom of information the internet is currently enjoying.

Fuck em.

To put it simply, Fuck em.

Nobody in the world is going to point their nameservers to whatever the EU kluges together, so it's nothing but grandstanding by them.

MOLON LABE

You guys really need to learn how the Internet works before you start "chanting fuck off and die"

Edit, all that would happen at worst is a netsplit, then there would be two "Internets"

....if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear.

Yes, that will certainly destroy the internet.

So what if it does fall apart? It's ours. We made it, and if it falls apart it is our problem and our problem alone. You don't see us demanding that the French hand over the eiffel tower, or that the British hand over Big Ben.

<--trembling with fear over the thought of losing access to the North Korean News.....

AMEN to that, buy servers build infrastruture, make it reliable accessable and inexpensive and then you will have your own to control as you please. BTW most of the countries wanting control of it should concentrate on sewage sytems, potable water distribution systems, telephone systems and sanitation before moving onto advanced projects like the internet.

If the EU wants it, it must be bad for us.  

The root of the problem of the internet is that there is just too much freedom for the rest of the world.  The EU and the rest of the world just can't handle it, it is just too much freedom, something akin to too much a good thing.  The internet doesn't belong to them, the USA taxpayers paid for with zero contribution from the anyone else. So f'ck off!

<------Talk to the Avatar

Quoted: You guys really need to learn how the Internet works before you start "chanting fuck off and die" Edit, all that would happen at worst is a netsplit, then there would be two "Internets"

Phhhhtttt..........let them have their own internet.  Just like many things....ours will be better and they will still want to have it.  

They can come and get my mouse from my cold dead hand.

They are acting like a bunch of crybabies....they couldn't invent it, they can't control it...they know that we don't need any help from them and it just pisses them off.


Tell them to sit in the corner and count to a million and we will get back to them

Not likely.

It's not about sensorship or freedom.. These asshats aren't dumb-they know what kind of economic damage we could do if we turned the spigot off.

Dave

I'd wager the EU would fall apart before the internet.  

EU: "But...but...I want it!!!!!"
US: "No, it's ours. No go away."
EU: "I'm telling! WWWAAAGGHH!!"

If it means a drop in spam and scams from offshore, then so be it.

We should threaten to unleash the Nigerian scammers if the EU doesn't piss off.  

Maybe we should ask Algore?

Quoted: You guys really need to learn how the Internet works before you start "chanting fuck off and die" Edit, all that would happen at worst is a netsplit, then there would be two "Internets"

Already are two of them now.    Internet2

Hey, EU...

Yea, you assholes over there...


BLOW ME !!!!

Why dont they ask Al Gore for it?




damnit i was beaten

Has anyone ever tried to split a spider web in half.... and had the two halfs stay intact.  I mean.. come on.  What the Fu** is this all about?  Why now.. what the hell.. i just ..dont ..understand.......people.

Quoted: Quoted: You guys really need to learn how the Internet works before you start "chanting fuck off and die" Edit, all that would happen at worst is a netsplit, then there would be two "Internets" Already are two of them now.    Internet2

OH NO!!!!!!!!!  Internet2 has been compromised.  All hands on deck, BATTLE STATIONS!!

Internet2  New Corporate Members 2005
-Motion Picture Association of America
-Recording Industry Association of America

The internet will fall apart if we don't reliquinish control to the EU?



The EU will fall apart if they don't relinquich control of the EU to US!

... Have some patience, the Democrats will relinquish control to the Europeans in 2008

Doesnt the UK own the train industry?

Quoted: Doesnt the UK own the train industry?

Alex, I'll take 'What the Fuck?' for $200.

If china, brazil and the EU make a second Inet, does that mean I won't get spam from those countries anymore?


I'll miss the subject headers

SUCKY SUCKY!! CHINE GIRL WANT HARD MAN

EURO SLUTS LIKE VIAGRA

BRAZILIAN HOT SIES!!

PAYPAL WARNING YOU PASSWORD BORKEN!


I'm for it!  Let them split.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: Doesnt the UK own the train industry? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alex, I'll take 'What the Fuck?' for $200.

LOL I heard that a long time ago and did not believe it. I think it stuck in my brian from bullshitting with a friend and a bad history teacher