andyo wrote to mention an article on the O' Reilly network entitled Why They're Talking About Internet Governance. The piece goes into the history of how things came to be in the first place, as regards the distribution of internet domain space. From the article: "Having established commercial beachheads on the Internet, corporations wanted to own the whole terrain. Through the World Intellectual Property Organization ... they were designing a new regime for handling domain names. It was nicely suited to large corporations ... Within weeks of the successful conclusion of the Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop, a lash-up of Internet leaders, Network Solutions, and other back room forces popped a proposal of their own on a surprised and unprepared Internet community. The proposal ... ultimately led to ICANN. Most stakeholders were left out of the decision--even many large corporations were angry--but the Commerce Department approved the proposal, happy to wash its hands of the issue. " Why Talk About Internet Governance? Log in/Create an Account | Top | 224 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 224 comments 0: 218 comments 1: 176 comments 2: 112 comments 3: 24 comments 4: 13 comments 5: 9 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Nothing Offtopic (Score:2, Funny) by glenrm (640773) on Thursday October 20, @10:06AM (#13835447) (http://www.zenfar.com/ | Last Journal: Friday February 25, @06:16PM) I would say when a topic is repeated this often that nothing be modded Flambait or Offtopic, just to liven things up a bit... [ Reply to This Re:Nothing Offtopic (Score:4, Insightful) by ianmassey (743270) * on Thursday October 20, @10:20AM (#13835586) (http://www.ianmassey.com/) I think it's a pretty interesting topic, and this article supplies the back story for folks who didn't know it already. Ultimately, the hows and the whys don't matter to anyone who has any real say in this issue, though. This will by and large be decided by diplomats and beaurocrats whose experience with the internet consists of their assistant/secretary spending an hour a day trying to help them use it completely in vain.What it really boils down to is we either trust the completely untrustworthy, unstable and unorganized UN to handle this very serious responsibility (which we've been handling just fine all by ourselves for years now), or we further degrade our world image by telling the UN where to stick it and keeping the root servers under the perfectly competent management they have right now and have always had.America is experiencing sort of a golden age of being loathed globally at the moment, which historically has happened to every major world power, especially when they decided to exercise some of their power to improve their position, as we have been doing for the past few years. It is to be expected, and eventually we can expect one of two solutions to occur naturally: A. America reaches a place where it is comfortable enough to slow its expansion/influence, and the rest of the world's grumbling gradually decreases, or B. the shit hits the fan for one of a billion reasons and America's term as world power comes to a halt. It is my opinion that I will live to see "A" happen more than once in my lifetime, and that I'll be dead long before "B" occurs. This root server issue will be solved like every other diplomatic row, in that things will stay exactly the same but a "resolution" will be drafted that strokes the little countries' egos enough that they forget about it for now. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nothing Offtopic by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @10:38AMRe:Nothing Offtopic by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:01AMRe:Nothing Offtopic by cayenne8 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:56PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Nothing Offtopic by A beautiful mind (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:03AMRe:Nothing Offtopic by Ryan Amos (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @10:45AM If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, (Score:4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, @11:18AM (#13836156) (they didn't stop us invading Iraq, we lied and made up a pretty good cover story) If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will bRead the rest of this comment... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:31AMRe:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:05PMThat was hot. by ClintJCL (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:26PMRe:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, by madrone (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:35PMRe:That was hot. by varith (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:50PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, by madrone (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @06:29PM5 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:If Bush Administration Lied About WMD, by RevAaron (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @01:50PMYou forgot option D by Iloinen Lohikrme (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:00PMRe:You forgot option D by da (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:32PMRe:You forgot option D by Iloinen Lohikrme (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:53PMRe:You forgot option D by RevAaron (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:11PMRe:You forgot option D by Iloinen Lohikrme (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @05:35PMOption E by Cro Magnon (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @12:12PMOption E (?) by Create an Account (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:46PMRe:Option E (?) by susano_otter (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @07:24PMRe:Nothing Offtopic by pbaer (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @06:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Nothing Offtopic by NickFortune (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:01PMRe:Nothing Offtopic by jasonditz (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:24PMRe:Nothing Offtopic by NickFortune (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:05PMRe:Nothing Offtopic by jasonditz (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @08:24PMRe:Nothing Offtopic by drsmithy (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @09:57PMRe:Nothing Offtopic by HMKAI (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @06:44PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Etherreal (Score:1) by quibbs0 (803278) on Thursday October 20, @10:15AM (#13835526) Yes I agree....I can't take this topic anymore until the meeting in Tunisia. I think we all agree that we don't want to make our Internet browsing experience an Etherreal session.66.35.250.150....The Artist formerly known as Slashdot [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Give it to the UN (Score:1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, @10:15AM (#13835531) ...then when you hijack someones domain, people wearing little blue hats and driving Nissan Patrols will come knocking on your door with a resolution number. Then you can ignore it and do what ever you want thinking "I just got a visit from the internet police!"But serious, whoever runs it should let everyone in the world should have a say, not just a US company.And internet police would be a good idea also. But make them wear polkadot hats. Red ones, with black dots. That would be nice. [ Reply to This Re:Give it to the UN (Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, @10:34AM (#13835720) I am confused about one thing in this whole fiasco. I have yet to hear a single example of what exactly "the world" needs a say in. Or are they just looking to cash in on domain registration fees by tacking on some form of tax? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Give it to the UN by jeriqo (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:23PMRe:Give it to the UN by braindead (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:04PMRe:Give it to the UN by NewWorldDan (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:25PMRe:Give it to the UN by Yonder Way (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @10:44AMRe:Give it to the UN by FidelCatsro (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:33AM Re:Give it to the UN (Score:5, Funny) by Yonder Way (603108) on Thursday October 20, @11:37AM (#13836378) (http://yonderway.com/magnus) We disowned California a long time ago.I think there are a lot of Americans collectively wishing for either Mexico to take it back, or to have it fall into the sea. Best case scenario, both would happen, and in that order. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Give it to the UN by hesiod (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @12:34PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Give it to the UN by jkaiser (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:47PMRe:Give it to the UN by FatMacDaddy (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:55PMRe:Give it to the UN by cayenne8 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:24PMRe:Give it to the UN by mrball_cb (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:18PMCalifornia will never fall into the sea by spun (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:16PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Give it to the UN by OS24Ever (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @10:53AMRe:Give it to the UN by foandd (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:18AMRe:Give it to the UN by FidelCatsro (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:41AMRe:Give it to the UN by RevAaron (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:21PMRe:Give it to the UN by superpulpsicle (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:23AMRe:Give it to the UN by shutdown -p now (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:37PMRe:Give it to the UN by GLOACAI (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @12:24PMRe:Give it to the UN by werewolf1031 (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:48PMRe:Give it to the UN by Rycross (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:40AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Kudos to the comment on the article itself.. (Score:3, Insightful) by jkind (922585) on Thursday October 20, @10:15AM (#13835537) (http://www.milliondollarsweethearts.com/) Echoes my sentiments exactly "The whole domain name problem could have been solved in a way that would have eliminated strife over domain allocation." Maybe your next entry should explain how. [ Reply to ThisRe:Kudos to the comment on the article itself.. by slo_learner (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:20PMRe:Kudos to the comment on the article itself.. by AndersOSU (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:37PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. I'm in favor of ..... (Score:5, Insightful) by AlltheCoolNamesGone (838035) * on Thursday October 20, @10:18AM (#13835564) None of the of the above.If anything all goverments should be barred from having anything to do with internet. Lord know's that one of them will find a way to fuck this up too. [ Reply to ThisRe:I'm in favor of ..... by grimJester (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @10:31AMRe:I'm in favor of ..... by AlltheCoolNamesGone (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @05:35PMRe:I'm in favor of ..... by 16K Ram Pack (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @10:45AMRe:I'm in favor of ..... by A beautiful mind (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:13AMRe:I'm in favor of ..... by KevinIsOwn (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:28PMWings^W Geeks over the World! by Thud457 (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:34AMRe:Wings^W Geeks over the World! by Rycross (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:48AMRe:Wings^W Geeks over the World! by WhiteWolf666 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:25PMRe:I'm in favor of ..... by Hillgiant (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:25AMGov't control is marginally better than Corp. by abb3w (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:37PMRe:I'm in favor of ..... by saltydogdesign (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:18PMRe:I'm in favor of ..... by AlltheCoolNamesGone (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @05:28PMRe:I'm in favor of ..... by saltydogdesign (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @07:32PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Remit (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, @10:26AM (#13835639) It may be a trollish thing to say, but people tend to confuse "the FBI looking for child pornographers" with "the government keeping us down and invading our privacy". They're different in that one is vauge and the other is not. The FBI or whoever should have complete authority to bust those out there who are overtly harmful, to the extent that net hubs should be under the control of government and can be trawled for - specifically - child porn and dirty old men trying to lure teenagers into cafes for "friendship and more".The devil is in the details, as in any government bureau's remit should include to the letter what it is and is not looking for. "Anything inciting violence" is too vauge, but "online cocaine transactions" is not. To successfully battle internet crime, this distinction should be made. [ Reply to ThisRe:Remit by Impy the Impiuos Imp (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:20AM Some change will happen (Score:2, Interesting) by Ma3oxuct (900711) on Thursday October 20, @10:28AM (#13835650) (Last Journal: Monday July 18, @02:00PM) I think that change in Domain governance will occur inevitably. As far as I remember, the world is running out of IPs, and eventually everyone will have to start using IPV6. This change may or may not become a significant oppurtunity for governments or corporations for make tremendous changes (In my view there is an oppurtunity for change).In my utopia, domain name registration (governance, as the article stated) would be managed by a world wide governing body which would commit to free (as it $$$) and fair distribution of domain names (so that no one can profit off of taking a range of names and forcing others to pay for them). The UN is however is not such an organization; never has not never will be. [ Reply to ThisRe:Some change will happen by budgenator (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:09PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. I have already completed this entire thread (Score:5, Funny) by lbrandy (923907) on Thursday October 20, @10:29AM (#13835660) I have finished this thread for you: >It's not broke don't fix it. (+5, Insightful)>>Yea but America controls it and I don't like America. (+4, Interesting)>The UN IS CORRUPT (+4, Interesting)>> We can just have some countries control it, then (+5, Insightful)>>> Most of those countries already censor the internet! (+5, Interesting>>>> At least they don't bomb people! (+4, Funny)>>>>>We saved your ass in WWII. STFU (-1 Troll)>>>>>>Arrogant Americans. Just like all Americans. All Americans are ignorant and generalize. (1, Redundant)>I hate microsoft (+5, Off-Topic) [ Reply to ThisRe:I have already completed this entire thread by bcat24 (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @10:32AMRe:I have already completed this entire thread by 8127972 (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @11:14AMRe:I have already completed this entire thread by bicho (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:37AMthat's ridiculous... by YesIAmAScript (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:43AMRe:I have already completed this entire thread by joranbelar (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @11:52AMRe:I have already completed this entire thread by SgtPepperKSU (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:54AMRe:I have already completed this entire thread by tsotha (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @08:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Yeah, lets do something about it (Score:2) by jhines (82154) <john@jhines.org> on Thursday October 20, @10:29AM (#13835662) (http://slashdot.org/) There is the world cup for football (soccer), and it is world series time, so let us have a playoff format.Nude mudwrestling anyone? Nethack? Darts? Beer Pong? Cricket on donkeys?There isn't any reason not to have some fun while we are doing it. [ Reply to ThisRe:Yeah, lets do something about it by stephenbooth (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:16AM Censorship (Score:3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, @10:29AM (#13835666) I am concerned if the EU or UN is able to take over control that we will suffer due to censorship. Free speech and interchange of ideas is part of who we are. It is the reason we now have an Internet. I would support forking instead of capitulating. [ Reply to ThisRe:Censorship by grimJester (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @10:49AMMod This Guy Up by SatanicPuppy (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:02AMRe:Mod This Guy Up by Liam Slider (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:28AMRe:Mod This Guy Up by SatanicPuppy (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:47AMRe:Mod This Guy Up by hesiod (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @12:43PMRe:Mod This Guy Up by SatanicPuppy (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:34PMRe:Mod This Guy Up by Bent Mind (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:45PMRe:Mod This Guy Up by khallow (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:22PMRe:Mod This Guy Up by SatanicPuppy (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:54PMRe:Mod This Guy Up by khallow (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @08:14PMRe:Mod This Guy Up by AndersOSU (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:46PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Censorship by Rycross (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:56AMRe:Censorship by TapeCutter (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:00AMRe:Censorship by Xamataca (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:48AMRe:Censorship by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:52AMRe:Censorship by Beyond_GoodandEvil (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @05:37PM Regulation will destroy the internet (Score:2, Insightful) by hsmith (818216) on Thursday October 20, @10:31AM (#13835686) Just as regualation destroys free trade, it will make the internet crawl to a halt. It is only a matter of time before more governments get their hands on it and destroy the free nature of the net. It is only a matter of time. The UN and the EU want to get control of it, you can ensure that it will become highly hampered, even taxed to use to give it to those that can afford it in good socialist fashion. [ Reply to ThisI Agree Fully by Rocketship Underpant (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @10:59AMHa! I'd like to see them try it! by RLiegh (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @12:30PMRe:Regulation will destroy the internet by klaun (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @11:21AMEh?! by Vainglorious Coward (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:42PMRe:Eh?! by hsmith (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:47PMRe:Eh?! by Vainglorious Coward (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:50PMRe:Regulation will destroy the internet by AndersOSU (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:49PMRe:Regulation will destroy the internet by hesiod (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:51PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. ICANN and the UN (Score:5, Insightful) by canuck57 (662392) on Thursday October 20, @10:38AM (#13835752) You can visit the ICANN site and listen to the meeting, informative to say the least. Many sound like they have poor memories, some you can almost hear then snore over the mics and likely many had too much to drink before the meeting.Someone didn't want ICANN making much decisions so they stacked it with people who would paralyze any further development. This is clear.The UN is not much different for the most part.The internet naming is already fragmented and less standard. China for example is using DNS to filter content. We can expect this fragmention to continue.Ultimately the Internet belongs to the people. And it will be run by the people if necessary. If something becomes popular, ICANN nor the UN could stop it. The Chinese are already creative, using proxies outside their country to bypass the government. [ Reply to This Why having the UN run the net is a BAD idea (Score:1) by webappsec (854813) on Thursday October 20, @10:50AM (#13835884) The net in its current state is mostly unrestricted, except in countries like china where the government wants strict control of what their people see. Whenever there is a group of people made up of leaders from different organizations (or countries) they are going to make demands that the others will compromise on. This may include 1 country saying 'I want all my people to not see websites about and I'd like to pass a bill that all ISP's have to block access from ip addresses coming from my country'. Now things like blocking contents should be managed by the country/org and not by the 'world'. By having the UN step in we'll start to see the internet become a more restricted place which could prevent innovation, and access to information to those 'really needing it'. [ Reply to This Pressing Questions (Score:5, Insightful) by SQL Error (16383) on Thursday October 20, @10:52AM (#13835909) From TFA:Should bloggers, for instance, meet the same standards for accuracy as professional journalists?You're proposing a law requiring bloggers to misquote people, get key facts wrong, present nonsense in the name of "balance" and generally make stuff up? Well, sure, if you're going to pay them for it. [ Reply to ThisRe:Pressing Questions by TooMuchEspressoGuy (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:01AMRe:Pressing Questions by Impy the Impiuos Imp (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:28PM Damage, censorship and governance (Score:5, Interesting) by nharmon (97591) on Thursday October 20, @10:52AM (#13835911) Have you ever heard the saying, "The Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it"? I'm not sure who said it, but he/she was right on. To expand on this, we need to look at governance in the same way we look at censorship.If you have never read World of Ends [worldofends.com], I recommend you do so now.The solution to "governance" over the internet is to remain true to the foundations it was developed under. The internet as an agreement cannot be governed. It can only exist while there is compromise and consensus. So, here is what I believe is the best solution to this problem:1. For the time being, maintain the status quo of having ICANN responsible for the assignment of IPv4 addresses.2. Transition into IPv6 by assigning blocks of IP addresses to all countries. Perhaps leaving some addresses for space stations, the moon, mars, etc. Do this though multi-national treaties. This is where the United Nations can help out, but the UN should only be a facilitator. Remember, the Internet is an agreement among nations.3. Have each country be responsible for assigning its block of IP addresses, and for the management of their TLDs.4. Transfer .com, .org, and .edu management to some sort of NGO (ICANN for example), with the purpose being for multi-national corporations, organizations, and institutions of higher education who do not associate with any particular nation (for example would be icrc.org)The important thing is that the internet remain decentralized. This seems to be the point that everybody is missing. It doesn't matter who governs the internet, because nobody should govern the entire internet. Its works best as an agreement, and that is how we should proceed. [ Reply to ThisUN doesn't want it that way. by Morinaga (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @11:08AMRe:UN doesn't want it that way. by harves (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @07:43PMRe:Damage, censorship and governance by stillmatic (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:22AMRe:Damage, censorship and governance by nharmon (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:31PMRe:Damage, censorship and governance by majorowl (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @05:25PMRe:Damage, censorship and governance by spxero (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:39AMRe:Damage, censorship and governance by nharmon (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Committee != 'Democracy' (Score:5, Interesting) by dada21 (163177) * <dada@d n g i nc.com> on Thursday October 20, @10:54AM (#13835929) Here's my #1 problem with governments: the committee. These mini-groups tend to debate over what is best for them, not their constituents.Example of typical bad true Democracy: 51 out of 100 people love large bananas. They vote to regulate bananas, and now only large bananas are available.Example of typical bad representative democracy: 5 representatives of 100 people form a banana size committee. 2 of them have friends or family who grow medium sized bananas. 51 of 100 citizens prefer large bananas. The 2 reps convince the other 3 to set the definition of 'large' as equal to the medium sized bananas, in exchange for adding pork to the law that helps the other 3 reps.Example of free market democracy: 51 out of 100 people like large bananas. 30 like medium, and 19 like tiny. Banana growers grow all 3 sizes, selling them at a price set by the supply of certain sizes and the demand for those sizes.The first two forms of democracy are, well, bananas. Nuts! This is how we live today in the US. The UN is even worse,with almost zero input by the constituents.Internet governance is best delegated to corporations and individuals. Profit is merely a reflection of a company's ability to meet the demands (price, quality, performance) of their customers. Profit can not be demanded. Profit can not be stolen. Profit can not be fraudulent for long. Except when a company is given monopoly power by government mandate (schools, roads, etc).The Internet is a group of individuals who pick an ISP. The groups of ISPs choose a backbone provider. The backbones choose to interconnect.Why is governance needed? If a backbone decides to break away, customers and ISPs will choose another backbone. If an ISP decides to censor or charge too much, users can select another ISP (except when government forces zero choice).There is zero need for government involvement, except to tax, regulate, censor and control. [ Reply to ThisRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by shutdown -p now (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:15AMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by dada21 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:25AMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by spun (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @12:18PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by dada21 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:42PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by Eli Gottlieb (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:34PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by dada21 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:24PMAnarchy != Democracy by aricusmaximus (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @06:57PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by shutdown -p now (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:40PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by cpeterso (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:10PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by Guppy06 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:40PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by slo_learner (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @12:30PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by Bogtha (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:02PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by dada21 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:08PMRe:Committee != 'Democracy' by Impy the Impiuos Imp (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:32PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Unconvincing (Score:4, Insightful) by redelm (54142) on Thursday October 20, @10:55AM (#13835940) (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm) The essential arguement for governing the Internet is missing: Why does it need to be governed at all? Who, other than potential governors, is clamoring loudly for more regulation? What actual governance failures urgently need rapair?I'm sorry, but this looks like a power grab by control freaks. Taking advantage of anti-US sentiment (Iraq/Kyoto) to feather their own nests. Worse, I suspect they intend to provide a great deal more regulation than the minimal needed. [ Reply to ThisRe:Unconvincing by stillmatic (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:32AMRe:Unconvincing by Eli Gottlieb (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:55PMRe:Unconvincing by Impy the Impiuos Imp (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:36PMRe:Unconvincing by jeriqo (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:47PMRe:Unconvincing by karl.auerbach (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:07PMRe:Unconvincing by redelm (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @04:24PMRe:Unconvincing by Antonymous Flower (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:25PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. can't stop money (Score:1) by nazsco (695026) on Thursday October 20, @11:31AM (#13836309) (Last Journal: Saturday October 01, @04:15PM) he says that the US gov opened the use of the internet to comercial use.It was obviouslt going that way, they just started to moderate. [ Reply to This TLDs (Score:1) by Bezben (877719) on Thursday October 20, @11:37AM (#13836374) Just out of curiousity, do we really need TLDs? If you think about it, most companies just register multiple ones anyway, slashdot.org AND slashdot.com for example. To be honest, I think it just adds confusion for the most part, if somewebsite.com is registered to a well know site, doesn't that make somewebsite.org pretty useless to all but squatters?The only useful thing I can think of really is to group country specific services, .gov, .gov.uk or whatever. But then they could just register the .uk. or .us. domain and sub-domain... [ Reply to ThisRe:TLDs by Port-0 (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @03:03PMRe:TLDs by Bezben (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @10:19PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Better not just more TLDs (Score:5, Interesting) by logicnazi (169418) <logicnazi@gmail.com> on Thursday October 20, @11:41AM (#13836439) I agree with most things that Oram says in this article. I have one quibble and one major disagreement I will put in another post.The quibble is that freeing up more tlds won't necessarily solve the scarcity of good domain names. If done incorrectly it could even make the problem worse.The point of domain names is to provide a quick and easy way to remember and communicate internet locations. So long as tlds categorize sites into content relevant categories they do work to relieve the demand for domain names. For instance if you want to go to fuckedchicks (made up) your favorite porn cite remembering that it is in .xxx (assuming it gets popular) is of no difficulty since it is easily connected with important facts you already remember about the site. On the other hand when tlds don't have much to do with content adding more of them can have a negative effect. If you know your favorite blog is computationaltruth.???/blog/ knowing the content or other facts about the site hardly helps you distingush between net, org and com. Since most people and all corporations want to achieve easy memorability when there is no obvious content (or other already known information) based discrimination more tlds can either just increase the confusion encouraging corporations to buy CORPNAME.* for all possible options. Worse too many tlds means some may fade into obscurity and fads keep the 'good' names just as scarce.Or to put it another way too many non-content related tlds make all domains harder to remember and hence don't solve the problem but just spread out the pain by making every name slightly worse.So far it seems that the country codes (and perhaps some even smaller geographic codes) are good (in the sense above) tlds as are the .xxx, .edu and .gov. Org and Com and Net are necessery general purpose names but that model shouldn't be followed with things like .biz which just sow confusion (is that a .com or a .biz)? The important question is whether there are enough good new content related tlds and that is something I don't know. [ Reply to ThisRe:Better not just more TLDs by Jerf (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:07PM