Martin Boleman writes "ZDNet reports that Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month. "The Internet is likely to face a grave threat, If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on." he said in a statement." Senator Wants to Keep U.N. Away From the Internet Log in/Create an Account | Top | 1039 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 1039 comments 0: 1022 comments 1: 831 comments 2: 572 comments 3: 121 comments 4: 62 comments 5: 42 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. (1) | 2 well that would suck. by xhrit (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:53AMRe:well that would suck. by LikwidFlux (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:17PMRe:well that would suck. by Catbeller (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:29PMYou Can't Do That by LukePieStalker (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:11PMRe:You Can't Do That by TheKnightWhoSaysNi (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:06PMRe:You Can't Do That by thinkzinc (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:10PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:well that would suck. by Bad Boy Marty (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:13PMRe:well that would suck. by jZnat (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:14PMAnd by takeover... by Ignignokt (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:54AM Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Interesting) by dada21 (163177) * <dada@d n g i nc.com> on Wednesday October 19, @11:54AM (#13827130) Norm Coleman ranked very pro-freedom by the RLC. While he's still a Statist, he seems to have a lightly more freedom oriented strategy for the Senate.The provisions for the Internet being taken over by the UN or any political body will likely bifurcate the Net into multiple separate networks still interconnected but ready to dissolve from those that censor or regulate the information more than the billions of users want.Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.My Internet doesn't need DNS as it is set up today. E-mail is dependent on DNS for now, but a combination of BitTorrent and LDAP will shut that need off if DNS gets ripped apart.There are three reasons for government control of DNS:1. Censorship2. Regulation/licensing of certain speech (campaign, medical, educational?)3. Profit!!! (for the cronies who sell domain names)There is zero need for any regulation. The Internet could be usurped by any big business but isn't. The ultimate proof of anarchy in action. Companies that try to control the users are beaten by those that provide open access. Companies that want to break free from the global structure will anger their users who want access to anyone else. Verizon could separate their phone network completely but its in their best interest to communicate with their competition.The UN just wants monopoly power through force and coercion. The private corporations want to be #1 but have to constantly compete with others. [ Reply to ThisRe:Statist Musical Chairs by duerra (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @11:59AMMine as well.. by kcb93x (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:05PMRe:Mine as well.. by n6mod (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:37PMRe:Mine as well.. by plover (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by dada21 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:06PM Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:4, Informative) by HunterZ (20035) on Wednesday October 19, @12:03PM (#13827222) (http://vogons.zetafleet.com/index.php | Last Journal: Thursday October 13, @02:16AM) Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.Are you kidding?- Most BT torrents reference trackers by domain name. Of course this could change, but existing torrents would break instantly if DNS went down.- Google links pages by domain names when they have them. They might be able to reindex everything by IP address, but it would certianly be nontrivial. Also, I'll bet you load Google via its google.com domain name and not by its IP address.- I'd also wager that over 95% of your bookmarks link domain names instead of IP addresses. Expect every one of them to break if DNS were to suddenly disappear.DNS will never go away simply because business don't want to put raw, hard to remember IP addresses on advertisements when they can put www.mcdonalds.com instead. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Statist Musical Chairs by starwed (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:06PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by interiot (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:25PM Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:4, Informative) by SteveAyre (209812) <(ku.ca.kroy.sc) (ta) (641as)> on Wednesday October 19, @12:12PM (#13827316) Plus every website using NameVirtualHost or equivalent to share the same IP with other websites would become inaccessible, whether you know the IP or not. [ Reply to This | ParentMOD PARENT UP by petermgreen (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:17PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Spaceman40 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:16PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by SteveAyre (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:56PM Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Insightful) by dada21 (163177) * <dada@d n g i nc.com> on Wednesday October 19, @12:22PM (#13827437) You're mostly correct. Today, right now, DNS is needed. So are fax machines and Liquid Paper.Yet the future of the Internet will only seek out more competition, fewer regulations and restrictions, and less dependence on older standards. I do believe the Internet could operate just fine without a central DNS authority. Yes, it would be an enormous problem if DNS broke today or even attempted separation, but it won't happen. Those who depend on the voluntary choice of their customers would immediately find a fix in the event of an outage or separation.The US is wrong in wants to continue to control DNS root services. The UN is even more wrong in thinking taking control would make things better.In the long run, newer protocols and information sharing services will give people the information they want without the need for DNS. Most people communicating over IM don't even see domain names. Most people communicating over BT don't either. As bandwidth goes up and newer forms of hive-communications are created, we'll see less and less central control.I remember running my first BBS. 1 node. Local users only. No sharing of data with other BBSes and only 1 user at a time. Then multinode, then FidoNet, then UseNet, then Gopher, then E-mail, then WWW, then ICQ, then Napster, then BT, then ???Information is getting less centralized or tied to a location in ever faste steps. DNS is ready for replacement. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Statist Musical Chairs by misleb (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:36PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by scruffy_minds (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:56PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by misleb (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by drsmithy (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:54PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Shakrai (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:05PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by morgan_greywolf (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:04PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by misleb (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:46PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:28PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by misleb (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Insightful) by KingSkippus (799657) * on Wednesday October 19, @12:05PM (#13827244) (http://skippus.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 19, @08:25AM) Bit-torrent doesn't need [DNS], Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple. Bittorrent is an itty-bitty part of the services available on the Internet. And if you let search engines serve as your source for finding the location of resources you need, how is that better than DNS? It seems to me that you're just swapping one directory service for another, the second being corporately owned and changeable at their whim. Besides, without DNS, how are you going to even get to Google? http://64.233.161.99 [64.233.161.99]? Or maybe you prefer http://64.233.161.104/ [64.233.161.104] or http://64.233.161.147 [64.233.161.147]?Maybe you don't use DNS a lot, but the rest of the world sure as heck does. It's a basic network service that the Internet is almost useless without. Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.But I guess that's just me. Oh, and the rest of the world. (And for what it's worth I am American...) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Statist Musical Chairs by petermgreen (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:20PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by unixbugs (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:58PMDNS is definitely a good thing by jfengel (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:37PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Phred T. Magnificent (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:44PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by bigpat (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:48PM Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Interesting) by Ngwenya (147097) on Wednesday October 19, @01:12PM (#13828037) ICANN controls it. The US just gave them its blessing.No, I think you're wrong there. The US DoC has control. ICANN is simply their agent for exercising that control. ICANN cannot do anything to "." without permission of the DoC. See here [biglist.com] for a better explanation than I could ever give.--Ng [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Statist Musical Chairs by DaFallus (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:48PM Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Interesting) by JasonKChapman (842766) on Wednesday October 19, @12:50PM (#13827791) (http://www.jasonkchapman.com/) And if you let search engines serve as your source for finding the location of resources you need, how is that better than DNS? It seems to me that you're just swapping one directory service for another, the second being corporately owned and changeable at their whim.They're open to competition and they're a matter of individual choice. Don't like Google's results? Use Yahoo!'s or Teoma's or any of the hundreds that would spring up in response. Of course, you're swapping one directory service for another. That was the GP's point. DNS, while useful, is not the sine qua non of the Internet. DNS relates human concepts (domain names) to IP addresses. Search engines relate human concepts (text content) to IP addresses. My Bookmarks relate human concepts (whatever mnemonic I choose) to IP addresses. It's all the same function. If DNS got borked, the 'Net would recover with surprising speed. That's why any threat regarding "control" of the Internet is empty. Any problems would be temporary--a hassle, yes, but a short-term hassle.Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.s/country/organization/ and the statement works equally well for the UN. As a regulatory body, the UN is a proven failure. It works as a venue for mediation and it works as a coordinator for disaster relief. That's about it. [ Reply to This | ParentSearch engines don't relate text content to IPs by Augusto (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:34PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Zak3056 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:05PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Castar (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:04PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Pharmboy (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @08:50PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by dcam (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by Dwonis (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:29PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Insightful) by cygnusx (193092) * on Wednesday October 19, @01:02PM (#13827925) (http://www.chaoszone.org/) I'm *not* American, but my bullshit detectors go off hard when I see China and Saudi Arabia slavering for control of the free-est communication network known to man. And it's sad to see elements in the EU joining with these countries to promote their own bureaucratic agenda (and many Europeans have noticed [blogspot.com]).And the ironic bit is that Tunisia, where this free-the-DNS-from-US-shackles gabfest was held, has an extremely lousy record [nettime.org] on Net freedom. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Statist Musical Chairs by natedubbya (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:30PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by Saxerman (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:18PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by InsideTheAsylum (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:27PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by anopres (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:06PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Edzor (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:44PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Dwonis (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:38PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by shaitand (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:06PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.3 replies beneath your current threshold.Huh? by RoverDaddy (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:08PMRe:Huh? by StarsAreAlsoFire (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:23PMRe:Huh? by ip_fired (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:44PMRe:Huh? by StarsAreAlsoFire (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:41PMRe:Huh? by CorwinOfAmber (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:08PMRe: please open your freak'n minds a bit by StarsAreAlsoFire (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:36PMRe:Huh? by ip_fired (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:09PMRe:Huh? by budgenator (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:12PMRe:Huh? by StarsAreAlsoFire (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:54PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Krach42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:08PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by revscat (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:16PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by elrous0 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:17PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by revscat (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @10:12PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Phil06 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @11:44PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Seumas (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:18PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by merdark (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:24PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Krach42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:15PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by daviddennis (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:22PM Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Insightful) by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday October 19, @01:35PM (#13828326) (http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 20, @11:24AM) If other countries don't want to play in our sandbox, let them create their own version of the net.I keep hearing this, and I still have no idea what it means. Some of the protocols used on the Internet originated in the USA, some did not. Does that matter? Many of the implementations didn't. If you're using Linux then you may well be using a TCP/IP stack that originated a few hundred yards from me. I guess this means that people from outside Sketty, Swansea, don't deserve to connect to any servers running Linux.The USA did not lay the cable that comes to my house. They did not lay any of the cable in the UK. We did create our own version of the 'net. So did the French. And the Germans, and the Chinese and many, many other nations. And we joined them all together to create an internetwork. The USA did not create the Internet. The USA created the first segments of the Internet. Since then, everyone has been creating the Internet. Everyone will continue to create the Internet whatever the USA does, but I hope the USA will choose to remain a part of it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Statist Musical Chairs by daviddennis (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:07PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by dwater (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:35PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by daviddennis (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by Lifewish (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:16PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Krach42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:25PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by dcam (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:26PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by maxpublic (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:16PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by daviddennis (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @12:13AMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by cojerk (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @09:09PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by atari2600 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:50PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by daviddennis (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:13PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by burndive (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @05:35PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by AndroSyn (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:25PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Krach42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:38PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Krach42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:56PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by tmortn (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:09PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Krach42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:18PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by tmortn (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @11:55PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by PaxTech (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:29PM Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:5, Funny) by Tibor the Hun (143056) on Wednesday October 19, @01:28PM (#13828239) I'm hypothetically confused.is the US the wife-beater and the rest of the world has a duty to stop it, oris Saddam the wife-beater and US had a duty to stop him? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Statist Musical Chairs by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:24PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Krach42 (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @04:02PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by killjoe (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:03PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by BrianGKUAC (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:24PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by raoul666 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @06:58PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by tmortn (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:11PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by maxpublic (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:45PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Krach42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @08:18PMRe:Freedom isn't free by Krach42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:10PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. DNS is also use full for other stuff (Score:5, Informative) by DrYak (748999) on Wednesday October 19, @12:15PM (#13827357) (http://www.sympato.ch/) Beside for finding a server IP dns names can be usefull for a lot of stuffs :- providing load balancing.By the fact they can point to different IP each time.You can have a single domain name like "wikipedia.org" or "google.*" or "pool.ntp.org" pointing to numerous servers accross the globe and thus distibute the load.Old way (providing a list of mirrors) requires the server the contains the mirror list to be able to sustain connextion from ALL users. And adds a cumbersome step to the process.- server co-sharing.A server is usually referred by a single IP addresse.Assigning multiple name to the same server enables you to have different websites depending on used servername.Most of the cheap server solution uses this. ...of course if one day the IPv6 rolls in, it'll be easier to have multiple IPs assigned to a single server (one for each website).- dynamic IPdynip.org and such. (see problems with load-balancing vs. on-line lists above) ..of course with IPv6 this may become less a problem.- DNS used for everything else, including kitchen sink.DNS are also used for listing Spammers,listing botnets and other black-lists,listing E164 number to VoIP maps,what ever else.DNS are often used as convenient lists, with standart interface. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:DNS is also use full for other stuff by platyduck (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:30PMRe:DNS is also use full for other stuff by CaptKeen (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:27PM Reason 4 (Score:5, Insightful) by Ironsides (739422) on Wednesday October 19, @12:20PM (#13827415) (Last Journal: Monday May 09, @05:20PM) the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access," As taken straight from the article. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Reason 4^H^H 1 by hcob$ (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:31PMRe:Reason 4 by Monkelectric (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:04PMRe:Reason 4 by Ironsides (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:18PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Statist Musical Chairs by grumpyman (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:26PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by aaronl (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:36PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by misleb (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:59PM Re:Statist Musical Chairs (Score:4, Informative) by stefanlasiewski (63134) * <slashdot@sERDOSt ... m minus math_god> on Wednesday October 19, @12:30PM (#13827533) (http://stefanco.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 11, @08:09PM) My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.DNS makes the Internet easy to use. How many external IP addresses can you recite from memory? When we moveto IPV6 addresses, will you remember an address like "2001:0db8:85a3:08d3:1319:8a2e:0370:7334/64"?Google DOES make use of DNS names-- it's in the search result. If you rely too much on Google to browse the web, you are giving up some control to rely on a centralized power. I'd be willing to bet that all of your bookmarks use DNS names as well.In the time before DNS, people STILL didn't want to remember all those long IP addresses, and usually stored a name/IP map as a host file on the local machine. And there was much confusion when the host files fell out of sync, and thus a centralized name service was created to deal with this confusion. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Statist Musical Chairs by fingusernames (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:21PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by stlhawkeye (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:45PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by drew (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:59PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Inoen (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:32PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by mboverload (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:20PMMy own dumb analogy by Cro Magnon (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:46PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by Timothy1965 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:32PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by monkeydo (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:34PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by MerlynEmrys67 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:52PMA Modest Question: Why not multiple roots? by lildogie (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:26PMWow... how many objectivist key issues... by israfil_kamana (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @06:36PMRe: DNS by E++99 (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @07:11PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by rutledjw (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @07:41PMRe:Statist Musical Chairs by thej1nx (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @08:45PM7 replies beneath your current threshold. Pot, Kettle (Score:5, Insightful) by eln (21727) on Wednesday October 19, @11:55AM (#13827140) we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on.So his plan is to abolish the RIAA?Seriously, the US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years, why does he think the UN would be any more dangerous? [ Reply to ThisRe:Pot, Kettle by Dutchmaan (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:01PMRe:Pot, Kettle by TummyX (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:04PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:16PM Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:4, Interesting) by TummyX (84871) on Wednesday October 19, @12:30PM (#13827529) Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.Well actually, no, for the same reason many criminals have certain freedoms taken away from them. The internet is the greatest vehicle for free speech and exchange of ideas ever invented. I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet -- including countries that already, today, censor the internet for the 'good of their citizens'. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other nations?And therein lies the problem. If other nations do set up their own root servers, the Internet will be fractured and cease to be the useful network it is today. The whole point of the Internet is that it's run by rough consensus. You can't deny other nations a voice and still expect them to participate on your terms, it's an international resource that only has the value it has because it is singular.Fractured but if there is a need for interaction it will happen. The internet is already a sparse network of sub-networks. If there's a will there's a way.The Internet as it is today is controlled, you just turn a blind eye because you are the ones controlling it.Oh? Care to give an example of how the way its being controlled/managed limits your freedom of speech and expression? Or by "control" are you talking about the fact that it's being managed by a group who make logistical decisions that I could care less about (like whether .xxx or .goatsex should be added as a TLD). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:45PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Dan East (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:43PMRe:Pot, Kettle by MJOverkill (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @02:35PMRe:Pot, Kettle by iminplaya (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:20PMRe:Pot, Kettle by demonlapin (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Pot, Kettle by TerminaMorte (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:46PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:52PMKettle, meet AK-47 by MMaestro (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:59PMRe:Kettle, meet AK-47 by makomk (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:42PMRe:Kettle, meet AK-47 by Cro Magnon (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:55PMmod parent down by ag-gvts-inc (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:04PMRe:mod parent down by Bogtha (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:12PMRe:mod parent down by Senjutsu (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @04:48PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Corbets (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:21PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:32PMRe:Pot, Kettle by nilram (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:26PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @05:31PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Cro Magnon (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @05:36PMRe:Pot, Kettle by DaFallus (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:56PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:32PMRe:Pot, Kettle by DaFallus (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:36PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @04:18PMRe:Pot, Kettle by splatter (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @08:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Insightful? More like clueless. by Bogtha (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:35PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Zak3056 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @02:57PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:5, Insightful) by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday October 19, @01:59PM (#13828579) I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet -- including countries that already, today, censor the internet for the 'good of their citizens'. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other nations? I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY person should have a democractic say including people that are black, jewish, or women, or too poor to own land. Those kinds of people voting might result in blacks owning local businesses and women being able to wickedly seduce men without a husband or father to stop them. Poor people could pass laws that provide a minimum wage, thus hurting the economy for their own selfish interests. I wonder, what other mechanisms of control would you like to see bestowed upon these other types of people; education, the right to ride in the front of buses, the right to marry white women?There is great danger and injustice in assuming that your beliefs are 100% correct and better than everyone else's. Democracy is all about taking everyone's opinion into account. Any country that relies upon the U.S. to always remain a benevolent dictator of the internet and protect their freedoms for them is a country of fools. Right now a power grab in the U.S. could result in the internet resolving to religious messages instead of proper resolution in muslim countries around the world. Even if the U.S. is a good defender of free speech now, that is not a reason to trust it implicitly in the future, instead the system should be made robust and redundant with control shared by many nations. Democracy is not a cure-all, but it is better than trusting a dictatorship of one nation. [ Reply to This | Parent3 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:4, Insightful) by NoMaster (142776) on Wednesday October 19, @05:44PM (#13830819) (http://slashdot.org/) The internet is the greatest vehicle for free speech and exchange of ideas ever invented. All men are equal ... I find it horrifying that you think that EVERY nation should have a democractic say in the administration of the internet ... but some are more equal than others... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Pot, Kettle by TummyX (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:53PMliberty, not democracy by ChristTrekker (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:38PMRe:Pot, Kettle by KarmaMB84 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:39PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:41PMliberty, not democracy (again) by ChristTrekker (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:00PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Apparently Not by everphilski (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:42PM Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:5, Insightful) by roystgnr (4015) <roystgnr@ticam.E ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday October 19, @12:42PM (#13827692) (http://slashdot.org/) Do you really want Iran, North Korea and China having a say in how DNS is administered? Yes, for the same reason I want criminals to be able to vote. Every nation should be represented in a fair and democratic Internet administration, not just the people we like.That's a nice sentiment, but the analogy doesn't hold. If you want criminals to be able to vote, you count their votes. If you want North Korea to have a say in how the internet is administered, it's impossible. You can give Dear Leader a say in Internet administration, but you can't make him share that authority with the rest of the country. Letting totalitarian governments "represent" the populations they control would make international representation less democratic, not more. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:4, Insightful) by m50d (797211) on Wednesday October 19, @12:59PM (#13827887) (http://www.sdonag.plus.com/ | Last Journal: Friday October 14, @03:54PM) If you want North Korea to have a say in how the internet is administered, it's impossible. You can give Dear Leader a say in Internet administration, but you can't make him share that authority with the rest of the country. Letting totalitarian governments "represent" the populations they control would make international representation less democratic, not more. This doesn't stop the US negotiating and signing treaties with such governments, or if it does, then they won't be part of the UN. If the rest of the world has normal diplomatic relations with that government, we accept it as representative of that country, and should count their vote on world affairs as much as that of any other country. If there's an illegitimate government somewhere, they don't get a place in the UN. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Pot, Kettle by ThrobbingGristle (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:23PMRe:Pot, Kettle by pierre-luc (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @03:47PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Brian Stretch (Score:3) Wednesday October 19, @12:44PMRe:Pot, Kettle by d34thm0nk3y (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @03:37PMRe:Pot, Kettle by jez9999 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:05PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Cro Magnon (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:12PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Brian Stretch (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @09:18PMI would consider by jd (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @04:09PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Pot, Kettle by evil_tandem (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:22PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Guppy06 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:26PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Bogtha (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:35PMRe:Pot, Kettle by Guppy06 (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:47PMRe:Pot, Kettle by JordanL (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:35PMRe:Pot, Kettle by nazzdeq (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @01:42PMRe:Pot, Kettle by leereyno (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @01:45PM Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:5, Insightful) by Bogtha (906264) on Wednesday October 19, @02:25PM (#13828857) You want criminals to be able to vote? Let me guess...you're a convicted felon aren't you? No. Believe it or not, a person can be concerned for the rights of a certain class of person without actually being a member of that class themselves. Your projection that I must have this concern out of self interest gives away a rather self-centred attitude. Career criminals and those guilty of especially heinous crimes on the other hand most definitely should be excluded. Let's take an example. A person has strong convictions that people should have the right to determine what goes into their own bodies, and embarks upon a career selling skunk. During this career, they get convicted several times. Does this mean they should be barred from voting for representatives that would decriminalise marijuana?Or another example. A doctor believes that a person should have the right to avoid the suffering of a protracted terminal illness by means of suicide, so he assists a cancer-ridden old lady to end her life. There's no shortage of people in the USA who would label him a monster and call it an "especially heinous crime". Does this mean that he should not be allowed to vote for a representative that would permit assisted suicide for terminally ill patients?