TechScam writes "A new resolution was introduced in Congress that aims to backup the Bush administration over retaining U.S. control of the Internet's core infrastructure. From the article: 'The resolution, introduced by two Republicans and one Democrat, aims to line up Congress firmly behind the Bush administration as it heads for a showdown with much of the rest of the world over control of the global computer network.'"Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='internet,politics';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; Lawmakers Support U.S. Control Of The Internet Log in/Create an Account | Top | 559 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 559 comments 0: 544 comments 1: 391 comments 2: 247 comments 3: 61 comments 4: 35 comments 5: 20 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. what drives this controversy? (Score:4, Insightful) by yagu (721525) * <yayagu AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 23, @02:48PM (#13858768) (Last Journal: Sunday October 16, @06:38PM) How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know itan outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially growfrom those efforts and work?This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shinytoy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of theworld wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).I don't think the U.S. is the wisest and most sage about everything, but seriously,what is considered the risk here for it maintaining stewardship. It may have missteppedonce or twice but empirical evidence suggests competent management (note I didn't saythe "best"), and I haven't seen any contraindications to the detriment of the restof the world.I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrestthe internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and moreseriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today.(Meanwhile, has anyone peeked at the ozone hole lately?) [ Reply to This Define "control". (Score:5, Insightful) by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday October 23, @02:57PM (#13858816) Really, no one is talking about taking the Internet away from the US.What is in question is what nation/organization should have the final say over the domain assignments, creation and so forth.Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Define "control". by Wyatt Earp (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:10PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re: .xxx TLD...? by H_Fisher (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:19PMRe: .xxx TLD...? by ericdano (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:26PM Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:5, Insightful) by Afaflix (895812) on Sunday October 23, @04:23PM (#13859336) You really don't get it.The "smut" is already on the web ... under .comif you have all the smut under .xxx it is much easier to filter stuff out.lets assume .xxx comes to be; many of the companies that provide that kind of smut will use the .xxx because then they are easy to find.easy to find means dollarsthe entities(liraries, schools, families) that DON'T want that smut on their computer screen can easily filter that out and sowith protect the innocent eyes of those they want to. cheers [ Reply to This | ParentRe: .xxx TLD...? by KarmaMB84 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:00PM Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:5, Insightful) by maxpublic (450413) on Sunday October 23, @05:02PM (#13859586) (http://slashdot.org/) if you have all the smut under .xxx it is much easier to filter stuff out.And what exactly are you going to do. Force everyone who serves up porn to move the .xxx domain, under penalty of law? If so, then who gets to decide what's porn? The U.S. religious right? Iran? Me?The .xxx domain solves nothing, and serves only as a potential tool to oppress others - especially the owners of sites which aren't pornographic, but which certain religious groups would like to classify as such in order to drive them off the 'mainstream'.Max [ Reply to This | ParentRe: .xxx TLD...? by Jace of Fuse! (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @07:06PMRe: .xxx TLD...? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @08:03PMRe: .xxx TLD...? by SeaFox (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:03PMRe: .GUN TLD...? by RentonSentinel (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @08:40PMRe: .GUN TLD...? by SeaFox (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:57PMRe: .xxx TLD...? by TummyX (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @09:02PMRe: .xxx TLD...? by utnow (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:35PM Re: .xxx TLD...? (Score:4, Informative) by stwrtpj (518864) <p.stewartNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Sunday October 23, @05:38PM (#13859806) (Last Journal: Friday March 21, @01:04AM) The real reason that the US government asked for postponement of the .xxx domain is because some lawmaker realized at the last minute that instituting a .xxx domain specifically for adult content effectively legitimizes it. It would give defense lawyers for those accused of violating "obscenity" laws new ammunition, allowing them to claim that the government effectively gave its blessing to adult content by granting this domain for that use. By preventing this from happening, the government eliminates this potential defense. [ Reply to This | ParentRe: .xxx TLD...? by rs79 (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:42AMRe: .KKK TLD...? by RentonSentinel (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @08:35PM US blocking .xxx TLD, but not .xxx.${cc} (Score:5, Insightful) by The Monster (227884) on Sunday October 23, @04:15PM (#13859292) (http://slashdot.org/) Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years. And yet, via the ccTLD mechanism, we have federated control of domains to every nation on earth, including some with policies we don't much like. So, for example, if those wonderful bastions of free speech, the French, wanted to, they could make an .xxx.fr domain. Whatever interference is exerted by USGOV to prevent .xxx, there also must be hundreds of other countries preventing .xxx.$(cc) as well.I personally oppose .xxx, but not for the reason you might expect. I think people (including my own brother [stbi.edu]) who demand that the Internet be made safe for the Precious Children<tm>, perhaps by ghettoizing 'adult content', have it backwards. The Internet was built by and for adults, and the presumption should be that a site is for adults unless otherwise specified. I'm all in favor of .kids or other mechanisms to 'whitelist' G-rated content, but want no part of a system that requires consenting adults to do anything to keep kids out. That's their parents' job. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:US blocking .xxx TLD, but not .xxx.${cc} by maxpublic (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:07PMRe:US blocking .xxx TLD, but not .xxx.${cc} by The Monster (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:16PMRe:US blocking .xxx TLD, but not .xxx.${cc} by rs79 (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:54AMRe:US blocking .xxx TLD, but not .xxx.${cc} by Darkman, Walkin Dude (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @07:08PMRe:US blocking .xxx TLD, but not .xxx.${cc} by geminidomino (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:43PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:US blocking .xxx TLD, but not .xxx.${cc} by linuxrocks123 (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @11:25PM Nor should we. (Score:4, Insightful) by Jetson (176002) on Sunday October 23, @04:22PM (#13859335) (http://slashdot.org/) Because the US is still in control, we do not have the .xxx TLD, nor will we for many years.Nor should we. Every country in the world has been assigned a 2-letter top domain, and we should be using them. Rather than creating new 3-letter TLDs we should be adding ".us" to the current ones. Those ".com"s that are not in the USA probably already have a matching address in their own country's TLD anyway. Sometimes it redirects to the .com (microsoft.ca redirects to microsoft.com/canada) and sometimes the redirection works the other way (google.com redirects to google.ca if you try to connect from Canada).Once the whole world isn't fighting over the same TLD there won't be any call for the USA to give up control because it would only control the ".us" domain anyway.This fight is about who gets to profit from issuing and owning "vanity plates". [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nor should we. by TheRaven64 (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @05:54PMRe:Nor should we. by abreauj (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @10:23PMRe:Nor should we. by Random832 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @10:54PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Homology (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @02:59PMHAhahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:06PMRe:HAhahahahahaha by Homology (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:13PMRe:HAhahahahahaha by CDPatten (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:50PMRe:HAhahahahahaha by jadavis (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:55PMRe:HAhahahahahaha by a_n_d_e_r_s (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @07:25PMRe:HAhahahahahaha by Homology (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:32PMRe:HAhahahahahaha by DesireCampbell (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:53PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by ericdano (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:37PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Homology (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:51PMRe:what drives this controversy? by ericdano (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:06PMRe:what drives this controversy? by killjoe (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:43PMRe:what drives this controversy? by zardo (Score:1) Monday October 24, @12:31AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Yahweh Doesn't Exist (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:44PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Pad-Lok (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Xarius (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:11PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Burz (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @05:01PMRe:what drives this controversy? by gedhrel (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:16PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:38PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Pinefresh (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:32PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Seumas (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:50PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Bobzibub (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @03:13PMRe:what drives this controversy? by blincoln (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @03:31PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Carewolf (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @03:50PMRe:what drives this controversy? by stevesliva (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:49AMRe:what drives this controversy? by Xarius (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:14PMRe:what drives this controversy? by A beautiful mind (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @04:52PMRe:what drives this controversy? by maxpublic (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:46PMRe:what drives this controversy? by StrawberryFrog (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:58PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Attaturk (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:08PMRe:what drives this controversy? by TrappedByMyself (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:26PMRe:what drives this controversy? by qzulla (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @10:06PMRe:what drives this controversy? by maxpublic (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:43PM Re:what drives this controversy? (Score:5, Insightful) by Decameron81 (628548) on Sunday October 23, @03:14PM (#13858895) "How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?" No, the Internet as we know it is the result of the work of programers, engineers and other profesionals from all over the world. It may be based on DARPA's work but there's a lot in it that has nothing to do with it. Simply discarding other contributions as irrelevant to make Internet what it is today is simply an attempt to give the US more credit than they actually have. "This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not)." The reason why other countries want more control has nothing to do with jealousy or envy. They simply don't want to be dependent on the US in something as important as this network is. I am quite sure that if the situation was reverted, the US would be requesting the same.What really scares me a bit is the notion some US citizens have that other democracies in the world are not as democratic than theirs. On top of that I find it quite interesting that out of all possible motivations you could have seen behind the request of other countries to have more control, you decided that the most plausible one was jelousy and envy. That kind of reasoning can lead to no good. "I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrest the internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and more seriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today." That's completely subjective. I personally feel like the Internet is too big for the US alone. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:what drives this controversy? by frank378 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:29PMRe:what drives this controversy? by koko775 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:09PMRe:what drives this controversy? by frank378 (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @07:21PMRe:what drives this controversy? by koko775 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:29PMRe:what drives this controversy? by frank378 (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @09:03PMRe:what drives this controversy? by ericdano (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:45PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Shiriki (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:22PMBULLSHIT!!! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:45PMRe:BULLSHIT!!! by Decameron81 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:57PMRe:BULLSHIT!!! by arminw (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:19AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:BULLSHIT!!! by VJ42 (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:05PMRe:what drives this controversy? by VJ42 (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:32PMRe:what drives this controversy? by S.O.B. (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @11:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by KDR_11k (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:39PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by drew (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:29PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by kmartshopper (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @10:29PMRe:what drives this controversy? by arminw (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @11:56PMRe:Please... by Decameron81 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:01PMRe:Please... by arminw (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:29AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:what drives this controversy? (Score:5, Insightful) by jadavis (473492) on Sunday October 23, @03:16PM (#13858903) It doesn't really have anything to do with who invented it. They can "reinvent" the internet any place they want, it's not like the U.S. has some global patent.It has everything to do with economic power. Many people in the U.S. would hardly notice if other countries started dropping off the internet, except, perhaps, for a small decrease in spam. In any other country, the internet would basically be useless without seeing U.S. sites.I may be somewhat exaggerating, but the basic idea is that the U.S. holds all the cards (for now at least), and the other countries don't really have any recourse. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:what drives this controversy? by KDR_11k (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:43PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Hydrogenoid (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:02PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Bemmu (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:40PMRe:what drives this controversy? by williamhb (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @08:09PMRe:what drives this controversy? by QuantaStarFire (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @11:46PMRe:what drives this controversy? by whathappenedtomonday (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:22PMIndeed. BUILD YOUR OWN! by renehollan (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:31PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Rzso (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:31PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Ok, but we get to take back all engines (Score:4, Insightful) by PontifexPrimus (576159) on Sunday October 23, @03:47PM (#13859110) Man, whenever I hear stupid drivel like this I'd like to remind the poster that the Otto internal combustion engine [wikipedia.org], the Diesel motor [wikipedia.org] and the Wankel engine [wikipedia.org] all were invented by German engineers, funded by German money and patented in Germany. So please, do stop using them, then you're allowed to complain.Or better yet, force the designers to include remote control kill-switches that allow the German government to shut down each one. Don't worry, we'd never abuse that. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by yagu (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:48PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by PontifexPrimus (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:03PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by jadavis (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:15PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by fuck_this_shit (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:41PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by jadavis (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:12PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by fuck_this_shit (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @06:18PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by jadavis (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:35PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by fuck_this_shit (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @07:06PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by jadavis (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @10:14PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:10PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by jadavis (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:22PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @10:53PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by yagu (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:22PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by Bandraginus (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @07:46PMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by arminw (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:40AMRe:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by fuck_this_shit (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Ok, but we get to take back all engines by dBLiSS (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @08:06PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Lonewolf666 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:58PMIdiot? by Sr. Pato (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:15PMRe:Idiot? by yagu (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:58PMRe:what drives this controversy? by GamesNET (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:17PMRe:what drives this controversy? by sznupi (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:33PMWe Drive the Controversy by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @09:43PMRe:what drives this controversy? by rs79 (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:03AMRe:what drives this controversy? by apraxisof (Score:1) Monday October 24, @12:31AMRe:what drives this controversy? by Philip K Dickhead (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @02:59PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Sinus0idal (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:35PMRe:what drives this controversy? by LWATCDR (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:11PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:23PMRe:what drives this controversy? by LWATCDR (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:39PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Bobzibub (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:42PMRe:what drives this controversy? by KarmaMB84 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:09PMRe:what drives this controversy? by LWATCDR (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:17PMRe:what drives this controversy? by maxpublic (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:29PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by ericdano (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:28PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Minupla (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:36PMRe:what drives this controversy? by oh_bugger (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:49PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:34PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by glesga_kiss (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:36PMRe:what drives this controversy? by LWATCDR (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @03:51PMRe:what drives this controversy? by sznupi (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:36PMRe:what drives this controversy? by AbraCadaver (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:47PMRe:what drives this controversy? by sznupi (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:01PMRe:what drives this controversy? by superflyguy (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @07:18PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @06:20PMRe:what drives this controversy? by sznupi (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @06:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by glesga_kiss (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @07:19PMRe:what drives this controversy? by amliebsch (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:15PMRe:what drives this controversy? by glesga_kiss (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @10:52PMRe:what drives this controversy? by amliebsch (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:35AM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by NathanBFH (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:51PMRe:what drives this controversy? by glesga_kiss (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @07:27PMRe:what drives this controversy? by conradp (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:02PMRe:what drives this controversy? by KDR_11k (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by maxpublic (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:39PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Darkman, Walkin Dude (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @07:13PMRe:what drives this controversy? by GeekyMike (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @09:41PMRe:what drives this controversy? by TomRitchford (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:51PMRe:what drives this controversy? by glesga_kiss (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @07:06PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by TouchyFeely (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:40PMRe:what drives this controversy? by TouchyFeely (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:57PMRe:what drives this controversy? by TouchyFeely (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @06:13PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.You seem to have confused the past with the presen by hackwrench (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:38PMMeans Vs End by oddsends (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:05PMNo, it doesn't by hackwrench (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @05:54PMRe:No, it doesn't by oddsends (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @06:21PMI am unfamiliar with the utilitarianism vs. Kant.. by hackwrench (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @08:02PMAction needed from across the pond!!! by oddsends (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @08:35PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by TrappedByMyself (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @03:12PMRe:what drives this controversy? by aitikin (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:29PMRe:what drives this controversy? by sedmonds (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:59PMRe:what drives this controversy? by qatm (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @06:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:17PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:what drives this controversy? (Score:5, Informative) by Shihar (153932) on Sunday October 23, @03:25PM (#13858961) would America (and by america i mean the right wing and left wing traitors to the constitution) like it if say China controlled major aspects of the internet? how about North Korea?No, and that is kind of the point. No, the US does not want two nations famous for their censorship of the Internet to have any more control then they already do.Oh... what is this fine gem from the UN? http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/docume nts/APCITY/UNPAN016881.pdf [un.org]Is this China asking for more control over the Internet?And lookie here.http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.doc [wgig.org]The original report on Internet governance. Hrm, who signed this merry little report... China, Cuba, Egypt, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to name a few. Now, I now the US is the great Satan and all, but do you really want those nations to dictate internet governance? Me personally? I'll pass and take my chances with the nation that has seemed to have done a marvelous job keeping their hands completely off of ICANN. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:what drives this controversy? by dajak (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:33PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Burz (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:01PM++funny by dajak (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @06:34PM Re:what drives this controversy? (Score:5, Insightful) by nmb3000 (741169) on Sunday October 23, @05:47PM (#13859859) (http://www.khaaan.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday May 14, @05:14AM) Thanks for post those interesting documents. Some excerpts for those scared of PDF and DOCs:From the first one (China):Our government is planning to make new relevant policies and legislations, and making itsefforts toward carrying out more practical and effective ways by using its legislative powerand jurisdiction to create a healthy, stable and sustainable developing net atmosphere.What kind of legislation? Blocking sites with the word "democracy" in it? China's apparent desire to make the Internet "healthy" is a joke.To sum up, Internet governance is a system engineering, which need to construct an integratedsystem via the efforts from various layers of management in the whole human society. It needsthe participations and support from all the people to protect Internet ethics and developInternet civilization. Only in this way, could the Internet information society serve humanbeing on economic, social, cultural and other aspects.What in the world? I've got a shiny nickel for anyone that really understands that. "Internet eithics" indeed. This paper contains absolutely nothing of any value. How applicable to the UN.The second document is almost as good. You can sum it up with the following:1) Wah wah wah. The US has control over the DNS root servers.2) It costs a lot to build an infrastructure.3) Spam is bad.4) IPv6 is good.5) Too much English on the Internet6) The Internet will break any second if the UN doesn't step in.I have yet to see a valid argument for the UN control of the root DNS servers. Documents such as these are a perfect example of using a lot of words and not saying anything at all. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by stdarg (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @08:16PMRe:what drives this controversy? by synthespian (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @09:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:what drives this controversy? (Score:5, Interesting) by jadavis (473492) on Sunday October 23, @03:30PM (#13858997) You're talking about the moral justification, not the actual reason. If the E.U. or the U.N. wanted to, they could easily fabricate some moral justification for taking over the internet. But they would then run into the actual reasons that the U.S. has control:(1) The U.S. has a unified language(2) The U.S. is an economic powerhouse, especially on the internetThe moral justification is orthogonal to the actual reason. It happens that they point at the same country this time. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:what drives this controversy? by Gavin Rogers (Score:2) Monday October 24, @12:33AMRe:what drives this controversy? by ScrewMaster (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:53PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Doctor Crumb (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by mi (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:35PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by conradp (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @03:39PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Red Alastor (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @03:50PM Re:what drives this controversy? (Score:5, Insightful) by hamilton76 (629072) on Sunday October 23, @04:02PM (#13859213) Funny how you conveniently forget that we're talking about the Internet, not the Web. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:what drives this controversy? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:04PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Zerth (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @06:53PMRe:what drives this controversy? by BgJonson79 (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @07:05PMActually, the web is also a US invention... by msauve (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @08:24PMRe:what drives this controversy? by Gordonjcp (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @04:09PM Re:what drives this controversy? (Score:4, Insightful) by maxpublic (450413) on Sunday October 23, @05:24PM (#13859730) (http://slashdot.org/) Then the US can wall off their own little Internet, and pretend the rest of the world isn't out there.Most of the rest of the world seems to be fine with things just the way they are. The only people who object to it are a few politicians and their brain-dead supporters. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a poll conducted pretty much anywhere in the world would indicate that the vast majority of folks don't even know this "issue" exists. The internet works just fine for them, and I doubt they could see any reason for changing things, or would even care. It will stop all the spam from mouthbreathing Comcast usersAs opposed to the mouth-breathers who use other ISPs, both in the US and Europe? It's painfully obvious to anyone with a few neurons to rub together that Europe has just as many idiots as America does; stupidity isn't a specific national trait.The US will wall itself off more and moreRiiiight. You mean a few spoiled little brats who can't have ICANN will wall themselves off from the rest of us, to the great anger of their own citizenry (excepting the Chinese, who're already doing it). Good call, that; let's see how long the English, or Danish, or Hungarians put up with politicians grandstanding when it means they can no longer reach any of their favorite sites. That'll put an end to this crap right quick. the UN has to come in and sort it out.That would be a first for the UN.Max [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:what drives this controversy? by KDR_11k (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @04:49PMRe:what drives this controversy? by packeteer (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @07:21PMRe:what drives this controversy? by BrokenHalo (Score:3) Sunday October 23, @07:53PMRe:what drives this controversy? by bbc (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @08:35PM15 replies beneath your current threshold.Wth congress' backing... by CDPatten (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @02:48PMRe:Wth congress' backing... by matgorb (Score:1) Sunday October 23, @03:30PM Bush is irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful) by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Sunday October 23, @03:46PM (#13859101) Bush won't backdown. I predeict the US is going to win this battle The thing is, whether Bush backs down or not is irrelevant. Despite the views apparently held in the White House and among a disturbingly large proportion of US citizens, the US has no authority over anyone outside its own borders. If the rest of the world wants to run its own alternative DNS system, then realistically there is pretty much jack the US can do about it, and if it tries to play the isolation/fragmentation game, it's going to miss the rest of the world a lot more than the rest of the world misses it. The only constructive thing the US administration can do is try to talk/bribe them out of it diplomatically and/or hope they decide that it's not really a good idea after all and drop it.Personally, I have mixed opinions on this one. On general principles I think the US should be forced to relinquish absolute control, particularly since it has demonstrated a willingness to abuse the position by effectively vetoing the .xxx TLD. However, I maintain a healthy scepticism about the UN, which lots of US-based people seem to assume is the only option on the table here despite at least four serious proposals having come out of the EU already. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Bush is irrelevant by maxpublic (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:01PMRe:Bush is irrelevant by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:12PMRe:Bush is irrelevant by maxpublic (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @06:30PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Wth congress' backing... by KarmaMB84 (Score:2) Sunday October 23, @05:22PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Time to begin