Coffeehouse Thread

64 posts

Should the US give up control

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    zzzzz

    OF the Internet.

    link to the article

    I want to know what the brits and the rest of Europe thinks???

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    Yes, they should.

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    Yeah, let the U.N. take over, they did a good job of the Oil for Food program in Iraq, didn't they.

  • User profile image
    billh

    Vive le France!

    Kidding.

    I can only imagine what that would be like.  Or worse a French anti-virus product modelled after the Maginot Line.

    I don't want the UN to take it over, then we will have ONE WORLD government control of all our information.

    Seriously, though, I don't want the UN involved because it would take years to vote on any kind of standard, any kind of action, and you'd have to get a lot of countries to agree with you.

    Let me tell you another thing about the UN...they need to keep their nosy faces out of my ...

    ::: end of transmission :::

  • User profile image
    andokai

    Harlequin wrote:
    Yeah, let the U.N. take over, they did a good job of the Oil for Food program in Iraq, didn't they.


    Yes and the US's treatment of the whole war is to be applauded??

  • User profile image
    billh

    andokai wrote:
    Harlequin wrote: Yeah, let the U.N. take over, they did a good job of the Oil for Food program in Iraq, didn't they.
    Yes and the US's treatment of the whole war is to be applauded??


    I thought the whole war thing was brought in front of the U.N. But now why would Kofi Annan want a war if he was pocketing a little extra change on the side?

    -1 offtopic comments

  • User profile image
    gekkokid

    if its not broke dont fix it, UN only want it to make money i suspect,

    thoughts of an english dude



  • User profile image
    andokai

    billh wrote:
    I thought the whole war thing was brought in front of the U.N. But now why would Kofi Annan want a war if he was pocketing a little extra change on the side?

    -1 offtopic comments


    So you're saying the mess in Iraq is fine because Kofi Annan isn't making money there anymore?

    Anyway to try and drag back on topic. I don't think something that is relied upon by more and more businesses and economies should be controlled by one nation. It may be true that a decentralised committee my have too much politics so perhaps a solution would be to do something similar to the EU where a different country has the presidancy each year.

    Ah forget it it's Friday.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Ditto. Who cares who 'owns' the Internet, or claims to?

    I could claim to own the sky, doesn't make it true.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Rossj wrote:
    Ditto. Who cares who 'owns' the Internet, or claims to?

    I could claim to own the sky, doesn't make it true.



    I don't think "owns the internet" is the right word.

    The Internet is just the name given to the collection of public computer networks spanning the world. The US just controls the root "arpa" DNS servers.

    Whilst the Internet uses DNS as the primary addressing system, we are free to use our own addressing system if we so wish, its just that all of our existing systems are reliant on DNS, but even then, we could set up our own "arpa" DNS servers and use them in lieu of the american-controlled ones.

    Besides, it was us, in Europe, who developed the World Wide Web Wink

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Nope, the US needs to maintain control.

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    No, they need to give up control. >Expressionless

  • User profile image
    zzzzz

    if the World wants more control then why are they not involed in the Internet 2 project that is eating up US tax dollars.

  • User profile image
    bsilby

    I don't really care where the Internet is run from, as long as it works Smiley

    Besides, just because the primary servers are situated in the US, it doesn't mean that its under "US" control. There are probably people from a range of nations involved in monitoring the system. We are living in a global community.

    Yep, I'm naive and optimistic Perplexed

  • User profile image
    koorb

    .XXX is a great idea, but the US blocked it anyway. Not for any logical reason, but because someone didn't like the idea of (I need to watch my language) being on the internet.

  • User profile image
    dotnetjunkie

    bsilby wrote:

    Besides, just because the primary servers are situated in the US, it doesn't mean that its under "US" control. There are probably people from a range of nations involved in monitoring the system. We are living in a global community.

    Yep, I'm naive and optimistic

    Unfortunately, you are...

    It's the other way around: the primary servers are located all over the world (there is one in Tokyo for example), but they are all controlled by the US.

    The alternative, public-root, however, has a more fairly distributed model:
    http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm

  • User profile image
    manickernel

    You are all just waiting for it to break. Then you can blame us for that too.

     

    Sad

  • User profile image
    dotnetjunkie

    The Public-Root server include the Icann-Root, plus everything from Internet2.

    Why don't we all use that instead?  It's much less restricted, and works equally well (13 servers across the globe).

    (Only the Turkey server seems to be down at the moment Wink http://public-root.com/root-server-check/index.htm)

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.