Coffeehouse Thread

20 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Keep Internet out of UN control, says US

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Erisan
  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Pfft, its no biggie.

    There's nothing stopping the UN from creating their own DNS servers and having their own DNS system in lieu of the ICANN's.

    Maybe then the UN's DNS system would make a helluvalot more sense than our existing most-to-least specific naming conventions.

    http://us.com.msdn.channel9/ makes a lot more sense than http://channel9.msdn.com.

    Discuss.

  • User profile image
    geekling

    W3bbo wrote:


    Sure it does.

  • User profile image
    Devils​Rejection

    I have lived in the states for about 10 years, and this is just plain fu*king arrogant. The internet isn't for America to control, let the UN do it. The internet was created for people of all nations to exchange information.

    On the internet you aren't black, white, male, female, retarded, smart. You are just someone else with a voice wanting to be heard (hacker manifesto)

    If Europe even threatens to seperate itself from the internet then we should just give in, have one connected network not many little seperated networks.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    DevilsRejection wrote:
    I have lived in the states for about 10 years, and this is just plain fu*king arrogant.


    To an extent, but you can't blame them for wanting to both maintain the status quo /and/ maintain their "freedom"

    DevilsRejection wrote:
    The internet isn't for America to control, let the UN do it. The internet was created for people of all nations to exchange information.


    Wrong Wink

    ARPANet evolved into the Internet. ARPANet was invented to keep military computers and universities connected (in case any of them got hit by a Soviet nuke). You're thinking of the WWW which was invented to share information, and the WWW (HTTP w/ HTML) doesn't have to run over The Internet, it works almost any other network too.

    DevilsRejection wrote:
    On the internet you aren't black, white, male, female


    ...well, it depends on how much detail you put into your MUD Char Desc Wink

    DevilsRejection wrote:
    retarded, smart


    Er.... I'm guessing you haven't seen the WWW's little gem known as "LiveJournal" recently.

    DevilsRejection wrote:
    You are just someone else with a voice wanting to be heard (hacker manifesto)


    True, but what does freedom of speech have to with the DNS?

    DevilsRejection said:
    If Europe even threatens to seperate itself from the internet then we should just give in, have one connected network not many little seperated networks.


    RTFA, it's the UN, not Europe (the EU).

  • User profile image
    dahat

    DevilsRejection wrote:

    If Europe even threatens to seperate itself from the internet then we should just give in, have one connected network not many little seperated networks.


    So the United States and other civilized nations should not negotiate with terrorists... but should give in when someone threatens to throw a hissy fit and take their ball and go home?

    If they threaten to separate themselves from the internet... let them, heck, I’m sure we could give plenty of pointers as to how to do it best. If their ‘EruoNet’ or ‘WorldNet’ is successful, there is little reason that it couldn’t at a later day be plugged back into the Internet... of course that assumes such an undertaking would be successful.

    Any sort of wide scale, alternate internet that does not interop with the existing one is quite likely to fail given it’s users are going  to be cut off from many of those resources that they want/need. Want to e-mail someone on that ‘other’ network? Sorry, you are SOL. Want to browse eBay listings outside of your region? Same issue. The list goes on.

  • User profile image
    Devils​Rejection

    Whoops I said Europe not UN. Anyway the main reason they (the states) don't want this happening is intellectual property rights have no meaning in an international domain.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    dahat wrote:
    So the United States and other civilized nations should not negotiate with terrorists... but should give in when someone threatens to throw a hissy fit and take their ball and go home?

    If they threaten to separate themselves from the internet... let them, heck, I’m sure we could give plenty of pointers as to how to do it best. If their ‘EruoNet’ or ‘WorldNet’ is successful, there is little reason that it couldn’t at a later day be plugged back into the Internet... of course that assumes such an undertaking would be successful.

    Any sort of wide scale, alternate internet that does not interop with the existing one is quite likely to fail given it’s users are going  to be cut off from many of those resources that they want/need. Want to e-mail someone on that ‘other’ network? Sorry, you are SOL. Want to browse eBay listings outside of your region? Same issue. The list goes on.


    Your post makes me think there really should be a "What makes you think you know what you're talking about" requirement when signing up for Channel9.

    First off, please define "civlized nations", technically Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, etc are all "civilized".

    Secondly, "The Internet" is the name given to the collective networks of the world, the "Euronet" (if there was one) would still be AN internet, as would the American. There wouldn't be a single Internet.

    And your last paragraph makes no sense at all.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    DevilsRejection wrote:
    Whoops I said Europe not UN. Anyway the main reason they (the states) don't want this happening is intellectual property rights have no meaning in an international domain.


    I doubt that's the issue.

    The US may still control the DNS, but that doesn't stop them from being unable to stop illegal filesharers outside the US's juristiction.

    The only reason I can think of has its roots in conspiracies, whereby the RIAA/MPAA is behind the USA's stance on this, and reckons they can effectivly block off "undesirable" websites by deleting their DNS records from the root zones.

    But that's going a bit too far, and I doubt that's the motivation.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    The US is doing a great job. If it aint broke, dont fix it.

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    The UN can't be trusted with the Internet.

    Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe are on the Human Rights Commission. We don't want that kind of "leadership" to have control over the internet, which is more and more a fundamental communications medium.

    Many nations already try to censor the internet; China, for example. Why should we extend those nations' reach over the internet to a global scale?

    The US is doing a fine job. And stuff like this:
    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,55530,00.html







  • User profile image
    dahat

    W3bbo wrote:
    First off, please define "civlized nations", technically Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, etc are all "civilized".


    To quote Merrriam-Webster OnLine:

    Civilized:
    Main Entry: civilized
    Function: adjective
    : characteristic of a state of civilization <civilized society>; especially : characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint <a civilized way to spend the evening>

    Civilization:
    Main Entry: civ•i•li•za•tion
    Pronunciation: "si-v&-l&-'zA-sh&n
    Function: noun
    1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
    2 : the process of becoming civilized
    3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban comfort

    Hum... back to where we began? I guess we'll have to look for the root of both words.. 

    Civilize:
    Main Entry: civ•i•lize
    Pronunciation: 'si-v&-"lIz
    Function: verb
    Inflected Form(s): -lized; -liz•ing
    transitive senses
    1 : to cause to develop out of a primitive state; especially : to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural development

    Key thing here is the term ‘rationally ordered’... ultimately that tends to require a nation or group acting for their own best interests. Why is this important? Nations, groups or individuals that do not put their own self interests first (even if they don’t recognize or admit that they are doing so) tend to be easily exploited and destroyed by more aggressive, powerful or competent nations or groups.

    Ultimately giving those who mean you harm what they want does not serve anyone’s interest but those who mean you harm and doing so is quite irrational and self-destructive.

    Note: I am not going to get into a philosophical debate of whether my statements above are morally reprehensible, greedy, self centered, idealistic, destructive or dangerous.

    Btw... you say that ‘technically’ the nations you listed are civilized... You asked for my definition and yet you did not give your own?

    Also... what is the point of your second paragraph? You will notice that I used the term ‘the Internet’ (capital I once even, except for the first typo, but still accurate) to refer to the current main global network, keyword though is ‘the’... ie the single largest. I do not need schooling in such terms when they have been in common use for a long time and I used them properly. Perhaps one day we will refer to another network of networks as the Internet... but that is still a long ways off, and my money is still on the Abilene Network.

    My final paragraph refers to what would happen if separate regional networks were to spring up or break off that did not interoperate with ‘the Internet’. The vast majority of people who are connected to large scale networks are able to access the Internet because of the interconnection between them, making it quite transparent... if different networks were to break off from the Internet, they would cut their users off from the larger world and any such systems located within the broken off network would become isolated from the world at large.

    Sending an e-mail from a separate network to someone on the Internet would be difficult, if not impossible due to the broken connection. Same goes for many data driven services that share data across borders. I have little doubt that companies like Google and eBay have their own independent networks linking their various server farms throughout the world, independent of the Internet... such back ends do them little good if they are serving data to isolated networks that cannot directly access those resources they are referring to.

    Finally... after re-reading your post a few times I finally realized (sadly after I wrote all of the above)... you really didn’t say... anything. I think we could summarize what you said as simply: ‘you are dumb’, ‘prove it... but I’m not going to’, and you stating well known facts.

  • User profile image
    zzzzz

    i brought this up a few weeks ago.

    First if the world wants to run it then let them ponny up the cash. 

    Second: let them ponny up the cash on RD for next generation of the Internet.  Which last time i check the EU or UN are not, but the US taxpayer is. 

    Third the EU are one of the complainers.

    Fourth  WWW/HTTP/HTML were created to over come the problem with searching for information on the Internet. 

    I suggest reading Dealers of Lighting it talks about the early days of DARPA and ARPANET, Standfordand PARC.  Now here is a big shocker  most of it was US government funding... 

    pretty much everything on the PC we accept as standard comes from PARC research some 30 years ago

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    Steve411

    W3bbo wrote:


    You're the biggest idiot ever. Congratulations!

    - Steve

  • User profile image
    Karim

    Steve411 wrote:
    W3bbo wrote:
    http://us.com.msdn.channel9/ makes a lot more sense than http://channel9.msdn.com.


    You're the biggest idiot ever. Congratulations!

    - Steve


    Now, now... Big Smile  It's just a different way of looking at the world... [A]  There is room for both little-endians and big-endians...

    On the other hand, W3bbo did start more than one thread asking whether his .NET namespaces should be foo.bar.baz or baz.bar.foo.  LOL

    I don't mind folks like W3bbo who "think different."  Now once, I did have to convince a DNS administrator who wanted to invent his own country name abbreviations that two letter country codes already existed (ISO 3166), he didn't need to invent his own...

    ...you can take the "think different" thing a bit far....

  • User profile image
    zzzzz

    Beer28 wrote:
    I think W3bbo's idea is good. You don't know when you're calling long distance on the internet.

    It would be nice to know when you access an out of state site, an out of country site, ect....

    Maybe there could be a new domain registration system where you can easily look up domains with no .com top level locally for your area, then add a "country" code or area code for out of state/province and international httpd fetches. I think that alone would solve alot of the problems we have on the internet.



    beer tell me why you can't do that now? 

    ip to physical location has been around for some time.  but your missing one point  what happens if your local 7/11 has its site hosted in peoples republic of california or islamabad.

    Email would be even worse to manage  all those sales reps locations to maintain and keep up todate

  • User profile image
    jamie

    Beer28 wrote:
    You could then filter email by state/province and country, if the rules were strictly enforced.




    ..and let's hope that doesnt happen

    the best part of the net is it is a beast no one gov can tame - no matter whos in charge of the DNS

    Why else do you think we (consumers) have had such an impact on huge corps we could have never had before

    leave governments out of it - or Gobble-ization will happen in double time

    Control:  (ya ya its coming anyway)  DONT PANIC! Wink

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.