BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[expatriate]

The nation that enshrined the concept of Freedom of Speech just gave up control of the Internet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech.....reement-us

[WesternHunter]

Gee, why not? We already gave up control of our own ports to the Saudis.

[cowgal]

Icann should be a global organization, with international input. I know Gore thinks he invented the internet, and hate to tell him this - he really didn't. It started here in the US, but it has been a collaboration of many people and countries, and should continue that way. I personally do not believe that Americans should control the internet. In fact I feel no sole country or entity should control it. For the internet to mature, thrive and grow, it needs to be an independent panel of people from many countries. Currently only 15% of the internet's users are from North America. Stunning isn't it?

WSJ piece:
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj

[expatriate]

This concerns me on a number of levels. First, I don't like increasing China's control over the internet when they're already famous for restricting it in their own country. Second, I know how dependent our national defenses have become on information networks and how vulnerable we would be we lost them. Third, I know how much effort our potential adversaries (namely China) are putting into network warfare capability.

A couple years ago a construction crew inadvertently cut a fiber line in the middle of Alaska. For an entire afternoon we had no internet. It's not just a matter of losing Drudge. I couldn't even print to the printer on my desk because it had to go through a remote server. None of the ATMs, credit card machines, or cash registers worked. None of the cell phones worked. The land lines didn't even work. It was the all the things they warned us Y2K would be.

Our adversaries know our networks are our Achilles heel. Given the scenario above, how do you go to war when your supply systems, transportation systems, financial systems, command and control systems, intelligence systems, GPS, etc have all crashed? We're a lot more networked than what most people realize. Our control over the Internet was a strategic asset, and we just sold it for a mess of pottage.

[WesternHunter]

It's a real achillies heel. It's a real detriment to our country. Sad thing is that the last president to realise the value in keeping something like that in American control was a president who was in office before the world wide web was in use - Reagan.

Unfortuanately the entire world has made China a nessesity. Everything is made there for everyone around the world. Our government borrows money from them. Now we want to give up control of the internet to them. Boy we have some real geniuses running our country, don't we? - From Bush senior all the way to Obama :](*,)

I'm just waiting for the day when the vast majority of our military's equipment is all manufacured in China. The future looks grim indeed :cry:

[cowgal]

No country will have any control over our hardware, that is completely different and separate from ICANN. For an analogy, its similar to the difference between your PC and the operating system. One is hardware, the other is software - or programs that you run on that system. When a fiber optic line is cut, its a hardware problem.

ICANN stands for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Basically all they do is make sure we can "talk" to each other over the internet by setting protocols for domain names. Each domain name, email address, etc., that is passed on the internet must be converted to numbers (characters) that is understood by ALL computers on the internet. You can read up on it here: http://www.icann.org/

Many countries use the internet, with a multitude of languages and character sets. It's important to the growth of the internet to set standards so everyone can understand each other, in spite of the language barriers.

If China bans certain portions of the web in their country, so be it. It does not affect our internet.

So to clarify - no one country "owns" the internet. Each country owns their own infrastructure to access the internet. Protocols need to be standardized so all countries who wish to access the internet, can do so.

[expatriate]

That sound innocent and non-threatening, but let me use a metaphor:

Think of the web as an interstate highway system. Yes, we still own the concrete and our vehicles. But we've given up the power to decide speed limits, vehicle restrictions, traffic rules, fines, signage, design and location of future off-ramps, etc.

I see nothing wrong with protecting America's interests and keeping power, rather than giving it away. Personally, I'm tired of people running our country like we're a guilt-laden neurotic sitting in a corner apologizing for breathing and trying to gain friends by giving away sexual favors. Why not give some of our aircraft carriers away while we're at it?

[cowgal]

expatriate wrote: Think of the web as an interstate highway system. Yes, we still own the concrete and our vehicles. But we've given up the power to decide speed limits, vehicle restrictions, traffic rules, fines, signage, design and location of future off-ramps, etc.
Your analogy is not accurate. We own our infrastructure and make our own rules & laws. Gambling online is illegal in the US. Not sure how many other countries have that law, but we do. How about child pornography? Its illegal to access it and to have it on your PC. Again, how many other countries have that law? My point is, we do not own the internet, no one entity does. We own the infrastructure, and make laws on how to use OUR infrastructure. Other countries make their own laws & regs. It's actually more similar to the global telephone system. No one tells us how to use the internet. ICANN is simply an organization that sets global protocol so computers can talk to each other and be understood due to language barriers.

expatriate wrote: I see nothing wrong with protecting America's interests and keeping power, rather than giving it away. Personally, I'm tired of people running our country like we're a guilt-laden neurotic sitting in a corner apologizing for breathing and trying to gain friends by giving away sexual favors. Why not give some of our aircraft carriers away while we're at it? We do not own the internet, we never have. Just like we've never owned the global phone system. We're not giving up anything. I personally feel that ICANN has had too much power and never liked the fact the the US government was involved. In the beginning the US government controlled ALL domain names and did not allow any competition. Now we have many domain name registrars and with that came competition, and prices went down. Domain names are no longer controlled by one company set up the US. ICANN does oversee all those companies, supposedly to make sure all are playing fairly.

A couple links to help understand what the internet really is:
http://computer.howstuffworks......ternet.htm
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYo.....ternet.asp

[expatriate]

So how does giving up our power in this area benefit the US?

[cowgal]

The US government appointed themselves as keepers of the internet (ICANN). They gave the business of selling domain names to one company, Network Solutions, creating a monopoly. It was pressure from users that finally made the government give in and allow competition, so now we have a capitalistic approach to domain name sales, which is how it should have been all along.

As I pointed out previously only 15% of the users are from all of North America. It is imperative to include other countries. Some of the larger countries have been threatening to create their own internet with their own protocols. This would fracture the internet and make it impossible to communicate globally, defeating the whole purpose of the internet. Secondly, we need cooperation from all countries on the internet to help stop cyber-crime (identity theft, credit card fraud, unchecked spam, etc.) . It is rampant and escalating. If we declare ourselves KING of the internet and RULE from that standpoint, what kind of cooperation do you think we'll receive? None, zippo. The larger players on the internet want a bigger voice in the decisions and they should receive it.

So what is the benefit to us? An internet that is safer and is globally accessible. I should note that the internet and the world wide web (WWW) are not one and the same. The internet is used by many communication devices, the WWW is just one of them and probably the most well known to most people. Though many Americans contributed to the formation of the internet and WWW, many non-Americans did as well. It truly was a global collaboration and the US does not own the internet or the WWW, nor should they be allowed to solely control it.

Expat, I'm surpirsed that you want the US government to continue controlling the internet. I thought you were all about less government and more capitalism?

[expatriate]

Nice argument for globalization. But you're avoiding one point. The negatives you mentioned would affect everyone else, too. They wouldn't just apply to us. So if another country had wanted to form its own internet, it would fact the same connectivity problems whether we ran it or ICANN did.

The underlying assumption behind your argument is that everything we run is bad, and everything run by international bodies is wonderful. Three words: Oil for food.

It's the same old argument grounded in some sort of original sin belief from the left -- we're bad, so we'll make everything better if we collapse American power and globalize.

Safer and more accessible for who? You're assuming that none of the improvements are possible if we run it. And all of the negative issues are still there. Giving it up just puts it in the hands of people who are less democratically/capitalist minded.

[BunnySlayer]

Cowgal wrote,
Quote: Expat, I'm surpirsed that you want the US government to continue controlling the internet. I thought you were all about less government and more capitalism?
I agree in a way Cowgal but I'm not sure how placing the worlds largest and most historicaly oppressive communist regime in charge of the worlds largest clearing house of free information is an improvement over having the U.S. Government in charge of it. Or possibly I'm missing your sarcasm and humor? :D

[cowgal]

Bunny, I don't want any country in charge of ICANN. It needs to be an independent panel of people. The internet has had people from many countries contribute to its structure, development and growth. People who serve on these boards are also the ones that have been instrumental in inventing some important element (software or hardware) used on the internet. What makes you say that a country like China would be in charge? They may have a seat on the panel, but they would not be in charge.

expatriate wrote: Nice argument for globalization. But you're avoiding one point. The negatives you mentioned would affect everyone else, too. They wouldn't just apply to us. So if another country had wanted to form its own internet, it would fact the same connectivity problems whether we ran it or ICANN did. ICANN only controls a portion of the internet, primarily the gTLDs (top level domains) for the WWW and decides when new naming structures are added. Having countries work together and cooperate will make the web safer. Many countries such as Russia and Nigeria are home to cyber-criminals that need to be ferreted out and stopped.

expatriate wrote: The underlying assumption behind your argument is that everything we run is bad, and everything run by international bodies is wonderful. Three words: Oil for food. Ok, so you never answered my question, why would you want the US DOC (dept of commerce) control ICANN? Isn't it better to have private individuals in control? You say "we" were running ICANN - "we" were not - the US government was. We - as in - we the people who use the internet should be making those decisions, not the US DOC. So tell me Expat what is your position? You have stated "hands off" to the US government when it comes to banking, vehicle or healthcare industries. But now its ok for the government to OWN and CONTROL the internet? You can't have it both ways. I also need to emphasize that removing the US DOC from ICANN does not remove Americans from ICANN. They will still be an important part of that organization. And interestingly enough, the US DOC has retained authority to "oversee" ICANN and audit the organization after 3 years. So yeah, it appears the US has relinquished some control, but not totally.

expatriate wrote: It's the same old argument grounded in some sort of original sin belief from the left -- we're bad, so we'll make everything better if we collapse American power and globalize. You don't understand the internet, its not like the military - its not about power. Its not meant to be controlled and dominated by any one country or individual. It has nothing to do with the left, or good or bad. Its simply a way to communicate.

expatriate wrote: Safer and more accessible for who? You're assuming that none of the improvements are possible if we run it. And all of the negative issues are still there. Giving it up just puts it in the hands of people who are less democratically/capitalist minded. As I stated above, cyber-criminals need to be stopped in many countries. They are more likely to help and work together in stopping the online crime if they have a voice in how the internet develops and grows. We are not giving anything up by working with other countries, on the contrary we have much to gain from the cooperation.

I have been involved with the internet long before it was popular with the masses. I don't simply use it for entertainment, its my livelihood. I'm not just a casual observer. I don't know if the decision to reduce the US DOC's involvement in ICANN will ultimately be good or bad, I'm of course hoping its for the good and that the internet will continue to grow and flourish.

Here is another article that might help explain a bit more about ICANN and exactly what role they play on the internet:
http://www.networkworld.com/ne.....tflash-rss

[expatriate]

My position is to look at this as an instrument of national power. There are four elements of national power: Diplomatic, Infomation, Military, and Economic. Personally, I believe this administation has made it its mission to collapse all four.

Would I prefer private business over Dept of Commerce? Sure. But I'm not so naiive to think every other country operates the same way we do. Other nations (i.e. China) see the line between government and industry in very fuzzy terms.

If countries like Russia and Nigeria are frought with cyber criminals, why aren't those countries ferreting them out already? Why are we giving countries with such problems a bigger stake in how the entire enterprise operates?

Like it or not, the internet IS about power. It has become a strategic asset, through which all the other elements of national power flow -- not just for us, but for the rest of the world as well.

[cowgal]

I do understand your concern, and I have the same concerns in allowing certain countries more of a voice in ICANN. I view this small step in relinquishing some power as a test to see how it will ultimately be handled. Remember the US DOC retained the right to oversee, and I wouldn't be surprised if other countries start demanding censorship or other restrictive measures, that the DOC would immediately step in and put a stop to it. ICANN currently is still required to abide by rules and guidelines set by the US. Giving "seats" at the table to more countries was a way to include them and appease the protesting.