Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WaPo: The Internet at Risk
Washington Post ^ | November 21, 2005 | The Editors

Posted on 11/21/2005 1:51:33 PM PST by RWR8189

SOME 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, johndoe@aol.com). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.

The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that don't. It may be theoretically undesirable that the United States provides most of the security in global shipping lanes, but in practice this allows commerce to get done. Scrapping the U.S. Navy in favor of a naval police led by the United Nations would be unlikely to help anyone.

The same is true of the Internet. The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. Whoever controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred. Any organization that wants to register a domain name can do so, provided that the name hasn't already been claimed. Opportunistic cyber-squatting has been brought under control. The cost of registering a Web address has fallen.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: internet; internetgovernance; un; unitednations

1 posted on 11/21/2005 1:51:36 PM PST by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins.

Yeah, it's just a "historical accident" that the internet wasn't invented in Albania.

2 posted on 11/21/2005 1:55:15 PM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Start your own networks if you don't like our, ya bUNch of weenies!


3 posted on 11/21/2005 1:55:40 PM PST by PeterFinn (The Holocaust was perfectly legal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

"historical accident"???

Catchy. Have they used it with drug patents yet?


4 posted on 11/21/2005 1:56:45 PM PST by kallisti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

United States of America country code = 1, the same as for dialing long distance. Why is America #1? Because we invented the telephone, and the concept of telephone country codes.


5 posted on 11/21/2005 1:57:31 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
The UN want to control the Internet.

The computer is to the Information Revolution what the gun is to the Industrial Revolution - both are guarantors of Liberty!
6 posted on 11/21/2005 1:57:31 PM PST by Irish_Thatcherite (~~~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
"Why should the United States continue to control the registration"

The US does not have control of registration. It is a private company who's sole purpose is to make sure that duplicate addresses are not given. Can you imagine if fifty people had the same web site and email address. What confusion. Once government jacka@@ get control, they will start censorship and ruin the freedom it now has.
7 posted on 11/21/2005 1:58:07 PM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

LOL!! Or Tunisia!


8 posted on 11/21/2005 1:58:23 PM PST by Irish_Thatcherite (~~~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Other countries have their own phone systems, they can build their own computer network as well. In fact, this would be a simple solution. Telephone systems from other countries are designed to interface with each other, it would be easy to get other networks to interface with each other, especially since TCP/IP is the de facto communications protocol. A simple prefix and a quick change to the US DNS servers would allow you to add a country code in your web address. Using a different country code and the DNS servers would know which network to send you over to.


9 posted on 11/21/2005 2:08:01 PM PST by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

From ICANN to UcaNt? Ted Kennedy Chance!


10 posted on 11/21/2005 2:10:05 PM PST by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

90% of the internet is in North America. If other countries want to control their own internets, they are welcome to. It's nice to be able to access overseas addresses, but it's not nearly as important to us as it is to them.

We need to hang on to what we've got. If they want to join, fine. If not, let them start their own internets. It would be a modest loss for us, but not as great a loss as having a bunch of tin pot dictators with no accountability running everything.


11 posted on 11/21/2005 2:15:22 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

We all know that the UN could run this better. They're good at this kind of stuff.


12 posted on 11/21/2005 2:20:12 PM PST by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

The American MSM would dance in the streets.


13 posted on 11/21/2005 2:23:16 PM PST by johnny7 (“Wish me Happy Birthday!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

"We need to hang on to what we've got. If they want to join, fine. If not, let them start their own internets. It would be a modest loss for us, but not as great a loss as having a bunch of tin pot dictators with no accountability running everything."

Hey. If we cut the wires with many foreign entities THEN THE SPAM WILL GO DOWN OVERNIGHT.

This might be a good thing.


14 posted on 11/21/2005 2:38:35 PM PST by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

I have a spam filter (SpamPal) that has an attachment which, among other things, allows you to cut out all emails from selected foreign countries. I find it very useful. I have contacts in odd places like Korea and Taiwan, which I therefore have to leave open, but it still allows me to eliminate a fair amount of junkmail.


15 posted on 11/21/2005 3:11:18 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kallisti

""historical accident"??? Catchy. Have they used it with drug patents yet?"

With China involved, they will.

China has no respect whatsoever for property rights...if it is there, it is there for the taking.


16 posted on 11/21/2005 4:04:37 PM PST by rlmorel ("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
A remarkably reasonable editorial from The Post.

For example, you'd be hard-pressed to get the NY Times to admit that the U.S. Navy serves any useful purpose.

17 posted on 11/21/2005 4:08:35 PM PST by Interesting Times (ABCNNBCBS -- yesterday's news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Typical U.N. hubris. Take something that others made great and screw it up by turning it over to socialists, tyrants, terrorists and their sycophants.

Screw that. If they want to run a global network so badly, let 'em make their own! After the oil-for-food scandal, they've clearly shown they aren't fit to scrub the world's sewers.

And I'll be damned if I'll stand by while they turn the World Wide Web into the Third World Wide Web!


18 posted on 11/21/2005 4:14:46 PM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress
"We all know that the UN could run this better. They're good at this kind of stuff"

Sarcasm tag missing because it is implied and noted.

19 posted on 11/21/2005 9:34:53 PM PST by libs_kma (USA: The land of the Free....Because of the Brave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson