Who owns the internets?
December 3, 2005 12:38 PM Subscribe
Who owns the internets? The 2005 World Summit on the Information Information Societies seems to have left a number of nations with a bad taste in their mouth. ICANN emerged the apparent winner. Of course, you can always blame Bush. (first phase of wsis previously discussed here)
Ive read through a bit of this, as far as I can tell there was a lot of bullshit and in the end nothing changed. Everytime I think I have a handle on the machinations it gets more complex.
From my cursory understanding, it looks like real issue is the root is in trouble from fragmentation by competitors, and that ICANN is pissing all over their non-profit status. Hard to see how the situation will not get worse from here.
Lots more at circleid.
posted by MetaMonkey at 1:02 PM on December 3, 2005
From my cursory understanding, it looks like real issue is the root is in trouble from fragmentation by competitors, and that ICANN is pissing all over their non-profit status. Hard to see how the situation will not get worse from here.
Lots more at circleid.
posted by MetaMonkey at 1:02 PM on December 3, 2005
I'm thinking that in the end, the internet will treat the world's governments as damage and route around them...
posted by mr_roboto at 1:04 PM on December 3, 2005
posted by mr_roboto at 1:04 PM on December 3, 2005
I know barely enough about this stuff to even give an understandable wrong answer, but maybe an outsider's perspective will interest those of you who really understand the issues:
The impression I get from reading the articles is that there's a high-level game of "whose is bigger?" going on. I'd be shocked, given the degree that international trade and academia depend on the 'net, if changes resulting in instability will be tolerated. And thus it just comes down to bureaucrats puffing their chests.
Please feel free to slap me into shape here (like I have to ask... :)
On preview, what mr_roboto said.
posted by Opposite George at 1:08 PM on December 3, 2005
The impression I get from reading the articles is that there's a high-level game of "whose is bigger?" going on. I'd be shocked, given the degree that international trade and academia depend on the 'net, if changes resulting in instability will be tolerated. And thus it just comes down to bureaucrats puffing their chests.
Please feel free to slap me into shape here (like I have to ask... :)
On preview, what mr_roboto said.
posted by Opposite George at 1:08 PM on December 3, 2005
"I'm thinking that in the end, the internet will treat the world's governments as damage and route around them..."
If that happens, it won't be pretty. The internet could get a lot more complicated.
posted by MetaMonkey at 1:19 PM on December 3, 2005
If that happens, it won't be pretty. The internet could get a lot more complicated.
posted by MetaMonkey at 1:19 PM on December 3, 2005
I think this is positive because many governments wanted greater control over the Internet so they could censor it from their people, like China or much of the Middle East. I don't want third world regimes with a history of oppression to have a say on the Internet's future. ICANN isn't great, but the alternative is even worse.
posted by clockworkjoe at 1:22 PM on December 3, 2005
posted by clockworkjoe at 1:22 PM on December 3, 2005
Also discussed here and here. This decision was made and policy rewritten once Bush was installed by the Supreme Court, and was therefore a surprise to no one.
posted by Rothko at 1:33 PM on December 3, 2005
posted by Rothko at 1:33 PM on December 3, 2005
So let's see...
They didn't think it up.
They didn't finance it.
They didn't build it
They don't own it
But now they want to be the boss of it.
Riiiight...
posted by Ken McE at 1:40 PM on December 3, 2005
They didn't think it up.
They didn't finance it.
They didn't build it
They don't own it
But now they want to be the boss of it.
Riiiight...
posted by Ken McE at 1:40 PM on December 3, 2005
I'm thinking that in the end, the internet will treat the world's governments as damage and route around them...
That would make the internet libertarian, ya?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:16 PM on December 3, 2005
That would make the internet libertarian, ya?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:16 PM on December 3, 2005
hahahah oh man internets! XD
oh man, that reference gets funnier every goddamn day
posted by keswick at 2:34 PM on December 3, 2005
oh man, that reference gets funnier every goddamn day
posted by keswick at 2:34 PM on December 3, 2005
I'm thinking that in the end, the internet will treat the world's governments as damage and route around them...
ah yes, that quaint "nobody owns the internet" canard. it's all very hippy-dippy-power-to-the-people, that sort of thinking, and it's also quite wrong. enjoy the internet as we know it, because it's going away. who owns the internet? well, who owns the fat pipes, the bandwidth, the backbones, the undersea fibre, the satellites?
posted by quonsar at 2:36 PM on December 3, 2005
ah yes, that quaint "nobody owns the internet" canard. it's all very hippy-dippy-power-to-the-people, that sort of thinking, and it's also quite wrong. enjoy the internet as we know it, because it's going away. who owns the internet? well, who owns the fat pipes, the bandwidth, the backbones, the undersea fibre, the satellites?
posted by quonsar at 2:36 PM on December 3, 2005
who owns the internet?
anyone who makes one ... it's not just wires and computers, it's a concept ... with wireless technology, alternative networks are possible
posted by pyramid termite at 3:33 PM on December 3, 2005
anyone who makes one ... it's not just wires and computers, it's a concept ... with wireless technology, alternative networks are possible
posted by pyramid termite at 3:33 PM on December 3, 2005
The technology and initial infrastructure that comprises the Internet was built and financed with public monies of the citizens of the United States. As such, we should be equally vigilant to defend it against the incursions of foreign nations as we are to protect it from being controlled by private interests. BellSouth must be stopped. Nationalize the Internet! If commie Euro nations care so much they can break away. They won't be hurting anyone but themselves.
posted by kjh at 5:05 PM on December 3, 2005
posted by kjh at 5:05 PM on December 3, 2005
Here is an interesting piece on where this is all going
Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes
posted by MetaMonkey at 6:29 PM on December 3, 2005
Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes
posted by MetaMonkey at 6:29 PM on December 3, 2005
They didn't think it up.
They didn't finance it.
They didn't build it
They don't own it
But now they want to be the boss of it.
Isn't that the way it usually goes?
posted by ScotchLynx at 9:04 PM on December 3, 2005
They didn't finance it.
They didn't build it
They don't own it
But now they want to be the boss of it.
Isn't that the way it usually goes?
posted by ScotchLynx at 9:04 PM on December 3, 2005
This decision was made and policy rewritten once Bush was installed by the Supreme Court, and was therefore a surprise to no one.
This type of thing didn't stop us all from getting all jittery and anxious about the last election, did it?
posted by es_de_bah at 9:34 PM on December 3, 2005
This type of thing didn't stop us all from getting all jittery and anxious about the last election, did it?
posted by es_de_bah at 9:34 PM on December 3, 2005
From one of the linked articles: That’s welcome news for all of us, said George Kerevan in Edinburgh’s The Scotsman. “Multilateral control” is “Orwell-speak for state regulation of information.” The countries that were screaming the loudest to be allowed to control their own domain names were totalitarian hellholes such as Iran and Zimbabwe. They want to be in charge not because the U.S. has abused regulatory power, but because they want to abuse it.
posted by caddis at 10:18 PM on December 3, 2005
posted by caddis at 10:18 PM on December 3, 2005
Why should the international community control DNS? Personally, I would love to see places like North Korea, China and Syria in charge of this issue. They wouldn't fuck it up at all, would they? I mean, the US has been doing such a bad job at this?
Seriously, there are a million reasons NOT to change anything. The Register can't even think of anything to complain about, other than the fact that they used GW's photos in the presentation.
posted by b_thinky at 12:29 AM on December 4, 2005
Seriously, there are a million reasons NOT to change anything. The Register can't even think of anything to complain about, other than the fact that they used GW's photos in the presentation.
posted by b_thinky at 12:29 AM on December 4, 2005
Why should the international community control DNS? Personally, I would love to see places like North Korea, China and Syria in charge of this issue. They wouldn't fuck it up at all, would they? I mean, the US has been doing such a bad job at this?
Seriously, there are a million reasons NOT to change anything. The Register can't even think of anything to complain about, other than the fact that they used GW's photos in the presentation.
posted by b_thinky at 12:29 AM on December 4, 2005
Seriously, there are a million reasons NOT to change anything. The Register can't even think of anything to complain about, other than the fact that they used GW's photos in the presentation.
posted by b_thinky at 12:29 AM on December 4, 2005
So Canada, Britain, and Sweden are just like North Korea? We have as little control.
I think that, for the sake of our own national security and sovereignty, all the other nations of the world should look to creating internet backbone which is not dependent on the United States. It disturbes me that all of the root servers are in the US - why are other countries not building them.
As for the "we built it and payed for it" - so US government laid the cables between Toronto and Ottawa? To our Far North? As for transatlantic cables, most of those go from Canadian territory to British or Irish. You should be thankful we allow you access.
posted by jb at 4:20 AM on December 4, 2005
I think that, for the sake of our own national security and sovereignty, all the other nations of the world should look to creating internet backbone which is not dependent on the United States. It disturbes me that all of the root servers are in the US - why are other countries not building them.
As for the "we built it and payed for it" - so US government laid the cables between Toronto and Ottawa? To our Far North? As for transatlantic cables, most of those go from Canadian territory to British or Irish. You should be thankful we allow you access.
posted by jb at 4:20 AM on December 4, 2005
jb writes "I think that, for the sake of our own national security and sovereignty, all the other nations of the world should look to creating internet backbone which is not dependent on the United States."
This is the status quo, isn't it? Even the backbone within the U.S. is privately owned; I imagine that most of the backbone outside of the U.S. isn't even operated by American companies.
jb writes "It disturbs me that all of the root servers are in the US - why are other countries not building them."
The process of "building" a root server is trivial. Any computer on the net can serve as a domain name server, even yours! The only hard part in putting together a new DNS system would be convincing people to use the new system (especially high-level service providers, but individuals also might just decide to rely on the old system, in which case your new system fails). If some national government announced today that the US-run DNS system is defunct, and that everyone should point their domain name servers at a new set of root servers, they would be roundly ignored. It's a political and social issue, not a technological one.
Ken McE writes "They didn't think it up.
"They didn't finance it.
"They didn't build it
"They don't own it"
Well, http was thought up by a European, so if you're willing to give up the web and get by on email, usenet, gopher, and instant messenger, this is a great point of view. Likewise, the development of the web was financed by CERN, a European agency. As for who "built" and "owns" the internet.... your use of these concepts betrays a bit of naiveté. The internet is a decentralized "network of networks". No single government built it or owns it. It's "owned" by the individual owners of the computers using it, along with the backbone operators, who provide the foundational infrastructure.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:23 AM on December 4, 2005
This is the status quo, isn't it? Even the backbone within the U.S. is privately owned; I imagine that most of the backbone outside of the U.S. isn't even operated by American companies.
jb writes "It disturbs me that all of the root servers are in the US - why are other countries not building them."
The process of "building" a root server is trivial. Any computer on the net can serve as a domain name server, even yours! The only hard part in putting together a new DNS system would be convincing people to use the new system (especially high-level service providers, but individuals also might just decide to rely on the old system, in which case your new system fails). If some national government announced today that the US-run DNS system is defunct, and that everyone should point their domain name servers at a new set of root servers, they would be roundly ignored. It's a political and social issue, not a technological one.
Ken McE writes "They didn't think it up.
"They didn't finance it.
"They didn't build it
"They don't own it"
Well, http was thought up by a European, so if you're willing to give up the web and get by on email, usenet, gopher, and instant messenger, this is a great point of view. Likewise, the development of the web was financed by CERN, a European agency. As for who "built" and "owns" the internet.... your use of these concepts betrays a bit of naiveté. The internet is a decentralized "network of networks". No single government built it or owns it. It's "owned" by the individual owners of the computers using it, along with the backbone operators, who provide the foundational infrastructure.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:23 AM on December 4, 2005
That all said, the root servers are run well now, and there's no compelling reason for a change.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:24 AM on December 4, 2005
posted by mr_roboto at 10:24 AM on December 4, 2005
"...there's no compelling reason for a change"
The problem is that China and others are already running competing DNS', as well as a private company in Europe.
The unified US root is under threat from anyone who wants to create a DNS. With no resolution, other governments will increasingly decide to take themselves out of the loop and build their own. ICANN is encouraging this type of behaviour by acting in a monopolistic, secretive fashion.
posted by MetaMonkey at 2:29 AM on December 5, 2005
The problem is that China and others are already running competing DNS', as well as a private company in Europe.
The unified US root is under threat from anyone who wants to create a DNS. With no resolution, other governments will increasingly decide to take themselves out of the loop and build their own. ICANN is encouraging this type of behaviour by acting in a monopolistic, secretive fashion.
posted by MetaMonkey at 2:29 AM on December 5, 2005
As a British citizen, I would note that I do not trust the US, China, my own government, corrupt NGOs like ICANN or private companies like Verisign to run the Internet. What I would trust is a collection of governments and NGOs carefully watching each other like dogs over the last bone which, basically, is what the UN provides.
posted by axon at 6:47 AM on December 5, 2005
posted by axon at 6:47 AM on December 5, 2005
« Older School's out! | you look so tired unhappy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by es_de_bah at 12:41 PM on December 3, 2005