Why should the UN "control" the internet? Why not?

[black_rabbit]

@ExTank

Wow. Can you cross-patch all that to the main deflector dish, running it through the tachyonic resonating buffer first, to provide a temporal quantum inverted flux cascade?

Sorry, I’ll use English this time. Or my interpretation of English, at least.

Though there’s been a lot of talk about the domain names, from a technical perspective, the most important issue is control of the IP address space.

The US (via the IANA) has ultimate control over IP address allocation, but in practice, it delegates big chunks of addresses to local agencies known as the Regional Internet Registries, such as ARIN in the US. ARIN et al then hand out smaller chunks to the local ISPs.

IMHO, the only reason why IANA continues to maintain ultimate control, even though it isn’t making allocation decisions on a day-to-day basis, is the limited number of addresses that are available under the current IP version 4 scheme. We’re going to run in to trouble when, say, SE Asia starts asking for netblocks that are currently allocated to North America because they’re rapidly getting wired up.

When I’m dictator, I’m going to force everybody to (finally) move up to IPv6. Then, instead of the 4 billion addresses that have to go around with IPv4, we’d have 340 undecillion to share:

For scale, this would allow an average of about 430 quintillion (4.3 × 1020) unique addresses per square inch, or 670 quadrillion (6.7 × 1017) per square millimeter, of the Earth’s surface.

IPv6

If the ITU were then in control of allocation, it could just split up the address space roughly according to population, and let the regional agencies take over like they do now.

While we’re at it, there’s no objective reason to maintain the current split scheme between generic top level domains (com, org, net, &c) and the country code TLDs (us, uk, jp, tw.) I say we drop the current generic scheme alltogether, though we could possibly grandfather in current registrants for a limited number of years, and force everybody to go to country codes.

Really, so long as its made explicitly clear that each country/region is to main practical control of its address and name space, there’s no reason to leave the ultimate authority in the hands of the US.

[black_rabbit]

Regarding the .xxx TLD…

@Evil Captor

If you do not understand that

A) A xxx domain would be a powerful weapon for censorship
B) Political forces in all countries would seize on that weapon as soon as they could

you are not paying attention.

While this resonates with those of us who live in countries who are accustomed to a modicum of freedom of expression, it’s probably less of an argument for those who live in countries who already clamp down on speech.

In places where porn, abortion, homosexuality, et al are already illegal, those who wish to discuss these topics online are already breaking the law by having their forum in a “non-xxx” area of the net, or they’re not having them at all.

Try finding a porn site from the PRC. You won’t, because the government already blocks it pretty effectively with good, old fashioned content-filtering.

I don’t know what the situation is in China for those wishing to access internationally hosted porn, but if the government can block Google, they can sure as hell block Goatse.

[duffer]

@Digital Stimulus

At this point, there’s nothing broke about it and it doesn’t need fixing. When there are signs that some egregious action might be taken, then I’ll be as up in arms about it as anyone else.

This is pretty much where my opinion stands now. I opened the thread and forced myself to keep an open mind to form an objective view of this. (Hey, pretty good for me considering my overall opinion of the UN) Yay, me!

I just don’t see the reason at this time for turning over control to the UN. (One great thing about this thread, I’ve unlearned years of WWW=internet indoctrination and got back to being able to seperate them as I was able to when the Web first came about.)

It seems to come down to a bunch of countries being pissed that they aren’t the big dog in the game. Envy? Jealousy? Spite? Could be all or none of these, I don’t know what hidden motive they have. I do, however, know the obvious reason. “We don’t like it so we’re going to change the rules to or wants. After all, we make the rules anyway.”

If the US can be shown to have done anything detrimental to any kind of networking that we alone control over other country’s access, I’d be more willing to give up whatever control we have. I just don’t see how the system as it stands hurts anyone else. At least not in any way egregious enough to allow the UN to have sole control.

I could see if the US had control over 100% of the world’s oil supply and we didn’t give a drop to any other country. Then the UN would have a legitimate stake in taking that industry over. (Not the best analogy, but kickoff is in less than an hour and I’m a little rushed.)

But with the issue at hand, I still haven’t seen the pressing need for the UN to just take over other than ego. My opinion can still be changed. But it’s going to take one hell of a good argument.

[Evil_Captor]

@Digital Stimulus

Correction:
A) A xxx domain could be a powerful weapon for censorship if it were not voluntary.

That which is voluntary can easily be made mandatory at a later date.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Evil Captor

That which is voluntary can easily be made mandatory at a later date.

And when it is suggested, I’ll be screaming bloody murder. But it’s not true in this case anyway; it would not be any easier to force porn out of the .com domain with or without a .xxx domain.

Another article about this just came out from the BBC that does nothing but reinforces my opinion. A cut&paste summary (bolding mine):

The UN has been wrestling over who should run the internet for a number of years…America’s determination to remain the ultimate purveyor of the internet has angered other countries which believe it is time to come up with a new way of regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century…“There is a problem as many parts of the world don’t like the fact that one country is linked to the organism that technically rules the internet,” said Commissioner Reding. “Many countries would like a multilateral approach.”…Europe is suggesting a way of allowing countries to express their position on internet issues, though the details on how this would happen are vague…Her carefully chosen form of words may help assuage a Bush administration which is vehemently opposed to any kind of international body to govern the internet.

Translation: “Even though we haven’t identified an actual problem and don’t have a plan, we’re indignant that we can’t force ourselves on others.”

[Lemur866]

I honestly don’t understand opposition to .xxx. If I were a porn site, I’d rather have a .xxx extension, obviously porn sites want to indentify themselves as porn in order to attract visitors, right?

OK, so country A who nowadays wants to block all .com porn sites has to compile a big list of sites to block. If there were a .xxx extension they could just block *.xxx. But not all porn sites are going to have a .xxx extension, just most of them. And most countries aren’t going to block .xxx.

OK, then the next step is to make .xxx mandatory for all porn and “subversion”, to make it easier to block. Hmmm. If country A is blocking your content anyway, how can they force you to make it .xxx? Is ICANN going to visit every website and shut it down if it’s porn but not .xxx? Of course not. So even if country A mandates that you have a .xxx for certain types of content, why can’t you just host your website outside the jurisdiction of your country? If the crime is posting information about homosexuality, you’ve already broken the law when you try to post the information, the fact that you posted it with a .com extension rather than a .xxx extension is meaningless.

[Rune]

Carl Bild, former Prime Minister of Sweden:

Keep the Internet free

On the one side is the United States, which wants to retain supervision of the Internet and has managed to get the reluctant support of most of the global Internet community, which sees America as the least bad of the possible ultimate guardians of the system.

On the other side is a collection of states keen on getting as much as control as possible in order to curtail the Internet’s power to undermine their regimes. With the theocracy of Iran as the standard-bearer, this group brings together Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Venezuela. North Korea is probably keen to join in as well.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/10/opinion/edbildt.php

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Rune

Carl Bild, former Prime Minister of Sweden:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/10/opinion/edbildt.php

Thanks for the link. I find it very interesting that he says:

Even trying to set up such a mechanism could cause conflicts leading to today’s uniform global system being Balkanized into different, more or less closed systems.

Which is exactly the threat posed by Commissioner Reding in the BBC article if the US does not relinquish control. Somehow, I think it more likely that, given a modicum of control, theo/auto-cratic states would attempt this than the US would with total control. For those who support the idea of freedom of expression (etc.), a matter of “be careful what you wish for”, perhaps?