You Want One? Spend 100's of Millions of Your Euros and 25 Years Doing It

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
This is a topic I think we should be pretty much be able to agree on. We created the Internet. Pure and simple.

- 1966 first ARPANET plan.
- 1969 first ARPANET messages sent.
- 1971 15 nodes (23 hosts): UCLA, SRI, UCSB, Univ of Utah, BBN, MIT, RAND, SDC, Harvard, Lincoln Lab, Stanford, UIU(C), CWRU, CMU, NASA/Ames
- 1972 Ray Tomlinson (BBN) modifies email program for ARPANET where it becomes a quick hit. The @ sign was chosen from the punctuation keys on Tomlinson's Model 33 Teletype for its "at" meaning
- 1973 First international connections to the ARPANET: University College of London (England) via NORSAR (Norway)
- 1975 Satellite links cross two oceans (to Hawaii and UK) as the first TCP tests are run over them by Stanford, BBN, and UCL
- 1978 TCP/IP split from TCP
- 1984 DNS introduced
- 1987 UUNET
- 1993 Internic created
Link

In addition to that AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, Mosaic/Netscape and nearly every worldwide standard was built, designed and engineered by American companies. Notable exceptions are few and in between; ICQ (Israeli developed, AOL purchased.), Skype and a few others.

So what's the EU and UN want to do? Of course! Steal our development and let their respective bureaucratic bodies oversee an American creation. Sorry folks, you can get seriously bent on that one.

The response from the U.S. government should be and always should remain...

HEY EU! BUILD YOUR OWN FREAKIN' INTERNET!

Text on Internet Governance Watered Down
Nov 15 10:48 AM US/Eastern

TUNIS, Tunisia

Negotiators seeking to avert a U.S.-EU showdown at this week's U.N. summit on the information society watered down language on the Internet's governance in talks Tuesday.

U.S. officials considered the vague language a signal that world leaders would ultimately agree to leaving the U.S. Commerce Department ultimately in charge of the Internet's addressing system.

"We're waiting until they pass something we can accept," said U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce Michael Gallagher.

Diplomats are eager to reach agreement before Wednesday's start of the World Summit on the Information Society, which is scheduled to last through Friday.

The summit was originally conceived to address the digital divide _ the gap between information haves and have-nots _ by raising both consciousness and funds for projects.

Instead, it has centered largely around Internet governance: oversight of the main computers that control traffic on the Internet by acting as its master directories so Web browsers and e-mail programs can find other computers.

That job is handled by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, a quasi-independent group that ultimately answers to the U.S. government.

Since the latest round of talks began Sunday, the specific wording of the summit's draft declaration has evolved from "international management of the Internet," written by Pakistan, to far less specific language.

"We're two-thirds of our way to a good compromise," EU spokesman Martin Selmayr said.

The EU has been mediating between the United States and a group of countries including China and Iran that have sought to replace ICANN with a multi-country group under U.N. auspices.

Washington set a course for confrontation when it declared in June that it will retain such oversight indefinitely, despite what many countries thought was a longstanding policy to one day completely turn the function over to ICANN.

The EU responded in September by insisting that some sort of new combination of governments and the private sector share the responsibility of policing the Internet.

Already, rights watchdogs say, both Tunisian and foreign reporters on hand for the summit have been harassed and beaten. Reporters Without Borders says its secretary-general, Robert Menard, has been banned from attending.

Civil groups also accused the government Tuesday of blocking access within Tunisia to a Web site devoted to a citizens' summit held in conjunction with the main U.N. event.
Link
 
Seriously, this is Exhibit A in support of the case that PAD creates too many topics.

News flash: no one cares about this!
 
Straight and to the point sgs89. I like it.

As for the original post, I hope they DON'T make their own internet. Having two internets is perhaps the fourth worst idea ever.
 
[quote name='SilverPaw750']As for the original post, I hope they DON'T make their own internet. Having two internets is perhaps the fourth worst idea ever.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to keep using the Al Gore one. There's rumors on the internets that Frenchy porn sites are more likely to give you a virus.
 
Im totally for it staying US controlled but what exactally are the pros and cons of it being multinationally controlled? Is there a site that better explains all of this?
 
For the U.S. there are no pros, only negatives.

Currently ICANN administers domains, registrations and is more or less the first stop on every page request made online. Internic handles the registration and who owns what part of web addresses.

Theorhetically you give this to a multi-national body and they would acquiesce to specific country government demands. For example if image recognition becomes available pornography could be made illegal and reportable to government authorities where viewing such material is criminalized. If certain political thought wanted to be made illegal a country like China could search out key words and phrases and pages containing them could be shut down and the UN would help them do it.

The biggest gripe from countries just developing internet infrastructure is that since the West and many parts of the world have a ten year head start many of the key domain names are taken. Well, that's life. They view the internet as a first come, first serve it's not fair kind of thing. More or less they're accusing everyone that's registered domains of "cybersquatting".

94-96 there were tons of corporate names that were registered before a company had a web presence. It was not that unusual for some person to hold applejacks.com, stovetopstuffing.com, miraclewhip.com etc etc etc. Then they would charge whoever owned that brand obscene amounts of money for them to buy back the online rights to an existing product.

This is what countries with no country suffix like .ca, .uk, .de, .jp etc are bitching about. They cannot register as many .com or .net's as they would like and want someone, anyone, other than the U.S. to hear their case. Imagine some international regulatory group enforcing the telephone policies of each member country. If China had a certain policy the spillover to member nations could cascade and Chinese policy could disrupt internet traffic in other regions making Chinese policy world standards. It's similar to that.

There's also the potential for taxation on internet commerce and access fees. The U.N. is activley pursuing a forced .7% income/wealth transfer from developed countries in an effort to redistribute that wealth. Think oil for food on a massive scale. If a U.N. body gets their hands around the internet their position to force taxes onto member nations would increase greatly. The same is true of the EU, Brussels is as bad if not worse from a regulatory and taxation standpoint.

All in all the U.S. has done a spectacular job regulating the internet. Everything coming out of these arguments is backed by one thing; U.S. resentment. Countries don't like us with our hands around potentially crippling controls. However I have seen no instance where ICANN has enforced the will of the U.S. government shutting down anti-U.S., anti-government, pro-terrorist sites etc. through influence with ICANN. I'm not even sure if it would technically be possible to shut off a countries internet domain in case of war. If we were in an armed conflict with China I don't even think ICANN could shut off their net access if they wanted to.

Those are the tips of the icebergs. It's a big can of worms that serves no national interest and I would argue actually hinders world wide development, deployment of information and commerce services if it comes to fruition.
 
If it's u.n. controlled it would be easier to restrict things such as child pornography, bestiality and other illegal activity. It would give greater internet freedom to citizens of countries such as china and Iran (both currently have strong internet censorship). It would also make it easier to provide access to the internet, and the benefits that go along with it, to impoverished countries. For example, under 10% of businesses are online in thailand, compared to around 90% in the e.u., u.s. and canada.

That being said, the u.n. has repeatedly said it does not want to control the internet, and no intention of policing it, because the downside outweighs the benefits. The main purpose is to make it easier for poorer governments and their citizens to benefit from it, which is important due to its educational, economical etc. benefits. You can read kofi annans own argument for a u.n. role in the internet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401431.html

Here's an excerpt from it:

One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to "take over," police or otherwise control the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet's global reach, and that effort is at the heart of this summit.......

There are also legitimate concerns about the use of the Internet to incite terrorism or help terrorists, disseminate pornography, facilitate illegal activities or glorify Nazism and other hateful ideologies. But censoring cyberspace, compromising its technical underpinnings or submitting it to stringent governmental oversight would mean turning our backs on one of today's greatest instruments of progress. To defend the Internet is to defend freedom itself......

All say that the day-to-day management of the Internet should be left to technical institutions, not least to shield it from the heat of day-to-day politics
Click to expand...

Credit is also given to the u.s. for their work with the internet.

Another interesting article is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4425802.stm

The belief that any international agency intends to actively censor and police it is based in fear of the u.n. and other agencies, not based on what is actually being advocated. You'll find little, outside of opinion articles, that actually suggests that the internet will be censored. And as much as PAD wants to complain, international power is still in the hands of the west. The argument that china is going to dictate the worlds policy is foolish.
 
I'm not going to specifically comment on the merits of the current plan to turn over control of the internet to the UN, mostly because I'm not too familiar with the specifics of it. I do, however, think that there are a few things that can and should be done to the internet to make it more fair for the world.

The first thing is that all domain names should end in their country of origin. That is, ALL site in the United States should end in .us. Amazon.com becomes amazon.com.us. ebay.com becomes ebay.com.us. CAG becomes cheapassgamer.com.us. This would prevent any overlap of domain names between countries from ever being possible.

The next thing is that all countries should control their own endings. Everything that ends in .us should be subjected to United States laws and regulations, and no one else's. Everything that ends in .RU belongs solely to Russia, and so on. No country could, should, or would have any say in whats going on in any other country.

The UN (or other international body) should then control any communication between any two countries. If two countries decide not to 'speak' to one another (because, possibly, because of difference in laws regarding content) that would be entirely within their right. All these 'seperate' internets, however, would work together without any problem because there would be no overlapping domain names (due to the country extentions that would be manditory.)

There would, of course, be problems because different countries use different alphabets, but I think they would be solvable (the only 2 letters that really matter are the country code at the end, since they need to be international, and if worse comes to worse, you could always make a few country code systems, one for each alphabet.) This plan would give each country the independence that they want/need to use the internet for their own needs, while at the same time preserving the ability to co-exist and communicate between national lines.
 
National sovereignity would be respected, but it would make the internet more inclusive to the world community. Though you probably wouldn't see an increase in each countries internet control, the goal is to transfer the centralization of the internet from the u.s. to more equally spread out (though the u.s. would still be the main player). There's also the realistic possibility that segregating the internet would result in easier and increased censorship which limits the benefits for many people.
 
Tell me Mr. Socialist Utopian. How is the internet not more inclusive to the world community now? No change in oversight would change anything that would effect the nice, feelgood word "inclusion".

Bottom line: we built it, it's ours. If you don't like the present system go build your own. There are 38 years of U.S. taxpayer money that did the concept, design work, experimentation, build out, regulation and eventual commercialization of the internet. It wasn't an international consortium, business partnership or international government partnership. It was all American money, technology, research and development.

We built the ARPANET to ensure communications would survive in some electronic form after a nuclear attack. That's why the internet is so decentralized in the first place. That's why it's so robust compared to telephone or broadcast communications.

We owe absolutely no allegiance or support to any foreign or international body when it comes to internet oversight. They had absolutely nothing to do with making the thing work and God knows no nation contributed one Deutschmark, Lira, Pound, Franc, Rial, Krone, Shekel, Dihram, Kwacha, Lilageni, Baht or Rouble making it possible for U.S. domestic communications to survive a nuclear attack.
 
Zo owned this thread pretty hard, and PAD basically ignored what he posted and went on some random tyrade. So basically, a typical vs. forum thread.
 
I'm waiting for PAD to attribute fault to people because they weren't born in America, born christian or born white.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Tell me Mr. Socialist Utopian. How is the internet not more inclusive to the world community now? No change in oversight would change anything that would effect the nice, feelgood word "inclusion".

Bottom line: we built it, it's ours. If you don't like the present system go build your own. There are 38 years of U.S. taxpayer money that did the concept, design work, experimentation, build out, regulation and eventual commercialization of the internet. It wasn't an international consortium, business partnership or international government partnership. It was all American money, technology, research and development.

We built the ARPANET to ensure communications would survive in some electronic form after a nuclear attack. That's why the internet is so decentralized in the first place. That's why it's so robust compared to telephone or broadcast communications.

We owe absolutely no allegiance or support to any foreign or international body when it comes to internet oversight. They had absolutely nothing to do with making the thing work and God knows no nation contributed one Deutschmark, Lira, Pound, Franc, Rial, Krone, Shekel, Dihram, Kwacha, Lilageni, Baht or Rouble making it possible for U.S. domestic communications to survive a nuclear attack.[/QUOTE]


hey hey, shhhhhhh, calm down now, it's ok.

I know, I know! but shhhhhhh, it's ok. Here do you want pizza? I know you like pizza... pepperoni right? I know that's your favorite.

yeah that's right, eat the pizza. let the big boys worry about stuff, ok?

do you want to go to the playground after this?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This is a topic I think we should be pretty much be able to agree on. We created the Internet. Pure and simple.
HEY EU! BUILD YOUR OWN FREAKIN' INTERNET!
[/QUOTE]


Winning friends and influencing people :lol:


and for the record, I definitely prefer masturbation to your meaningless drivel any day (though it could be said that post masturbation does yield meaningless drivel).
 
You have every opportunity not to read my meaningless drivel when you see my user name next to the thread title.

Yet you keep reading and you keep responding.

Interesting.
 
Of course!

Sleepyking is the equivilent of people knowing exactly what Howard Stern is yet listen to his show than bitch to the FCC. He's much like parents that decry sex and violence on cable TV yet continue to pay for it and don't use their V-Chip or channel locking/deletion. He's the same type of individual that will complain bitterly about what kids may be exposed to on the internet yet will never bother installing filtering or parental control software on their PC.

You know the type. You hate the type. Yet in this case he'll claim he's not that type.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Tell me Mr. Socialist Utopian. How is the internet not more inclusive to the world community now? No change in oversight would change anything that would effect the nice, feelgood word "inclusion".

Bottom line: we built it, it's ours. If you don't like the present system go build your own. There are 38 years of U.S. taxpayer money that did the concept, design work, experimentation, build out, regulation and eventual commercialization of the internet. It wasn't an international consortium, business partnership or international government partnership. It was all American money, technology, research and development.

We built the ARPANET to ensure communications would survive in some electronic form after a nuclear attack. That's why the internet is so decentralized in the first place. That's why it's so robust compared to telephone or broadcast communications.

We owe absolutely no allegiance or support to any foreign or international body when it comes to internet oversight. They had absolutely nothing to do with making the thing work and God knows no nation contributed one Deutschmark, Lira, Pound, Franc, Rial, Krone, Shekel, Dihram, Kwacha, Lilageni, Baht or Rouble making it possible for U.S. domestic communications to survive a nuclear attack.[/QUOTE]

You sound like a whiny little kid "IT'S MINE! MINE!".

Fact is the internet is a global community. Many poor nations, which could benefit the most from it, have the least access to it. It is not as inclusive as it should be, and is dominated by the west and particularly the u.s.

And there's medicine invented all over the world, I'm glad they've don't adopt your logic with that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now now..sleepykyng did instigate the ad hominems.[/QUOTE]

Maybe so, but PAD could have been the bigger man and not responded.:roll:
 
Guess what. It is ours. We designed it, built it and paid for its development. It's ours to regulate.

I'm not saying in any way shape or form to deny service to any nation. It's just that ICANN works and there is no need to change existing oversight.

If you can't identify an anti-U.S. attempt to grab power here you're blind, dumb and stupid. Of course you already are demonstrably blind, dumb and stupid but that's an entirely different topic. Despite all the feelgoodism that foreign powers and groups display it is nothing more than a covert attempt to control and tax the internet. Don't believe the rhetoric floating about.

Nothing is preventing the U.N. from putting a program in place to help develop net access in third world countries. Nothing is stopping the EU from putting standards in place that member nations should adhere to. Nothing ICANN is doing prevents any of that.

The world just can't stand that the fact that the lone superpower continues to exert control over something it created. Despite a completely benevolent policy and practices. Nowhere in the U.S. will you find people as dedicated to free, open and unregulated net policy than those at ICANN and forwarding the idea of universal net access. They make free speech proponents look like hardline communist party censors in comparison.

You know the mantra "information wants to be free". No other body or group in the world will be a bigger propoent of access without restriction for all than the Americans who sit at the controls of the internet. Fortunately if it came to executive or legislative approval for dissolving ICANN and ceding Commerce Department control over this function the measure would go down in flames.

This just isn't going to happen. I suspect even the internet's creator, Algore, would agree with me.
 
While there is nothing technically preventing it from being accessable to the vast majority of the world, it is much more difficult to accomplish in the current centralized state. Censoring the internet is not going to occur, and I cannot see any disadvantage, even for the u.s., other than being able to no longer say we control it. That is meaningless in the end.
 
Explain to us simpletons how the current "centralized" situation leads to difficulty in making net access universally available.

You have no proof that existing policy, control or U.S. backed or sponsored agencies are curtailing your claims.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I know it's not what Algore said just like you know Bush erred in saying internets yet like to harp on endlessly about it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's just another "bushism" that was added to the list. :lol:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Explain to us simpletons how the current "centralized" situation leads to difficulty in making net access universally available.

You have no proof that existing policy, control or U.S. backed or sponsored agencies are curtailing your claims.[/QUOTE]

Because by putting the technology that is currently u.s. dominated (with a few exceptions, such as icq) into the hands of international organizations you would increase the involvement and participations of other countries. It would give them more of a say in how the internet works (compared to just the u.s.). It would also open the door for different ways of marketing it, such as having addresses written in other languages other than just the roman alphabet, the major ones being chinese, arabic and urdu. About half the world does not use the roman alphabet, yet it is required knowledge to effectively use the internet. It would also increase support to developing nations in imporving their internet infrastructure, something that is needed to continue expanding internet reach.

There would also be a force set up to help prevent the spread of viruses and other similar issues.

Not so much to back up my argument, but it's relevant and I thought this was a good excerpt from an article I read.

The gathering's ambition to boost economic and social development in poor countries revolves around a pledge under the UN's Millennium Development Goals to connect all the villages of the world to the Internet by 2015.

"It is striking that the 400,000 citizens of Luxembourg have more Internet access than the 800 million residents in Africa," UN Under Secretary for Communications Shashi Tharoor told reporters.



"We need to scale up what exists in Africa, in various parts of Asia. There has been remarkable progress in China and that's a reflection of the booming economy there, there's been less of that progress elsewhere," Tharoor added.



Some 800,000 "villages" predominantly in poor countries, still need to be connected in the next decade, according to the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is organising the summit with Tunisia.

The cost of the effort, one billion dollars, represents one percent of the annual global investment in mobile telephone connections.

"The hurdle here is more political than financial," Annan told the summit Wednesday.
Click to expand...
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/84718.asp
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Because by putting the technology that is currently u.s. dominated (with a few exceptions, such as icq) into the hands of international organizations you would increase the involvement and participations of other countries. It would give them more of a say in how the internet works (compared to just the u.s.). It would also open the door for different ways of marketing it, such as having addresses written in other languages other than just the roman alphabet, the major ones being chinese, arabic and urdu. About half the world does not use the roman alphabet, yet it is required knowledge to effectively use the internet. It would also increase support to developing nations in imporving their internet infrastructure, something that is needed to continue expanding internet reach.

There would also be a force set up to help prevent the spread of viruses and other similar issues. [/QUOTE]

With all due respect every single reason you listed is a function of private enterprise. ICANN has absolutely zero to do with any of those issues.

Local keyboards/language adoption? Private enterprise or national government intervention. Marketing? Private enterprise. You want foreign alphabet support for web addresses? ICANN can do it.

Langueage knowledge to use the internet? Again, either a function of national government or private enterprise. Increasing support to developing nations? National responsibility.

None of what you listed would fall under ICANN jurisdiction or an EU or UN proposal for regulating registrations and physical routing of the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top