Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on July 18, 2005, 02:25:51 am
-
http://www.betanews.com/article/UN_US_Should_Not_Control_Internet/1121451964
Somehow this doesn't really surprise me.
-
still, a global thing like the internet, having one country basically own the entire basis of that just doesn't seem right to me.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
still, a global thing like the internet, having one country basically own the entire basis of that just doesn't seem right to me.
I have the same feeling. And people here wonder why people abroad see the US as being imperialistic...... :rolleyes:
-
0MGzors!!!!1 don't talk bad about the t3h U$. America is t3h l33t. j00 r a terurist!!!!1
:rolleyes:
Seriously though, I don't like it either. Not at all. However I think having the internet be dependent on a few centralized servers, whatever their location, is a problem in and of itself.
-
The whole point of the internet was to be distributed. So that way if part of it went down, the rest could keep going. Centralizing the DNS servers runs completly contrary to this pholosophy. But also leaving them in the hands of a predatory nation like the US is even worse.
-
Giving the UN control of the internet is just as bad as leaving it in the US's hands. I personally think it's much more selfish for the UN to take control of it for their own, than it is for the US to keep control of it for being already established.
-
*yawn*
-
I would trust the US gov't more (both with possesion and protection) with those root servers more than the UN.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
Giving the UN control of the internet is just as bad as leaving it in the US's hands. I personally think it's much more selfish for the UN to take control of it for their own, than it is for the US to keep control of it for being already established.
Please rearrange the above into an intelligent phrase or saying.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
I would trust the US gov't more (both with possesion and protection) with those root servers more than the UN.
Why? If the UN controlled it, then no single nation could hold the internet hostage. That is the point: An international tool being controlled by an international organization.
-
because they're an incompetent money pit of coruption. at least we have a good track recod.
.. and we made it... and payed for it...and own it now... and won't get anything from giveing it to someone else.
now, why doesn't the UN or who ever thinks they are worthy of running the internet build there own? it's not like were going to stop you
-
Oo; Color me stupid, but why does it matter who has it and how much of it they have? So long as they keep it up and running.
-
because they're an incompetent money pit of coruption. at least we have a good track recod.
The only difference between UN corruption and american corruption is that american corruption is legal.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
because they're an incompetent money pit of coruption. at least we have a good track recod.
.. and we made it... and payed for it...and own it now... and won't get anything from giveing it to someone else.
now, why doesn't the UN or who ever thinks they are worthy of running the internet build there own? it's not like were going to stop you
That's somewhat debatable in it's own right; whereas you can credit (for example) the US with packet switching technology ARPANET, on the other hand the concept of the world wide web - accessibility hypertext/data/etc, including the definitions for a URL, HTML and HTTP - was developed by a British man (Tim Berners Lee) working at CERN in Switzerland.
Also, the existing standards body (the W33 and ISO) are international standards bodies, not US; the former is jointly administered by offices in the US, Japan and France, and the latter is centred in Switzerland (being a network comprised of members representing standards organizations in 153 countries).
So it strikes me as being far from the case that the US 'owns' anything beyond the physical DNS servers (especially as the fundamental principles are now well known & publicly available), and the main case for keeping them in the US is simply because...well, because they were originally put there. If it was the case that, say, China was the one controlling the DNS servers due to historical precedence, would the US not complain?