Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ICANN Meets Annan

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the what-role-the-UN dept.

The Internet 221

CypherOz writes "The Australian reports a meeting between ICANN chief Twomey and Kofi Annan and the role the UN may play in the naming game. " We've talked about this before as well.

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Poll Troll Toll (-1)

PollTroll (764214) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703147)

Which is better...

ICANN [calcgames.org]
GNAA [calcgames.org]
PollTroll [calcgames.org]
Sex with a mare [calcgames.org]

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703160)

FR0ST PSIT

I am a soldier of Allah (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703161)

At war with the United States
Death to America
Death to Israel
#Teens4Christ is great (and touched your junk liberally)

Don tinfoil hats (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703171)

I hear the sound of those virtual black helicopters.

Funny Quote (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703181)

"The United Nations would be a good platform for that, because it has legitimacy."

No, it does not.

Re:Funny Quote (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703221)

It has legitamacy to every one other than the United States, who will abide by it only when it is in its best interests.

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703310)

Why should the country with a larger military budget than every other country combined listen to some to pseudo-government? It's a sovereign nation.

Re:Funny Quote (1, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703352)

Because you don't have to be an asshole just because you can.

Jeroen

Re:Funny Quote (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703390)

And that's why we're there. We're willing to be nice, but we're not going to let the rest of the world walk all over us.

Re:Funny Quote (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703471)

Because you don't have to be an asshole just because you can.

That aptly describes the French. Lets get back to talking about the US.

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703456)

Brilliant. What an incredibly mature viewpoint! This is exactly the type of navel-gazing attitude that gives the US a bad name.

No so funny. (0, Troll)

RLW (662014) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703580)

The point is the Internet is a US invention and all the infrastructure to run it are either in the US or are allowed to participate by permission from the US. If the UN wants an internet then let the UN build it. Other nations are justified to be warry not only beucase the US may decide to cut off a nation's access to the 'net but in some cases should cut of access.

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703587)

Some people just can't deal with the truth.

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703320)

It has legitamacy to every one other than the United States, who will abide by it only when it is in its best interests.

Just where do you think the internet came from? Where did Google come from? Where did 122,000 online pictures of Britney Spears come from?

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703470)

who's disputing that? what's that got to do with the original poster's comment?

Re:Funny Quote (2, Funny)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703489)

Just where do you think the internet came from?

It came by interconnecting a lot of networks worldwide.

Where did Google come from?

From some smart guys that had nothing to do with the US government

Where did 122,000 online pictures of Britney Spears come from?

Please, take them back!!!!!!!

Jeroen

Re:Funny Quote (1)

dbone (562293) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703743)

Hmmm... As I recall the internet was started by DARPA (DARPA-NET) as a U.S. military project on computer redundancy in case of Nuclear War.

Later is was expanded by BBN into a more commercial system (e-mail and such)

Both of this endeavors where funded and backed exclusively by the U.S. government. It was most certainly did not "come by interconnecting a lot of networks worldwide. That was an after thought.

Call me a nit-picker if you must

-d

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703386)

the United States can do as it pleases because it is bigger, richer, and stronger than anybody else. Get over it, loser.

Re:Funny Quote (1)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703541)

I guess you've forgotten Bosnia?

MODERATION ABUSE!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703620)

once again, a simple opinion on one side is moded down to oblivion, and snide, idiotic reply is modded up.

this is simply an abuse of the moderation system. if you disagree, reply, don't mod. The free-speech for all types here are sure sensitive, when they hear speech they don't like.

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703246)

Right, not by the US, because the US like to breach international treaties just as they want to do at the moment. But by most democracies in the world the UNO has legitimacy.

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703340)

NO organization that has a slave trading nation heading up its Human Rights commission is legitimate.

QED.

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703483)

NO country that has an unelected head of state can legitimately call itself a democracy.

QED.

Re:Funny Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703554)

yes much better to just keep alienating any state that disagrees with your own point of view i guess isn't it?

and if they still don't give it up, then just move in and blow 'em away.

unlike US government, the UN (every developed country in the world except america) is willing to try even quite radical ideas such as that in their continuing effort to find peaceful solutions.

fantastic (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703182)

two organizations that get absolutely nothing done, meet. news at 11.

Re:fantastic (0, Troll)

nologin (256407) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703640)

For the UN, arranging for and attending a meeting is an accomplishment.

As for getting anything decided at these meetings, that's a whole other matter entirely.

Grumble (4, Insightful)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703186)

The UN really should either take over the DNS system, or regulate it (regulation is probably better). After all, DNS is a global system that is important the better part of the world. It clearly falls under the purview of global government.

Re:Grumble (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703258)

After all, DNS is a global system that is important the better part of the world. It clearly falls under the purview of global government.

Actually, you can run your own DNS system which is totally independent of everyone else's if you want. The internet is cool like that.

Re:Grumble (2)

daksis (163887) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703451)

Good point; Does this mean that some day we will pay to subscribe to certain "quality" DNS services? The strength of the internet (in that the infrastructure is easily duplicated and can be run by "anyone") is also a weak point that could lead to fragmentation....

Err, "Oil for Domain Names" ? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703279)

Not to troll or anything (honest!), but given recent scandals, I'm kind of leery about letting the UN run the Internet root servers.

Otherwise I agree with your premise, and wouldn't mind an independant third-party organization basically running the 'net. Finding one without an agenda or finding one that is relatively corruption-proof is another story entirely.

Re:Grumble (5, Troll)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703348)

The other problem is that the UN is by no stretch of the imagination a "global government". It's a club for dictators to grand-stand while the powers from the end of WW II watch with their veto powers.

Re:Grumble (0, Flamebait)

Branc0 (580914) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703532)

Are the moderators on crack? How can this be funny?
The UN never were a democracy...

Re:Grumble (1)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703566)

"Are the moderators on crack?"

That would explain a lot of things going on at Slashdot.

Re:Grumble (5, Insightful)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703430)

The best thing anyone can do (ICANN included) is leave the internet the hell alone.

The last thing we need is an international body trying to make us subject to all the laws in the world, in spite of the contradictions in law everywhere...

For example, I wonder how many sites discussing the history of WW II would be allowed? Germany has some pretty strict laws about anything relating to the Nazis. It's not particularly clear to me that you could even, say, cite Hitler's writings or show pictures of historical artifacts without running afoul of it, even should you (rightfully!) condemn the horrible things that happened during that war.

Besides, we already have countries fencing in their own little bits of the internet (first China, now France as I understand it... probably others, soon) ... the irony is that the internet is already too international for some countries.

That said, DNS probably could be a bit smarter about, say, using unicode instead of ASCII for URLs... Though I have to wonder just how confusing that might make things if there are now who knows how many glyphs that all look too similar (new avenues for typosquatters, no doubt) ...

Re:Grumble (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703467)

Not to derail, but please remember that the UN is not an elected body. Here in the West, we hold as self-evident the idea that legitimate government can only arise out of the will of the people. The various ambassadors and ministers that make up the UN General Assembly and Security Council are not elected, either directly or indirectly.

The United Nations is not and cannot be a world government. It's not a government at all. It lacks the legitimate authority to govern anything.

I don't wanna get into a big thing here. I just want to be clear on this.

Re:Grumble (3, Insightful)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703555)

It clearly falls under the purview of global government.

Yikes! Thank goodness the UN isn't actually a global government with sovereign power over anyone. The UN is basically a soap box for third-world dictators to scapegoat developed countries for the problems their own corrupt governments are actually responsible for. The UN really needs to be reformed (e.g., France out of the security council, Germany, Japan, and India in would be a better approximation of great powers; and of course countries without consensual governments should have no vote in the general assembly or be eligible to chair any committees), but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

However, even with reforms, the UN should have no power over the structure of the internet: the internet today is essentially just a large NAP of private networks, and has none of its own structure. Even the use of ICANN's private DNS servers by the vast majority of users on the internet is just convention, and any country or organization can run their own root servers and lobby others to use them. Any attempts to centrally control these systems will ultimately result in the system's primary users (those who will no doubt be screwed by the UN's dictator-centric model) routing around the regulations.

Bottom line: thank goodness the internet is peer-to-peer. The users truly have the power, and don't have to take it up the ass from a central authority.

Cheers,
Kyle

Re:Grumble (3, Insightful)

morelife (213920) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703614)

The UN really should either take over the DNS system

The Domain Name System is a large, multifaceted "thing". The UN is simply not qualified to either own it, or regulate it.

The UN should have a voice in some parts of the process, especially to ensure uniformity among nations, and to ensure that third world countries who spend most of their valuable assets trying to find food, let alone Internet access/presence, don't get shafted as regulations evolve and the Internet grows.

What needs pure reform is ICANN itself.

Like the UN would be any faster... (5, Interesting)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703203)

  • Other critics say ICANN is too slow in making decisions and adopting new technology, like ways to transmit Chinese and Arabic characters. VeriSign has sued the organisation, saying it is standing in the way of lucrative new services.
I wonder if these same critics have paid any attention to just how quickly the UN moves on things. Yes it's an international body, but it also brings even more petty arguments to the table because of that. While ICANN's far from perfect, I doubt things would be any faster with the UN taking over, slower maybe, but not faster.

Re:Like the UN would be any faster... (4, Insightful)

millwall (622730) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703298)

"While ICANN's far from perfect, I doubt things would be any faster with the UN taking over, slower maybe, but not faster."

I don't think these issues have any need for a fast paced organisation. I would rather prefer a stable, yet slow organasation to handle these issues.

Re:Like the UN would be any faster... (1)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703328)

  • I don't think these issues have any need for a fast paced organisation. I would rather prefer a stable, yet slow organasation to handle these issues.
I agree, but if you read the quote from the article I posted you'd see that one of the critics arguments is that ICANN is too slow, so the UN should take over. My point was that the UN is unlikely to be faster, so this particular criticism is unlikely to be resolved.

Re:Like the UN would be any faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703339)

Are you insane?! If we don't get the .mail domain by December, the intarweb will BE DESTROYED!!!! DESTROYED!!!!!!

Re:Like the UN would be any faster... (4, Insightful)

S3D (745318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703346)

And UN is suspectible to political pressue considerably more then ICANN. What a can of worms will open if UN will deside wich country should have wich domain name suffixes, and who shouldn't have suffixes at all. And Taiwan is not an UN member at all. What if UN start removing existing suffixes for political reasons ?

Re:Like the UN would be any faster... (4, Insightful)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703401)

  • And UN is suspectible to political pressue considerably more then ICANN. What a can of worms will open if UN will deside wich country should have wich domain name suffixes, and who shouldn't have suffixes at all. And Taiwan is not an UN member at all. What if UN start removing existing suffixes for political reasons ?
An incredibly good point, I hope someone mods you up. I'm sure that China would start the pressure to have Taiwan removed immediately and I'm sure Israel would start lobbying for Palenstine (.ps IIRC) to lose its domain. Actually the net would probably come to a screeching halt while the UN fought over who deserved a domain or not.

Despite the concerns expressed in the article by critics, the US has taken a fairly non-political oversight role with the Internet and ICANN. True that might not stay that way, but at least as things stand now, ICANN is probably far less political than any UN governed Internet body would ever be.

Re:Like the UN would be any faster... (1)

dbone (562293) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703455)

Does that sound like a legitimate argument for the UN taking over. It seems like more of a technical problem involving both the DNS software and platform it runs on (don't know how familiar people are with the software here...) And the VeriSign thing, that is the most blatantly absurd quote. An obvious money grab by VeriSign! Does this mean the UN as a vested interest in which search engine my URL typo goes to? -d

Canadians to lose freedom of speech (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703211)

The UN is corrupt and useless (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703212)

Tell me where all the cash from the "food for oil" programme went? It didn't go to food. It went to bribe top UN, French, German and Russian officials (probably as far up as Putin and Chirac) to support Saddam.

The UN under Kofi Annan has become as corrupt as gangland Chicago.

Re:The UN is corrupt and useless (0, Offtopic)

dbone (562293) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703343)

"When a man becomes preeminent, he is expected to have enthusiasms..." [Kofi Annan circling the security council with a criket bat]

Cite Your Sources (4, Insightful)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703406)

Tell me where all the cash from the "food for oil" programme went? It didn't go to food. It went to bribe top UN, French, German and Russian officials (probably as far up as Putin and Chirac) to support Saddam.

The UN under Kofi Annan has become as corrupt as gangland Chicago.


What are your sources?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to see some details.

-kgj

Re:Cite Your Sources (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703508)

I'm not the original poster, but this is a big deal. The Iraqi oil-for-food program was by far the largest amount of money that the UN had ever handled. It dwarfed the rest of the UN's budget.

(That said, I doubt Putin or Chirac were bribed. Like Bush, they had their own strong interests in the matter of Iraq and its government.)

Here are a few references. You can find plenty more on news.google.com :

'Massive scam' in Iraqi oil program [news.com.au]

Get to heart of UN role in Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal [newsday.com]

Annan Pushes UN Council Members on Iraq Oil Scandal [reuters.com]

3,000 UN Staffers Probed [nypost.com]

Bulgaria's President Questioned over Iraq Oil Scandal [212.91.166.50]

Re:Cite Your Sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703547)

I don't have details offhand, but I know some of it was indirect bribes (ie, you can use oil-for-food money to pay for french goods, at a 25% markup).


However, consider this: oil-for-food purchases had to be approved by the UN, yet most of hte oil-for-food money went for stuff like new palaces, luxury cars, gold plated toilets, etc.

UN wants to rule the internet.. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703214)

..but naming isn't everything of the internet! :-?

Re:UN wants to rule the internet.. (4, Funny)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703363)

I personally advocate ditching dns and going back to plain ip numbers. If you find a site you like, remember it's ip number, or just bookmark the number. If you have a big coorporate site, make television commercials like "Biggest Sale Ever!!! visit http://36.112.2.14 for details" We'll also cut internet traffic by a third and do away with all the trouble surrounding who controls the names.

Re:UN wants to rule the internet.. (2, Funny)

jeffcm (719814) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703435)

Yeah, until IPv6 comes around. Then you might have problems... "Hey dude, visit my website!" "What's the address?" "Oh, it's easy. Just go to http://3ffe:0501:0008:0000:0260:97ff:fe40:efab"

Re:UN wants to rule the internet.. (1)

DR SoB (749180) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703667)

Actually, that's only 16 bytes, it should be 32.. :)

http://3ffe:0501:0008:0000:0260:97ff:fe40:efab:3ff e:0501:0008:0000:0260:97ff:fe40:efab

IP Addresses for sale! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703605)

123.*
1.2.3.*

Only a few left! Buy now!

If (3, Interesting)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703217)

I just hope that if the UN gets involved, they come in against Verisign and any other large businesses who wish to screw with things. I'm not all for the UN controlling things, mind you. But if they do have some say, I hope its on the side of reason and open standards and fair, reasonable practices.

Re:If (5, Insightful)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703271)

  • I just hope that if the UN gets involved, they come in against Verisign and any other large businesses who wish to screw with things. I'm not all for the UN controlling things, mind you. But if they do have some say, I hope its on the side of reason and open standards and fair, reasonable practices.
Actually the real question would be would the UN have any actual POWER to enforce the rules they set. They don't have much power now, so UN mandates get ignored quite often when it's convenient, so Verisign would probably just do what it wanted and ignore the UN mandates. It could actually end up being much WORSE than it is now.

Re:If (4, Interesting)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703468)

The doesn't have any real power for a couple reasons. First, since it's a conglomerate "government" it relies completely on the power of its constituents. And rarely has it wanted to do anything that its powerful constituents didn't want to do already (do to veto power and a few weighty members). So when some powerful countries who would already be taking an action go through the UN, they just do what they originally set out to do with UN uniforms on.

Secondly, the UN doesn't have any real power because, while everyone is willing to participate, no one is willing to really give up power of their nation to another ruling body. I doubt that will ever happen peacefully.

I would like to see more discussion from the UN about what might help developing countries, or what might foster more online growth - and then see that input taken into account by internet regulators. But I think that's about the best the UN could do to help.

This is what is wrong with this idea. (5, Interesting)

Guysdrinkingbeer (207045) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703243)

From the article
"... whether the internet should be governed and, if so, how."
With all the problems that go on in the UN why are they a better choice then the US. The article has some valid points, but the current system is pretty fair.

Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703405)

With all the problems that go on in the UN why are they a better choice then the US.

Which problems are you referring to? The US not paying its UN membership fee? The US blocking security resolutions? Or the problem of the US ignoring the majority of the UN and the security council?

Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703500)

Which problems are you referring to?

Have you been living in a cave on Mars? Google "oil-for-food" for starters.

The US not paying its UN membership fee?

Have you ever been a dissatisfied customer? The last recourse of a dissatisfied customer is to refuse to pay the bill.

The US blocking security resolutions?

Don't complain about the US. Complain about the UN Charter. It gives arbitrary veto power to all of the permanent members of the Security Council. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, as a whole, is up for debate, but it's how things are.

Or the problem of the US ignoring the majority of the UN and the security council?

That's funny, the way you used "majority" and "UN" in the same sentence there. You do realize that the UN is an unelected, undemocratic body, right?

Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703418)

With all the problems that go on in the UN why are they a better choice then the US.

Because they don't represent a single nation state.

Can you please explain to me why a nation that predominantly speaks English and Spanish aren't putting in any effort to resolving issues for Chinese and Arbic speakers?

Oh wait, there's no need to explain it to me - it's fucking obvious.

Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703601)

The koran doesn't mention anything about computers, jackass. Those camel-jockeys are forbidden from using them, so it's not an issue.

Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. (4, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703437)

With all the problems that go on in the UN why are they a better choice then the US.

Because then it wouldn't be a single country forcing its view of how things should be done on everyone else?

The UN has got a lot of criticism recently for being slow. Of course it is quicker and easier to make unilateral decisions. Getting consensus with a large group takes time.

The UN might be in considerably better shape if the USA put it weight behind it and didn't try to put it down all the time. There has been a lot more UN bashing recently since Bush got into power. It's not really suprising when you consider he had hardly been outside of the USA before he became president - an increadible state of affaird for a country that traditionally has been so good at foreign policy.

Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. (3, Insightful)

linoleo (718385) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703474)

With all the problems that go on in the UN why are they a better choice then the US.

With all due respect, the main problem going on in the UN *is* the US. The UN aren't perfect, but in fact they're doing quite well, and would be doing great if they weren't undercut at every turn by US administrations who use UN-bashing to score cheap popularity points with their voters. (Something similar can be seen in Europe with respect to the EU: the national governments like to take credit for any positive effects while blaming the negatives on Brussels.)

Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. (2, Interesting)

gartogg (317481) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703502)

I think the better point is about the "whether", not the how. The system is unfair as long as the control is centralized. Distribute the system, and DISBAND ICANN. It's a useless body, and once governments, or even corporations take control of their online feifdoms, like they do here in meatspace. (Let people buy and sell top level domains, why not... get all possible one out there and let the market take over...)

hmmm... (5, Insightful)

spangineer (764167) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703252)

How much could the U.N. actually do that the U.S. isn't doing now? I understand the appearance issue - this way it might have a bit more international legitimacy, but realistically, on a practical level, I don't see much coming out of this. The language compatibility thing is interesting, and that could possibly turn out better when working through the U.N., but I'm skeptical. To me it all sounds like a bunch of dippy diplomats are talking about something they don't understand. But wait - isn't that the U.N.'s new mission?

Re:hmmm... (1)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703302)

  • The language compatibility thing is interesting, and that could possibly turn out better when working through the U.N., but I'm skeptical.
While I don't know the specifics, given Verisign's past actions with Site Finder alone, I suspect the problems about multi-language Internet getting implemented are more Verisign than ICANN. Verisign is probably wanting to do it in a proprietary way that they can make money off of, and fighting any alternative methods that would be open standards.

The internet was created by the US (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703270)

So if we want to put ICANN in charge, we can. The rest of the world can deal with it or make their own internet.

Re:The internet was created by the US (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703385)

> The rest of the world can deal with it or make their own internet.

We did - we just didn't tell you about it yet. You're not invited you see ;-)

Re:The internet was created by the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703417)

And, gasp, we don't care. Have fun on your UNternet or whatever you call it.

Capitalist US-based domain suffixes are better (-1, Flamebait)

morelife (213920) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703276)

.baguette ?

.fufu ?

.koala ??

No thanks.

Re:Capitalist US-based domain suffixes are better (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703738)

*sigh* try .fr, .co.uk, .co.jp, .com.au, etc, etc.

Remember... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703278)

When its hot outside, and your hemmoroids are even hotter,
just look to the cool relief of Preparation-H to get
you on your way.

Prioritizing? (0)

pytsun (765818) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703315)

I was assuming Kofi Annan had better things to do these days.

Where have we heard this before (4, Insightful)

amigoro (761348) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703362)

Some countries and activists argue that ICANN is too close to the United States and want the United Nations to take a greater role in regulating the internet.

I sure have heard [theage.com.au] the term "United Nations to take a greater role" line before.

The gathering grew from December's UN World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva, where the world's leaders failed to reach consensus on governing the Internet and punted the issue to a task force that is supposed to report to Annan in 2005.

When was the last time world leaders manage to reach a consensus?

It ended Saturday with a closed-door meeting of diplomats.

Transparency of internation politics.

Computer industry officials at the meeting were skeptical of a UN role, but they agreed that some kind of international body could be useful in coordinating language issues, security and getting the Internet into developing countries.

Heard that before [dailyvidette.org]

Most believed an international body had no right to regulate the content of Web sites, a concern for countries like China and North Korea

And not the US? Oh wait, they have DMCA [blackboxvoting.com]

"ICANN has to be more international and it has to be more transparent," said Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, vice chairman of the UN Information and Communication Technologies Task Force.

UN Transparency = Closed Door Meetings

ICANN also chooses who controls the country codes -- like ".us" or ".uk" -- that define each country's piece of real estate in cyberspace.

The rightful code for Britain should be GB. But the British snatched UK, which should have gone to Ukraine.

It has yet to decide the future of Iraq's ".iq".

Bush's War Against IQ ;)

Twomey denies any US government influence in ICANN's work.
"I have never once seen the United States' foreign policy have any impact on this process," he said.

deja vu?

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic [mithuro.com] Flamebait [mithuro.com] Troll [mithuro.com] Redundant [mithuro.com]
Positive: Insightful [mithuro.com] Interesting [mithuro.com] Informative [mithuro.com] Funny [mithuro.com]

Re:Where have we heard this before (2, Informative)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703516)

The rightful code for Britain should be GB. But the British snatched UK, which should have gone to Ukraine.

To be fair, these codes are defined by ISO at a level that has nothing to do with the Internet. DNS merely exposes those country codes in the DNS for use by those ISO-defined entities.

Re:Where have we heard this before (1)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703542)

The rightful code for Britain should be GB
And what about Northern Ireland?

But the British snatched UK, which should have gone to Ukraine.
Did Ukraine exist as a seperate country at the time .uk was chosen?

Uh, get your facts straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703553)

Ukraine's country code is UA, and when the country codes were handed out, Ukraine was still a part of the Soviet Union. UK is listed as an alternate ISO country code for Great Britain. Blame ISO, not ICANN.

Re:Where have we heard this before (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703584)

Most believed an international body had no right to regulate the content of Web sites, a concern for countries like China and North Korea

And not the US? Oh wait, they have DMCA [blackboxvoting.com]

There's a minor difference between an overzealous copyright act and a government which wishes to suppress any inkling of free speech or communication to/from its citizens it cannot control and watch for information contrary to its policies(or that it considers subversive, such as "let's have elections").

They're mostly just desperate to keep their peasants in line because they think their peasants don't know what the rest of the world is like. Why we are even listening to North Korea on anything, after they essentially tried to take the world hostage with nuclear weapons, is beyond me.

Perhaps you haven't heard but... (4, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703590)

...the full name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the UK for short.

If I have to explain why the UK has the legitimate claim on the .uk TLD then you've got bigger problems than TLD country codes.

Yes, people (including politicians and the media) treat the terms "The United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" as though they are interchangeable, but I think you'll find they do the same thing with "The United States [of America]" and "America" too.

But if you're reasoning held true then the TLD country code for the US should be .am or some such.

Bottom line: the UK's use of the .uk TLD is entirely appropriate. As is the US's use of the .us TLD.

Oh, and by the way, diplomacy is rarely about reaching a concensus; it's about reaching a compromise: it's just a pity that some governments have conveniently chosen to forget that.

Negotiations (4, Funny)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703393)

Twomey: So, you people want part of our little scheme?
Annan: More or less, yes.
Twomey: What if I tell you to shove your head up your own ass?
Annan: I'm not sure my friend would appreciate that.
Twomey: Really now? I've got Verisign behind me.
Annan: Mario, say hi.
Mario Monti: Hi!
Annan: See that war chest with 500 million euros behind him? The one with the MS logo?
Twomey: You know, this whole scheme involving you sounds interesting all of the sudden. Do tell.

MiWEEN meets YourCANN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703411)

anul secks?

Why bother using the UN? (4, Interesting)

gartogg (317481) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703413)

The question that I would have about the regulatory system in place is that if the government were to attempt to "force the disruption of internet traffic to entire countries by deleting them from central computers," would the commercial hosters and systems continue to accept dns information that would be bad for their customers? It seems that the internet is commercial enough that in leiu of government oversight, it might be better to allow a evolved commercial alliance govern the systems.

It is a bit silly to allow a small thing like DNS to create such a problem in the first place. When we go to IPv6, it might make more sense to use URL forwarding to IP's, and bypass most of the regulatory system in the first place... Allow other countries to maintain permanent fixed DNS servers for their own IP ranges, and have the assignations know, so that all other central controls are unneeded. If the US wants to control .com, .net, .gov, .org, let them. Sell off all remaining 2 and 3 letter combination top level domains using whatever system you want, and then dissolve ICANN. It just makes sense,if the internet is supposed to belong to the users.

This hsould be interesting (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703420)

This is the same body that put Syria in charge of Human Rights. Given their track record, my bet is they'll just let Verisign continue to run things...

Aussies Invade Slashdot !!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703427)

THE SHOCKING TRUTH, SPOKEN BY THE TRUE PROPHET:

March 24th: SCO Seeks Licenses Down Under [slashdot.org]

March 24th: ... story on the delay at ZD Net Australia [slashdot.org]

March 26th: A Ready-Made MythTV Set-Top Box in Australia [slashdot.org]

March 26th: The judge in the case ruled that Griffiths, an Australian who had never set foot in the United States, had committed the alleged actions in Australia [slashdot.org]

March 29th: Australian Record Industry Has Best Year Ever [slashdot.org]

March 29th: In 2003 he won the Australian Unix and Open Systems' Australian Open Souce Award for his work ... [slashdot.org]

March 29th: The Australian reports a meeting between ICANN chief Twomey and Kofi Annan [slashdot.org]

Note:

1) The cunning CAMOFLOUGE of 'Australia' as 'Down Under' in the first invasion story !!

2) The insiduous DELAY of 3 days !!! before resuming the invasion with additional vigour today ... !!

3) BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID !!!!

What are ye.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703445)

dissing the UN for?? What can be so wrong with having a multi country organisation controlling the internet??? The only problem i can see is america sticking its head in and declaring war on the UN and the internet or something as stupid.

Re:What are ye.. (1)

two_stripe (584918) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703623)

That actually happens in the year 2021 when oil is irrelevant and the limited IPv4 address space becomes the new base of the world economy.

Re:What are ye.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703684)

We use IPv6?

Re:What are ye.. (0)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703651)

Let's liberate the internet! Information wants to be free!

Oh, I got carried away a bit... but we are building a case against weapons of mass destruction like DDOS attacks ;)

International law... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703472)

"International law is to law what professional wrestling is to wrestling; no one over the age of nine mistakes it for the real thing."

Time Magazine, opening line in an article about Somalia from 1993.

Seems Like the Wrong Way to Do Things (4, Insightful)

fuzzybunny (112938) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703478)

ICANN's not perfect, the US govt. is not perfect, but to be perfectly honest, Auerbach's right when he says that the US has never really taken a ham-handed approach to the Internet and to "cutting off" anyone it doesn't like.

Sounds to me like the lesser of two evils--we've all seen the types of politics involved in the UN. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure I _want_ more democracy in how the "Internet" is run. And let's be straight about it--they're not talking about peering arrangements, IP address space, whatnot--they're talking about the DNS.

The current hierarchical system has its problems, but the increasing number of non-US root servers should at least disabuse anyone of the notion that an overly zealous US could, at the drop of a hat, just turn things off.

What I'd like to see from the UN, maybe, is increased sponsorship of things like discussion on proposed standards, dissemination of information, encouragement of the spread of technology and freedom of information to certain restrictive third world countries, whatnot. I'd rather not have it involved in the technical development of our dear, functional, essentially stupid network.

This can actually be a good thing (1, Troll)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703481)

I can think of no better way of hastening the demise of DNS than by turning it into a truly political asset. Once technical control and guidance over DNS is turned over to governments already keen to warp it for commercial interests, what remains of its technical usefulness will dwindle.

This gives us the perfect opportunity (and finally incentive) to come up with something better.

You Get What You Allow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703559)

You can't have a global economy without a
global government. Get used to it. The U.N.
will eventual control the internet (and us).

Re:You Get What You Allow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703730)

Global trade has existed for centuries without a global government.

Who knew Verisign knew? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703630)

"The first time anyone tried to do that, there would be such a hue and cry," said Michael Aisenberg, director of government relations for VeriSign, an ICANN contractor that keeps the master list of domain name suffixes like ".com." "You would be such a pariah, you would have your role as a custodian ripped away from you."

Nice to know that someone at Verisign has some understanding of that.

"Annan" ?? (1, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703632)

Geesh, it's not like he's Linus or Madonna or Jesus. Coffee-cup Annan doesn't have that level of recognition, at least in the US. Oh wait, -1, US-Centric. Oh wait, /. is mostly a US site! 50% will think this is a troll, 50% will think that this is Insightful. What to do, what to do...

Competing DNS system (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703671)

If the UN is the great end-all be-all that most of the slashdotters seem to think it is; then why don't they just offer up their own competing DNS system. If they truly can provide the best service, then everyone would naturally want to use them instead of the current system.

It's a matter of, (gasp!) choice.

NGO? (4, Interesting)

utlemming (654269) | more than 10 years ago | (#8703677)

The only way that it would work would be for a NGO to be formed. But honestly, I think that most Americans and Europeans would be more comfortable if the ICANN powers were turned over to NATO than to the UN. We're talking politics, and even though most of us /.ers are ideologs, we still need to recogonize the importance of politics. The US is not going to let the internet out of our hands. Not with out protecting the interests of the US. Most likely the future of the internet is going to be decided not by the UN, but by a consortuim of internet nations in treaty negotiations. Whether or not the UN takes over the internet will not solve the issues surrounding the internet. All the issues, such as a spam, porn, fraud, et al., will have to be resolved via treaties anyway. You might as well form a treaty organization that is devoted solely to the internet with teeth.

The next question: how many people actually understand the term legitimacy? (In the poli sci realm it is defined as the "Legitimation refers to the process by which power is not only institutionalized but more importantly is given moral grounding. Legitimacy (or authority) is what is accorded to such a stable distribution of power when it is considered valid." (From Oxfords Reference Online). The fact is just because the US citizenry may not consider the UN legitimate and the rest of the world considers it legit, does not mean that it is any more legit for the United States. To claim that the UN is legit because the rest of the world claims it is, would be like arguing that Isreal's rule of Palestine is legit just because most of Ireal says it is. The point is that legitimacy changes from demographic to demographic. What one nation may consider legit does not lend itself to force a legitimacy stand on another. And just because the US considers ICANN a legit insitution does not may it any more legit in the world.

.GOV AND .MIL SHOULD NO LONGER EXISTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8703727)

.gov and .mil are country specific, if www.state.gov is typed in a country, it should go to that coutries state department than US state department. Best solution is move .mil and .gov to .mil.us and .gov.us. I think once UN takes control of Internet naming, it will change it. If UN doesn't do it, individual countries might do it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>