EU/UN want shared control of the Internet

Remove all ads!

After reading this article entitled "EU Wants Shared Control of Internet," my first reaction was "Why not? It is a global resource. Should it not be run by more than just one country?"

Then I started thinking more about it. What right does the EU -- or the UN for that matter -- have to take control of anything away from a country? This is especially compelling when the country -- the U.S. in this instance -- invented the thing.

I do not know enough about what control the U.S. has exactly, so I thought I would ask what members of this board think.

Please note that I am not interested in questions about why it is fair for the U.S. to run the thing -- that topic would no doubt degenerate into stereotypical America-bashing. I am asking on what basis it is ok for the EU or UN or any other body to take control away.

[ October 04, 2005, 16:21: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

I never knew the US was in control of the Internet, how is a nation in control of an international network of computers?

 

So far as I can tell it is because a private U.S. body (with veto power by the Department of Congress) has control over internet domains.

 

The US didn't invent the internet but it probably has some privileged position, even judging by the mere fact that every country uses some domain suffix, while almost no sites whatsoever use the .us suffix. As for the domains, well, that's just domain names. It's not like someone can cut you off the net.

 

@chev:
Didn't you hear? Al Gore invented the internet.

IIRC, the precursor to the internet was a massive communication network set up by one branch of the US Armed Forces (I don't remember which one). It used IP (internet protocol) and was initially meant for secure communications. They continued to expand on it, but the secret eventually got out. Some people realized the potential profitability, and ... tada! Worldwide access to THE NET. That's how I heard it, anyway.

 

I fail to understand over what exactly US has veto right over? Personally I did not get what the fuss was about in the entire article. It's not like Europeans are dependant on the US for their usage of the internet. On the other hand my knowledge about how internet works in practice is quite near zero so it would not be surprising if I missed the point of the entire article.

 

Yes, the Internet was originally a project of the Pentagon, which is how the U.S. gained control of Internet addressing in the first place.

The article mentions that that power now has security and economic implications for other countries, who fear that the U.S. could indeed cut them off. There is also concern that about allowing the use of non-English characters in domain names. (Although why that would be a problem eludes me.)

 

Thats the thing that pisses me off, not recognising fadas on letters. Take the fada of my name, and the the pronounciation is wrong. Unfortunately I cannot use this for a website address.

 

Er - still, how does the US control the internet? Beyond domain names, that is, as that doesn't really mean much. As far as I can see, it's not like they can shut down a server in Europe or where ever, so they don't really control anything...

 

Well, they use their space rays to control my brain sometimes when I am on the internets.

 

And what right would the EU or the UN have to take that control away?

 

Shouldn't the EU have control over "EU websites"?

 

Hmmm. That does make some sense. However, I question whether "have to build their own backbones" etc is the right language, strictly speaking.

If they want to have access to the internet, then they have to do those things. But they are not forced to do them. They could, in fact, start their own internet that does not have US authority over domains. But once they join to the regular internet it seems they agree to work with it the way it is.

I admit to being something of an "America first" person, and I am certain that I would be voicing the arguments you all make if I were not American.

But your arguments over basic fairness still do not seem sufficient. After all, basic fairness would dictate that everyone in the world vote in US elections because we have so much power over what goes on in the world. But we do not because of U.S. sovereignty. I think we can say ditto for the Internet.

Oh, and do you really want UN control over anything so vital to the world economy?

 

Here is an analagous scenario to consider:

Imagine a small country, say Israel, develops a way to generate completely free electricity. Instead of keeping it for themselves, they decide to share it with the rest of the world. They build transmission stations, power lines, etc. Other countries take advantage of this free power to grow their economies. (Assume for the moment that no other country is able to duplicate the free power generation technology and Israel can not give it away for some good reason.)

Standards of living rise in countries that take advantage of the free power. They build transmission lines throughout their country and soon come to depend on it.

Does Israel then have to give up control?

It would not make much sense for Israel to cede control, would it? In fact, because Israel is hated by so much of the world, it could be downright dangerous to its own safety to give up control.

The same is true with the U.S. and the Internet. We invented it. We let other countries join it. They made investment in infrastructure to take advantage of it. Sometimes it helped us when others joined the Internet -- especially economies that were developed enough for significant trade -- and sometimes it did not.

Now it seems we have invented something that has benefitted the world, and instead of saying "thanks" and carrying on, the rest of the world wants us to give up what little control we have. And, like in the hypothetical case above, giving up control could be dangerous to our own security.

 

Even though I still don't fully understand what kind of control the US has over the internet (I tried to get into the wikipedia article but my knowledge in these things as I said is zero and so I did not understand that much of it) I don't think they are forced to share. However I don't see why EU has to put up with it, I mean it's not like we lack the knowledge to build up a similar system and it's not like we lack resources. I'm not sure why exactly EU is whining over the issue but instead of begging for a bone they should actually do something about it. But then as I have repeatedly said I have no idea how this would be practically done.

I don't support any moral monopoly over the internet for the US. They can't hold it just because they invented it. If others want to build their own system totally separate from the US system then they should be free to do so, and frankly I don't see what the US could do to stop it either.

 

About all development at this stage was international (protocols etc.).

As for the whole situation, I think it is only fair. The internet is after all a publicly accessible worldwide system. They could at least move some of the core DNS servers.