Spare us the in-your-sleep moralizing

[rumbleph1$h]

Lol, and what makes you think your name is any good in the world right now either?

GJ

586752837[/snapback]

Frankly, it's no laughing matter. If the US has a bad name right now, that's a different topic. We are all better served when we take a little responsibility and address our own problems rather than trying to somehow justify them by polluting others.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I think you're mistaking the idea of the internet and the actual internet servers. The US owns the servers and as such should be able to do whatever they want with them, however there's nothing stopping the rest of the non-US world from developing thier own internet, it's not like we patented digital transmission across distances.

It's the same thing with the printing press analogy. Do I think the invention of the printing press should have been shared? Of course, however I don't think anyone who wanted to print something had the right to go down to the very first physical printing press and demand they print thier stuff. The internet is the same way, the technology is there for anyone to adapt or put to use as they see fit, however the first network itself is American, it's really that simple.

[3beanlimit]

I think you are just irritated that a place that you don't particularly like is in control of something that you do particularly like, but that is just my opinion.

I believe it is you who don't understand free market economics. You are actually saying that the Internet isn't property. So how can anyone claim to own it since it is not a piece of property? and since nobody owns why should someone get to control it on their own? I think that premise is wrong, because it was developed and is currently owned. Let me preface what I am about to say with, I dont think this should happen, but....The internet (as I understand its workings) could actually be sold. This seems to be a characteristic of ownership.? Control wasn't gained by force or money, it has always been under control by one group. If I own something I have the right to do with it as I please, and I think the U.S. government is the same way, and you can't stand it.?:shifty:y: So you try to rationalize in your mind why they shouldn't be able to control, to try to rasp it from their clutches, or at least set up a condition where it would be morally just to do so. As the author of the article up for debate so eloquently put it "in-your-sleep moralizing". Come on bring on the old and tired rhetoric of anti-McCarthyism, its funny to see it being used again.

586752651[/snapback]

You must not be following developments that some companies are doing.

Genes are being patented....How can a corporation own your DNA? Corporations have tried owning the water in whole countries and even your air is up for grabs.

How do you own property in cyberspace? That to, in games is being thrust into the limelight. I'd say you didn't think the first part of your post, through.

[raid517]

This isn't the first printing press. The Internet (in it's initial state) was developed in the 1960's. It is now 30 or more years down the line. After the invention of the printing press, it took something like 20 years for the technology to explode throughout all of Europe - and a mere generation before it revolutionised the nature of knowledge and its distribution as we know it. Similarly the Internet has exploded in an almost identical way, so much so indeed that it now forms the basis of a large percentage of the economies of much of the developed world. However rather than open up and allow the technology to be shared in the same way that the printing press was shared, the US appears to want to maintain both exclusive and indefinite control.

In any case it isn't as simple as saying 'if you don't like it go away and build your own Internet.' First because it is impractical for business - because businesses - even American business needs to be able to talk to each other - and they need to all be talking the same language too. America can no more afford to stop talking to the world than the world can afford to stop talking to it. So a separate network for the people you don't agree with is just silly, because it hurts you just as much as it hurts anyone else. Second it is impractical because so much of the infrastructure of modern society is ingrained with the Internet. We shop with it, we talk with it, we book holidays and keep in touch with it. we book train tickets and flights and conduct many of our financial affairs with it and we learn and often form relationships through it. In almost every aspect of life, the Internet has become an integral part of society - it is literally what links us all together - and it does it in a way that has never been possible through any previous period of human history.

So I do think it is a significant thing - and far too significant for the US to feel as though it should just be treated as a toy, or something to boost American ego and make them feel that they have the biggest balls. At some point the Internet will need to be considered a world resource, rather than just an American one. After 30 years, the time to start that discussion on how to make this happen is now upon us.

It is not a topic that is ever likely to go away.

GJ

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Well, the UN is located in the US as well, just find that amusing and all, considering we'd be moving control a few states away if we were to give in. Anyways frankly the UN sucks, and as said if third world countries can get on the board of human rights what keeps them from getting control of the internet?

Truth of the matter is, there's no entity on the planet that would run the internet to everyone's satisfaction. For the internet, or any UN program to work, the UN needs to become a gentlemens club type thing with strict and concise membership requirements to prevent third world regimes from controlling western interests for no other reason except so that we can pretend we're being "fair". Personally I'm content with not pretending to be fair and allowing everyone to keep thier rights.

We have never treated it as a toy, or used it to boost our ego so I don't know where that comes from. I think that's undeserved animosity concidering it's allowed freely to everyone who wants it, everything you fear is speculation, and if we're speculating I can speculate that the UN would misuse it as well so what's the freaking point? Why don't you wait until the US actually screws up somewhere before you think we hold the internet over your heads like some sort of carrot.

[Pencilmonkey]

Forgive me for thinking out loud, but perhaps it's the haughty, condescending, arrogant "elites" such as yourself that give Europeans such a bad name in the U.S. lately...  :x :sleep:

586752804[/snapback]

Ironic that you should be accusing anybody of arrogance, considering some of the rationalizing 'if anybody doesn't like us they can **** off' threads you've started.

Mac, the Internet has grown sufficient necessary in world trade and stability that the US, although having ownership of it should not be able to do whatever they like.

When the misuse of something can have such profound global impact then the management of it needs to be a global concern.

I mean isn't that why the US is talking about taking action about Iran's development of Nuclear capability...they develop it, they own it, should they not be able to do whatever they want with it? I know the analogy is a stretch, but the underlying principle remains the same.

The withdrawal or misuse of the internet would have far reaching and devastating effects on global trade. The US has shown that regional and global stability is an issue that supercedes national boundaries (see Iraq) and the internet can certainly be said to affect global stability.

[Edge00]

Don't forget that by 2010, it is predicted that as much as 40% of the world's trade will be conducted on-line.Whether you agree with it or not, that is of profound interest and importance to many countries other than just the US.

Of course it is, because most of that 40% will be done by Americans and if I were from some other country I would want to turn a quick buck too.

The US owns the servers and as such should be able to do whatever they want with them, however there's nothing stopping the rest of the non-US world from developing thier own internet, it's not like we patented digital transmission across distances.

My point exactly. Even though the internet is ethereal (cyberspace) it still has to reside on a computer somewhere. Why do people need us to move America's when they could set up their own? Why, that would take money that America has already spent, why pay for it when you can trash someone and make it a matter of almighty fairness, and make it your moral right to have equal access to something you don't own. If we were really abusing the internet it would be a lot more expensive for you to use an isp than it currently is.

In any case it isn't as simple as saying 'if you don't like it go away and build your own Internet.' First because it is impractical for business - because businesses - even American business needs to be able to talk to each other - and they need to all be talking the same language too. America can no more afford to stop talking to the world than the world can afford to stop talking to it. So a separate network for the people you don't agree with is just silly, because it hurts you just as much as it hurts anyone else. Second it is impractical because so much of the infrastructure of modern society is ingrained with the Internet. We shop with it, we talk with it, we book holidays and keep in touch with it. we book train tickets and flights and conduct many of our financial affairs with it and we learn and often form relationships through it. In almost every aspect of life, the Internet has become an integral part of society - it is literally what links us all together - and it does it in a way that has never been possible through any previous period of human history.

That is why when the rubber meets the road, people are irritated with America over this issue. Not because America has done or is doing anything unfair, but because people can't live without our product. You don't need the internet, the world would still turn without it. It works out really nicely for us that everyone uses our stuff. It appears to be a sound investment from my perspective.

Mmm, well I guess we are all impressed by our own particular levels of oratory and eloquence. Personally however I have encountered babbling baboons at a zoo who were able to string together a much more eloquent and cohesive argument in defence of their viewpoint, than this fellow was able to do in defence of his. Forgive me for wondering out loud, but perhaps it is possible that you might be just a little bit too easily impressed?

There is your problem, you have a highly unique baboon that you aren't taking advantage of, maybe you could sell him to a circus and use the money you get to set up your own servers. "Come see the amazing debating Monkey!" :woot:

I forgive you for wondering out loud, I've been dealing with it this long, no reason to apologize now. :cool:

Genes are being patented....How can a corporation own your DNA?

Easy, they don't nor can they own my dna, I already own it. Even if they tried to, the demand for their product would be pretty low, everyone already has it. ;)

Besides genes code proteins, and there are new proteins being engineered all the time, to do things never done before. All they are copywriting are the blueprints for these novel proteins.

The withdrawal or misuse of the internet would have far reaching and devastating effects on global trade. The US has shown that regional and global stability is an issue that supercedes national boundaries (see Iraq) and the internet can certainly be said to affect global stability.

Ok, pencilmonkey, that is a bit more valid in my mind. I can see where you are coming from, and I don't have a retort for that, because honestly I haven't thought about that before.

Is that where personal responsability comes in? I don't know, I am currently pondering that p.o.v. And maybe this is where the analogy of refering to a country as "one person" breaks down. My question to you, I guess, is what measures should be taken to prevent that? Should it rely on single nations to come up with their own contingancy plan? Because I don't think that just taking it away from America is the answer either. I mean maybe if a country is really concerned about that possibility they should prepare for some way to prevent devastation, and not rely on somebody else to take care of them. I don't know, I would like to hear what your solution would be.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Edge00

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

@Pencilmonkey, I'm not denying the possibility exists for the US to one day misuse the internet, what I am saying is that there's not an entity on this planet that we could entrust the internet to that wouldn't have the same possibility for misuse, so I think we should just take a wait and see approach.

As far as I'm concerned the US has done nothing to restrict or hinder any nations access or use of the internet so any claims that we will do so in the future are purely speculative with no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

When people say "global concern" they almost always mean the UN and in my opinion the UN would be the worst place to put the internet. the fact of the matter is what you, I, and most others on the internet view as fair use of the internet doesn't jive with all the countries involved in the UN and I really don't want them to have a hand in the internet any moreso than I want them to have nuclear weapons. I know I'm not being fair but I am being realistic. Now if by "global management" you mean a coalition of likeminded countries which all have a fairly hands off approach concerning regulation and strong histories of supporting free speech then I'd be all for it, but I'm sure you realise not all the countries in the UN fall under that umbrella hence the problem of the UN gaining control over the internet.

But in all reality to break it down even further, there really is no difference between say, having a grievence with the internet and asking the UN for assistance and having a grievence with the internet and asking the US for assistance, in either case you really don't have control and it'd be up to the powers that be to rule in your favor or not so the control to be had by any member nations of such a program would be illusionary at best.

[Edge00]

Yeah, what he said. :yes:

[raid517]

Well for me the answer is simple, it is about economics - and whether you like it or not a great many countries around the world do have ownership and do have a stake in the Internet - because a large portion of their economies depend on it. So if you don't like the UN, then fair enough a lot of you right wingers have been conditioned by George W. Bush and his crew in recent years (although it wasn't by any means always the case) to despise the UN - even though his motivations for doing this to you was to stir up support for the invasion of Iraq (which is increasingly turning into a disaster) and even though many of the objections that UN members raised turned out in the end to be accurate.

But never mind that, if you feel you can't live with the UN, then these other countries (and their economies) still do hold a huge stake in the Internet - so their views will at some point need to be represented, they will need to be taken into account. So call it whatever you want, give it any name you want - but at the end of the day the US will have to listen - and there will have to be some joint controlling body set up to govern the Internet - to make sure no one member does ever abuse its power over any others. And if you really think you can sit by and thumb your nose at the world - and there won't ever be any consequences, then think again. The US may be important within the world economy - but they are by no means the only economy. With so much at stake there is the potential that this could turn into something even more significant - like a trade war for example where the American economy and American jobs could be made to suffer for their continued refusal to allow other countries the justified influence that their investment in the Internet should afford them. Not fair I hear you cry! Well a few short lines ago didn't a few of you say that you didn't care at all about fairness?

As I said, the US needs the rest of the world just as much as the rest of the world needs the US. What use is the Internet to you if you ever did (or could) flip the switch and tell the rest of the world to just go screw itself? That would be the equivalent (in economic terms) of putting a gun to your own head and pulling the trigger. like I said too, this isn't going away - and as more and more countries generate ever larger percentages of their national GDP via the web, they are going to become ever more resentful of placing exclusive control of this resource in the hands of any one single country.

And for the record no, that 40% figure was a UK estimate alone - although I have read similar estimates for Europe and the Far East - so it seems reasonable to project this as a figure for other developed economies also. So by no mean is 40% of all of the trade on the Internet conducted exclusively by Americans. That is just patent nonsense.

GJ

Edited November 1, 2005 by raid517

[Edge00]

Don't forget that by 2010, it is predicted that as much as 40% of the world's trade will be conducted on-line.

And for the record no, that 40% figure was a UK estimate alone - although I have read similar estimates for Europe and the Far East - so it seems reasonable to project this as a figure for other developed economies also. So by no mean is 40% of all of the trade on the Internet conducted exclusively by Americans.

@ raid517 those are both of your qoutes, now you are just arguing with yourself. Thats silly. :rofl: So is it 40% of the world's trade? or 40% of UK trade? Make up your mind. According to what you are saying, 40% of American trade will be online, and because of that America will not acount for 40% of all e-commerce? I don't get how that follows. Get your facts straight, what was that about the baboon? :whistle:

In the end if 40% of the total world economy is online in 2010, a massive portion of that will come from Americans buying and selling. Whoever said that it will all be done by Americans? :wacko: Try reading what people post.

Since Iraq is such a disaster we'll leave and let the UN mop it up, cuz they can fix everything. :yes: Which ironically we would still be involved, since we contribute like 50% to what the UN is. This is why most Americans I think don't appreciate the UN. We pay for it, then get told how we mess everything up. You like to take our money but then when you need a scape goat blame America cuz they are too involved. It is statments like that which show how flawed the liberal mindset is.

a lot of you right wingers have been conditioned by George W. Bush and his crew in recent years (although it wasn't by any means always the case) to despise the UN - even though his motivations for doing this to you was to stir up support for the invasion of Iraq (which is increasingly turning into a disaster) and even though many of the objections that UN members raised turned out in the end to be accurate.

All you left wingers have been conditioned by George Soros and his crew in recent years to cherish the UN (although it wasn't by any means always the case), even though their motivations were to stir up support against the Invasion of Iraq (which is becoming a very difficult situation), and many concerns (that there needs to be unilateral support in Iraq) that UN members raised turned out in the end to be accurate.

[Pencilmonkey]

My only real argument is that, as much as possible the primary hosting servers should be replicated as failover in other countries. It is possible to do, albeit costly but at that point we would have something of a shared ownership.

Mac, true enough that having the UN in charge of the internet would be a truly bad idea. I personally believe that any one group having control is a recipe for disaster. That said, this is the reality we work under on a daily basis.

I was simply contending that, simply because the US has ownership of the primary hosting servers gives them the right to do with them anything they choose. The internet's commonality and our mutual interdependance on it, means thatt here is a higher responsability that goes beyond nationalism.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

@raid517,

I do not hate the UN, I have a different vision of it's purpose than you. I feel that by basically allowing every country in the world membership in the UN that it can not effectively act as a sort of legislative body, however I feel it's a great centralized establishment where all countries can meet and discuss any matters they choose and in that role I find it's place in history invaluable. The problem with the UN is one of design and representation of all nations, it is impossible for any decision to please everyone and this makes the UN a slow, bulky, global behemoth that can't make important decisions because it gets too bogged down trying to please everyone and you see this especially in the security council. Now I do not believe that the US presented sufficient evidence to change everyone's minds on the security council, let alone here in the US, however the fact that before thier presentation was even made that France said they'd Veto any resolution put forward by us is very telling. What that says is no matter if we're right or not they would not support the action of enforcing thier own mandates. Or you have the example of genocide in Sudan where the entire world knew what was going on, and by UN mandate was required to intervene, yet refused to acknowledge it as "genocide" just so we(US included) could stay out of it. I truly wonder how reasonable individuals can actually believe that the UN is an effective organization at making and enforcing any kind of global policies, nor was it ever in the UN's design to take up that role.

I never said that other countries shouldn't have thier viewpoints represented, and frankly besides who actually hosts the backbone, I defy you to name me one grievance that any country has with the US' running of the internet. Please enlighten me. And what makes you think that the US doesn't listen to other countries views? What makes you think another body would be less prone to misusing the internet? And I still do not get where your hostility is coming from, I can't think of an instance where anyone said we don't need the rest of the world, and I saw no thumbing of any noses, so what exactly is your problem? Did an American hosted server kill your family or something? Further you seem to feel that we're all doing this out of superiority when in reality we're using the same argument against you. You're angry because no-one here can gurantee that the internet will never be misused, but I ask you this can you gurantee me that by placing it in the hands of an alternate governing body that it would not be misused? No you can't. So why should we be mandated to put trust into another organization concerning something we developed, if a simple gurantee like that can not be made?

[raid517]

@ raid517 those are both of your qoutes, now you are just arguing with yourself. Thats silly.  :rofl: So is it 40% of the world's trade? or 40% of UK trade? Make up your mind. According to what you are saying, 40% of American trade will be online, and because of that America will not acount for 40% of all e-commerce? I don't get how that follows. Get your facts straight, what was that about the baboon? :whistle:

In the end if 40% of the total world economy is online in 2010, a massive portion of that will come from Americans buying and selling. Whoever said that it will all be done by Americans? :wacko: Try reading what people post.

Since Iraq is such a disaster we'll leave and let the UN mop it up, cuz they can fix everything.  :yes:  Which ironically we would still be involved, since we contribute like 50% to what the UN is. This is why most Americans I think don't appreciate the UN. We pay for it, then get told how we mess everything up. You like to take our money but then when you need a scape goat blame America cuz they are too involved. It is statments like that which show how flawed the liberal mindset is.

All you left wingers have been conditioned by George Soros and his crew in recent years to cherish the UN (although it wasn't by any means always the case), even though their motivations were to stir up support against the Invasion of Iraq (which is becoming a very difficult situation), and many concerns (that there needs to be unilateral support in Iraq) that UN members raised turned out in the end to be accurate.

586753957[/snapback]

Lol, you really think you are clever, don't you? I guess the concept of 40% of whomever's trade, which ever way you care to look at it, is just something that is far too difficult for you to grasp.

It is certainly at least the sign of a poor debater, when the only retort they have is to crudely turn the same arguments their opponent uses around and then tries to use them against them. I mean come on, raise your game a little why don't you - or can't you think of anything even just slightly original to say?

For your information in any case, 40% is not just a good UK figure - but a good ball park figure over all (at least for Europe, North America and the developed regions across the Far East it is).

Call it a guesstimate if you want - but having had a keen interest in these topics through the years, it's a pretty good one. (I think if you really want individual figures it works out at between a 36% and 46% spread through the various more developed areas of Europe, Asia and North America. (If you don't buy it, then look it up and do the math on your own, I think you will find that it's pretty accurate).

In any case as for the rest of it - there appears to be an impression that the US is simply a benevolent entity, who everyone in the world looks up to and who's governorship of the Web and of Internet standards is every bit as acceptable and desirable to the world as any international governing body would be. But I assure you that is not at all how the rest of the world sees it.

But if you wish to know who objects to this current scenario, try doing a little research, because I think you will find the answer (as is sadly more usually the case in recent years) that it is more or less the entire rest of the world V's the US. You have just said how much you would object to a large proportion of the US national economy being placed squarely in the hands of foreign countries such as China. Equally then why should countries such as China, Japan , S Korea, Russia and large trading blocks such as the EU feel comfortable in placing a large proportion of their economic trading strength in the exclusive control of a foreign country such as the US? Why should they even remotely care whether the US thinks it''s governance of the web is benevolent or not? Who's door do they knock at if there really is ever a dispute?

Simply telling people to 'go away and do their own thing' isn't an option. As much as many in the US may want it, it isn't an option for America and it isn't an option for the rest of the world. The US economy depends on trade - so it clearly needs to be able to continue to talk to the rest of the world. Having two Internet's, one just for Americans and one for the rest of the world is just a silly idea. How useful do you think an American Wide Web would be - and how long do you think it would take before American businesses were forced to ditch it in favour of what would then (again) become the real World Wide Web? The Internet (and the WWW) are a reality - they are a reality in their current form - and both it and the rest of the world aren't likely to be going away any time soon. (Nor indeed as I said, will this debate).

In any case as for the UN it is going through a period of radical reform - where much of the concerns raised by the Americans in the past are now being addressed. The US may not have all of it's wishes granted (as clearly again America cannot impose it's view of how the world should be run on the rest of the world) but many changes are already underway - and this process of reform is likely to continue for some time to come. You are a little behind the curve in this regard anyway - as the latest soundings comming from Washington in the last year or so, is that it is OK to like the UN again - because it seems the US has realised that it really can't exist or act in the world without genuine international support.

As for the whole France thing, you guys need to get over that already. They raised some valid objections (whatever their motivations might have been). But hey, you know, the crazy thing is they turned out not to be wrong - they turned out in fact to be bang on the money. They said they believed the weapons inspectors (and their own intelligence people) when they said there were no WMD's - and they said that more time for the weapons inspectors might help confirm this - and might help save the US (and the world) from a costly, prolonged and bloody conflict in Iraq. I mean exactly which part of that statement didn't they get right?

You say that the world should go with you when you are right? Well fair enough, but what about when you really are wrong and what about when many people in the world tell you you are wrong too, should the world still go along with you regardless of this?

My own view of the UN is that even if it was abolished tomorrow, you would need to invent something to replace it. We can't live in a world that can't talk to each other. We tried that before - and all this resulted in was several hundred years of continent wide conflicts and two devastating world wars that killed ten of millions of people. Not talking is not an option.

I also think too much expectations are placed on the UN. The UN is not a government. It does not have a standing army (indeed it doesn't even often have a very good, or very well trained army - since it is forced to use a 'hodgepodge' (or mixture) of professional and highly unprofessional soldiers from around the world for much of it's peace keeping duties). So there is always likely to be a limit to what it can do to impose it's will on the world. What the UN is though - and what it should continue to be, is a place where all of the nations of the world can come and discuss their differences and their grievances and try to work through them It may not always work. Not everyone will always get what they want - but it is still way times better than opting just not to talk at all.

As a place where countries can talk and try to work through their grievances I think it is a good thing. As a place where much of the aid generated by the world is distributed to those most in need, I think it has done some truly phenomenal work in the past - and it continues to do so now. But as a centralised place with it's own massive standing army, which it uses to suppress conflicts around the world wherever it deems fit - I think this is an impractical proposition. I think the UN should be considered more as a charity - or simply a benevolent gathering of nations, where everyone strives for what is in the end in the best interests of everyone else who participates. And what in the end could possibly be so wrong with that?

Best regards,

GJ

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Look. The internet can stay in US hands for all eternity, I don't know why you think it can't. In the end whether countries have a grievence or not, they'll be either forced to participate or not, so whether they want to participate doesn't really matter, since as everyone else is saying it'll be inevitable for them to have to use the internet no matter who controls it. So the internet really can stay in US hands forever, your argument is inherently flawed, and we will not be forced to globalize control. Maybe we will do it one day, maybe we should do it someday, but it's not a necessity for us and it's not a necessity for the internet's continued sucess. Further I wish you could see the hypocrisy in your statement about other countries not caring about how we feel we're doing. So basically what you're saying is that my country should listen to the other countries points of view yet ours is relatively worthless.

And if we want to talk economics how's this? The US invented the internet and has a vested interest in the internet, the only way it can be guaranteed of it's continued relevance is to maintain control over it, and doing otherwise would undermine US interests and place the future of the internets continued use for us at risk. It wouldn't be smart economically for us to do so without proper gurantees that it wouldn't be tampered with, something which can not be guaranteed to us by any organization at this point in time. I don't think my country is some beacon of rightouseness, however I did ask you for one example of a complaint that didn't involve purely ownership of the internet and you couldn't provide it. I'm forced to conclude that as of yet there hasn't been anything done by the US to censor or impair any countries use of the internet so all your fears are unfounded at this point am I correct?

Further your argument about shared ownership is romantic flawed logic. Someone always owns it, always, and these countries would have no more guarantee that this new international body wouldn't turn around and screw them any less than the US would. Further there really is no representation in any body that consists of so many nations, although you may wish to percieve that there is. Representation without power over something is an illusion, one designed to placate the masses and give the sense of representation, choice, and participation to a population still no more in power than they were in the Dark Ages, and it works. Further any organization placed with the task of running such an endeavor without having any means to enforce rulings is still worthless and an illusion, much like the current ongoing situation we have now between the US and Canada over lumber, where the US was actually judged guilty of breaking the law, however since NAFTA has no way to actually enforce anything we just keep on trucking screwing our Canadian neighbors. Again, representation and impartialness is an illusion meant to placate. Something to remember that the whole world may seem stable, the governments of the US or the EU may look stable as might your global internet organization, however everything relies on willful subjugation to those above and it extends from simple traffic laws all the way to international treaties and regulations.

So to recap:

Representation in any entity without actually having ownership isn't real so isn't really worth clamoring for. Any country who believes that they will be more fairly represented by a different organization that say the US is mislead. Even under a utopian organization it is still as flawed as it's members and further continuation of the agreements relies on the individual countries and not any law or mandate which makes any organizatio no more stable and fair than any country.

Much like your side, my side is looking to protect thier interests against what another entity may do if it had control over the internet, just with less hypocrisy and moral trickery. We don't hide the fact that we're wanting to protect our interests under the false guise of fairness and equality. no matter who controls the internet someone's will will be denied, so if we invented the internet and we currently run the internet, it'd be foolish to place ourselves into the position where it may very well be our's that gets denied.

The internet does not have to be placed under international control for it's continued success since countries will be forced to either take it or use it no matter who runs it. Claims that without international regulation that it will fail are entirely misfounded and nothing but scare tactics to try and add more importance to the more to internationalizing the internet.

Oh and two internets very well could co-exist, for the longest time most Americans didn't have direct access to the internet but a gateway to it provided to them by the likes of Prodigy or AOL, and it was completely possible for members of the different networks to communicate with each other, however in the end simplicity won out, with the exception of AOL which refuses to die. Claiming that no other nation or entity could make a competitor to the internet and mantain communication with the internet we have now is flat out wrong.

And the printing press is still a bad analogy, a better one would be the US GPS satalites, which every nation uses yet we mantain control over.

Edited November 2, 2005 by mAcOdIn

[raid517]

Look. The Internet can stay in US hands for all eternity, I don't know why you think it can't. In the end whether countries have a grievance or not, they'll be either forced to participate or not, so whether they want to participate doesn't really matter, since as everyone else is saying it'll be inevitable for them to have to use the Internet no matter who controls it.

Lol not strictly true at all. There is such a thing as trade wars and trade disputes. These can hurt the US a lot.

If enough countries decide that enough of their economy is invested in the web, so that leaving it in the exclusive hands of a foreign nation such as the America cannot be justified, then there will be consequences - there will undoubtedly be exactly these kinds of disputes.

It might not be 'fair' and it might not be pretty, but as you say you don't give a rat's fart about fairness, then who the hell cares? At some point you are still going to have to come to the table and negotiate.

The rest of the world does have influence, in the form of massive financial leverage - so you will sooner or later just have to decide whether it is worth risking severely hurting the American economy just to maintain an illusion of control of Internet standards, or whether sharing control in some transparent way so that no one country can act to the detriment of any other country, might be a better solution. It is a choice that sooner or later you almost undoubtedly will be forced to make.

GJ

Edited November 2, 2005 by raid517

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

You don't seem to understand the word "fair". To say that the US should relenquish control of something that they invented and ran for decades because other countries do not feel comfortable using it just because we're the US or because they were so shortsighted that they plan on building thier own economy ontop of it is not fair at all. Fairness is all about perception, something you're failing to comprehend in this situation, and what's fair to China is not necessarilly fair to the United States or Vatican City.

Further I really don't think there would be a reckoning of any sorts if we mantain control over the internet, I think that's just wishful thinking on your part. Most nations don't have a problem with the way it's running so why would they all of a sudden?

And you still miss the point that there's no such thing as transperancy or international guarantees. I remember when I was that naive and truly wish the world ran that way, it truly would be a better place, however now a days I try to ground myself in reality and not wishful thinking. Your examples are so flawed because you only look at the extremes, our way will not work and your will will work perfect and everything will be fair. Perhaps naivety is an understatement when I'm preseented by your examples of possible scenarios. And if you think our control is illusionary then why are you so freaking upset about it? I don't think you grasp transperancy or illusionary as terms here because you seem to be misusing them.

[raid517]

You don't seem to understand the word "fair".? To say that the US should relenquish control of something that they invented and ran for decades because other countries do not feel comfortable using it just because we're the US or because they were so shortsighted that they plan on building thier own economy ontop of it is not fair at all.? Fairness is all about perception, something you're failing to comprehend in this situation, and what's fair to China is not necessarilly fair to the United States or Vatican City.

Further I really don't think there would be a reckoning of any sorts if we mantain control over the internet, I think that's just wishful thinking on your part.? Most nations don't have a problem with the way it's running so why would they all of a sudden?

And you still miss the point that there's no such thing as transperancy or international guarantees.? I remember when I was that naive and truly wish the world ran that way, it truly would be a better place, however now a days I try to ground myself in reality and not wishful thinking.? Your examples are so flawed because you only look at the extremes, our way will not work and your will will work perfect and everything will be fair.? Perhaps naivety is an understatement when I'm preseented by your examples of possible scenarios.? And if you think our control is illusionary then why are you so freaking upset about it?? I don't think you grasp transperancy or illusionary as terms here because you seem to be misusing them.

586756787[/snapback]

I don't really have time for this debate. In a few hours I will be on the other side of the world. But I didn't just pull this issue out of my butt - it is an ongoing debate among several of the largest trading powers in the world - who are not happy with the prospect of one nation controlling everything. You should try studying it a little - it is a topic that the original poster (or at least the author of the article he posted) appears in many ways to be acutely aware of. It is not just one or two countries grumbling - it is all of those countries that have invested heavily in their IT infrastructure and who do see that the future of their economies will be intimately tied in with the Internet.

And it ultimately is an illusion. 40% of the GDP of the rest of the world would undoubtedly dwarf many times over the GDP of the USA. If these countries decide that they really are unhappy, it is not wishful thinking at all to suggest that they might feel inspired to take punitive economic action to protect their interests.

And it is entirely possible to have open standards. I am typing this message right now on a computer running an operating system that was built entirely on open and transparent standards - and it is just as (and arguably more) secure than any other closed/non open system currently in operation. It is exactly this openness and transparency that provides real security - because if anyone messes with the underlying code (or the underlying system) things are set up in such a way that any tampering of this nature would quickly be exposed. There are already many open standards on the web, but the debate is about who implements these standards and who ultimately controls them.

In any case if anyone is being contradictory, it is you, first you say you don't care about fairness and that you know the US wishes to maintain control because it makes your balls swell up slightly to feel that you do, then you say that because many other countries might object to this that this is somehow unfair.

In any case lets just wait and see what happens 5, or 10 years from now. As I have said many times now, this isn't an issue that is going away - and and as countries increase their investment in the web and become ever more increasing dependant on it, it will become ever more of a sticking point.

But I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you, so at the end of the day all we can do is wait and see how things pan out.

GJ

Edited November 2, 2005 by raid517

[raid517]

And the printing press is still a bad analogy, a better one would be the US GPS satellites, which every nation uses yet we maintain control over.

586756680[/snapback]

I don't think it is a bad analogy at all - specifically because it involved the 21'st century equivalent of printed media. (Although much less of what is written is actually printed these days). It involves the same process, the writing and distribution of text and images - and it has had a similar revolutionary effect on the fabric of society as the introduction of the printing press did. In what way is America's GPS satellite stem a better analogy?

In any case didn't you know dear that we Europeans now have our own and much_more_accurate GPS satellite stem in space now? So it is a bad analogy - particularly since in this regard you no longer have exclusive control of anything.

GJ

Edited November 2, 2005 by raid517

[curme]

Spare us the in-your-sleep moralizing

I agree! Let gays marry and women choose what is best for their bodies! Too many people try to force their morals on others.

[Clirion]

I have read this thread through, and I am still trying to figure out what exactly the problem is?

I mean seriously. The Root Servers are the problem right? That in a nutshell is where the problem really is. Not Standards, Not Interconnectivity, its the Root Servers. The adding of Domain prefixes at the root level.

I would point one to ICANN's description. http://www.icann.org/general/

ICANN is responsible for coordinating the management of the technical elements of the DNS to ensure universal resolvability so that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses. It does this by overseeing the distribution of unique technical identifiers used in the Internet's operations, and delegation of Top-Level Domain names (such as .com, .info, etc.).

Other issues of concern to Internet users, such as the rules for financial transactions, Internet content control, unsolicited commercial email (spam), and data protection are outside the range of ICANN's mission of technical coordination.

It is an International/Private Business conglomeration that has 1 cavet in it. The US has a strong "adversary" role in it. Not an absolute veto but close.

SPAM/Data/Content Control and such is handled by the Following W3C http://www.w3.org/Consortium/

Again an International organization, in which the US weilds less power. Might I add this is the one that does most of the true business of the Internet. This is where everything is decided on how you view a web page, pay your bill, purchase music, email your friends and video stream your grandparents.

So again, what exactly is the problem here folks. Someone please explain exactly what the issue is.

Damm I forgot to Address Galileo. Seems that the EU made sure it interoperated with the 2 others that are in orbit, instead of an independent system. By the way, its not in orbit yet. The 1st of the 30 satalites is due to launch on december 6th of this year. Also the US system is hitting about 10m off with error correction, the same as Galileo.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Clirion