Do you think ITU,ICAO, IMO and all the other UN organizations that regulate the international infrastructure are doing a bad job? And if so, why?
Do you think ITU,ICAO, IMO and all the other UN organizations that regulate the international infrastructure are doing a bad job? And if so, why?
I have no idea since I have nothing to do with them or the fields in which they work, aside from the obvious such as using phones, etc; I'm basing my thinking on the fact that the UN doesn't exactly strike me as a very efficient organisation, and with something moving as quickly as the IT field, you'd need a rather agile organisation, not a beurocratic behemoth.
Of course, maybe they'd do a wonderous job, but to me that's a case of "I believe it when I see it", in this case more of a "If I see it" since we don't know how all of this will end.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I know what I wrote. It was a response to your claim the US has not rolled out IPV6 since they have enough IP addresses already, which was simply an incorrect statement. The US (ICANN) has been in the process of rolling it out for some time. You were wrong and then shifted gears top avoid dealing with that.
Oh maybe so there are enough IP's to go around and the supply isn't constrained outside the US maybe?[/quote]
Erm, it involves a bit more than just the implementation if IP stacks to roll out IPV6.
The first IPV6 test bed was already around in '95.
The DoD rolled out IPV6 in 2003 and their transition plan doesn't call for a native implementation until 2009. At the current time it's between the testing and analysis phase and the core implementation phase. You keep trying to imply that IPV6 can be adopted at the snap of a finger and that is simply not the case. It takes time to make this move. Then you try to imply that I don't know anything about IPV6 because I didn't mention the basic fact that there's backwards compatibility with IPV4, which is just a silly assumption.
Huh? The ITU is part of the UN. Maybe the ITU should give you an idea of how much it will suck when the UN gets its hands on more control of the Internet?
So says the guy that doesn't have to administer those TLDs. Carefull, you might fall off that high horse.[/quote]
The way you've been attempting to bash people participating in this thread for a lack of technical knowledge, you might want to check who's riding that horse.
TLC, you are so high on that partisan horse of yours that you didn't bother notice that I didn't advocate the UN or anyone else taking over the internet. I simply said it's going to happen if we don't fix ICANN (and might anyway because of our delay). ICANN's broken, it has been for years. It's boring trying to talk to you when all you are doing it reading your own meanings into posts to try to thump that horse of yours.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
This thread is about the UN taking over the internet. If you don't want to discuss that then I suggest you stay out of this thread.
Other than that, it seems your only purpose has been to slam ICANN and proffer no suggestions for an alternative. So what's your point, other than bashing ICANN and questioning the technical proficiency of people participating in this thread while your own knowledge on the subject is somewhat questionable?
Nice whine and attempt at an insult. Very typical for when you can't win a point. But feel free to jump to conclusions, misread statements and ride off on that horse of yours. :beer:
BTW, I will participate in any thread I want in any manner I want no matter how much you cry about it.
the UN is not taking over the internet
and yes ICANN is broken, mostly because of their top level domain policy, but the rest is because they are limited by technology, not their fault.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Look, son. You've been insulting people left and right in this thread and generally doing nothing but whining about ICANN for reasons that are just biased and/or ignorant.
I've made my points already and you have failed to respond to them in any meaningful manner, instead resorting to the 'Yeah, well, ICANN sucks.' type of response mentality. Now you're attempting to save what little face you may have left with a bit of bravado mixed in with a dash of vicitimization.
It's just not working for you.
The irony of the guy that can't have a discussion without a dozen insults tossed in lecturing me on etiquette is laughable at best. That my points are lost on you is not a supprise to me, but your foot stamping and whining along with requests that if someone doesn't want to dicuss it YOUR way that they leave the thread was absolutely hillarious. Keep it up, I'm getting a good laugh from it.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
My point is that you haven't made any points, nor have you acknowledged your ignorance in your statment about ICANN and IPv6.
It seems to me you're more pissed about me showing you to be wrong than anything to do with the actual subject and your subsequent response has been to puff up your chest. If you think such puffery is a valid response...whatever.
I think that the issue is really simple. Any country WHATSOEVER should stay the hell outta any "governance" of the web. ICANN may be doing a crappy job, but the UN would sure as heck do a worse one. Of course, it is never a black and white issue.
The UN doesn't and never did want control of the internet. At a UN sponsered internet forum the EU brought up the proposition to implement a "cooperation model" making Icann more accounatable on a local level. Also the EU model called for NO governemnet control over content or access, however it's been totally hijacked by Saudi Arabia, Iran and various other countries with less desirable intent.
To quote the Swedish prime minister
"It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours.
"We really can't have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us."
Which is a pity because something does need fixing. The forum has also unfortunatly revealed to countries like China that they really don't actually need to be part of the internet anyway and now there is a risk that they might just break away on their own. No great loss to the non chinese speaking world perhaps but a massive loss for those in China who need the internet to move towards democracy.
Personally I doubt they would breakaway unless a significant part of the world also did it, simply due to the reliance on outside countries to export to.
[edit] Just like to edit that it is my opinion that this never would have happened if the US hadn't backed out of its original agreement to release control.
To quote the Swedish prime minister
"It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours.
"We really can't have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us."
Which is a pity because something does need fixing. The forum has also unfortunatly revealed to countries like China that they really don't actually need to be part of the internet anyway and now there is a risk that they might just break away on their own. No great loss to the non chinese speaking world perhaps but a massive loss for those in China who need the internet to move towards democracy.
Personally I doubt they would breakaway unless a significant part of the world also did it, simply due to the reliance on outside countries to export to.
[edit] Just like to edit that it is my opinion that this never would have happened if the US hadn't backed out of its original agreement to release control.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
well the economist magazine had a thing on it. they are against the whole idea. they bring up the international telecom group of the un for holding back long distance telephone service, and of course the wonderful circus that is the un human rights council...
I'm assuming they were full of suggestions on how they would fix the current issues that governments have with Icann? Or did they just sit there and attack the UN over things that only relate to the issue at hand in a "track record" sense.
And to whoever it was that said the EU is trying this because they want the .eu top level domain. http://www.eurid.eu/en/news/press/doteuintheroot
And to whoever it was that said the EU is trying this because they want the .eu top level domain. http://www.eurid.eu/en/news/press/doteuintheroot
If everyone stopped foaming at the mouth for a few minutes this could be a really good thread, so, in the spirit of sanity:
1 - The internet is a concept which cannot be stolen or controlled as some suggest, however, it was concieved in the United States along with many information age technologies. Do you think other countries owe the US something for this? Do you think we should also owe europe for inventing industrial age tech?
2 - Many modern protocols like http (the web) were not invented in the US, and are public domain anyway. More importantly, the world's physical infrastructure (the cables and routers) was created and paid for by the countries in which it resides. Despite this, the US retains some measure of control over how all this stuff is used. Do you think it 'fair' that the US has (limited yet significant) control over another free nation's communication systems?
3 - The US has historically done a fine job of administering names and numbers, this arguement only started since everyone lost trust in america for completly unrelated reasons. Is Guantanamo Bay or the patriot act (or other suppressions of freedom) a good reason to want america to give up ICANN?
1 - The internet is a concept which cannot be stolen or controlled as some suggest, however, it was concieved in the United States along with many information age technologies. Do you think other countries owe the US something for this? Do you think we should also owe europe for inventing industrial age tech?
2 - Many modern protocols like http (the web) were not invented in the US, and are public domain anyway. More importantly, the world's physical infrastructure (the cables and routers) was created and paid for by the countries in which it resides. Despite this, the US retains some measure of control over how all this stuff is used. Do you think it 'fair' that the US has (limited yet significant) control over another free nation's communication systems?
3 - The US has historically done a fine job of administering names and numbers, this arguement only started since everyone lost trust in america for completly unrelated reasons. Is Guantanamo Bay or the patriot act (or other suppressions of freedom) a good reason to want america to give up ICANN?
Here is another more recent interesting article.
Multiple internets?
Not that I think this will really happen, but I wonder how much impact it would have on the US and other nation's economies to have the internet fragment...
Multiple internets?
Not that I think this will really happen, but I wonder how much impact it would have on the US and other nation's economies to have the internet fragment...
Yes. However, I would advocate the US to leave the organization and set up its own.
It's a horrible analogy though. The US has control over the Internet from the start and people joined in. It has always been under US control. I prefer it that way to avoid what I see as an upcoming "virtual" genocide if the EU gets any control over it.
In the way that the Dept. of Commerce provides the contracts for the services that ICANN provides.
How does this constitute control of the internet? It's just control of DNS root. If all that stuff was turned off the internet would still work.
Some misinformation here... Nobody ever said the UN want to control the internet. The soulution would be a multilateral agency with a commission where different areas of the world could explain their internet-related needs.
Nobody will steal anything. Just consider the importance the internet has in today's world of culture and business, and you will quickly agree that a multinational agency is very needed. The idea that this could damage the US position is just a nationalistic unjustified fear. If we were speaking about putting into international, multilateral control something being in Chinese or Indian hands, nobody would complain.
It's just the best option, and it's probably what will happen.
Nobody will steal anything. Just consider the importance the internet has in today's world of culture and business, and you will quickly agree that a multinational agency is very needed. The idea that this could damage the US position is just a nationalistic unjustified fear. If we were speaking about putting into international, multilateral control something being in Chinese or Indian hands, nobody would complain.
It's just the best option, and it's probably what will happen.
Again: they already have censorship rights on their own territory.
They wouldn't change anything on other countries' sovereignty. It's not the way international agencies work. This is not about altering the very basic rights every country has on its own territory, just about giving each country a possibility to express its needs on internet related issues. We need it, together with serious informatization plans for developing countries.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 386
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter