• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US relinquishes control of the internet

Alex Libman said:
The Internet is not something that can be controlled. It is owned by the individuals who own their computers, routers, and wiring. It can be made into a completely decentralized mesh, with wireless signal bouncing from one neighbor to another across continents!
Click to expand...

No, it can't. If you have a viable replacement for DNS (which has a centralized, hierarchical structure) I'd love to hear it.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
No, it can't. If you have a viable replacement for DNS (which has a centralized, hierarchical structure) I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...

DNS is the worst part of the Internet. From early FidoNet forks to bridging network connections between solar systems light-years apart, central control of dynamic networks is both undesirable and impossible to enforce.

Whether a company owns its domain name record with the root nameserver monopoly is becoming ever less relevant as people use trusted search engines, bookmarks, and links to access their information. It is very simple to bypass the default authority and use another trusted authority instead -- and some browser plug-ins and P2P protocols do this already -- whether DNS based or otherwise.
 
Am I the only one who imagines the that negotiation process for this crap went something like this:


US: We pwn teh internetz!

World: We make our pwn internetz!

US: I let u has some of my internetz!

World: Rly? We can has some too?

US: No, I wuz lying. pwnt, n00b!

World: You suk!

US: Just kidding, you can rly has some of my internetz.

World: Rly?

Us: Sure, but you gots 2 take Al Gore 2.

World: Awwww.....
Click to expand...
 
disneydude said:
Jall....I gotta keep you honest here. Sorry. But you rail on people who misquote Palin e.g. "I can see Russia from my house"....
and then you turn around and do the same thing yourself with Al Gore?

C'mon Jall.....you're better than that.
Click to expand...
Chill Dude. If the living dead like me can recognize mild, harmless humor, then I'm sure you can.
 
Oftencold said:
Chill Dude. If the living dead like me can recognize mild, harmless humor, then I'm sure you can.
Click to expand...

When that humor is aimed at Palin, you should watch some of you righties get all bent though.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
The arguement that the US is giving away a powerful weapon or anything of the sort is hilarious. ICANN didn't give the US any kind of advantage, and if we ever tried to use it in such a manner it would be downright reprehensible.
Click to expand...

If we control it, it means someone can't do it to us. And it wouldn't be reprehensible if it were under particular circumstances. Both are reasons to maintain control.

Having ICANN be subject to US law, however, placed strong guarantees on free speech and expression that won't necessarily be upheld by an international organization.
Click to expand...

Correct.


Depending on how much influence China and other such nations are able to garner they could certainly politicize the domain registration process and censor political speech.
Click to expand...

Correct.


One can't jump to the conclusion that this will happen to what is currently a technical body, and I find it likely that principles condusive to a free and open internet will made binding when the shift does happen.
Click to expand...

We keep control, we make sure of that.


There are concerns with subjecting ICANN to international oversight, but so long as it is done with a modicum of common sense it is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

The concerns far outweigh the benefits.
 
Redress said:
If they are obvious, you should be able to list them with no problem instead of evading the question.
Click to expand...

See my post immediately above.

But it wasn't an evasion; it was getting him to answer his own question, because he already knew.
 
Laila said:
Why would US give up such a powerful tool .... willingly?
Click to expand...

It falls in line with the current agenda they have been following all year maniacally .. To flush the future down the toilet for everyone but bankers.
 
I don't know too much about this issue, but it seems like a good idea to not have a single nation control the internet. What happens if the host nation passes censorship laws? I don't know if other nations would have any recourse.
 
The host nation is far less likely to do so than any other governing body on Earth and has always maintained a hands-off approach.

It's also a decided strategic advantage for the host nation to maintain control.

It is stupidity for the host nation to develop such a powerful tool and then willingly relinquish control.
 
Harshaw said:
The host nation is far less likely to do so than any other governing body on Earth
Click to expand...

Again, I don't know too much about the issue so I don't know if this would be feasible, but does the internet NEED a lot of governance, other than just to establish things like .com, .net, .org? Couldn't this organization be multinational so that it isn't subject to the censorship whims of any particular nation, and not really govern at all aside from things like that?

Harshaw said:
and has always maintained a hands-off approach.
Click to expand...

True, but the world wide web has only been around for 15 years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Harshaw said:
It's also a decided strategic advantage for the host nation to maintain control.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I don't know too much about this issue, but it seems like a good idea to not have a single nation control the internet. What happens if the host nation passes censorship laws? I don't know if other nations would have any recourse.
Click to expand...

From what little I have read, I am not even sure if that would have an actual effect. I am unsure at best that the "host country" could censer content, except by not giving out web addresses(or DNS?) to people they do not approve of.
 
Kandahar said:
Again, I don't know too much about the issue so I don't know if this would be feasible, but does the internet NEED a lot of governance, other than just to establish things like .com, .net, .org?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, and we don't. So there's no need to change anything.


Couldn't this organization be multinational so that it isn't subject to the censorship whims of any particular nation, and not really govern at all aside from things like that?
Click to expand...

Multinational bodies don't work like that. Most of them are exceedingly corrupt.

Besides . . . aren't there an awful lot of things for which you can make that argument? Should we ask the oil-producing countries to give up control of their oil fields?

(There are certain people who would certainly say "yes" to this. But they are not people I'd want to have any control over the world.)


True, but the world wide web has only been around for 15 years. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Click to expand...

I'd bet on us over everyone else every time.

How so?
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...uishes-control-internet-4.html#post1058287550

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...uishes-control-internet-2.html#post1058287225

But as I asked Orius earlier in the thread . . .

If there's no particular advantage, then why would it be a bad idea for any one nation to control it? If there's no advantage, there's no ability to do harm.
 
Harshaw said:
But as I asked Orius earlier in the thread . . .

If there's no particular advantage, then why would it be a bad idea for any one nation to control it? If there's no advantage, there's no ability to do harm.
Click to expand...

And I asked you, what are the advantages? You still haven't answered my question.

If it's so worth having a monopoly over, then why is it worth it? This is the question I pose to you.
 
Harshaw said:
Multinational bodies don't work like that. Most of them are exceedingly corrupt.
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to an intergovernmental organization here, just a multinational organization with root servers in many countries that doesn't answer directly to any governments.

Harshaw said:
Besides . . . aren't there an awful lot of things for which you can make that argument? Should we ask the oil-producing countries to give up control of their oil fields?
Click to expand...

No, as natural resources are their source of income. To the best of my knowledge, the US government does not derive income from selling the internet to other nations. Furthermore, in your analogy, giving up control of their oil fields would mean that they no longer had that oil. Giving up control of the internet would not mean that we no longer had the internet.

Harshaw said:
I'd bet on us over everyone else every time.
Click to expand...

Why bet on any government at all, if no governance is necessary?

Harshaw said:
But as I asked Orius earlier in the thread . . .

If there's no particular advantage, then why would it be a bad idea for any one nation to control it? If there's no advantage, there's no ability to do harm.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it's to the United States' advantage to control the internet in case we want to censor it some day? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I'm not referring to an intergovernmental organization here, just a multinational organization with root servers in many countries that doesn't answer directly to any governments.
Click to expand...

There aren't many countries which wouldn't want to take direct control of the root servers within them.

I like them here.



No, as natural resources are their source of income. To the best of my knowledge, the US government does not derive income from selling the internet to other nations. Furthermore, in your analogy, giving up control of their oil fields would mean that they no longer had that oil. Giving up control of the internet would not mean that we no longer had the internet.
Click to expand...

They would have access to the oil, only on the same terms as any other country.

Doesn't matter if the US government derives income or not.



Why bet on any government at all, if no governance is necessary?
Click to expand...

Because the idea that other countries would leave their part of it ungoverned is demonstrably naive. Look at what other countries already do.


I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it's to the United States' advantage to control the internet in case we want to censor it some day? :confused:
Click to expand...

If we keep control, we can never be censored or denied access. And yes, if a situation warranted it, denial of access to another nation would be a tremendous advantage. It could end a war rather quickly, and with less bloodshed, for example.
 
US dominance of the internet --- Solution: build your own darn internet.


I'm reminded of Jimmy Carter and a canal...
 
Of course, the question which has not been answered in the thread is . . .

Why shouldn't "one country" -- the United States -- maintain control? Talking about concrete reasons, not some vague platitude about "no one country should have control" -- why not, specifically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom