• 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

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why would US give up such a powerful tool .... willingly?
 
Because we have stupid, stupid people in Washington.
 
I had a feeling Europe was one of those that complained and I checked and lo and behold:

Earlier this year European officials said that they did not think it was proper for America to retain so much control over the global computer network.
 
Last edited:
Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control.

"It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "This is a very significant shift because it takes the wind out of our opponents."

I don't know enough on the topic to say anything for sure, but it sounds like there is more to the story than your OP suggests.
 
That's pretty much like saying we should relinquish some control over our military because other countries are building their own.
 
That's pretty much like saying we should relinquish some control over our military because other countries are building their own.

That would be wildly inaccurate. No other country uses our military.
 
It may not be perfect, but it's hardly "wildly inaccurate."

Others: the dollar is the world reserve currency, so we should relinquish some control of the Federal Reserve.

Or, United States policy reverberates the world over, so everyone should have some say in our elections. (This has actually been argued.)
 
I don't have a huge deal of knowledge about the internet on a political level, but what I do know is this... the U.S. could either give it up willingly, or other countries would begin forming separate networks that would compete in the digital realm.

It's incredibly stupid to host most of the network in any given nation, where a disaster could disable it worldwide. Having the network spread over the whole world makes it more efficient and it distributes risk... if most of the servers are in the U.S. then that is a disadvantage to everyone outside of there.

Now the system can become truly global. If there are security issues, then it will be the responsibility of each country to have appropriate guards for its own ports in the network.

It's also just good for business.
 
It's not "incredibly stupid" for the nation that's hosting it.

Now, I certainly expect people from other countries to say "why SHOULD you have it????"

Well, we built it. It gives us a powerful advantage. I don't feel guilty about having advantages like that. But I do know that some do.
 
It's not "incredibly stupid" for the nation that's hosting it.

Now, I certainly expect people from other countries to say "why SHOULD you have it????"

Well, we built it. It gives us a powerful advantage. I don't feel guilty about having advantages like that. But I do know that some do.

I feel the same way. If Al Gore was willing to give it to us after he invented it, then we should keep the thing.

To Orius's post: the servers that drive the "internet" are not all in one place. They are spread out all over the world. There is no diminished risk factor in letting other countries have control over our resources where the internet is concerned.

And by all means, they can create their own forked internets to compete with us if they want. We are still at an advantage because they are competing with us as THE standard.
 
I feel the same way. If Al Gore was willing to give it to us after he invented it, then we should keep the thing.

To Orius's post: the servers that drive the "internet" are not all in one place. They are spread out all over the world. There is no diminished risk factor in letting other countries have control over our resources where the internet is concerned.

And by all means, they can create their own forked internets to compete with us if they want. We are still at an advantage because they are competing with us as THE standard.

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.
 
The economy is globalizing but the way the internet works is not. An example from the article is that countries want to be able to type web addresses in their own language, and not have to rely on the latin alphabet. The relinquishing of some control will let the developers in other countries give their input into how the internet is organized and formatted... I don't see what's wrong with that.

In today's world the internet connects everyone, so why should only one country get to determine its evolution? I personally welcome the innovation of other countries, it will make the internet way more interesting than it already is.
 
I feel the same way. If Al Gore was willing to give it to us after he invented it, then we should keep the thing.

To Orius's post: the servers that drive the "internet" are not all in one place. They are spread out all over the world. There is no diminished risk factor in letting other countries have control over our resources where the internet is concerned.

And by all means, they can create their own forked internets to compete with us if they want. We are still at an advantage because they are competing with us as THE standard.

And keep in mind, the US government has maintained a nearly completely hands-off approach. My guess is few, if any, other bodies on Earth would do the same, especially considering how much blockage we already see in various places.
 
The economy is globalizing but the way the internet works is not. An example from the article is that countries want to be able to type web addresses in their own language, and not have to rely on the latin alphabet. The relinquishing of some control will let the developers in other countries give their input into how the internet is organized and formatted... I don't see what's wrong with that.

No reason that can't be accommodated under the previous scheme.


In today's world the internet connects everyone, so why should only one country get to determine its evolution?

Because it gives us a tremendous advantage. There need be no other reason.


I personally welcome the innovation of other countries, it will make the internet way more interesting than it already is.

It's already a completely open field for innovation. But it may not be following this.
 
What advantages, specifically?

The advantages are obvious.

If they weren't, you wouldn't be suggesting that no one country should control it.
 
The advantages are obvious.

If they weren't, you wouldn't be suggesting that no one country should control it.

It's not obvious to me.

What advantages are we talking about?
 
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.

It's called a sarcastic joke. Learn it, live it, love it.

And yes, today is a very very Bad Stitch day.
 
The economy is globalizing but the way the internet works is not. An example from the article is that countries want to be able to type web addresses in their own language, and not have to rely on the latin alphabet. The relinquishing of some control will let the developers in other countries give their input into how the internet is organized and formatted... I don't see what's wrong with that.

In today's world the internet connects everyone, so why should only one country get to determine its evolution? I personally welcome the innovation of other countries, it will make the internet way more interesting than it already is.

I think you and I just see things differently. I don't mind one country coming out on top as long as it is my country. Cultural and economic conformity with us is one way to get to that end. Giving up our resources and what is truly a world wonder for others to guide is not going to help us in the long run. Let them compete with us, let them create their own internet (which would really just end up being a complex intranet within their own country), but do not give them control of our leverage.
 
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!
 
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!

Yeah that's a nice, happy hippy communey sentiment but the technical reality is that there is a telecom backbone to the internet and without it, it all comes crashing down.

And we own that backbone.
 
The advantages are obvious.

If they weren't, you wouldn't be suggesting that no one country should control it.

If they are obvious, you should be able to list them with no problem instead of evading the question.
 
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.

Still, I'm wary of international control over ICANN. There are many reasons to do so, and more every day due to the increasingly small minority of the internet that the US represents. 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. 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. 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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom