Post by thread:[OT] Who controls the internet

Well, I must say that I am absolutely amazed that Russell has not brought this to our attention! :-) He is usually the first one to notice such ominous clouds on the horizon. From the NY Times: > The United States and Europe clashed here Thursday in one of their > sharpest public disagreements in months, after European Union > negotiators proposed stripping the Americans of their effective > control of the Internet. The European decision to back the rest of > the world in demanding the creation of a new international body to > govern the Internet clearly caught the Americans off balance and left > them largely isolated at talks designed to come up with a new way of > regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century. John

John Nall wrote: >> The European decision to back the rest of the world in demanding the >> creation of a new international body to govern the Internet clearly >> caught the Americans off balance and left them largely isolated at >> talks designed to come up with a new way of regulating the digital >> traffic of the 21st century. This is going to be interesting. Either the US government "gives in" and accepts an international regulatory body -- something that seems really difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) Gerhard

----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <spam_OUTlistsTakeThisOuTconnectionbrazil.com> Subject: Re: [OT] Who controls the internet > difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at > some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) And how many of the European nanny-state economies could withstand loosing a large chunk of the U.S. market? Do you really believe the Asian countries would pass up an opportnity to increase their U.S. market share? It might be realistic if Germany and France were in a little better shape. But their budgets have even bigger problems than the U.S. Of course, many European leaders seem to have a death wish, so it could happen. In the end, it would be a very good thing for the U.S. Whether U.S. leaders have enough vision to recognize that is another question. --McD

Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > >This is going to be interesting. Either the US government "gives in" and >accepts an international regulatory body -- something that seems really >difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at >some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) > > Yes, that is what worries me. The present administration seems to be awfully prone to bite off their nose just to spite their face, so that they could indeed "go it alone." Which would be a ghastly mistake, IMHO, but only one more of many. :-( John

>>This is going to be interesting. Either the US government "gives in" and >>accepts an international regulatory body -- something that seems really >>difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at >>some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) >> > >Yes, that is what worries me. The present administration seems to be >awfully prone to bite off their nose just to spite their face, so that >they could indeed "go it alone." Which would be a ghastly mistake, >IMHO, but only one more of many. :-( Well if the noises I hear about the USA doing something about their proportion of green house gas emissions are correct, then I guess anything is possible.

John, On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:36:44 -0400, John J. McDonough wrote: {Quote hidden}> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <.....listsKILLspam@spam@connectionbrazil.com> > Subject: Re: [OT] Who controls the internet > > > difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at > > some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) > > And how many of the European nanny-state economies could withstand loosing a > large chunk of the U.S. market? Do you really believe the Asian countries > would pass up an opportnity to increase their U.S. market share? Share of what market? I'm in New York at the moment, and the only thing European I've seen here is BMWs (oh, and jars of Marmite at four times what they cost in England! :-) Pretty much anything that isn't US made seems to come from China as far as I can see. > It might be realistic if Germany and France were in a little better shape. > But their budgets have even bigger problems than the U.S. Well France doesn't seem to care about exports much - as long as they can live on the Agricultural subsidy, they seem to be happy. Germany is still reeling a bit from taking over responsibility for the former East Germany, but things seem (viewed from the other side of the North Sea) to be improving. Wouter's countrymen seem to be doing pretty well - I'm surprised we haven't heard of them doing consulting work (at least) on the sea defences around New Orleans. > Of course, many European leaders seem to have a death wish, so it could happen. I think it's more that the beaureaucrats have spotted another niche to create a new "body" to oversee something, thus creating more useless and unwanted jobs. We had a narrow escape with software patents, so perhaps they were looking around for another target and saw the Internet. We already suffer from too much government, IMHO, and joining Europe has made things worse - that's why I voted against it! > In the end, it would be a very good thing for the U.S. In what way? > Whether U.S. leaders have enough vision to recognize that is another question. Well Homeland Security don't seem to have been involved yet - if they haven't got enough to do, perhaps they could be tasked with protecting the Internet? :-) Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

I thought Dan Quayle owned it? Those who invent own it? :-) John Nall <jwnallKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > >This is going to be interesting. Either the US government "gives in" and >accepts an international regulatory body -- something that seems really >difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at >some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) > > Yes, that is what worries me. The present administration seems to be awfully prone to bite off their nose just to spite their face, so that they could indeed "go it alone." Which would be a ghastly mistake, IMHO, but only one more of many. :-( John

> John Nall <.....jwnallKILLspam.....gmail.com> wrote:Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> This is going to be interesting. Either the US government "gives in" and >> accepts an international regulatory body -- something that seems really >> difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at >> some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) > > Yes, that is what worries me. The present administration seems to be > awfully prone to bite off their nose just to spite their face, so that > they could indeed "go it alone." Which would be a ghastly mistake, > IMHO, but only one more of many. :-( Whatever happened to "Internet 2"? I haven't heard about that in years. That was supposed to be incompatible and separate.

Except Al Gore is the one that claimed to have invented the Internet. alan smith wrote: {Quote hidden}>I thought Dan Quayle owned it? Those who invent own it? :-) > >John Nall <EraseMEjwnallspam_OUTTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > > >>This is going to be interesting. Either the US government "gives in" and >>accepts an international regulatory body -- something that seems really >>difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at >>some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) >> >> >> >> >Yes, that is what worries me. The present administration seems to be >awfully prone to bite off their nose just to spite their face, so that >they could indeed "go it alone." Which would be a ghastly mistake, >IMHO, but only one more of many. :-( > >John > > >

> Wouter's countrymen seem to be doing pretty well - I'm According to others maybe, we ourselves aren't so sure. Right now we are debating about whether child care (in the after-school hours) is a good thing (the right and left wing parties think so) or a bad thing (the mighty middle party - in my country that's the katholic/protestant party - thinks so: it could stimulate mothers to take a job!). AFAIK this discussion has been closed long ago in all other EC countries, but of course we take our own course. > surprised we haven't heard of them doing consulting > work (at least) on the sea defences around New Orleans. AFAIK there are some Dutch consultants over there, but no one can save things when the budget is unsufficient and/or the burocracy is too heavy ... Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Howard Winter wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:10:52 -0700 (PDT), Don Taylor wrote: >> Whatever happened to "Internet 2"? I haven't heard about that in >> years. That was supposed to be incompatible and separate. > > Or, indeed, IP v6, which has been fumbling around for ages, and still > isn't widely used. With more addresses than there are molecules in the > Universe (or whatever the statistic is) that would certainly cut down on > port scans! Or Microsoft rattling their sabre about how they want everyone to make this change and that change, defined by Microsoft, to stop spam, all the while having recently become one of the biggest delivery pipelines for Nigeria fraud spam AND added anti-spam filters to all their abuse addresses so they bounce any complaints sent to them about this. I realize it has been said before, but a nickel a message for every message put onto the backbone of the net would bring all this junk to a halt. If it isn't worth a nickel then just don't send it in the first place. And I think most people would think it would be worth that to make the junk stop.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Winter" <HDRWspam_OUTh2org.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [OT] Who controls the internet > and jars of Marmite at four times what they cost in England! :-) Pretty > much > anything that isn't US made seems to come from China as far as I can see. Most thing that appear US made come from China, Taiwan or Korea. > Wouter's countrymen seem to be doing pretty well - I'm surprised we > haven't heard of them doing consulting work (at least) on the sea > defences around New Orleans. Even though we panicked a few years ago about the Japanese taking over, the Dutch are second only to the Brits in foreign ownership of U.S. assets. They're slowly taking over the world, they're just being real quiet about it. > I think it's more that the beaureaucrats have spotted another niche to > create a new "body" to oversee something Europe hardly has a corner on the bureaucrat market > In what way? I think the EU sells a lot more stuff here than we do there. A fortress Europe would eliminate a reasonably strong group of competitors in the largest, growing markets. A decade or so ago the U.S. would have felt obligated to bail out a bankrupt Europe, but nowadays I don't thing there's much stomach for that. On the other hand, a European company is paying me a bunch of change next week to come talk to them, and I hope to take a lot more of their money next year, so personally, my balance of payments situation is a bit different. > Well Homeland Security don't seem to have been involved yet - if they > haven't got enough to do, perhaps they could be tasked with protecting > the Internet? :-) Now wouldn't THAT be special? --McD

Wouter, On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:34:09 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: > > Wouter's countrymen seem to be doing pretty well - I'm > > According to others maybe, we ourselves aren't so sure. That's just human nature - when did you ever hear anyone (or especially any nation) say "We're doing really well - let's leave everything just as it is and enjoy it" ? :-) > Right now we are > debating about whether child care (in the after-school hours) is a good > thing (the right and left wing parties think so) or a bad thing (the > mighty middle party - in my country that's the katholic/protestant party > - thinks so: it could stimulate mothers to take a job!). In what context? Is this whether to allow these institutions to exist, or whether they should be paid for by the state, or what? >...< > no one can save things when the budget is unsufficient and/or the burocracy is too heavy This should be written in large letters above the doors of every Government department in the World! Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

Don, On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Don Taylor wrote: {Quote hidden}> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Howard Winter wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:10:52 -0700 (PDT), Don Taylor wrote: > >> Whatever happened to "Internet 2"? I haven't heard about that in > >> years. That was supposed to be incompatible and separate. > > > > Or, indeed, IP v6, which has been fumbling around for ages, and still > > isn't widely used. With more addresses than there are molecules in the > > Universe (or whatever the statistic is) that would certainly cut down on > > port scans! > > Or Microsoft rattling their sabre about how they want everyone to make > this change and that change, defined by Microsoft, to stop spam, all the > while having recently become one of the biggest delivery pipelines for > Nigeria fraud spam AND added anti-spam filters to all their abuse > addresses so they bounce any complaints sent to them about this. Not being of the Microsoft persuasion (I'm using OS/2 here) I haven't seen any of the above. I think the phrase "blissful ignorance" applies! :-) So howcome they allow the spam to flow through, but block it arriving? (Rhetorical question I suppose!) > I realize it has been said before, but a nickel a message for every > message put onto the backbone of the net would bring all this junk to a > halt. If it isn't worth a nickel then just don't send it in the first > place. And I think most people would think it would be worth that to make > the junk stop. Better still, the nickel (2.83p Sterling, I think) should be go to the recipient, so whenever you send an email, you're paying the other person a small amount to read it (or to delete it without doing so). Yes, that would work! :-) I would have made a couple of quid today, already. Now, who is it that's in charge of the Internet? Mind you, James would probably get a bit upset at receiving $0.05 and having to pay $100 for every message posted here... Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

fine..al....some vp. we have so many vp's here i get em all confuzzeled John Pfaff <@spam@jpfaff1528KILLspamverizon.net> wrote:Except Al Gore is the one that claimed to have invented the Internet. alan smith wrote: {Quote hidden}>I thought Dan Quayle owned it? Those who invent own it? :-) > >John Nall wrote:Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > > >>This is going to be interesting. Either the US government "gives in" and >>accepts an international regulatory body -- something that seems really >>difficult for US Americans --, or we may see two incompatible systems at >>some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) >> >> >> >> >Yes, that is what worries me. The present administration seems to be >awfully prone to bite off their nose just to spite their face, so that >they could indeed "go it alone." Which would be a ghastly mistake, >IMHO, but only one more of many. :-( > >John > > >

> In what context? Is this whether to allow these institutions > to exist, or whether they should be paid for by > the state, or what? The trigger was the idea to force schools to provide this service. IMHO not a bad idea, provided the schools get enough time, money, housing, etc to organise this. But the idea as stated was that they would get littel money, probably no extra housing, and has to arrange this by 1-1-2006. But at the same time the inflow in technical studies is still decreasing, and the general attitude towards technical things/persons is not good. I don't think this is good for our future. But the government does not seem to car much about this. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

On Sep 30, 2005, at 8:36 AM, John Nall wrote: >> or we may see two incompatible systems at >> some point in the future... The US versus the rest of the world :) >> > Yes, that is what worries me. The present administration seems to be > awfully prone to bite off their nose just to spite their face, so that > they could indeed "go it alone." Ah. Poor memories. The rest of the world wasn't very enthusiastic to participate an "american controlled" set of protocols in the first place, resulting in the mutually incompatible ISO protocol stack (at great cost to everyone involved, including the US, since they couldn't ignore an international standard even if they had their own protocols.) Cynically speaking, the ISO stack failed, and now the "rest of the world" wants an opportunity to screw up the american stack. On the other hand, perhaps I should look more carefully at what sort of "control" we're talking about here. Administrative control? Control of the protocols (it's not like there hasn't been a lot of international participation in IETF already, for instance)? Getting even more cynical, I think perhaps anyone who believes that "the internet" is controlled by the US government... just isn't paying very much attention! BillW

On Sep 30, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > ake note Internet does not contain really all networks around the > word. There are still a lot of special networks around. > I should hope so! The internet protocols were designed so that things COULD talk to each other, not so that they'd HAVE to talk to each other. In particular, the original split between ARPANet and MilNet was designed to be rather tightly controlled. Just because a network talks IP doesn't mean it needs to be connected to the internet. (if the whole argument is over who owns the root DNS servers, it seems like a rather big discussion over a rather minor issue...) BillW

Oops. Right. That was what I was going for. --- James. {Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesmit.edu > [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEEraseMEmit.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Lag > Sent: 2005 Sep 30, Fri 16:34 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [OT] Who controls the internet > Importance: Low > > "all your IPs are belong to us"? > > James Newtons Massmind wrote: > > We are control all your ip's. > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTKILLspammit.edu > >>[RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Marcel Duchamp > >>Sent: 2005 Sep 30, Fri 13:09 > >>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > >>Subject: Re: [OT] Who controls the internet > >> > >>I, for one, welcome our new internet control overlords! > >>--

William ChopsWestfield wrote: > On the other hand, perhaps I should look more carefully at what sort of > "control" we're talking about here. Probably... it seems you haven't read the article. IMO this is less about actual control (albeit some), and more about attitude. If I understand the control aspect correctly, currently some aspects of the top level domain resolution are under US control (the root zone files). In this link http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/ that someone posted, I found this seemingly reasonable phrase: "The DNS name space is one notable exception to this rule: it is hierarchical; so there needs to be global agreement on which TLDs go into the top level and who is managing them. This is an area that obviously needs a globally agreed process." Isn't this what this is about? Gerhard

John J. McDonough wrote: > Even though we panicked a few years ago about the Japanese taking over, the > Dutch are second only to the Brits in foreign ownership of U.S. assets. I'm not sure I have the right source here (is there a better one?), and I'm not sure what you call "US assets", but this says otherwise (about US government debt): http://mwhodges.home.att.net/reserves_a.htm#MAJOR 1: Japan $700G 2: China $200G 3: UK $160G ... 27: Netherlands $9G >> I think it's more that the beaureaucrats have spotted another niche to >> create a new "body" to oversee something > > Europe hardly has a corner on the bureaucrat market While there isn't really a formal championship, I think in this area the EU does have an edge :) > I think the EU sells a lot more stuff here than we do there. >From http://www.eurunion.org/profile/EUUSStats.htm: $250G sold from EU to US vs. $150G sold from US to EU. Interestingly, both numbers are about 20% of the EU trade in resp. out, and are about 17% (in) and 19% (out) of the US trade. Which kind of says that the US imports less from the EU, relatively speaking, even though it imports more than it exports, in absolute numbers. Gerhard

Yup, that's what he said while running for reelection as Vice President. http://tinyurl.com/qio5 Others think... http://tinyurl.com/c683h And I understand a previous poster confusing him with Dan Quayle. As I get older it seems like they change Vice Presidents faster than car styles. And for the "Controller of the Internet" I suggest Michael Brown, the ex FEMA Director who was responsible for so much of the shocking news on television during Hurricane Katrina. Pookie {Original Message removed}

I see. Any vice president doing anything useful then? On 10/2/05, Bill & Pookie <RemoveMEreddxKILLspamcomcast.net> wrote: > Yup, that's what he said while running for reelection as Vice President. > http://tinyurl.com/qio5 > > Others think... > http://tinyurl.com/c683h > > And I understand a previous poster confusing him with Dan Quayle. As I get > older it seems like they change Vice Presidents faster than car styles. > > And for the "Controller of the Internet" I suggest Michael Brown, the ex > FEMA Director who was responsible for so much of the shocking news on > television during Hurricane Katrina. > > Pookie

www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/30/D8CUKA481.html At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, <snip> That role has historically gone to the United States, which created <snip> The U.S. Commerce Department has delegated much of that responsibility to a U.S.-based private organization with international board members,<snip> Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share. They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography

On Oct 2, 2005, at 3:49 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > Al Gore invented the internet??? > During his office, Al Gore (VP of the US) apparently made some comment (I don't recall the comment or the context) that was widely (mis)quoted by assorted detractors as having been a claim that he had invented the internet. (which is, of course, ridiculous.) On the other hand, it might be noted that this was the administration during which "the internet" was "opened up" from its previous status as a DoD/NSF-sponsored research-and-government-only network into something that was OK for random commercial use. In a very real sense, that WAS the birth of the internet as we know it today. I don't know whether that's what the VP had in mind when he made his infamous statement, but it can be worth remembering that widescale technology deployment DOES have a political side to it... BillW