who owns the internet?

Place to discuss anything, almost. No politics, religion, Microsoft, or anything else that I (the nazi censor) deem inappropriate.
worker201
guru
guru
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:38 pm
Location: Hawaii

who owns the internet?

Post by worker201 »

Here's the Yahoo AP story

ICANN is based in the US, but exactly how are they "being world policemen on the management of the internet"? I personally think that world addressing should be managed by the UN, or some international conglomerate. But that's only to maintain objectivity in the future. Is there anything that the US is doing now to infringe on other country's rights to access the internet?
[/url]

User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5716
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA
Contact:

Post by Void Main »

who owns the internet?
Microsoft, Sony, and all the other malware/virus/spam dudes.

ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm
Contact:

Post by ZiaTioN »

I agree. There is no "world policing" of the internet by any US agency. There are differebt agencies world wide that hand out and control blocks of IP addresses (APNIC in Asia, ARIN for the Americas, RIPE for European countries, etc..).

However if there were any more control of the internet by the US why not? After all it was the US Military, namely the Department of Defense, who invented internet protocol in the late 50's. Admittedly it was only a 8 bit IP at the time but it was still IP. They saw the limitations of this in the mid 60's and created 16 bit IP and then 32 bit in the early 70's. IP became public in the mid 60's (1965 to be exact) when MIT researcher Lawrence G. Roberts working in cooperation with Thomas Merrill in California connected the first WAN. It was a direct connect from a TX-2 computer in Mass. to a Q-32 in California with a low speed dial-up telephone line. In 1967 DARPA (A US organization) created ARPANET which was the first packet switching network that resembled the internet as we know it today.

So as you can see it was the US who created all technologies associated with the internet so why can they not have more control than anyone else? Even though no one country should have any more control over something that benefits everyone I do not think that people should bitch about something they had no involvement in developing.

worker201
guru
guru
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:38 pm
Location: Hawaii

Post by worker201 »

Don't you think it has gone beyond ownership? Yes, the DoD pioneered the concept of ARPAnet, and paid most of the early development money. And it was American companies that drove the computer market to where it is today. But the internet is no longer a thing. It's more like a concept. It's not 15 PDP-10s connected together anymore. It is server farms and admins and telephone companies and ISPs and cellular companies and more. The internet is not a collection of things, which someone can own - it's a connection of things, which is overseen by the people who are connected. Which is everybody.

I wish the article had given specific concerns that other countries were having, instead of generalities which made the whole thing seem political. Then we could judge whether or not there had been an error in stewardship among the ICANN.

ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm
Contact:

Post by ZiaTioN »

Don't you think it has gone beyond ownership?
Yes I do which is why I said:
Even though no one country should have any more control over something that benefits everyone I do not think that people should bitch about something they had no involvement in developing.
:-)

User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5716
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA
Contact:

Post by Void Main »

I own this little chunk of the Internet. I rent the pipe that hooks it up to the rest of the world from a private company. I get my domains from various places. No one agency currently owns the Internet and it should stay that way. I think what you are referring to is who has control over certain top level domains. I don't much care about that either because I can always go back to using IP addresses only. :) Seriously we could start our own domain name system and nobody could stop us. Just pop a few top level DNS servers out there and cache the existing DNS until everyone switches to us, problem solved. Now, how IP addresses are distributed is an entirely different story.

User avatar
Calum
guru
guru
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Bonny Scotland
Contact:

Post by Calum »

ZiaTioN wrote:However if there were any more control of the internet by the US why not?
because the US has too much overseas power as it is. Just because the USA thinks it is right about everything does not mean it is. legislation for the Internet should and currently is decided by the governments of whichever country the disputed hardware is in.
After all it was the US Military, namely the Department of Defense, who invented internet protocol in the late 50's.
wasn't it Donald Davies, an English researcher who invented packet switching? I'll agree that Paul Baran developed it independently but I am pretty sure Davies beat him to it chronologically.
So as you can see it was the US who created all technologies associated with the internet so why can they not have more control than anyone else?
might does not make right, just as having the money to throw at a development project does not justify ethical control of the use of this technology. Your reasoning can be used to justify software patents as well as microsoft's innovative efforts to retain a stranglehold on the market while stifling the furtherance of development completely.
Even though no one country should have any more control over something that benefits everyone I do not think that people should bitch about something they had no involvement in developing.
how many american politicians had a hand in developing the Internet? none. And so why should those policiticians be allowed to legislate for the Internet worldwide? by your reasoning only the people who developed the technology should be legislating for it, and i think that is ridiculous since apart from anything else, the skills required to develope network protocols and implement them has little to no bearing on the skills required to legislate effectively. If you want to be more general and say the US implemented the Internet first (not strictly true either, since there were other nationwide networks by the time the USA got round to connecting their one up the the rest of the world) and so the US should legislate then you might as well say we're all humans and that humans should therefore legislate. This is in fact my opinion. Give legislative control over the Internet to all humans. Nationalism is barbaric and backward looking and as such should have no bearing over a genuinely forward looking thing like the Internet.

in my opinion.

User avatar
Calum
guru
guru
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Bonny Scotland
Contact:

Post by Calum »

ZiaTioN wrote:
Don't you think it has gone beyond ownership?
Yes I do which is why I said:
Even though no one country should have any more control over something that benefits everyone I do not think that people should bitch about something they had no involvement in developing.
:-)
at the risk of seeming like i am deliberately arguing against you in particular, ziation, (which i am not doing, i promise you!) i'd like to paraphrase you a little.

you seem to be saying that every country that exists should be legislating over its own parts of the Internet, or that every country should have an equal hand in legislating over the Internet, but that only americans are allowed to actually voice their concerns about it.

this (apart from how ridiculous it is in terms of rights) is illogical since legislation is the result of politics, and politics is another word for voicing concerns about something and hashing out solutions.

also it contradicts what you said elsehwre about how americans should get to control the internet because they (ha!) invented it. all that, i dealt with in my last post.

ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm
Contact:

Post by ZiaTioN »

That is the problem with paraphrasing, it is very rarely an accurate method of communication. No, none of what you said "I said" did I actually say at all. I could care less about all the politics in it and I really do not think anyone should have control over the internet, as I have already stated. I am not even up to speed on what is being debated and what is at stake. I offered up a simple question and you should not just assume that since I am an American that I think you all should be my slaves and that we should own the world.

If I remember my history correctly is was England who tried to take over the entire world which is where America came from so I am not sure where most people in other countries these days get off accusing America of being a world bully. :-)

You say Nationalism is barbaric and accuse me of being that barbarian yet it is that very feeling that inspired you to bring up a week old thread just for the sake of arguing and stating your opinion on how someone from your country invented the internet. I fail to see how what you are condeming me of doing (which I have not even done) is any different than what you are doing now?

I suppose you are one of those people who think that America should not have any more influence over the UN than any other country either? I would say that I agree that is the way it should be yet the UN is housed in our country, was created by our leaders, is paid for in full by our budget and is fully backed by our military. Now with this much contribution and support that goes head and shoulders above any other countries support it is only natural that the American politicians (while they may not have had a direct hand in createing the Internet or the UN) are going to want a little more influence than any one else mainly because they pay for it out of their budget and protect it inside their borders.

It would be like if you and I were friends for 50 years and every weekend we got together and ate a pizza. Now I am not very wealthy so I only pay a dollar or two and you pick up the rest. You do this for every weekend for 50 years and pretty soon I am eating more of the pizza than you. Then I am inviting my other friends to come and eat your pizza for free which means you get even less pizza. Then finally I tell you that there is not enough pizza for you anymore so you can no longer eat any pizza but you still have to pay for it. Not only do you have to pay for it but I need you to give me a ride every weekend to go pick it up. On top of all that while me and my freeloading buddies are eating your pizza we sit there to your face and tell you how stupid you are and how you think you own everything.

Does that sound like a good friendship/partnership to you? Eventually you are going to break and demand that you start getting some pizza. At this point in time we accuse you of trying to bully us into giving you what is ours, but was never really our because you have always paid for it.

I make it a point not to get involved in politics for one simple reason. I am not a politician. I presented a simple question and you accuse me of barbarianism? I can tell you one thing though, it is not Americas politics or it's foreign policy or it's President that makes it the strongest nation on this planet today, it is the fact that almost every single American has a deep pride for their country and is willing to fight for it. You call this nationalism? I guess you could classify it as that sure. I call it human nature. The same human nature that made you come here in defense of your country and on the attack against America. The same human nature that says you can hit on your brother all you want but when someone outside the family does it it's on.

I am not even sure why it seems that these days the ones who speak out against America the most are the ones who are suppose to be our closest allies. It seems that the alliance is merely a relationship of convenience. If, as a whole, the English population does not agree with America and wishes to not be associated with us then elect your leaders more creafully. Put someone in office that backs your feelings. You see that is why Bush was elected another term. The majority of Americans do believe that what we are doing for the Iraqi people is a good thing. You only hear about the small percentage that disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. Just think, if someone like Bush who can usually be best described as a bumbling idiot, can get re-elected then the people must believe in what is being done, and not neccessarily who is leading it.

ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm
Contact:

Post by ZiaTioN »

Oh and yes two posts in a row does sound very argumentative. Also it is very hard to think you are not arguing directly with me when you are pulling quotes from my posts.

User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5716
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA
Contact:

Post by Void Main »

Alright boys, that's why I don't like to let things devolve into political discussion. Now kiss and make up. :)

User avatar
Calum
guru
guru
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Bonny Scotland
Contact:

Post by Calum »

ZiaTioN wrote:I offered up a simple question and you should not just assume that since I am an American that I think you all should be my slaves and that we should own the world.
sorry then, it's easy to misinterpret the remarks of americans since this seems to be the prevailing attitude of many americans, towards those who are not americans.
If I remember my history correctly is was England who tried to take over the entire world which is where America came from so I am not sure where most people in other countries these days get off accusing America of being a world bully. :-)
true, england sucks like that. at least you buggers got your independence, i'm still waiting for scotland to break free from england. however just because england's past is as bad as america's present does not mean america is off the hook.
You say Nationalism is barbaric and accuse me of being that barbarian
piffle. show me where i accuse you of this.
yet it is that very feeling that inspired you to bring up a week old thread just for the sake of arguing and stating your opinion on how someone from your country invented the internet.
i am not from england. it was not nationalism that motivated me, i just don't like people talking rubbish on the internet and like to provide correct information where possible.
I fail to see how what you are condeming me of doing (which I have not even done) is any different than what you are doing now?
i just explained the difference even though your insinuation that i am accusing you of nationalism is awry.
I suppose you are one of those people who think that America should not have any more influence over the UN than any other country either?
assume as you will. by complete chance you are correct. a nation of trigger happy rednecks should not have more control over the UN than any other country. In fact any country, regardless of their internal attitude should have no more control over the UN than any other country.
I would say that I agree that is the way it should be yet the UN is housed in our country, was created by our leaders, is paid for in full by our budget and is fully backed by our military.
and now you mention it, i'd like that to change as well, since those very facts go to show that the UN is in some way influenced by the US more than any other country.
Now with this much contribution and support that goes head and shoulders above any other countries support it is only natural that the American politicians (while they may not have had a direct hand in createing the Internet or the UN) are going to want a little more influence than any one else mainly because they pay for it out of their budget and protect it inside their borders.
i think we've both said everything we need to say on this subject for the time being.
It would be like if you and I were friends for 50 years and every weekend we got together and ate a pizza. Now I am not very wealthy so I only pay a dollar or two and you pick up the rest. You do this for every weekend for 50 years and pretty soon I am eating more of the pizza than you. Then I am inviting my other friends to come and eat your pizza for free which means you get even less pizza. Then finally I tell you that there is not enough pizza for you anymore so you can no longer eat any pizza but you still have to pay for it. Not only do you have to pay for it but I need you to give me a ride every weekend to go pick it up. On top of all that while me and my freeloading buddies are eating your pizza we sit there to your face and tell you how stupid you are and how you think you own everything.
it's nothing like that. you have oversimplified the situation to the point of stupidity. perhaps this level of oversimplification is required for US citizens to understand the situation but please credit me with some intelligence. The main difference is that with pizza, nobody gets their home demolished. nobody gets the politics of their culture and country completely trampled by armed soldiers, and with pizza, if one person gets fed up of the arrangement they can buy their own pizza and cease the whole arrangement. no matter how much the USA claims it is sick of the rest of the world's pizza habits, it still refuses to buy its own pizza at home and leave other coutries to do the same. The USA just likes the taste of foreign pizza too much. In effect it wants to have its pizza *and* eat it.
Does that sound like a good friendship/partnership to you?
nope, it sounds like the cultural differences between the US and the rest of the world mean that the US should stay out of international politics, you are absolutely correct about that.
Eventually you are going to break and demand that you start getting some pizza. At this point in time we accuse you of trying to bully us into giving you what is ours, but was never really our because you have always paid for it.
whatever. take your pizza and clear off before it gets ugly. The best the US can hope for is more viet nam style disasters. There's no winners in an international police action.
I make it a point not to get involved in politics for one simple reason. I am not a politician. I presented a simple question and you accuse me of barbarianism?
no i didn't, as we already established. And clearly your post is deliberately intended to be political, since politics means any discussion involving different points of view.
I can tell you one thing though, it is not Americas politics or it's foreign policy or it's President that makes it the strongest nation on this planet today, it is the fact that almost every single American has a deep pride for their country and is willing to fight for it.
i think you'll find it's actually because you have more nuclear weapons than any other country and you will not allow any other country to match you in this area.
You call this nationalism? I guess you could classify it as that sure. I call it human nature. The same human nature that made you come here in defense of your country and on the attack against America.
i didn't attack anything. you spoke rubbish, i corrected you. and we already established i'm not from england. if i wanted to defend scottish ingenuity i could cite many inventions such as the phonograph, the television, asphalt, the light bulb, the telephone, the bicycle et cetera, but that's not what we're here for.
The same human nature that says you can hit on your brother all you want but when someone outside the family does it it's on.
if this is all you aspire to, this human nature, you and your country then you have shown me exactly why the US does not deserve to have the power it has in the world. i would like to see the US on a more equal par with other countries, it is true, but i do not accept your ridiculing of this perfectly fair ideal.
I am not even sure why it seems that these days the ones who speak out against America the most are the ones who are suppose to be our closest allies.
i am not speaking out against america. i would have thought americans would want to have equal station as other world nations, since this would put it effectively beyond a lot of criticism that it currently endures. might i also point out to you that allies or not, 85% of people in the british isles opposed the unlawful invasion of iraq. the citizenry here are not even allied with the government, so hopefully this will help you understand why your "allies" are not mindlessly falling in with US policy.
It seems that the alliance is merely a relationship of convenience. If, as a whole, the English population does not agree with America and wishes to not be associated with us then elect your leaders more creafully. Put someone in office that backs your feelings. You see that is why Bush was elected another term.
not really. i have seen the statistics. you guys are about as capable of electing somebody who represents your actual views as we are by the looks of it. both countries are hamstrung by archaic and biased electoral systems.
The majority of Americans do believe that what we are doing for the Iraqi people is a good thing. You only hear about the small percentage that disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. Just think, if someone like Bush who can usually be best described as a bumbling idiot, can get re-elected then the people must believe in what is being done, and not neccessarily who is leading it.
either that or the whole thing was fixed, probably by whoever is speaking bush's words for him and pulling his strings.

NB: read this quick, i am astonished the debate got this far and fully expect the whole thing to be deleted because it's "not about linux". I welcome a good political discussion but i don't run this board. I will be most put out however if my posts are edited or removed while more pro-USA opinions are left intact. I would consider this a violation of not only my right to free speech but a violation of basic social ethics.

User avatar
Calum
guru
guru
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Bonny Scotland
Contact:

Post by Calum »

ZiaTioN wrote:Oh and yes two posts in a row does sound very argumentative. Also it is very hard to think you are not arguing directly with me when you are pulling quotes from my posts.
whatever, girlfriend! incidentally, this was your second post i just quoted, so don't be so argumentative!

:roll:

User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5716
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA
Contact:

Post by Void Main »

Calum wrote:NB: read this quick, i am astonished the debate got this far and fully expect the whole thing to be deleted because it's "not about linux". I welcome a good political discussion but i don't run this board. I will be most put out however if my posts are edited or removed while more pro-USA opinions are left intact. I would consider this a violation of not only my right to free speech but a violation of basic social ethics.
First, I would nuke the entire thread not just your posts, and honestly if it continues one bit more the entire thread gets dumped. Second, there is no right to free speech on this forum, run on my server, in my house, on bandwidth I pay for. This goes for everyone. In fact I will probably give this thread a couple more days and blow it away anyway regardless if anything more gets posted in it. It's too bad everything has to turn ugly and that IS the way it turns out in nearly 100% of threads involving politics. If you are offended in any way on this site just let me know and I'll take care of it (even if it's something I say). I would like to consider myself a "fair" censor. The only right I give on this forum is the right not to be offended. The only exception is that if you are offended as a Microsoft Employee by my usage of Linux.

There is a long time member who has been stopping by and posting a lot of drug references lately and I have been deleting the posts of his that contain such references. That isn't explicitely in my rules but if you haven't noticed I like to run a site that is at least "close" to G rated (a site someone can let their kids come to and not be harrassed, embarrassed, twisted, etc). I am *extremely* happy that I have to do very little censoring and I thank you all for sticking to the rules "most of the time". There are thousands of sites out there where you can take your politics, your drugs, your religion, etc. I have to put up with enough of it in daily life and this is my oasis away from it. I would appreciate it if you all respect my feelings on this.

Thank you all for your consideration. Now really, I would like it very much if you guys make peace.

User avatar
Calum
guru
guru
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Bonny Scotland
Contact:

Post by Calum »

as far as i know, i have accorded with the rules of good taste, my intention has not been to offend. any discussion is, to some extent, politics. trying to stifle political discussions on a discussion forum is like trying to was your dishes without taking any of the dirt off, in my opinion.

That said, my intention isn't to offend anybody, and i think that this discussion has a lot more going for it than one about (i guess) illegal drugs would (in my opinion), especially on this site. Personally i don't think that statements of fact or opinion need offend necessarily. Just while i remember, i didn't deliberately resurrect a week old thread btw, i don't stop here that often and i will just read everything since my last post every couple of weeks. it is funny how replying after a few days' inactivity or replying more than once to a thread (with an afterthought) can be construed as insulting!

Anyway, if i have offended then sorry, i just get quite irritated when somebody rattles off a volley of questionable and potentially inflammatory verbiage and then balks at an opposing viewpoint being raised. Faced with a situation that appears to take this form i do tend to get a bit involved in the discussion.

On these forums i do imagine i am in your living room void main, or the virtual living room of your online void main persona, rather, and more than on any other forum i am conscious of what i say here for that very reason. you've mentioned this before and i do indeed have respect for not only your often helpful advice to everyone, but also the fact that it's *your* living room. I think it'd be a shame to just dump the whole thread. there's no swearing in it or threats or anything and i think it's a viable part of the lounge area, myself, for what it's worth. After a point it's impossible to talk about linux or the Internet et cetera without coming up against politics in some way. This discussion didn't even go OT really, since it's about whether the should USA own the Internet and why.

Post Reply