Who should have control of the internet?

[Thoran]

There is a debate in progress over whether the US should give up administrative control over the Internet, and if they do... who should have that control.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/interne....ap/index.html

This forum is VERY international in membership (one of the things I like about it)... so what's the concensus?

I don't know the answer, but I do know who I DON'T want controlling it... but I worked very hard to avoid a biased poll.

[shamrock_uk]

Well, my gut reaction is that I don't trust the current US administration enough to want them to keep the present level on control.

I voted for a completely independent body, but in the real world the UN should be enough of a hodge-podge to stop any one country having complete dominance.

If the root servers are owned privately then the fact that the US wants to hang on to control of them so badly surely indicates that they want to leave some nefarious option open beyond the normal running of the internet. Something similar to having the ability to shut off GPS in a time of war for example?

My gut reaction is that the internet should be unregulated, but then I'm a pro-privacy small-government kind of guy. I will concede some small regulation to bring down websites that are globally believed to be immoral but am deeply against any one country having the say-so, especially when (lets face it) the interests of that country will always trump everyone else when decisions are made.

Love the final option - nice touch [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit: Because

"Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable."

surely this is another argument in favour of control by coalition or organisation - the future of internet access is more likely to be secured when such policy decisions cannot be taken at a whim.

[ 09-30-2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[mad=dog]

I will not answer this poll since my choice "There should be no control over the internet" is not available. If the intention is to gauge the votes pro et contra American control then simply add one to the "against" pile mentally.

[ 09-30-2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

[Ilander]

I'd say that it would make sense to distribute it all according to each individual suffix, letting Japan house the .jp suffix for example.

Or at least, that's what I say now, being honestly kind of ignorant about how this all works.

What does ICANN really do? Does anyone actually know?

It's all a little tech-ese to me...

[Arvon]

Certainly not the UN...Look at oil for food program.

[Thoran]

So... one of the arguments the US Gov. is using to fight against UN control is that they don't want the Internet to be regulated... and regulate is just about the only thing the UN is competent at, they can write regulations with the best of em.

There is no 'no regulation' option because there wouldn't be an internet without some level of management. Basically, the way ICANN operates today is the way a person who want's 'unregulated' internet would be happy with.

So if you prefer the Internet to be unregulated than the Status Quo is a good option, and IMO an Independant International agency is another option.

The UN is definitely NOT a good option if you favor an unregulated (and untaxed) internet, and Al Gore... well... he's DA MAN.

[Timber Loftis]

If something isn't broke, don't fix it.

Having one government have control of the internet is bad enough. The more, the worse.

Besides, can you imagine how fun it would be to put up with Euros regulating the thing? Be forewarned, folks -- European governments have a particular affinity for red tape and paperwork and forms for forms, and you need a photo I.D. to take a crap over there. I don't have the patience for it.

[Sir Goulum]

Originally posted by mad=dog: I will not answer this poll since my choice "There should be no control over the internet" is not available.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If something isn't broke, don't fix it. Having one government have control of the internet is bad enough. The more, the worse. Besides, can you imagine how fun it would be to put up with Euros regulating the thing? Be forewarned, folks -- European governments have a particular affinity for red tape and paperwork and forms for forms, and you need a photo I.D. to take a crap over there. I don't have the patience for it.

I must have been illegally taking dumps all over the place then. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[mad=dog]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Be forewarned, folks -- European governments have a particular affinity for red tape and paperwork and forms for forms, and you need a photo I.D. to take a crap over there. I don't have the patience for it.

I'll gladly agree that the EU administration is too cumbersome - the reason why it will tumble and fall if nothing is done against it. However the national governments are quite effecient. Next time you are in Copenhagen I cordially invite you to take a tour with me in our Folketing - the national assembly of Denmark. Who by the way is elected with 80 to 90% of the population participating in the election.
Should the US government run the internet? No. Hell no. It doesn't even have to represent the majority in USA. How on earth can it represent the internet. The mere thought is ludicrous.