Time to send in Bolton...


PDA






Fletchette
October 6, 2005, 03:17 PM
Breaking America's grip on the net (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html)

Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.

But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.

Really? Borrowing a phrase from another era, we could "just say no".

I hope Bolton rips them a new one..

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to send in Bolton..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SIOP
October 6, 2005, 03:33 PM
I hope Bolton rips them a new one..


Apparently you, too, bought into the B.S. dished out by the media organs that Bolton is some kind of conservative that distains the U.N.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. He, and his boss Bush, are avowed proponents of world government and a reinvigorated, more powerful U.N. His membership in the Council on Foreign Relations is testament to where his loyalties lie.

Nehemiah Scudder
October 6, 2005, 03:37 PM
What exactly is this going to change? The article is pretty vague.

Fletchette
October 6, 2005, 03:47 PM
What exactly is this going to change? The article is pretty vague.

The Euros are in a hissy fit that they do not get to control everything in the world. They seem to think that sinc everyone in their little clique is in agreement that the U.S. has no other option than to acquiesce.

Apparently you, too, bought into the B.S. dished out by the media organs that Bolton is some kind of conservative that distains the U.N.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. He, and his boss Bush, are avowed proponents of world government and a reinvigorated, more powerful U.N. His membership in the Council on Foreign Relations is testament to where his loyalties lie.

You speak a certain amount of truth. Bush is an internationalist, that much I will not argue. However, I am hoping (not a good strategy, but my only option) that Bolton remains true to form and is enough of a hot-head to resist the UN instinctively.

It would be rather difficult for Bush to remove Bolton for being a hot-head after the Dems complained so vigorously that he was a hot-head.

Sawdust
October 6, 2005, 04:16 PM
And just who funded and provided the technical expertise for the ideas that spawned what is today's internet?

Sawdust

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 04:29 PM
Al Gore didn't invent the Internet but "we" did, DARPA, etc. If the skinnies want to restrict access to information in their countries, let them. They need us, we don't need them. The important thing is that they not interfere with what we are doing here. In the longer run the kids will hack their way around and through government firewalls.

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 04:34 PM
"A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge."

Now there's a gallery of freedom-loving nations, with the White Knight of EuroBureaucracy riding in to save the day.

Globalization, the way it's going, is going to lead to its opposite sure as I'm posting this on the Internet right now.

Standing Wolf
October 6, 2005, 04:35 PM
Maybe the effete European socialist tribes should concoct their own internet, make up their own rules, and wait for the world to beat a path—or information super-highway, as the case may be—to their door.

SIOP
October 6, 2005, 04:36 PM
sure as I'm posting this on the Internet right now.

There is no Internet.

MrTuffPaws
October 6, 2005, 04:37 PM
Al Gore? No, it came out as a communication network back in the 60s. DARPA net. The government made it open, academia took it to pre 95 levels, then the free market brought it to today's status.

Now why on earth do you think the US should control the top level when there are huge investments by other countries to keep the internet up and running? Share the cost; share the control.

SIOP
October 6, 2005, 04:46 PM
Here's a snippet from an article about Bolton:

"Walking away from the United Nations is not an option," insisted Bolton in opening remarks before a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an important component of our diplomacy…. If confirmed, I look forward … [to forging] a closer relationship between the United States and the United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership."

Bolton predicted that the UN would play a central role in the Bush administration’s "global democratic revolution." "Now more than ever the UN must play a critical role, as it strives to fulfill the aspirations of its original promise," he declared. While conceding that he had often spoken critically of the UN in recent years, Bolton asserted that the "consistent theme" of his public criticism "is that for the UN to be effective requires American leadership. I say it over and over again. I deeply believe it. My criticisms during the 1990s were in large measure because of what I thought was the lack of effective American leadership." It is the Bush administration’s intention, he continued, to "strengthen" the UN by making it "a more efficient and uncorrupt organization."

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 04:58 PM
"Now why on earth do you think the US should control the top level when there are huge investments by other countries to keep the internet up and running? Share the cost; share the control."

Sounds fine all right, but do we want international bureaucrats controlling the Internet? You saw the list of complainants. The Internet is supposed to disseminate knowledge, not serve as a propaganda tool or surveillance device for repressive regimes.

Someone has to set the basic rules if the system's to work. Can you cite any abuses on our end?

This is the same situation we keep encountering: other nations wanting power but refusing to play by civilized rules that honor personal freedoms. If we believe in liberty we should insist on it. Did we create Internet technology just so dictatorships could block free speech? NO.

kbarrett
October 6, 2005, 05:45 PM
The EU member states don't want an internet run by China, et al.

They are just posturing to please China and the islamacists. If some idiot tried to set up competing root servers, they would find themselves cut off from the US, the Commonwealth, and non-china dominated parts of asia.

Such an act would be reversed in short order by anyone with half a brain cell.

Darpa owns the internet .... the euro-weenies can go pound sand, or cut themselves off if they like. We invited them in ... they should make sure they don't get hit in the *ss by the door when they sulk their way out.

MrTuffPaws
October 6, 2005, 06:09 PM
Someone has to set the basic rules if the system's to work. Can you cite any abuses on our end?

The various attempts by the US gov to clean the net of obscenity. Pushed by Clinton and now being pushed again by Hillary and anyone else in the gov that uses "protect the children" to get votes. The monitoring of chat rooms to sucker pedophiles into meeting underage “children” then arresting them before any actual crimes take place. Closing of sites that contain info, such as instruction on how to convert weapons to full auto or manufacturing of explosives. The limiting of file sharing and strict copy right enforcement that violates fair use.

Are our attempts at censoring as bad as china's censoring, no, but they are steps in that direction. How long until unaccepted political thought becomes obscene? I know I used the slippery slope fallacy, but I am starting to think that it is not a fallacy anymore.

xd9fan
October 6, 2005, 06:29 PM
The internet is a perfect example of "spontanous order". Leave it alone. The Govts want to control the content and flow of information as to better "control" their peasants.

atk
October 7, 2005, 12:29 PM
Let's get this in perspective.


NOTE TO IT GUYS: I know that this is a simplification. I intend it to be. Extra details aren't really necessary to make the point, and my post is already rather long.


DEFINITIONS:

IP Address: The address of a target computer on the Internet. By sending a message, identified with this address, your message gets forwarded to the target computer. And IP address is just a bunch of numbers, written in the format "209.51.144.70".

DNS: System by which a name (thehighroad.org) gets translated to an IP Address. This system is used becuase it's easier to remember a name (thehighroad.org) than a bunch of numbers (209.51.144.70). And it's easier to remember a bunch of names (thehighroad.org, google.com, microsoft.com, redhat.com) than a bunch of numbers (209.51.144.70, 216.239.37.99, 216.239.57.99, 207.46.130.108, 207.46.250.119, 209.132.177.50; and yes, all six of these numbers are relevant for the four sites I mentioned - some names reference multiple addresses).

The DNS system is heirarchical. There are several "root" servers at the top of the heirarchy. In order to be included in DNS, your system must be included in the root server. Because it's a bit of a tangent, and a bit long, I won't explain why it's a heirarchy unless asked.




THE UN'S ISSUE
The UN seems to want to control the DNS system. Right now, all the root servers - the systems that have to know about your address in order to convert your name (thehighroad.org) to an address (209.51.144.70) - are hosted in the United States of America. I do not recall if they are government run or privately run, but I believe they are a private.

Now, imagine if you controlled all the root servers. If you didn't like another country one day, you could simply remove their entries from your list of name-address mappings. So, you don't like china? Fine, nobody can find out the address of any machines in China, so nobody can communicate with machines in China.

No country would like another country to have that kind of control. Every country wants to control the addresses of everything within that country. After all, the US doesn't get to choose the street names in England, nor should it be able to.

So, the UN is claiming that the US should give up the DNS system, so that the UN can take it over.


Now, DNS only works because everyone agrees who the root servers are. If anyone wanted to set up a new root server (let's say a Canadian root server, for all Canadian traffic), they can do so. And, if everyone agrees to use that root server instead of the US root servers (at least, for canadian traffic), that's perfectly cool.

So, if another country wants to set up their own root servers, they can do so. In order to make things work, they'll have to require all the entities within their country to use their root server instead of the US root server. And they'll have to coordinate with the US root servers to make sure no two names get assigned the same address.

And, if US citizens still want to reach Canadian machines, then we'll have to know about, and use, the Canadian root server.



Now, the important thing is that the UN doesn't need to do anything to make this happen. Canada just sets up thier own root server, and passes a law that all Canadian computers must use the Canadian root server.

A majority of Canadian systems start using the Canadian root server, in addition to the US servers, but give the Canadian server preference. Cool. If the US root servers aren't updated to handle this, then US machines will no longer be able to communicate with Canadian machines.

At this point, the system seems broken. But, remember, the Canadians must have made their root server addresses publicly known, and must have provided instructions to convert to the Canadian root. Now, either the US root servers can be updated to know about the Canadian systems, or the individual computers (the one sitting directly in front of you, right now) can be updated to know about the Canadian root servers. I'm sure that news sites outside of Canada would warn people, "If you want to connect to a Canadian computer, you have to do thusandsuch". In fact, there would be plenty of techie sites that would have the same warning, and you could just use Google to find instructions.

So the US citizens modify their machines to use the Canadian root, or the US root servers are updated, and life goes on.


Even better, your Operating System provider (e.g. Microsoft) would probably create a patch that would automatically handle this for you, making the transition even easier. After all, Microsoft doesn't want to verbally provide instructions to transition to several million users - it's much easier to just create a patch.


Lather, rinse, and repeat for every country of the world.


This process requires no intervention by the UN. It only requires massive changes to be forced within a country, and enough people outside that country to want to talk to the other machines.


The UN is just mouthing off at how terrible the US is, and the US's response should be, "OK, so just do it, and tell everyone when."

fourays2
October 7, 2005, 12:53 PM
The UN is just mouthing off at how terrible the US is, and the US's response should be, "OK, so just do it, and tell everyone when."


this seems to be their SOP. why are we still paying for the un again?

71Commander
October 7, 2005, 03:25 PM
For the lesson. :)

atk
October 7, 2005, 03:50 PM
TennTucker,

*grin*

longeyes
October 7, 2005, 04:35 PM
Our internet sins are...

"The various attempts by the US gov to clean the net of obscenity. Pushed by Clinton and now being pushed again by Hillary and anyone else in the gov that uses "protect the children" to get votes. The monitoring of chat rooms to sucker pedophiles into meeting underage “children” then arresting them before any actual crimes take place. Closing of sites that contain info, such as instruction on how to convert weapons to full auto or manufacturing of explosives. The limiting of file sharing and strict copy right enforcement that violates fair use."

Interesting examples that certainly define the outer reaches of libertarianism.

The good news is there is more porn than ever on the 'Net, plenty of kids are being seduced in chat rooms, lots of people are still learning how to make bombs for fun and profit, and it's a no-brainer to indifferently rip off other people's creative work. It can't get much better than that.

:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to send in Bolton..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!