| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Saving the Net (Linux Journal)Saving the Net (Linux Journal)Posted Nov 17, 2005 6:51 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)Parent article: Saving the Net (Linux Journal)
Hmm, I must say (as a non-American) that the American focus in that article is amazing. Even the whole discussion about root name servers recently didn't rate a mention. A lot of the issues listed are peculiarly American (e.g. the way your government works).
My main reaction to it is: if that's true, in several years we'll be talking about the-place-formerly-known-as-America. The whole situation will do no good for your already struggling economy. Your government really need to focus on the needs of the country rather than whoever is lobbying them.
Reminds me of a program I saw about America last night. It said that America perceives China as a threat and thus parks a carrier group two days sailing away. If China parked a carrier group two days away from the coast of America, they'd be up in arms. Yet when America does it it's ok. Gimme a break.
(Log in to post comments)
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 17, 2005 8:23 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Anyways, what use is a carrier group if China decides to call in America's national debt?
Last I heard, China owned enough American bonds to repay their entire national debt in one hit. They've only got to threaten to dump a load of bonds on the market and America has no choice but to back down - or watch the Dow Jones implode...
Cheers,
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 23, 2005 3:16 UTC (Wed) by skybrian (subscriber, #365) [Link] I'm no bond trader, but that makes no sense. They can't "call" government bonds, they can only sell them, at a price agreeable to a buyer. Selling a large amount at once and driving down the price would be a giveaway to anyone with the money to buy them and lock in a higher interest rate. (And, ultimately, since the government prints the money, they can buy all of them.)
Of course it's inflationary in the end...
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 17, 2005 13:05 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] The trouble is, America has a way of exporting its rules to the rest of the world, for both good and evil. And no, it very rarely involves aircraft carriers or smart bombs. Just trade relations, lobbying and persuasion... As a recent example, the word from Tunis is that USA still continues to govern the Net via ICANN. So the American focus in the article was useful. When the net is regulated in the USA, a year or two later it is the same way in most of the rest of the world.
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 17, 2005 13:22 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] ICANN do not, in any practical sense, govern the widely used 2 lettercountry domains such as .uk and .de etc.
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 18, 2005 8:55 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Did you miss the whole discussion lately? You can't possibly have, it's been all over the media the last month. Yes they do, they control the whole root zone, and that's the whole problem that the UN and EU has been fighting against. At least set up the root zone distributed so that each country can control it's own DNS. Or at least remove the american government's veto over the root zone (which is something that they promised to do ten years ago but the current president has declared will not happend as he has used this veto). That would make the rest of the (free) world more than satisfied. But it looks like that won't happend for the forseeable future.
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 18, 2005 14:28 UTC (Fri) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] No I havn't been missing the discussion. Just following it from a non-US perspective. If ICANN were to use their theoretical ability to change the DNS records that, for example, delegate the .uk TLD to Nominet without the consent and demand of the UK Internet community for such a change, this would lead very quickly to the setting up of alternate and more reputable root servers than those which ICANN have demonstrated themselves capable of managing. The rest of the world including the US would simply move on, and leave ICANN behind.
We have a similar constitutional understanding in relation to our (the UK's) head of state's ability to veto legislation and to appoint and disolve governments. If she tried to do this outside of the consent of the electorate, the UK Republic would be established within days and not weeks. ICANNs authority over the delegation of two letter TLDs is similarly of vestigial and ceremonial significance only - unless you are talking about occasional changes in delegation of 2 letter TLDs for islands on the Pacific whose only Internet presence is a small Internet cafe, or countries like Iraq where the US decides to bomb the entire Internet infrastructure into oblivion and invade anyway.
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 19, 2005 10:54 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] Rather than just echo what the other reply to this says, I'd add that many Americans wrongly believe that they have _operational_ control over the root servers. That hasn't been true for years, more than a decade by now. Operational control over the thirteen named servers A-M is spread over diverse organisations as you can see on http://www.root-servers.org/
The reason for /those/ organisations rather than any others is mostly historical accident. I'd be happy to see some of them replaced, but only so long as the replacements were experienced, technically competent and able to make a long-term commitment to provide service.
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 19, 2005 12:39 UTC (Sat) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Interesting. A presentation at this site indicates to me that replacement of the root zone publisher, if the current publisher were not to guard its reputation extremely carefully, could be accomplished in a matter of days rather than weeks. I'd not appreciated the extent of current organisational seperation of publisher and printer of the root zone - this seems to confirm my case about the ability of the world to leave ICANN behind if it puts a foot wrong.
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 17, 2005 13:41 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] Honestly, I think America's influence is somewhat overstated. There are always a few countries (UK, Australia) who are willing to roll over a do whatever America says. But many others do occasionally stand. Countries that simply ignore drug patents because of overriding national concerns. America can scream and yell and carry on, but they fact is that unless they're willing to come over and invade the country it's all just talk.
Threatening trade sanctions is similar. They can refuse to trade with North Korea because there's nothing there. But to refuse to trade with China or the EU would hurt themselves. Similarly China can't refuse to trade with the US because they need somewhere to dump the stuffed toys. And this is a *good* thing, because it stops people acting stupid.
Getting back on topic, certain issues raised like the E911 thing are perculiarly American issues. In Australia the emergency service is a government funded service and so it doesn't cost anybody anything directly, so the complaints simply don't apply. As people are so fond of saying, "the net" doesn't exist, it's just a bunch of people who happen to connect to eachother. If the US government wants to start regulating everything all it will do is make it more expensive for Americans. The rest of the world wouldn't blink.
Anyway, this guy says it better: http://www.techliberation.com/archives/027010.php
Saving the Net (Linux Journal) Posted Nov 18, 2005 9:04 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] There is a big scale between refusing to trade with and free tradeagreements, and a constant diplomatic game plays out there. In the digital domain we've lost out completely over in Europe and are almost as un-free as you are in the US. Over the years we've been forced in on everything from crypto export controls to the DMCA (EUCD in Europe). The only thing left of our digital freedoms are the non-enforcability of software patents.
|
|||||||||||