Who should run the internet? Options

[*kryogenix*]

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...1589967,00.html

For some time now, the EU has expressed it's discontent with ICANN running the internet. They are claiming that the internet could split apart if the status quo remains.

Who should control the internet. Personally, I think we have every right to control DNS. If they want to run the internet, they can ask Al Gore to invent an internet for them.

And if the internet does split, then there really will be multiple internets that you can hear rumors on.

(Yes mipadi, I know the Al Gore thing was a misquote, but it's still a funny joke)

[sadolakced acid]

the consequences of this are actually greater than they seem.

if the internet splits, for instance, we couldn't have the world wide web.

so no more www.


but seriously. the internet is already divided. visited any arabic sites recently?

however, people from the whole world often visit US websites, which is quite good.

there isn't really a global village. there are many lingual villages and most everyone visits the english village. and that's where ideas and thoughts are exchanged.

so yea. internet dividing, expecially isolation of the american web, is a very bad thing indeed.

[*mipadi*]

It's highly unlikely the Internet would become divided, even over the issue of control. Another similar network would take a lot of time and money to develop, and why do that when one can use an existing infrastructure--even if one does not have complete control over it? The issue of the US "controlling" the Internet is also not a huge issue for most users--it simply means that the US controls the primary servers maintaining traffic. So far, that hasn't been a problem, and probably, most claims that it could be are greatly overhyped. "Control", in this case, doesn't mean controlling the Internet in all respects--users are still free to post content and do what they want. So the US hardly has that much control anyway. The issue is primarily political--other governments don't want to rely on a system out of their control. But the average user isn't terribly concerned, and for that reason, as well as the cost and time to make another Internet, mean that it's unlikely to split, even if the US does not cede control.

Should the US cede control? From a practical perspective, why should it? The US funded the development of the system. Other countries jumped on board, but had little to do with the development of the Internet. (Although, notably, it was European researchers who developed the World Wide Web.) Furthermore, the system is designed as a communication medium for the US in the event of nuclear attack. The US might be kind enough to allow other uses, but that was originally its intended purpose.

From a perspective of benefit to humanity, though, there are surely some good reasons to hand it over to a world governing body. The Internet has real applications towards the benefit of all humanity, and traditionally, science is open about sharing such benefits with society. The Internet is a model of openness and equal communication, of sharing and freely distributing ideas, and there are definitely some good reasons why it should not be under the control of a single government.