It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Role Urged for ICANN

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

New Role Urged for ICANN


www.pcworld.com

The RIRs have followed the European Union's demand, proposed by European Commissioner Viviane Reding last month, for the ending of the collaboration agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The RIRs, responsible for IP address allocation within geographic regions, have put out a joint statement saying that it was time for the U.S. government to pull out of control of the Internet: he Internet Domain Name System (DNS) is currently managed by ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce under an agreement set to expire on 30 September.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Today, the US governments controls the Internet basically (DNS and site registration). I am not a tech expert, but I don't think it is a good idea. The entire cannot be political and used as a diplomatic tool (we wont cut our friends from the Internet kinda stuff).
I predict that if the US doesnt give up control of domain property on sept, other countries may choose to run their own protocl and split the internet.
Really it should be run by the UN in a place like Switzerland.

www.pcworld.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


I think it would be a tragedy for the net to be run from any central place. The power of the net is that it is split into small units and therefore is so hard to control or censor.

The US govt should definitely get out of it - no-one would dispute that - but I would rather see it totally unregulated or controlled - split into small compartments that all act independently - much like it does now.

Oh - and I should point out that Switzerland is the center of the NWO headquarters, thats where they have their monstrosity bank the BIS.

Switzerland is never attacked, and remains neutral simply because all the cash to run every side of every war always comes from the scum banks there.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


We are so far down the road from Jon Postel

Would he even recognize this internet anymore?



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
It occurs to me that the US took advantage of the opportunity to claim stake to such control early on; but probably never had a long-term plan beyond commerce.

It seems appropriate that the discussion should now expand in scope since the internet is the only real "global" thing in our collective social construct. (Theoretically, the economy should be another, but frankly, that was usurped be the financial cartel long ago.)

Of course, the framework for the globalists to seize the Internet as an adjunct to their control platform stands ready to assume the position...,

I strongly encourage those interested to seek updates at www.icannwatch.org...

Good catch! Starr and flag for you!



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
may choose to run their own protocl and split the internet.
Really it should be run by the UN in a place like Switzerland.


I am a little confused here. This has nothing to do with the protocol per se. Basically is who gets to decide what the new extensions are, what ones stay, and who can use them. Example, a number of years ago, say 12, they wanted to put in a .xxx extension. It was a great concept, and basically all the websites and stuff would be asked to go there, and not allowed to register .com's for adult content. At in your house, all you had to do was exclude say .xxx traffic from your home.

There was tons of these names, that tried to section off the name resolution. However in that mix, the state got involved with ICANN and blocked the new network.

ICANN simply takes a name and resolves it to a set of name servers. And those names work around the world. And for a long time it was hard to get anyone who spoke proper English there, most of the staff is foreign from what I can tell, but from where I have no idea. Say 1993 to 1998 was hell to get service.

In the end what role do they play. Well people can side step that network at any time right? Lets say that ATS supporters decided to end run ICANN. They could ask all of the administrators to add their private name serverrs to the mix. Then ATS adds the IP addresses of all the names for which routing is not done because say the state department took the routing offline. And then those zone files are added and move along side ICANN's files. And keep in mind ICANN only does the biggies, .com, .org., .net, ,gov. They do not control individual country extensions.

So for a long while when we went to put in .xxx, we ran out own routing hoping that ICANN would give in, but could not get enough support. However it can be done at anytime.

Personally, I do not see an issue with it. I fail to see why the USA think that .com should be their domain to adminster and that say a chinese company who wants a .COM extension meet their needs, residence requirements, etc.

And as for splitting the net, personally, split away, it makes it stronger. IPV6 is heading this way? Do you know what that is. Did you know that based on IPV6 that your post most likely would have your personal identifier on every packet to make this post. and chances are in say 10 years you will not even get Internet unless you log in first with your IPV6 numbers, and it will follow you, be it at a terminal, or a coffee shop, every packet can be led back to you personally. That is one of the things IPV6 is designed for.

So, I appreciate your concern, but honestly, this might be a good thing, and has many technical subtleties, that need to be considered along with rejection of this issue being proposed.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Oh final note. personally I would attrition off the whole ICANN network. So say, .com would be company.com.ca for canada, and .com.us for the use. ICANN networds are in effect elitness and have no corresponance to the placement of those who are backing the creation of the website.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Unfortunately what you don't realize is that the net has to be run by one place. The net is not a government that can be divided. It has to be one or you have 2 or more separate internets (no pun)

In order to keep the internet functioning it has to be run from a central organizer.

It is a computer. Without a central part, it doesn't work.

Make it so that every nation has it's own internet and what you get is basically an internet for every nation, further dividing the planet.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


ah, no. the internet is not run from one place.


The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standardized Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP). It is a network of networks that consists of millions of private and public, academic, business, and government networks of local to global scope that are linked by copper wires, fiber-optic cables, wireless connections, and other technologies.


wikipedia

read the article. the internet is a very weird concept. web sites reside all over the place in servers. email travels over all sorts of things broken up into packets and then reassembled at the arrival point. the world wide web uses certain protocol to direct users to where they want to end up. like standardized signs.

agree with whoever said the more broken up the better. the more different protocols the better. any user can use any protocol but it will be harder for anyone to suppress it if it travels many highways



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I'm talking about domains. What happens when these differences begin cutting off parts of the nation?

Like any evolving species, once you split it up, it will begin to form new species unrelated from the old one.

By having a centralized domain and service related items, you have a centralized bounding agent, preventing split.

What happens when a nation creates it's own internet within with it's own protocols and everything and decides the old internet isn't good enough or that they need to keep it in their own lands in order to maintain security.

Are you willing to risk splitting up the internet into individual parts for each nation, divided by differences and used to maintain internal knowledge and prevent the global spread of thought, essentially stopping what the internet was made for?

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle


Today, the US governments controls the Internet basically (DNS and site registration). I am not a tech expert, but I don't think it is a good idea. The entire cannot be political and used as a diplomatic tool (we wont cut our friends from the Internet kinda stuff).
I predict that if the US doesnt give up control of domain property on sept, other countries may choose to run their own protocl and split the internet.
Really it should be run by the UN in a place like Switzerland.

www.pcworld.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Ahem.. um ... what? The Internet should be controlled by the UN?

Wow.. that seems drastic..



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The U.S. invented the Internet with the help of Al Gore, let them make their own internet.
The U.S. can screw something up as good or better that next guy any how.
Leave it alone, if it's not broke don't fix it.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join