Comments on: Thank Goodness http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/09/thank_goodness.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:42:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: litz http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/09/thank_goodness.html/comment-page-1#comment-1861 litz Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:13:59 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/09/thank_goodness.html#comment-1861 <p>If the internet does come under U.N. control, I think we must refuse to use it. Seriously. I know we're all extremely used to routine internet use, but I will disconnect. I will not pay "global" taxes via my internet connection or contribute in any way to the confiscation of a technology that was invented, funded, and maintained by Americans who generously allow the world access to this tool.</p> <p>It is not a natural resource that has to be shared, it is literally computers sitting on U.S. soil and our government does not have the constitutional right to relinquish U.S. sovereignty to foreign powers in any way.</p> If the internet does come under U.N. control, I think we must refuse to use it. Seriously. I know we’re all extremely used to routine internet use, but I will disconnect. I will not pay “global” taxes via my internet connection or contribute in any way to the confiscation of a technology that was invented, funded, and maintained by Americans who generously allow the world access to this tool.

It is not a natural resource that has to be shared, it is literally computers sitting on U.S. soil and our government does not have the constitutional right to relinquish U.S. sovereignty to foreign powers in any way.

]]> By: Inactivist http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/09/thank_goodness.html/comment-page-1#comment-1860 Inactivist Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:17:00 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/09/thank_goodness.html#comment-1860 <p>Actually, if we ever do hand over control of the internet to the UN, that will tell you that we are going to roll out a 'new' internet - we have a history of 'selling' unwanted and unprofitable junk to governments (AmTrak, for instance). The internet infrastructure is no different... they'll let go of it as soon as it's no longer worth anything and a replacement is ready. :D</p> Actually, if we ever do hand over control of the internet to the UN, that will tell you that we are going to roll out a ‘new’ internet – we have a history of ‘selling’ unwanted and unprofitable junk to governments (AmTrak, for instance). The internet infrastructure is no different… they’ll let go of it as soon as it’s no longer worth anything and a replacement is ready. :D

]]> By: Highway http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/09/thank_goodness.html/comment-page-1#comment-1859 Highway Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:04:49 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/09/thank_goodness.html#comment-1859 <p>Actually, I think it would be easier to get the users to 'switch' than you think, Doug, since most people get the address for their name server from the DHCP server of their ISP. So getting an ISP to switch would be the big thing, then they'd just send the new address for the different name server to all their customers who haven't set up different nameservers. Things like this have already happened, such as the brouhaha Comcast got into shortly after they switched from @Home to their own providing. They directed many subscribers through proxy caches, with the ability to change ads, block certain content, etc. This idea was stopped by outcry from their customer base, although I wouldn't be surprised if they or someone else tried to implement it again.</p> Actually, I think it would be easier to get the users to ‘switch’ than you think, Doug, since most people get the address for their name server from the DHCP server of their ISP. So getting an ISP to switch would be the big thing, then they’d just send the new address for the different name server to all their customers who haven’t set up different nameservers. Things like this have already happened, such as the brouhaha Comcast got into shortly after they switched from @Home to their own providing. They directed many subscribers through proxy caches, with the ability to change ads, block certain content, etc. This idea was stopped by outcry from their customer base, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they or someone else tried to implement it again.

]]> By: Doug http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/09/thank_goodness.html/comment-page-1#comment-1858 Doug Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:05:13 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/09/thank_goodness.html#comment-1858 <p>The "main computers that direct traffic on the Internet" are just the root nameservers, and there's really nothing other than convention and tradition that gives those nameservers monopoly power to control domain names. Nameservers are what take something like "www.coyoteblog.com" and turn it into an IP address in order to connect to the web site. It would be trivially easy, from a technology point of view, to set up a parallel set of root nameservers. End users have the capability now to decide which nameservers they use (few know how since they have no reason to, but it's not hard to do), so it would just be a matter of getting users to decide to switch. If EU wanted, they could set up their own root nameservers and ask/tell the European ISPs to use theirs instead of ICANN's.</p> The “main computers that direct traffic on the Internet” are just the root nameservers, and there’s really nothing other than convention and tradition that gives those nameservers monopoly power to control domain names. Nameservers are what take something like “www.coyoteblog.com” and turn it into an IP address in order to connect to the web site. It would be trivially easy, from a technology point of view, to set up a parallel set of root nameservers. End users have the capability now to decide which nameservers they use (few know how since they have no reason to, but it’s not hard to do), so it would just be a matter of getting users to decide to switch. If EU wanted, they could set up their own root nameservers and ask/tell the European ISPs to use theirs instead of ICANN’s.

]]> By: Duane Gran http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/09/thank_goodness.html/comment-page-1#comment-1857 Duane Gran Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:33:40 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2005/09/thank_goodness.html#comment-1857 <p>One of the problems with ICANN and the internet domain registry is the creation of false scarcity. There is, for example, no reason why you shouldn't be able to register a domain name of coyoteblog.whatever. The common suffixes of com, org, net and all the country codes are a useful naming convention, but there is no technical motivation for limiting the namespace. </p> One of the problems with ICANN and the internet domain registry is the creation of false scarcity. There is, for example, no reason why you shouldn’t be able to register a domain name of coyoteblog.whatever. The common suffixes of com, org, net and all the country codes are a useful naming convention, but there is no technical motivation for limiting the namespace.

]]>