By Andy Sullivan
> The United States is headed for a showdown with much of the rest of
> the world over control of the Internet. President Bush says he doesn't > care.
> Countries like China, Brazil and Iran don't like the fact that the
> world's only superpower oversees the system that guides traffic across
> the global computer network, and have pushed for an international body
> to take over that role.
The actual specifications for directing internet connections are somewhat simple and therefore US claiming control over it is ridiculous. Just like telephone connections are not controlled any more by one entity, we sure can decentralize internet control. In the meanwhile the open-source community can try to comeup with some kind of protocols which will give the user the ability to choose internet control the way they want it. If many people start using these new ways what can USA do ? We have already seen the power of p2p protocols!!! It is the content that is important in the internet. How to get to that content is not that difficult and should not fall under the power of any greedy entity.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I quite agree that method would be best. We do not see one giant telco running telecom. We see many telcos doing their thing; what prevents any of them from disconnecting all the others (of which they disapprove)? The simple fact that the users would not permit it. People have grown accustomed to calling all over the world and won't have it any other way. So whether they like to or not, the telcos all cooperate with each other. Why don't we hear the same wimpering about telco that we now hear all the time about internet, i.e. 'we must have one governor lest another governor is likely to squelch speech and thoughts.' Well, the hell you say! That nonsense comes from the same people who are likely in the next minute to tell us how they would 'route around' whatever ills behooved them. If every country in the world had its own 'internet governor' then the governors would damn well cooperate with one another or be put out of office (however each country decided to do that.) I wouldn't even really object to ICANN as the 'default' governor in the USA as long as we all were free to move to other domains outside its reach if we wished to do so. What I do object to is the loose and freewheeling way ICANN runs things except when one of their larger constituents bosses _them_ around. Remember, Vint Cerf back in 1994 did make a perfectly glowing speech about the 'new internet' which was on the way, so we know where he stands on the nuisances. PAT]