China charges U.S. monopolizes the Internet...

[Darth Wong]

OK, so if Europeans also agree that ICANN is much too US-centric and unaccountable, will you concoct an ad-hominem fallacy for them too? In case you're too fucking stupid to figure this out after more than two years on this board, you can't discount an argument by saying "look at the source". You have to explain why it's a bad idea.

If they made the complaint, then sure, it would be worth looking into.

You honestly had no idea that smaller and particularly foreign domain registrars have been bitching about ICANN for years? Seriously, I thought this was common knowledge among people who knew anything about the Internet (and if you don't know anything about how the Internet works, why are you participating in this thread?)

The problem i have is that if all of a sudden these decisions currently made by ICANN had to be rubberstamped by a majority of the nations in the world we run the risk of seriously jeopardizing the free spread of information on the net.

No one talked about having to rubberstamp every decision. But the current situation is a private unregulated monopoly, which makes no sense at all.

Is American dominated control the ideal way of handling this? No. But, you have to agree it is better than the alternative.

Better than one particular alternative that you have caricatured, perhaps.

[Ma Deuce]

Were do you get the idea it was the US who invented Internet?

Have you ever heard of ARPAnet? This was a US military network that came online in 1969 and was deactivated in 1990, the idea behind it was to provide a distributed, non-heirarchal network that would allow military communications to be maintained in the event of a nuclear war.

While ARPAet was a military network and very different from today's internet, as it evolved it did pioneer many of the features of the modern WWW, including decentralized, "polygonal" networking distributed by routers, packetized data transmission, and of course the TCP/IP protocol that allows different types of computers and operating systems to interface with each other over the network.

CERN did not invent the Internet. What they actually invented was the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), which made networks easier to access and use, allowing the birth of the World Wide Web in 1991 and the public network we know today. But had ARPAnet not already been in existance, there would have been nothing for CERN to invent...

[Darth Wong]

Were do you get the idea it was the US who invented Internet?

Have you ever heard of ARPAnet? This was a US military network that came online in 1969 and was deactivated in 1990, the idea behind it was to provide a distributed, non-heirarchal network that would allow military communications to be maintained in the event of a nuclear war.

While ARPAet was a military network and very different from today's internet, as it evolved it did pioneer many of the features of the modern WWW, including decentralized, "polygonal" networking distributed by routers, packetized data transmission, and of course the TCP/IP protocol that allows different types of computers and operating systems to interface with each other over the network.

CERN did not invent the Internet. What they actually invented was the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), which made networks easier to access and use, allowing the birth of the World Wide Web in 1991 and the public network we know today. But had ARPAnet not already been in existance, there would have been nothing for CERN to invent...

So? This hardly makes the US the owner of the Internet. This is like saying that because the Romans built the first roads in Europe, Italy still owns the entire worldwide highway system and all the cars on it.

[Ma Deuce]

So? This hardly makes the US the owner of the Internet.

I'm not saying anything of the sort: I'm simply refuting the commonly held misconception that the Internet was invented at CERN...

[Darth Wong]

So? This hardly makes the US the owner of the Internet.

I'm not saying anything of the sort: I'm simply refuting the commonly held misconception that the Internet was invented at CERN...

No one promoted that misconception. However, CERN is the inventor of what most people think of as the Internet, ie- the World Wide Web. The fact that it happens to use the TCP/IP networking system hardly diminishes this accomplishment, any more than the use of copper telephone lines made the original infrastructure the invention of Alexander Graham Bell.

[Chmee]

Bah, Al Gore will never let it happen .......

But seriously ... the U.S. came to dominate the Internet because consumers and businesses chose to use the protocols pioneered here. I know this concept of free choice is a little new to the Chinese government, something they're not too comfortable with ....

Too damned bad. Learn to embrace it or invent your own frickin' distributed network. Centralized international authority over the 'Net is a recipe for disaster. The Internet only became popular because it WAS the Wild Wild West in its infancy. It'll never again be what it was 15 years ago, but it sure as hell will never be what China wants it to be as long as the generation of people who visit forums like this one are alive.

[Darth Wong]

Bah, Al Gore will never let it happen .......

But seriously ... the U.S. came to dominate the Internet because consumers and businesses chose to use the protocols pioneered here. I know this concept of free choice is a little new to the Chinese government, something they're not too comfortable with ....

Too damned bad. Learn to embrace it or invent your own frickin' distributed network. Centralized international authority over the 'Net is a recipe for disaster. The Internet only became popular because it WAS the Wild Wild West in its infancy. It'll never again be what it was 15 years ago, but it sure as hell will never be what China wants it to be as long as the generation of people who visit forums like this one are alive.

Did you even bother reading most of the thread? The Internet without CERN's WWW would be nothing more than the messaging system that it was originally designed to be.

[Gustav32Vasa]

Would it be fair to say that the US deserves more control because a greater portion of their population makes use of it? source

Really?

[Chmee]

Bah, Al Gore will never let it happen .......

But seriously ... the U.S. came to dominate the Internet because consumers and businesses chose to use the protocols pioneered here. I know this concept of free choice is a little new to the Chinese government, something they're not too comfortable with ....

Too damned bad. Learn to embrace it or invent your own frickin' distributed network. Centralized international authority over the 'Net is a recipe for disaster. The Internet only became popular because it WAS the Wild Wild West in its infancy. It'll never again be what it was 15 years ago, but it sure as hell will never be what China wants it to be as long as the generation of people who visit forums like this one are alive.

Did you even bother reading most of the thread? The Internet without CERN's WWW would be nothing more than the messaging system that it was originally designed to be.

Oi, did I say every single element necessary for the 'Net's growth was devised entirely in the U.S.? I also don't think we invented electricity, without which the Net would probably function somewhat poorly.

But the plain fact is that it DIDN'T boom in China or Russia or Zimbabwe first, and it never would have because they don't have either the infrasturcture or attitude to develop and encourage a system that basically revolves around the free and open flow of information.

Now they want more control over something they would have prevented the existence of if they'd had a chance? Take a hike, China, when you say 'security' we know what you really mean: control of 'seditious' information.

[Slartibartfast]

Would it be fair to say that the US deserves more control because a greater portion of their population makes use of it?

So if 90% of the population of Monaco or San Marino used the internet, they should be given the monopoly instead?

[Darth Wong]

Oi, did I say every single element necessary for the 'Net's growth was devised entirely in the U.S.? I also don't think we invented electricity, without which the Net would probably function somewhat poorly.

But the plain fact is that it DIDN'T boom in China or Russia or Zimbabwe first, and it never would have because they don't have either the infrasturcture or attitude to develop and encourage a system that basically revolves around the free and open flow of information.

Now they want more control over something they would have prevented the existence of if they'd had a chance? Take a hike, China, when you say 'security' we know what you really mean: control of 'seditious' information.

So you completely ignored the part where I pointed out that China is not the first or only party to make these complaints about ICANN?

[Chmee]

Oi, did I say every single element necessary for the 'Net's growth was devised entirely in the U.S.? I also don't think we invented electricity, without which the Net would probably function somewhat poorly.

But the plain fact is that it DIDN'T boom in China or Russia or Zimbabwe first, and it never would have because they don't have either the infrasturcture or attitude to develop and encourage a system that basically revolves around the free and open flow of information.

Now they want more control over something they would have prevented the existence of if they'd had a chance? Take a hike, China, when you say 'security' we know what you really mean: control of 'seditious' information.

So you completely ignored the part where I pointed out that China is not the first or only party to make these complaints about ICANN?

Yep ... the OP wasn't focusing on Belgium.

Actually I agree the ICANN hasn't been run well, everybody in IT knows that ... but handing more control to authoritarian regimes sure as hell ain't the road to fixing it.

[Darth Wong]

So you completely ignored the part where I pointed out that China is not the first or only party to make these complaints about ICANN?

Yep ... the OP wasn't focusing on Belgium.

It doesn't matter; the point is that you can't dismiss an argument based on an ad-hominem fallacy. You can blast China if you like, but you still need to explain WHY the argument is wrong, not just dismiss it because China is the most recent party to say it.

Actually I agree the ICANN hasn't been run well, everybody in IT knows that ... but handing more control to authoritarian regimes sure as hell ain't the road to fixing it.

Since when did anyone talk about "handing control to authoritarian regimes"?

[Chmee]

So you completely ignored the part where I pointed out that China is not the first or only party to make these complaints about ICANN?

Yep ... the OP wasn't focusing on Belgium.

It doesn't matter; the point is that you can't dismiss an argument based on an ad-hominem fallacy. You can blast China if you like, but you still need to explain WHY the argument is wrong, not just dismiss it because China is the most recent party to say it.

Actually I agree the ICANN hasn't been run well, everybody in IT knows that ... but handing more control to authoritarian regimes sure as hell ain't the road to fixing it.

Since when did anyone talk about "handing control to authoritarian regimes"?

Deleting the word 'more' in that last sentence was not an insignificant edit, since it changed the meaning of my post completely.

[Darth Wong]

Deleting the word 'more' in that last sentence was not an insignificant edit, since it changed the meaning of my post completely.

OK, fine. Be as anal as you like, use the precise word-for-word quote, and find me the post where it was advocated.

[Chmee]

Deleting the word 'more' in that last sentence was not an insignificant edit, since it changed the meaning of my post completely.

OK, fine. Be as anal as you like, use the precise word-for-word quote, and find me the post where it was advocated.

Um, the OP? You think when China says 'equitable distribution' they mean anything besides 'more power for us'? Since when did the PRC want equitable anything?

[SirNitram]

Let's see... Appeals To Tradition, Strawmen, and generalized whining. Wow. You'd think there would be a more sensible reaction to a thread.

ICANN is guilty of being full of nationalistic asshats, as anyone whose followed the complaints levelled against them can see. But this apparently matters little to folks here, because any action to rectify this is automagically 'Handing more control to authoritarians'.

[Darth Wong]

OK, fine. Be as anal as you like, use the precise word-for-word quote, and find me the post where it was advocated.

Um, the OP? You think when China says 'equitable distribution' they mean anything besides 'more power for us'? Since when did the PRC want equitable anything?

In other words, you can't justify your claim without falling back on your evil Chinamen argument. Never mind the fact that China is, as noted several times already, not the first party to call for this.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Deleting the word 'more' in that last sentence was not an insignificant edit, since it changed the meaning of my post completely.

OK, fine. Be as anal as you like, use the precise word-for-word quote, and find me the post where it was advocated.

Quote:
Wednesday, March 2, 2005

China's ambassador to the United Nations last week called for international controls on the Internet.

[Darth Wong]

China's ambassador to the United Nations last week called for international controls on the Internet.

Since when does "international" mean "authoritarian regimes"? Has George W. Bush been revising the Newspeak Dictionary again? Where do I get the latest edition?

[Chmee]

OK, fine. Be as anal as you like, use the precise word-for-word quote, and find me the post where it was advocated.

Um, the OP? You think when China says 'equitable distribution' they mean anything besides 'more power for us'? Since when did the PRC want equitable anything?

In other words, you can't justify your claim without falling back on your evil Chinamen argument. Never mind the fact that China is, as noted several times already, not the first party to call for this.

I'm sorry that answering your question directly and clearly was unsatisfactory to you. What 'claim' was I not justifying? Did I use the word evil? Is there more misleading half-quotes of what I said that you'd like to heap on for no apparent purpose? I confess I don't have the slightest idea what you are going on about, I'm focusing on the OP and the complete absurdity of China asking anybody to do ANYTHING to make information flow more 'fair', because it is patently absurd.

If you want to start a thread about how to more equitably and efficiently run the ICANN, be my guest, I haven't argued in any way, shape or form against such a proposal and I don't know why you're trying to pick a fight with me on it when all I'm pointing out how absurd it is for China to even discuss it.

[Darth Wong]

I'm sorry that answering your question directly and clearly was unsatisfactory to you. What 'claim' was I not justifying? Did I use the word evil? Is there more misleading half-quotes of what I said that you'd like to heap on for no apparent purpose? I confess I don't have the slightest idea what you are going on about, I'm focusing on the OP and the complete absurdity of China asking anybody to do ANYTHING to make information flow more 'fair', because it is patently absurd.

And you also made a GENERAL statement that the proposal ITSELF was a bad idea, also because it came from China. That is a textbook ad-hominem fallacy. You cannot explain why it is a bad idea without resorting to more attacks on China. So I ask again: without resorting to ad-hominems, why is it a bad idea?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

China's ambassador to the United Nations last week called for international controls on the Internet.

Since when does "international" mean "authoritarian regimes"? Has George W. Bush been revising the Newspeak Dictionary again? Where do I get the latest edition?

Let's see.

1. China IS the one making this particular complaint and they are part of the internation community; meaning they want control, or at least partial control, of the powers the ICANN currently has. Afterall, I don't hear them stating that only nations that guarantee free speech should be allowed to have a say in whatever replacement "internation agency" replaces ICANN.

2. The complaint is being filed in the U.N., meaning some sort of U.N. solultion is being sought after. The U.N. dosen't distinguish assignments based on government types as can be seen by the nations currently on is "Human Rights Comission". In other words, it is almost guaranteed that an "international" agency setup by the U.N. will have the representitives of authoritarian nations in it.

[Darth Wong]

1. China IS the one making this particular complaint and they are part of the internation community

Oh for fuck's sake, this is your rationale for "international" being the same as "authoritarian regimes"? The fact that authoritarian regimes are part of the international community? Gee, we'd better not do anything internationally, because that would be giving more control to authoritarian regimes!

meaning they want control, or at least partial control, of the powers the ICANN currently has. Afterall, I don't hear them stating that only nations that guarantee free speech should be allowed to have a say in whatever replacement "internation agency" replaces ICANN.

Given that ICANN does not have the power to regulate the content of the Internet at all and only controls the registration of domains, this is a facile but ultimately pointless argument.

2. The complaint is being filed in the U.N., meaning some sort of U.N. solultion is being sought after. The U.N. dosen't distinguish assignments based on government types as can be seen by the nations currently on is "Human Rights Comission". In other words, it is almost guaranteed that an "international" agency setup by the U.N. will have the representitives of authoritarian nations in it.

Do you refuse to give to UNICEF for the same reasons?

[Chmee]

I'm sorry that answering your question directly and clearly was unsatisfactory to you. What 'claim' was I not justifying? Did I use the word evil? Is there more misleading half-quotes of what I said that you'd like to heap on for no apparent purpose? I confess I don't have the slightest idea what you are going on about, I'm focusing on the OP and the complete absurdity of China asking anybody to do ANYTHING to make information flow more 'fair', because it is patently absurd.

And you also made a GENERAL statement that the proposal ITSELF was a bad idea, also because it came from China. That is a textbook ad-hominem fallacy. You cannot explain why it is a bad idea without resorting to more attacks on China. So I ask again: without resorting to ad-hominems, why is it a bad idea?

Blkbrry beat me to it ...

I'm not going to pretend the idea didn't come from China ... it DID in this case, which means we're not talking about an abstract proposal, we're talking about a specific request from a specific regime, and I'm not going to blithely ignore the political motivations of that regime for making such a request. They want an Internet that's easier to control, that provides a better information infrastructure for controlling their population .... I will take inefficiency and yes, even too much U.S. control, over *that* path any day of the week.

How many times should I repeat that I don't think ICANN reform, in the abstract, is a bad thing before that message gets across to you? Is it impossible for you to recognize, or would acknowledging that I actually already AGREED with you on this multiple times deny you a chance to throw this 'ad hominem' junior high debate team crap at me?