[GreenKeys] Internet Security - Off topic -

[Mark Richards]

Yes, off topic, but I suspect you were looking for a response.
 
Having one nation, however great we think of her intentions, in ultimate
control of a worldwide, public resource, is neither democratic, nor does it
put to test our (ever-weakening) principles.  Imagine our response should,
say, Syria be in control of DNS.  The mirror reflects both ways.  If
democracy, free enterprise, and mutual cooperation is so great, why don't we
do it?
 
The "they" you speak of are by and large the other developed nations of the
planet (we share space with others, still) who have as much right to
participate as do they an obligation to do so properly.  The European Union
is a principal among the "they" and, since they are a strong economic,
military and political competitor, were therefore viewed as "the enemy", or
"they".
 
All of the "they" have a technical and legislative stake in the ICANN
discussions.  The EU in particular have led well in matters of international
law and diplomacy, and deserved as much of a say as us.  They have also made
clear the importance of keeping the public internet a truly public resource
as it so very much depends on worldwide standards and cooperation.  
 
Sadly, when it comes to "them" and "us", us comes first, trumping the
possibility of a "we".
 
Removing the DNS authority from ICANN and placing it within the auspices of
a worldwide body that would continue to regulate, administer, and protect
DNS is ultimately the responsible thing to do.  It's democratic because the
us would be as much of a voting member as anyone else.

The biggest rift, as I read it, was the proposal to create an .xxx domain.
 
Yes, the US was apparently unwilling to admit that xxx exists, suggesting
that the ever-conservative voices were pulling diplomatic levers, yet
blindly and without much wisdom.  Unknowingly, they just deep-sixed a clear
advantage.  Imagine if we had an .xxx domain, and therefore how easy it
would be for a clean-living governments like ours to filter it out, or
restrict access to adults via an ISP certification program or other method.
After all, the purpose of good government is to protect us from ourselves,
right?
 
By holding an arrogant position, the us just shot that good idea in the
foot.
 
I don't agree with the US keeping control of ICANN and anticipate that this
could mean the start of an alternate naming system within the public
namespace (if it's technically possible) or other isolating measures which
will then be completely out of US control.
 
Perhaps the "public" internet will be confined to the US borders.  Is that
what we want?
 
Mark Richards
K1MGY