An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.

Tue Aug 30 20:19:29 MST 2016

What you described is why giving the Internet away is a bad idea.  Right 
now the Internet is stable.  If you have countries and businesses 
fighting over things, my fear is you and I will suffer.

In it purist form we are all stake holders and each one of us benefit 
from what we know as the Internet.  If we start having wars over 
control, that could mean a melt down in the short term and in a perfect 
world the creation of another Internet for the U.S.A. so our economy can 
live.

Have you given any thought of what it was like before the P.C, Internet, 
and cellular?  I'll bet there are people on this list that know no other 
world than what we have today.

I was in my mid twenties when I first saw a P.C. It was an IBM with an 
8088 or 8086 CPU, about 256k RAM, one or two 160K floppies, and a 14 
inch monochrome monitor, and it cost about $3000.  To put that in 
perspective I made $13000 in 1981.

We had pay phones.  A call cost a nickel, then a dime, and finally a 
quarter.  When these coins were actually worth something.

It would take 3 or 4 people to pick your order and complete an invoice 
in a warehouse.

That was 35 years ago.

If we lose the Internet we will have to regress 35 years while having 
some really powerful technology that is worth much less than it is 
connected to the Internet.

Why would anyone want to mess with something so valuable and something 
our economy depends on?  We cannot unravel 20 - 35 years of changes in 
the blink of an eye.

Maybe you do not believe our economy is so fragile, however it is.  
Especially today.

On 2016-08-30 13:31, James Dugger wrote:
> I don't agree that names are not important.  They aren't relative to
> computers but our human society and economics literally runs on name
> recognition in one way or another.  Working for the largest registrant
> in the world  I can tell you that name recognition is everything in
> the internet.  I recently heard 2 domain name experts estimate that
> the name LA.COM [2] is worth between 10 and 15 million dollars.  The
> top 10% of the corporate world have spent 100's of billions over the
> past 25 years to secure their trademarked names in the domain space.
> Those companies alone have more money and more control in most of the
> economic world than many of the countries that would want to sensor.
> And many of them operate inside of these countries.  Piss off Walmart
> too much in China and China can loses hundreds of millions in tax
> revenue.
> 
> Also ICANN is only one element of the internet. You cannot discount
> infrastructure owners those like AT&T and Comcast that actually own
> most of the fiber, and Verizon, AT&T and Sprint etc that have the
> rights to most of the radio frequency bandwidth.  These players are
> not going to just lay down and accept less money because someone else
> can mucker with naming authority.
> 
> What about registrants and DNS resolution companies such as Go Daddy
> and VeriSign and the rest. They aren't going to lay down and let
> someone pull more money out of there purse strings trying to regulate
> and make them irrelevant.
> 
> For the reasons above I believe that whoever ends up with control of
> ICANN will have several very large gorillas to deal with.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Eric Oyen <eric.oyen at icloud.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> well, so long as you have IP addresses, names are not that
>> important. That is the key right there. since ICANN deals mostly
>> with assigned names, it should be easy to work around.
>> 
>> now, this may be a tauter simplistic view of the problem and
>> solution, but then, it's the simplest solutions that often work
>> best.
>> 
>> Mind you, I am not an expert on the net generally or its
>> infrastructure in particular (no one is). My specialty involves
>> security and that is where I am good at things. everything else
>> would require additional study for me (and at my age, there just
>> wouldn't be enough time to learn it all and still keep up with all
>> the changing tech).
>> 
>> So, your question, as stated, seems like a paradox. In some ways,
>> it is, but in others, there is simply no issue.
>> 
>> -eric
>> 
>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Keith Smith wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> How can we circumvent the current system and use the current
>> infrastructure?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2016-08-29 10:00, Eric Oyen wrote:
>>>> ok, I see some issues here.
>>>> first off, I am a conservative. I don't hide it but, then, I
>> don't
>>>> trumpet it either. As far as I am concerned, politics should
>> have very
>>>> little to do with technology or how it gets implemented.
>>>> Unfortunately, politics has injected itself into our very lives
>> in the
>>>> form of regulations, some of which govern how we can use the
>> net. To
>>>> my mind, that is a very bad thing. if you really want to see
>> examples
>>>> of how bad it can get, take a look at china, russia, the entire
>> middle
>>>> east, and some places in South America.
>>>> now that I have dispensed with the politics, I want to get down
>> to how
>>>> we work around onerous control of the net. Someone else
>> suggested a
>>>> mesh network. That's all fine and good until you want to
>> communicate
>>>> outside of the local area. So, how do we expand this idea? This
>> is
>>>> where innovation in technology comes into play. It's purely
>> technical
>>>> and solves a problem (and no politics involved).
>>>> so, there it is, how do we work around this problem and not get
>>>> political doing it?
>>>> -eric
>>>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Nathan England wrote:
>>>>> Amazing how clear every thing becomes when you take a deep
>> breath!... and
>>>>> burry your head in the sand.
>>>>> On Monday, August 29, 2016 1:43:22 AM MST stevensspam at cox.net
>> wrote:
>>>>>> My suggestion?
>>>>>> Taking a deep breath, pouring the Koolaid down the drain
>> instead of drinking
>>>>>> it, and repeating to yourself, "I should really stop jumping
>> on every
>>>>>> conspiracy bandwagon I see."
>>>>>> Seriously, I have little doubt that if we had a republican
>> president and a
>>>>>> democratic majority in congress was attempting to block this
>> very same
>>>>>> change you would see articles criticizing the block and
>> talking about how
>>>>>> government can't do anything right. What's going on now is
>> that instead of
>>>>>> a single company holding a government granted monopoly to run
>> the DNS and
>>>>>> numbering system there would be a group of companies and
>> organizations
>>>>>> doing the same thing -- with a US threat to seize control of
>> it again if
>>>>>> they misbehave.
>>>>>> And as for fears this will lead to balkanization brought up in
>> another post
>>>>>> -- there have been threats to balkanize the Internet if
>> control of the DNS
>>>>>> system remained a monopoly held by a single US company or
>> government
>>>>>> agency. This is probably a damned it you do, damned if you
>> don't decision.
>>>>>> In the long run it's probably inevitable that no matter which
>> way this
>>>>>> decision goes there will be more fracturing. We're probably
>> very lucky to
>>>>>> have gone this far with as little fracturing as there has
>> been. I can even
>>>>>> see Moral Majority types on the right demanding tighter
>> controls over the
>>>>>> Internet in the US to crack down on "adult" content which
>> would pretty much
>>>>>> require making a US Internet with closely watched gateways to
>> the outside
>>>>>> (censorship and political correctness are not something unique
>> or
>>>>>> restricted to the right or left, there's just different names
>> attached).
>>>>>> Having thing not being run by one single company operating
>> under a
>>>>>> government granted monopoly might make it just a slight bit
>> harder for that
>>>>>> to happen.
>>>>>> But really, I suppose we should panic. It's not as if the
>> conspiracy
>>>>>> theorists have ever been wrong. After all Texas has been under
>> Martial Law
>>>>>> ever since Jade Helm, every Hurricane for decades has resulted
>> in thousands
>>>>>> disappearing into FEMA death camps, there's all folks who lost
>> homes to
>>>>>> imminent domain to built the Mexi-Canadian superhighway that's
>> exempt from
>>>>>> US jurisdiction, and after a decade I still haven't gotten
>> used to these
>>>>>> new Ameros that replaced the dollar...
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss [1]
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss [1]
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Keith Smith
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss [1]
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss [1]
> 
> --
> 
> James
> 
> LINKEDIN [3]
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> [2] http://LA.COM
> [3] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-h-dugger/15/64b/74a/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

-- 
Keith Smith