Journal fmaxwell's Journal: The U.S. Should Retain Control of the Internet IP/Name Space
Numerous people outside the U.S. are demanding that control of the IP address space and name space on the Internet be turned over to some international body. The arguments are just being recycled ad-nauseum at this point and none of them stands up to scrutiny. Let's examine the most common ones with analogies for clarity:
1. 'The way that the U.S. doles out IP addresses and top-level-domains is unfair.'
It may be unfair, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether the U.S. has the legal and moral right to control TLDs and IP addresses.
Analogy: The Red Cross might feel that it's unfair that you give more money to Greenpeace than to them, but that doesn't mean that there should be some committee deciding how much of your money will go to each charity and how much you will get to keep. If the U.S. wants to reserve 10 IP addresses for each man, woman, and child in the U.S., that's their call.
2. 'Much of the modern Internet technology was developed in other countries, including HTTP (the World Wide Web).'
That's nice, but it doesn't mean that the country where it was developed automatically gets to assume shared control of the name space and IP addresses.
Analogy: If you were invited to stay at someone's home, the fact that you voluntarily planted a garden, furnished the living room, and hung paintings does not mean that you get to form a committee and decide who gets which bedroom.
3. 'This is like Britain trying to control the world's steel industry because Britain invented steel.'
Except that the U.S. is not trying to control your computer industry. The U.S. is just dictating the terms by which a computer can be attached to a network that was invented by Americans at American taxpayer expense. The U.S. is deciding how to apportion IP addresses and namespace.
4. 'It's vital to the infrastructure and financial security of many countries.'
Then it sounds like those countries made a mistake in relying on a U.S.-run network for something that important.
Analogy: That's like me demanding that I be given managerial powers at my cable modem provider because the service has become so important to me.
5. 'The Internet has grown massively through the addition of non-U.S. computers, networks, web sites, services, etc. Much of the growth has been through foreign investment.'
On the other hand, the Internet has fueled the growth of countless non-U.S. businesses. Does that mean that the U.S. should get a say in how those businesses are run? No? Then why should the countries in which those businesses are located get a say in how the Internet's IP addresses and TLDs are doled out?
Analogy: International airlines have been taking off and landing at London's Heathrow airport for decades, funding much of its operation, growth, and expansion. Given that, should the English support a U.N. takeover of Heathrow airport? Should the U.N., rather than England, decide whether a block of gates was assigned to Air France or British Airways? In time of war, would the English rather be able to deny their enemies access to Heathrow airport, or would they rather that the U.N. decided if the enemy planes could land there?
6. 'Then the U.S. should pay us for the invention of {insert one or more: steel, steam engines, the world wide web, computers, light bulbs, etc.).'
Why? The U.S. isn't charging you for the use of Internet protocols, hardware standards, or concepts. In fact, through our generousity, organizations all over the world have set up standalone networks based on U.S.-developed Internet standards. We're not even charging you royalties for the use of the Internet.
In conclusion, if it's important to you to have a U.N.-controlled version of the Internet, you are free to set one up. You can even base it on the same standards as the Internet without paying the U.S. any royalties or fees of any kind. That is a generous offer and more than fair.