> False. False. False. The US has no responsibility, they own it.
They own it and share it, they get control and everyone else gets a service, the moment they abuse their control, everyone else will stop their dependence on it. that means they have a responsibility to keep this balance or lose control of it.
> Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled.
legacy systems are mainly an issues for hospitals, and if necessary, the governments (who pays for these hospitals anyway) would afford a switch. the US is more vulnerable for something like this since their hospitals are private.
> The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent.
the US performs coups in third-world countries struggling with stability. they have never attempted a coup in a well organized country with strong ties.
> Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray.
both of these are building their own as we speak. for the very reason we're having this argument.
the moment they abuse their control, everyone else will stop their dependence on it. that means they have a responsibility to keep this balance or lose control of it.
They're already abusing their control, all other countries are helpless.
legacy systems are mainly an issues for hospitals, and if necessary, the governments (who pays for these hospitals anyway) would afford a switch. the US is more vulnerable for something like this since their hospitals are private.
I guarantee you it'd take more than a decade to switch from ICANN.
the US performs coups in third-world countries struggling with stability. they have never attempted a coup in a well organized country with strong ties.
This is ahistorical.
both of these are building their own as we speak. for the very reason we're having this argument.
Russia isn't building a genuine alternative, and China, while they already have a genuine alternative, would be committing suicide to deprecate any service controlled by ICANN.
They own it and share it, they get control and everyone else gets a service, the moment they abuse their control, everyone else will stop their dependence on it. that means they have a responsibility to keep this balance or lose control of it.
> Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled.
legacy systems are mainly an issues for hospitals, and if necessary, the governments (who pays for these hospitals anyway) would afford a switch. the US is more vulnerable for something like this since their hospitals are private.
> The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent.
the US performs coups in third-world countries struggling with stability. they have never attempted a coup in a well organized country with strong ties.
> Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray.
both of these are building their own as we speak. for the very reason we're having this argument.