Internet Surrendered to the United Nations

Okt 1st America will give it’s power [ICANN ]to regulate the internet to the United Nations.
Which includes China… Russia I believe.

Can the SAFE Network survive on it’s own without the central regulation of IP/DNS/Domain’s
when the United Nations starts censoring?


Yes, because it doesn’t rely on any of that.


Great! Thanks happybeing

MAID SAFE is really awesome.


Actually, this move to cede DNS control to the UN will drive SAFE Network adoption, whether it actually is done or not.

I’m really jazzed by recent progress but am awfully itchy to see the network launch in a viable way. There is a huge upsurge of coordinated censorship, demonitization, etc., happening on the clearnet recently, mostly within the big platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc., but coordinated along political correctness lines.


Why do you think the USA does a better job?

Western democracies have a tendency to violate our rights only in more or less subtle ways. With China and Russia in the UN Security Council, we give a lot of power to nations that are less squeamish.

Granted, I can’t imagine how the UN or its Security Council would go about undermining freedom (or, what’s left of it) of the Internet, I’m sure those countries will show great creativity, if necessary.

Also, I don’t understand most of what I’m talking about. You have been warned :kissing_cat:

  1. As @Tim87 touches on, western peoples (especially Scots :grinning:) have culture which openly admires freedom as a key societal principle to aspire to. While governments, including the US gov’t, are always doing what governments do–i.e., continue to centralize power and control, and thus become more dictatorial–they have the cultural traditions of the people pushing back pretty consistently, including people populating government at all levels who come from that tradition of idealizing freedom, with the corollary of English common law which seeks to maximize it. This effect is being diluted but is still strongest in the US–and Britain to some degreee, if Brexit is any indication.

  2. The internet was originated and largely proliferated by the US, and the DNS standards and organization has remained fairly free as compared to what it might be otherwise.

  3. Despite its loftily stated principle, the UN is a menace as it is pushed forward to be given more and more central, and arbitrary control. It is insulated even further from direct accountability from real people, who also come from varied cultures, many of which do not revere freedom (or even think it is a desirable aspiration). UN is rather the ultimate in centralization of power.

SAFE is working to make that centralization mote. But I’d like to see the “world government” take over of internet control held off for a while. Even the US control is compromised, but under UN control I don’t doubt it will devolve faster.


Almost seems like no matter how powerful and 100% effective SAFE is, there’s the potential for the clear net to be completely trashed in order to catch as much of the public in a maelstrom of snooping etc., though it’s pretty much already like that. In other words: SAFE will be literally the best thing ever, and will work—but, while everyone is transitioning over to it: the current, “owner” class of the clear net (Google, governments) will enjoy destroying everything to ground zero, as quickly as possible. Just some thoughts.


Interesting take. Maybe like “creative destruction.”

As far as ICANN goes, no, the US can do no better job that say the UK, to keep speech free. But that’s not the point. ICANN, in a sense, is a coercive internet-address monopoly. MaidSafe has the potential to save free speech in the digital sphere.

1 Like

Maybe. But I also think that things are the way they are largely because the technology combined with the worst influences (sociopaths with financial monopoly) conspire to keep everyone in the rigged game. When presented with such a sane alternative as SAFE promises to be, perhaps some cooler heads will do cool things and help mitigate the destruction caused by the flailing of the dying behemoth.


I don’t really disagree, but we’re not talking about transferring control to the UK. The US has a rightful claim to it which wouldn’t really pass to the UK. What’s being considered it passing it directly or indirectly to the UN. Now THAT"S different.

1 Like


Let me clarify…

ICANN and the organizations, countries, businesses that run it, set the address naming rules for the current internet. There are exceptions I believe, but broadly speaking, ICANN has a lot of control. If we choose to use their system or are not allowed to create our own – like what MaidSafe is doing – then we are controlled by a coercive address naming monopoly. If the UN controls ICANN, naturally things could get worse, but ultimately, this is not the question. The question is or rather the solution can be, to create an internet resistant to being censored. A system like MaidSafe.

1 Like

Thanks. We are on the same page, certainly.

1 Like

This sort of thing is why decentralisation is needed. Safe net will make this a non-issue.


Agreed @fergish, thats why SAFE Net has my vote and support.

We must persist. There will be a point when the masses see the need.

I was hoping you’d see the obvious. But then the guys already explained.

Here’s another thought. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
The US has done a great job.

It would be an interesting project to write a wee DNS server with a safe net back end. The back end would do the lookup against safe net to resolve the IP address, then allow the browser to connect with the clear net site directly.

The safe net back end could adopt a simple convention, by leaning on safe net DNS. Literally, you could register the exact domain on safe net, and upload an ipv4.txt file to the route, which would just contain the IPv4 IP address (IPv6.txt could service ipv6).

The DNS server could run locally, along with the launcher. It would listen on port 53 like a normal DNS server, but it would request the safe ipv4.txt file (e.g. safe://, which would return the IP address. Anything that was not found could just proxy to a regular clear net DNS server instead.

There are open source clear net DNS servers, which could be patched to do this relatively easily. It could be fast too, especially with some caching.

Finally, the alpha network could do this reliably right now. Sure, it may get reset and it isn’t fully distributed yet, but it could work rather well.

Edit: You could also subscribe to DNS curators, who had a single safe net DNS url and resolved via url paths. This would circumvent safe net DNS, allowing an alternative (override?) mechanism if desirable.


Yeah, a great job for the USA (and their closest allies).

Can you find a mismatch between number of people using the internet and the size of the IP block? A large block gives you a clear competitive advantage.

I hear China are experts with ipv6 though and have transitioned ahead of much of the rest of the world. Swings and roundabouts as they say!

I think the mismatch is largely due to the fact that .com, .net, .org, etc… are US registered domains, wherever they are being used. Also the fact that the US has led the development, even if others have taken the lead in many areas.

That’s not to say that the US is the best possible solution to keep control. We need to continue to make that irrelevant. In the meantime, the UN is not a good solution.

I don’t think the graph has anything to do with domains. Just what IPs a country gets to control.

I agree UN is not a good entity, it should be replaced with something much more democratic.