October 18, 2005 5:20 PM PDT

Senator: Keep U.N. away from the Internet

A new resolution introduced in the U.S. Senate offers political backing to the Bush administration by slamming a United Nations effort to exert more influence over the Internet.

Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month.

"The Internet is likely to face a grave threat" at the summit, Coleman said in a statement on Monday. "If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on."

If ratified, Coleman's resolution would assure the Bush administration and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of political support on Capitol Hill during the negotiations at the World Summit on the Information Society. Similar support has already come from both senior Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.

At the heart of this international political spat is the unique influence that the U.S. federal government enjoys over Internet addresses and the master database of top-level domain names--a legacy of the Internet's origins years ago. The Bush administration recently raised objections to the proposed addition of .xxx as a red-light district for pornographers, for instance, a veto power that no other government is able to wield.

During a series of meetings organized by the United Nations, ministers from dozens of other countries have raised objections and demanded more influence. Suggestions that have been made include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access," and folding ICANN into the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. agency. As far back as 1999, U.N. agencies have mulled imposing taxes on Internet e-mail.

Coleman's resolution endorses the principles--effectively maintaining the status quo--that the Bush administration announced in June. But he ventured even further by warning that if governance functions were handed to bureaucrats from oppressive nations, the Internet would become "an instrument of censorship and political suppression." Business groups have raised similar objections, warning of censorship from nations such as China, Iran and Syria.

In December 2004, Coleman called for the resignation of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, saying that his subcommittee's investigations had unearthed evidence of far-ranging fraud inside the sprawling bureaucracy. A former chief prosecutor in Minnesota, Coleman is chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which has been investigating the oil-for-food scandal.

213 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
We built it, we control it
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The US built the Internet (regardless of the groudless claims you may have heard), we control it. When DARPA created the first computer network many years ago, they never envisioned the global Internet as it is today. The continuing use of the TCP/IP protocol (some 50 years after its inception) is a testament to their technical achievement. However, it was American companies and American tax payers that made it what it is today. Companies like Sprint, AT&T and UUNET spent the millions of dollars to create the national infrastructure that makes the Internet work. Sure, there was plenty of funding from the NSF, but America still built the Internet. In the early 90s when the NSF made the Internet a public domain network, things skyrocketed. After years of exponential commercial growth in America, other countries wanted in. Today, the Internet is truly a global organism. However, the other countries of the world did NOTHING to foster its original development. They only joined in the fun AFTER the hard work was done. Not only that, no other country can be trusted with the vast technical expertise required to run the core Internet systems! Can you imagine a DNS root server in Iraq??? Cuba??? India??? No way.
The UN is making noises that if we do not allow others to have some say in the Internet's policies and infrastructure, they will go off and make their own Internet. FINE! Just like the different backbone operators in the US, we will interconnect with the other networks of the world and have the freedom to disconnect when the inevitable outages and complete meltdowns occur due to the technical inferiority of these third world countries.
America built the Internet. Yes, I concede that the Internet has grown into a truly global network. Every country in the world has some connection to the Internet. But does that give the world the right to say what can and can't be done with the Internet? The Internet is the living embodyment of Free Speech. What if the Internet were in the hands of Saddam Hussein? You would only see what he would want you to see. A lot of countries still feel that way to this day. Look at North Korea. Look at China. State run news agencies. If they had any say in the Internet's policies, they would take away the very things about the Internet that it is known for. Freedom.
I urge everyone who reads this to stand up and let the other countries of the world know that the Internet belongs to America. We're proud of the technological achievement our grandfathers worked so hard to make a reality. Our message is this: Other countries may connect to it. Other countries may use it. Other countries may rely on it for many things. But the Internet remains the intellectual property of the United States of America. Go build your own and we'll talk.
Posted by thenet411 (415 comments )
Reply Link Flag
We done built it
I agree that the US built and developed the Internet.

However that may be, it is an international resource, and should be shared equally and freely by the world, not controlled by one country.

I'll bet the US Government has worn out more than one pair of combat boots kicking themselves in the posterior over losing total control

The Internet makes it increasingly harder to control the people when we can get real news, totally outof their control.

The American News Media is controlled in many aspects by the government. It must gall them to know their are other means of getting the news.

Take the famous Conspiracy notes from Britain. The US news services tried to avoid telling of them, but were forced to because they were common knowledge from the Internet. Also the fall of the Soviet Union. We had to print the truth since many US citizens were communicating first hand with Soviet citizens in real time.

The internet is a vital service in dispensing breaking news, without propaganda or prior screening for content.

If we leave those dicisions up to the US Government, we all lose out.

The UN is not an optimal choice to this little rodent, but it is the most viable.

Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Link Flag
Rubbish..
Without the web (which was invented by Tim Berners Lee, who is british) at CERN (see <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/Achievements/WorldWideWeb/WWW-en.html" target="_newWindow">http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/Achievements/WorldWideWeb/WWW-en.html</a> ) which is European. I was using the internet before the web, and it wasn't worth my time.
Posted by (4 comments )
Link Flag
Fair point
Time for General Motors and Ford to hand over control to Mercedes Benz.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
We built it, we control it
So anything not invented in the US should stay always in control of the country that created it hmmm interesting thought

*I say united stated not america as "america" includes all countries, in fact "America" is in fact "new england" because none on them were born in the continent just came over.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
DNS root server already in India
This comment is a load of twaddle.

There's already a DNS root server in India already. And one in Russia. See <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm" target="_newWindow">http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm</a> for more info.

I can't believe a statement like "no other country can be trusted with the vast technical expertise required to run the core Internet systems" either.
I'm British, live in the Netherlands, and used to work for UUNET. We ran the "core Internet systems" you're talking about - in the night when there was a network problem in the USA we'd often fix it from over here in Europe. And India, Russia and many other countries produce some damned fine engineers.

Thanks, Sam
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
Why not share the Control over Internet
Mr. Miller's comment is a nationalist statement coming straight from heart. He would have done great service before airing his comments had he checked for the recent facts. For There is already a DNS root server in India! And one in Russia for that matter. Updated information can be seen at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm" target="_newWindow">http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm</a>.

What makes him say that America is the only country that can be "trusted" for its vast technical expertise. Does he even know about the vast Indian contribution to the Internet as it has evolved today. As for that matter engineers from other countries working day in and day out for the betterment of available resources!

In this present day and age, it would be difficult to fathom one country or body "controlling" INTERNET. The internet is embodiment of free speech only because of people from all over the world who use it. Isn't it their prerogative to join in the future development of the medium.

Regards,
Posted by ghaijunior (2 comments )
Link Flag
Outsourcing
Mr Miller i can tell you only one thing, a day will come when america will outsource the maintanence of the root dns servers to India.

Btw whats the harm of putting dns server in Iraq. its American property anyway. :P


[quote]
no other country can be trusted with the vast technical expertise required to run the core Internet systems! Can you imagine a DNS root server in Iraq??? Cuba??? India??? No way.[/quote]
Posted by Sumedh (2 comments )
Link Flag
We built it, we control it
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The US built the Internet (regardless of the groudless claims you may have heard), we control it. When DARPA created the first computer network many years ago, they never envisioned the global Internet as it is today. The continuing use of the TCP/IP protocol (some 50 years after its inception) is a testament to their technical achievement. However, it was American companies and American tax payers that made it what it is today. Companies like Sprint, AT&#38;T and UUNET spent the millions of dollars to create the national infrastructure that makes the Internet work. Sure, there was plenty of funding from the NSF, but America still built the Internet. In the early 90s when the NSF made the Internet a public domain network, things skyrocketed. After years of exponential commercial growth in America, other countries wanted in. Today, the Internet is truly a global organism. However, the other countries of the world did NOTHING to foster its original development. They only joined in the fun AFTER the hard work was done. Not only that, no other country can be trusted with the vast technical expertise required to run the core Internet systems! Can you imagine a DNS root server in Iraq??? Cuba??? India??? No way.
The UN is making noises that if we do not allow others to have some say in the Internet's policies and infrastructure, they will go off and make their own Internet. FINE! Just like the different backbone operators in the US, we will interconnect with the other networks of the world and have the freedom to disconnect when the inevitable outages and complete meltdowns occur due to the technical inferiority of these third world countries.
America built the Internet. Yes, I concede that the Internet has grown into a truly global network. Every country in the world has some connection to the Internet. But does that give the world the right to say what can and can't be done with the Internet? The Internet is the living embodyment of Free Speech. What if the Internet were in the hands of Saddam Hussein? You would only see what he would want you to see. A lot of countries still feel that way to this day. Look at North Korea. Look at China. State run news agencies. If they had any say in the Internet's policies, they would take away the very things about the Internet that it is known for. Freedom.
I urge everyone who reads this to stand up and let the other countries of the world know that the Internet belongs to America. We're proud of the technological achievement our grandfathers worked so hard to make a reality. Our message is this: Other countries may connect to it. Other countries may use it. Other countries may rely on it for many things. But the Internet remains the intellectual property of the United States of America. Go build your own and we'll talk.
Posted by thenet411 (415 comments )
Reply Link Flag
We done built it
I agree that the US built and developed the Internet.

However that may be, it is an international resource, and should be shared equally and freely by the world, not controlled by one country.

I'll bet the US Government has worn out more than one pair of combat boots kicking themselves in the posterior over losing total control

The Internet makes it increasingly harder to control the people when we can get real news, totally outof their control.

The American News Media is controlled in many aspects by the government. It must gall them to know their are other means of getting the news.

Take the famous Conspiracy notes from Britain. The US news services tried to avoid telling of them, but were forced to because they were common knowledge from the Internet. Also the fall of the Soviet Union. We had to print the truth since many US citizens were communicating first hand with Soviet citizens in real time.

The internet is a vital service in dispensing breaking news, without propaganda or prior screening for content.

If we leave those dicisions up to the US Government, we all lose out.

The UN is not an optimal choice to this little rodent, but it is the most viable.

Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Link Flag
Rubbish..
Without the web (which was invented by Tim Berners Lee, who is british) at CERN (see <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/Achievements/WorldWideWeb/WWW-en.html" target="_newWindow">http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/Chapters/AboutCERN/Achievements/WorldWideWeb/WWW-en.html</a> ) which is European. I was using the internet before the web, and it wasn't worth my time.
Posted by (4 comments )
Link Flag
Fair point
Time for General Motors and Ford to hand over control to Mercedes Benz.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
We built it, we control it
So anything not invented in the US should stay always in control of the country that created it hmmm interesting thought

*I say united stated not america as "america" includes all countries, in fact "America" is in fact "new england" because none on them were born in the continent just came over.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
DNS root server already in India
This comment is a load of twaddle.

There's already a DNS root server in India already. And one in Russia. See <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm" target="_newWindow">http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm</a> for more info.

I can't believe a statement like "no other country can be trusted with the vast technical expertise required to run the core Internet systems" either.
I'm British, live in the Netherlands, and used to work for UUNET. We ran the "core Internet systems" you're talking about - in the night when there was a network problem in the USA we'd often fix it from over here in Europe. And India, Russia and many other countries produce some damned fine engineers.

Thanks, Sam
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
Why not share the Control over Internet
Mr. Miller's comment is a nationalist statement coming straight from heart. He would have done great service before airing his comments had he checked for the recent facts. For There is already a DNS root server in India! And one in Russia for that matter. Updated information can be seen at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm" target="_newWindow">http://public-root.com/root-server-locations.htm</a>.

What makes him say that America is the only country that can be "trusted" for its vast technical expertise. Does he even know about the vast Indian contribution to the Internet as it has evolved today. As for that matter engineers from other countries working day in and day out for the betterment of available resources!

In this present day and age, it would be difficult to fathom one country or body "controlling" INTERNET. The internet is embodiment of free speech only because of people from all over the world who use it. Isn't it their prerogative to join in the future development of the medium.

Regards,
Posted by ghaijunior (2 comments )
Link Flag
Outsourcing
Mr Miller i can tell you only one thing, a day will come when america will outsource the maintanence of the root dns servers to India.

Btw whats the harm of putting dns server in Iraq. its American property anyway. :P


[quote]
no other country can be trusted with the vast technical expertise required to run the core Internet systems! Can you imagine a DNS root server in Iraq??? Cuba??? India??? No way.[/quote]
Posted by Sumedh (2 comments )
Link Flag
bureaucrats from oppressive nation ...
Already is from some people's point of view...
Posted by (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE
You can't please everyone and some points of view aren't worth considering because their motives aren't as altruistic as they would have you believe.
Of what benefit is it to let the U.N govern the DNS? So they can try and tax email or let an unscrupulous country like France try to censor the U.S version of Yahoo (which they already tried).
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
So far so good
I'm no fan of the Bush Administration, nor do I have too much hope in future administration, however, the US government approach thus far to the internet thus far is has been pretty good so far.

Keeping the US government in "Control" of the internet (when really thats not even true, is more of a lack of control for other nations with a small degree of imput from the US governent) is far better then some mass beurcratic mess with multiple nations having power.

I'll keep the evil I know over something potentially far worse.

I'd be interested in some examples of the US government abusing its so called "control" of the internet, or how its hindered its devolpment, and honestly I'd' be surpriesd if any other goverment wouldnt have done worse or similiar (espcially a multinational), at least overall.
Posted by Madrone (43 comments )
Link Flag
bureaucrats from oppressive nation ...
Already is from some people's point of view...
Posted by (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE
You can't please everyone and some points of view aren't worth considering because their motives aren't as altruistic as they would have you believe.
Of what benefit is it to let the U.N govern the DNS? So they can try and tax email or let an unscrupulous country like France try to censor the U.S version of Yahoo (which they already tried).
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
So far so good
I'm no fan of the Bush Administration, nor do I have too much hope in future administration, however, the US government approach thus far to the internet thus far is has been pretty good so far.

Keeping the US government in "Control" of the internet (when really thats not even true, is more of a lack of control for other nations with a small degree of imput from the US governent) is far better then some mass beurcratic mess with multiple nations having power.

I'll keep the evil I know over something potentially far worse.

I'd be interested in some examples of the US government abusing its so called "control" of the internet, or how its hindered its devolpment, and honestly I'd' be surpriesd if any other goverment wouldnt have done worse or similiar (espcially a multinational), at least overall.
Posted by Madrone (43 comments )
Link Flag
The best choice for Internet freedom
I hate to say it, but I fear there will be more censorship from the Bush Administration than the UN would permit.

Just let the US Government prove that one terrorist used it, and "Poof" here come the restrictions.

A rat won't even be able to email his relatives. Just like before the Internet and email.

The whole US mail system is against us. We can't buy stamps without dodging traps, and have no way to get into mail boxes.

Keep the Internet free, Don't throw it to the Bushs.

Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE
Terrorists already use it. It's well documented and several videos from Al-Queda have come from the internet.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
Your whole statement
makes no sense.

Terrorists use the Internet extensively. This is widely known and publicized as are the extreme difficulties our intelligence services are having trying to follow their activies on the 'net.
Posted by ebrandel (102 comments )
Link Flag
The best choice for Internet freedom
I hate to say it, but I fear there will be more censorship from the Bush Administration than the UN would permit.

Just let the US Government prove that one terrorist used it, and "Poof" here come the restrictions.

A rat won't even be able to email his relatives. Just like before the Internet and email.

The whole US mail system is against us. We can't buy stamps without dodging traps, and have no way to get into mail boxes.

Keep the Internet free, Don't throw it to the Bushs.

Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE
Terrorists already use it. It's well documented and several videos from Al-Queda have come from the internet.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
Your whole statement
makes no sense.

Terrorists use the Internet extensively. This is widely known and publicized as are the extreme difficulties our intelligence services are having trying to follow their activies on the 'net.
Posted by ebrandel (102 comments )
Link Flag
The reason innternet will never be taken away
The internet is owned and operated by the people and was developed among other reasons to let critical information survive after a nuclear blast. The only thing that could go wrong would be if the root DNS servers got taken down, in that case we would have to input URLs in the form of their native IP addresses. I don't see any government being able to truly withhold information or censor it simply becuase of the nature of the internet. Individual ISPs and companies can censor as seen with MSN in China however locally owned and operated web servers are too numerous to be eradicated. In any case I am not too sure why anyone is worried about the UN they never actually get anything done. But then I am fifteen and I don't understand everything that you probably do.
Posted by nickbyfleet (21 comments )
Reply Link Flag
good thinking and comments
hey.. don't knock yourself cuz you're fifteen. those are some well thought out arguments and ideas. the issues at stake here are related more to the stability and coherence of the internet as a whole, not just the WWW on which web pages are delivered to computers.
Posted by brothermoon (11 comments )
Link Flag
About the UN
You do realise that the US is part of the UN don't you. Do you also realise that a lot of what the UN tries to achieve gets vetoed by the US. The UN has plenty of faults but people tend to blame them for everything without looking up the facts.
Posted by (79 comments )
Link Flag
What would you like the UN to do?
Invade countries without reason?

The UN fails today due to the permanent security council veto power. When ever something comes up that conflicts with their wants, it is vetoed. Until the Veto is removed the UN will fail. Since the USA refuses to agree to remove the veto, then the USA has no right to attack the UN for doing nothing.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
vary close
Good knowledge of internet history for 15. Although technically, the DNS system wasn't devised until the 80s. So it wasn't taken into consideration when the department of defense built ARPANET, because they were only thinking of communication between physical numeric hosts. All things considered, the system as a whole works very well when you think about a bunch of protocols only designed to handle a network a fraction in size.
Posted by (13 comments )
Link Flag
The reason innternet will never be taken away
The internet is owned and operated by the people and was developed among other reasons to let critical information survive after a nuclear blast. The only thing that could go wrong would be if the root DNS servers got taken down, in that case we would have to input URLs in the form of their native IP addresses. I don't see any government being able to truly withhold information or censor it simply becuase of the nature of the internet. Individual ISPs and companies can censor as seen with MSN in China however locally owned and operated web servers are too numerous to be eradicated. In any case I am not too sure why anyone is worried about the UN they never actually get anything done. But then I am fifteen and I don't understand everything that you probably do.
Posted by nickbyfleet (21 comments )
Reply Link Flag
good thinking and comments
hey.. don't knock yourself cuz you're fifteen. those are some well thought out arguments and ideas. the issues at stake here are related more to the stability and coherence of the internet as a whole, not just the WWW on which web pages are delivered to computers.
Posted by brothermoon (11 comments )
Link Flag
About the UN
You do realise that the US is part of the UN don't you. Do you also realise that a lot of what the UN tries to achieve gets vetoed by the US. The UN has plenty of faults but people tend to blame them for everything without looking up the facts.
Posted by (79 comments )
Link Flag
What would you like the UN to do?
Invade countries without reason?

The UN fails today due to the permanent security council veto power. When ever something comes up that conflicts with their wants, it is vetoed. Until the Veto is removed the UN will fail. Since the USA refuses to agree to remove the veto, then the USA has no right to attack the UN for doing nothing.
Posted by Andrew J Glina (1673 comments )
Link Flag
vary close
Good knowledge of internet history for 15. Although technically, the DNS system wasn't devised until the 80s. So it wasn't taken into consideration when the department of defense built ARPANET, because they were only thinking of communication between physical numeric hosts. All things considered, the system as a whole works very well when you think about a bunch of protocols only designed to handle a network a fraction in size.
Posted by (13 comments )
Link Flag
I don't think so...
As an American, I support Bush in his stance on this issue. The UN has absolutely NO business managing the Internet. Remember, these are the same burucrats who gave us the Iraqi Oil for Food program, and we all know what happened with that. The UN even stated that they are going to tax domain name registrations to help fund "universal" internet access for developing countries in the third world. Would you want the likes of China, Cuba, Syria, France, and North Korea governing the Internet? I don't. So let's keep it right here where it belongs: The United States of America.

Furthermore, we built it, we administer it, and we control it. It's ours so we are going to keep it. If someone else wants to run it, then they can build one for themselves.
Posted by Maelstorm (130 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If you name "Oil for food"...
...let me name "Weapons of mass-destruction"

And then, both arguments make absolutely no sense regarding the issue...
Posted by Steven N (487 comments )
Link Flag
I don't think so...
As an American, I support Bush in his stance on this issue. The UN has absolutely NO business managing the Internet. Remember, these are the same burucrats who gave us the Iraqi Oil for Food program, and we all know what happened with that. The UN even stated that they are going to tax domain name registrations to help fund "universal" internet access for developing countries in the third world. Would you want the likes of China, Cuba, Syria, France, and North Korea governing the Internet? I don't. So let's keep it right here where it belongs: The United States of America.

Furthermore, we built it, we administer it, and we control it. It's ours so we are going to keep it. If someone else wants to run it, then they can build one for themselves.
Posted by Maelstorm (130 comments )
Reply Link Flag
If you name "Oil for food"...
...let me name "Weapons of mass-destruction"

And then, both arguments make absolutely no sense regarding the issue...
Posted by Steven N (487 comments )
Link Flag
Regarding Globalization
Well, if there's to be a new world order, the internet will be controlled by someone. Since the United Nations was built to rule the world, it's logical that our web lands in their hands. So, what could happen is, when you say something the UN don't approve of, they'll descend upon you like flies at a picnic, and not let the media cover the story.
Posted by casper2004 (267 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Regarding Globalization
Well, if there's to be a new world order, the internet will be controlled by someone. Since the United Nations was built to rule the world, it's logical that our web lands in their hands. So, what could happen is, when you say something the UN don't approve of, they'll descend upon you like flies at a picnic, and not let the media cover the story.
Posted by casper2004 (267 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not so fast
Hum, and you compare these countries for what reasons? Last I checked, we (the US) invaded Grenada and Iraq without a valid cause. Hardly an example considering that none of the countries (except Syria) you listed invaded anybody in a long while.

Additionally, we are also considering taxing the internet and is already applying censorship to what we don't like.
(internet gambling anyone?)

We do not control nor administer the internet. It is really co-controlled and administered by thousands of ISPs and telecomunication companies worldwide.

As a matter of fact, nobody can govern the internet. It would be like claiming we can control all roads on earth from the US... But then more outlandish claims have already been made.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Reply Link Flag
huh
Try to buy tobacco over the Internet. And don't give me an argument about willingly paying my taxes. The taxes are several times the original cost of the product. I see no reason at all to pay unjust taxes on one product over another. Anyone want a cup of tea? Rememember that teaparty?

The government can control a lot of aspects of the internet, if they put their mind to it. Certainly , almost any law would be hard to enforce, but political and real pressure is another matter. Like with tobacco, stiff penalties if caught and restrictions on ISPs can put a lot on a lot of pressure on American business.

For instance, what do you think would happen if AOL would receive a phone call from the White House to redirect every web page call to a communist country to an error page? Would AOL ignore it? They might compromise by letting your third or fourth attempt go through. Or send a list of such subscribers to the FBI.

A few years ago I bought one of those computers where you got a discount if you subscribed to MSN.
One of the first things I noticed was that they had none of the alt. newsgroups, none at all. Why, because some of them were to sexual groups, so censor everybody to be politically correct. I took that computer back and got another one, without the special deal.

The government can force censorship, even on the Internet. If Newsgroups can be censored so easily, why not Web sites? And one big point is that the majority of subscribers wouldn't even notice the difference.

Every day, I check the news from different sites around the world. It's so much better than television and your newspaper as to be astronomical. It wouldn't surprise me to see that change. Long ago, before the Internet, I subscribed to several magazines from around the world. Then I moved, changed jobs, and let them lapse. A few years ago I checked on the Internet about resubscribing to the same ones. This time there were "American Editions." Maybe I'm being paranoic, but I wonder if the American Editions are the same as their local ones?

HO, boy, what a rant. Sorry,
Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Link Flag
Not so fast
Hum, and you compare these countries for what reasons? Last I checked, we (the US) invaded Grenada and Iraq without a valid cause. Hardly an example considering that none of the countries (except Syria) you listed invaded anybody in a long while.

Additionally, we are also considering taxing the internet and is already applying censorship to what we don't like.
(internet gambling anyone?)

We do not control nor administer the internet. It is really co-controlled and administered by thousands of ISPs and telecomunication companies worldwide.

As a matter of fact, nobody can govern the internet. It would be like claiming we can control all roads on earth from the US... But then more outlandish claims have already been made.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Reply Link Flag
huh
Try to buy tobacco over the Internet. And don't give me an argument about willingly paying my taxes. The taxes are several times the original cost of the product. I see no reason at all to pay unjust taxes on one product over another. Anyone want a cup of tea? Rememember that teaparty?

The government can control a lot of aspects of the internet, if they put their mind to it. Certainly , almost any law would be hard to enforce, but political and real pressure is another matter. Like with tobacco, stiff penalties if caught and restrictions on ISPs can put a lot on a lot of pressure on American business.

For instance, what do you think would happen if AOL would receive a phone call from the White House to redirect every web page call to a communist country to an error page? Would AOL ignore it? They might compromise by letting your third or fourth attempt go through. Or send a list of such subscribers to the FBI.

A few years ago I bought one of those computers where you got a discount if you subscribed to MSN.
One of the first things I noticed was that they had none of the alt. newsgroups, none at all. Why, because some of them were to sexual groups, so censor everybody to be politically correct. I took that computer back and got another one, without the special deal.

The government can force censorship, even on the Internet. If Newsgroups can be censored so easily, why not Web sites? And one big point is that the majority of subscribers wouldn't even notice the difference.

Every day, I check the news from different sites around the world. It's so much better than television and your newspaper as to be astronomical. It wouldn't surprise me to see that change. Long ago, before the Internet, I subscribed to several magazines from around the world. Then I moved, changed jobs, and let them lapse. A few years ago I checked on the Internet about resubscribing to the same ones. This time there were "American Editions." Maybe I'm being paranoic, but I wonder if the American Editions are the same as their local ones?

HO, boy, what a rant. Sorry,
Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Link Flag
We built what?
We build the Internet? That sounds like some preposterous Al Gore claim. In fact, while DARPA advanced the technology in the US, I seem to recall the standard methodology came from a collaboration in Europe.

Be that as it may, I don't think any one entity can lay claim of ownership to an open network of computers. True, the technology that makes the Internet work is proprietary but yet again, no country "owns" it unless you come from a commu/socialist state where there are not personal ownership rights. Telecom may own a piece, governments may own or have rights of seizure (landlines, satilites etc...)but to say some/anyone built or owns what now is collectively called the Internet is simply contextual-less thinking.

I think taxing the Internet is akin to arguing on the Internet. Even when you think you win, you lose. See above....tax what? Tax who?
Posted by (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just because...
Just because the "methodology" was developed in cooporation with the Europeans does not mean they have ownership rights. The US dedicated the capital to develop the infrastructure and put it in place. We don't need the socialist state of the UN taking control the Internet. The UN is a corrupt organization that should not be trusted with safe-guarding a piggy-bank much less the Internet!

Following your methodolgy no one would own the Internet, or set standards. Everything would be free flowing and disconnected. Simply throwing out the US role in developing the Internet and giving it to the UN is an insane idea. It is an organization dominated by corrupt governments and this is seen propagating itself into the UN organization itself.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://russ.johnsonville.net/default.aspx?Page=Blog" target="_newWindow">http://russ.johnsonville.net/default.aspx?Page=Blog</a>
Posted by russ960 (22 comments )
Link Flag
We built what?
We build the Internet? That sounds like some preposterous Al Gore claim. In fact, while DARPA advanced the technology in the US, I seem to recall the standard methodology came from a collaboration in Europe.

Be that as it may, I don't think any one entity can lay claim of ownership to an open network of computers. True, the technology that makes the Internet work is proprietary but yet again, no country "owns" it unless you come from a commu/socialist state where there are not personal ownership rights. Telecom may own a piece, governments may own or have rights of seizure (landlines, satilites etc...)but to say some/anyone built or owns what now is collectively called the Internet is simply contextual-less thinking.

I think taxing the Internet is akin to arguing on the Internet. Even when you think you win, you lose. See above....tax what? Tax who?
Posted by (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just because...
Just because the "methodology" was developed in cooporation with the Europeans does not mean they have ownership rights. The US dedicated the capital to develop the infrastructure and put it in place. We don't need the socialist state of the UN taking control the Internet. The UN is a corrupt organization that should not be trusted with safe-guarding a piggy-bank much less the Internet!

Following your methodolgy no one would own the Internet, or set standards. Everything would be free flowing and disconnected. Simply throwing out the US role in developing the Internet and giving it to the UN is an insane idea. It is an organization dominated by corrupt governments and this is seen propagating itself into the UN organization itself.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://russ.johnsonville.net/default.aspx?Page=Blog" target="_newWindow">http://russ.johnsonville.net/default.aspx?Page=Blog</a>
Posted by russ960 (22 comments )
Link Flag
Everyone is the REAL LOSER
Like every American Presidential election, people are stuck between choosing the lesser of two evils. On one end of the spectrum, we have the US Government - which sometimes makes irrational decisions (Republican or Democrat, neither party really does anything useful for anyone but themselves). On the other end of the Spectrum, we have the so-called "United" Nations - who can honestly be counted on DOING THE WRONG THING.

Before people forget, this is the UN we are talking about here. The same UN that brought you:
* The Scancal plagued Oil for "Food" programme.
* The Rwanda incident - where UN troops did not bother to defend helpless civilians they were chartered to PROTECT in their own safe havens.
* The organization that REWARDED the incompetent commander of the Rwandan massacre with the position of Secretary General.
* The same organization who did NOTHING to stop Nestle from distributing Powerdered milk to Africa, when there was no clean source of water - killing thousands of children when their mothers could no longer produce milk.
* Ignoring the obvious massacres and atrocities in the Dafur region. Evidently learning from Rwanda.
* The sponsor of the "World Peace and Understanding" conference - which ended up declaring Zionism and Israel as state terrorists who should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
* The very same organization who launched an extensive study on taxing all internet traffic so that they can use the proceeds to "digitalize" third world nations that can barely feed themselves, let alone have the electricity to run these computers?

Let's face it, the history of the UN IS a Greek Tragedy of epic proportions!

Sure, the American politicians are very adept at shirking any form of work or responsibility - except when it comes to supporting the red light districts. And yes, they do have a LOT of faults, but they also tend to do the right things from time to time, unlike the UN, which hasn't done anything useful since eradicating smallpox in the 1960s.

Do we REALLY want to pay yet ANOTHER tax for something they didn't create, let alone know how to manage?

Do we REALLY want an organization ruled by "Mob Instincts" to turn the internet into their own political toys to supress information or even promote religious hatred?

I don't think so. And for once, I agree with the US government.
Posted by Tex Murphy PI (165 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Everyone is the REAL LOSER
Like every American Presidential election, people are stuck between choosing the lesser of two evils. On one end of the spectrum, we have the US Government - which sometimes makes irrational decisions (Republican or Democrat, neither party really does anything useful for anyone but themselves). On the other end of the Spectrum, we have the so-called "United" Nations - who can honestly be counted on DOING THE WRONG THING.

Before people forget, this is the UN we are talking about here. The same UN that brought you:
* The Scancal plagued Oil for "Food" programme.
* The Rwanda incident - where UN troops did not bother to defend helpless civilians they were chartered to PROTECT in their own safe havens.
* The organization that REWARDED the incompetent commander of the Rwandan massacre with the position of Secretary General.
* The same organization who did NOTHING to stop Nestle from distributing Powerdered milk to Africa, when there was no clean source of water - killing thousands of children when their mothers could no longer produce milk.
* Ignoring the obvious massacres and atrocities in the Dafur region. Evidently learning from Rwanda.
* The sponsor of the "World Peace and Understanding" conference - which ended up declaring Zionism and Israel as state terrorists who should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
* The very same organization who launched an extensive study on taxing all internet traffic so that they can use the proceeds to "digitalize" third world nations that can barely feed themselves, let alone have the electricity to run these computers?

Let's face it, the history of the UN IS a Greek Tragedy of epic proportions!

Sure, the American politicians are very adept at shirking any form of work or responsibility - except when it comes to supporting the red light districts. And yes, they do have a LOT of faults, but they also tend to do the right things from time to time, unlike the UN, which hasn't done anything useful since eradicating smallpox in the 1960s.

Do we REALLY want to pay yet ANOTHER tax for something they didn't create, let alone know how to manage?

Do we REALLY want an organization ruled by "Mob Instincts" to turn the internet into their own political toys to supress information or even promote religious hatred?

I don't think so. And for once, I agree with the US government.
Posted by Tex Murphy PI (165 comments )
Reply Link Flag
UN control of internet
I'm surprised that Coleman can even talk, let alone
think. The UN should have some say about the
internet. John
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
UN schmu-in man
I would rather my internet just consist of U.S. networks(what do we need the rest of the world's networks for?) than have the truly worthless UN in control of anything I do on the internet.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
UN control of internet
I'm surprised that Coleman can even talk, let alone
think. The UN should have some say about the
internet. John
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
UN schmu-in man
I would rather my internet just consist of U.S. networks(what do we need the rest of the world's networks for?) than have the truly worthless UN in control of anything I do on the internet.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
We will not let the Ayatollah censor US websites.
That is what the third world wants. Really.
Why do you think that the meeting is being
held in Tunisia?
Posted by (139 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re: WE WILL NOT LET THE AYATOLLAH CENSOR US WEBSITES.
We don't have the Ayatollah to worry about. Osama is the one who took away america's rights when he executed 9/11
Posted by casper2004 (267 comments )
Link Flag
Ayatollah? In Tunisia?!
You really need to **** and read some books ... or maybe pass the 6th grade, take your pick.

Tunisia is a Republic. There is no Ayatollah, they have a President. They have a democracy very similar to the USA, including a Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

Go back to whatever you were doing and don't ever come back here unless you have something to add to the discussion that is materially relevant to said discussion.
Posted by Far Star (82 comments )
Link Flag
We will not let the Ayatollah censor US websites.
That is what the third world wants. Really.
Why do you think that the meeting is being
held in Tunisia?
Posted by (139 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re: WE WILL NOT LET THE AYATOLLAH CENSOR US WEBSITES.
We don't have the Ayatollah to worry about. Osama is the one who took away america's rights when he executed 9/11
Posted by casper2004 (267 comments )
Link Flag
Ayatollah? In Tunisia?!
You really need to **** and read some books ... or maybe pass the 6th grade, take your pick.

Tunisia is a Republic. There is no Ayatollah, they have a President. They have a democracy very similar to the USA, including a Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

Go back to whatever you were doing and don't ever come back here unless you have something to add to the discussion that is materially relevant to said discussion.
Posted by Far Star (82 comments )
Link Flag
Too Many Cooks
For me, the concern isn't what WILL be done if control changed, but what WON'T be done.

"Too many cooks spoil the broth", as the saying goes, and I don't believe that any international committee approach to governance of something so technical and complex will allow for the necessary evolution of the net.

UN representatives will put incredible amounts of time and effort into negotiating the smallest net-related issues, in an effort to get whatever it is they need from the UN. Net issues become a political bargaining chip for nations either too poor to benefit from it in the first place, or with views on governance that are incompatible with free speech and expression. The net will stagnate, and eventually become useless to a technologically progressive world.

Folks can argue whether the US or UN are good or evil entities until their faces turn blue, but I don't think that part of the argument decides anything. For me the issue is flexibility and adaptability. (And I usually don't hear those words mentioned in the same sentence as "U.N.") ICANN has demonstrated its ability to manage things well so far.

Here's a thought. Rather than debating whether the US or UN is better suited to run things, how about answering this: What has ICANN done to convince anyone that they SHOULDN'T be allowed to continue doing the job?
Posted by thoolis (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Too Many Cooks
For me, the concern isn't what WILL be done if control changed, but what WON'T be done.

"Too many cooks spoil the broth", as the saying goes, and I don't believe that any international committee approach to governance of something so technical and complex will allow for the necessary evolution of the net.

UN representatives will put incredible amounts of time and effort into negotiating the smallest net-related issues, in an effort to get whatever it is they need from the UN. Net issues become a political bargaining chip for nations either too poor to benefit from it in the first place, or with views on governance that are incompatible with free speech and expression. The net will stagnate, and eventually become useless to a technologically progressive world.

Folks can argue whether the US or UN are good or evil entities until their faces turn blue, but I don't think that part of the argument decides anything. For me the issue is flexibility and adaptability. (And I usually don't hear those words mentioned in the same sentence as "U.N.") ICANN has demonstrated its ability to manage things well so far.

Here's a thought. Rather than debating whether the US or UN is better suited to run things, how about answering this: What has ICANN done to convince anyone that they SHOULDN'T be allowed to continue doing the job?
Posted by thoolis (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Go stuff it, Kofi
If the UN thinks it can do it better than the US, then they're welcome to set up their own dns system. The protocols &#38; physical infrastruture are already in place. Then, when they have it running, with the rest of the world holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I'm sure the U.S. - with it's economy ruined from isolation - will come crawling back to them asking to be part of the UN-run net.


haha, sometimes I crack myself up.
Posted by (402 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Kumbaya, Kofi
&gt;If the UN thinks it can do it better than the
&gt;US, then they're welcome to set up their own
&gt;dns system. The protocols &#38; physical
&gt;infrastruture are already in place. Then, when
&gt;they have it running, with the rest of the
&gt;world holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I'm
&gt;sure the U.S. - with it's economy ruined from
&gt;isolation - will come crawling back to them
&gt;asking to be part of the UN-run net. haha,
&gt;sometimes I crack myself up.


Damn, that's funny.
Posted by (139 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.