U.N. bureaucrats and telecommunications ministers from many less-developed nations claim the U.S. government has undue influence over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge.
While the formal proposal from a U.N. working group will be released July 18, it's already clear what it will contain. A preliminary summary of governmental views claims there's a "convergence of views" supporting a new organization to oversee crucial Internet functions, most likely under the aegis of the United Nations or the International Telecommunications Union.
This development represents a grave political challenge to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which was birthed by the U.S. government to handle some of those topics.
A recent closed-door meeting in Geneva convened by the U.N.'s Working Group on Internet Governance offers clues about the plot to dethrone ICANN. As these excerpts from a transcript show, dissatisfaction and general-purpose griping is rampant:
• Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
• Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
• China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body."
• Ghana: "There was unanimity for the need for an additional body...This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N."
The "nuclear option"
Those proclamations served to flush out the Bush administration, which recently announced that it will not hand over control of Internet domain names and addresses to anyone else.
That high-profile snub of the United Nations could presage an international showdown. The possibility of a political flap over what has long been an abstruse Net-governance issue casts a shadow over ICANN's meeting this week in Luxembourg, and will be the topic of a July 28 symposium in Washington, D.C., called "Regime Change on the Internet."
Beyond the usual levers of diplomatic pressure and public kvetching, Brazil and China could choose what amounts to the nuclear option: a fragmented root. That means a new top-level domain would not be approved by ICANN--but would be recognized and used by large portions of the rest of the world. The downside, of course, is that the nuclear option could create a Balkanized Internet where two computers find different Web sites at the same address.
"It wasn't until now" that a fragmented root was being talked about, says Milton Mueller, a professor at Syracuse University and participant in the Internet Governance Project. "China and other countries might be pursuing responses that lead to fragmentation."
Such an outcome remains remote, but it could happen. That possibility means an obscure debate about Internet governance has suddenly become surprisingly important.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
See more CNET content tagged:
U.N., Brazil, spam, domain name, China
most nations. Apparently Syria wants to isolate themselves from
the Internet - and maybe that's a good idea. Butg, Syria has no
rational claim to running the Internet except greed and jealousy.
? Brazil has a point about the degree of pornography on the
Internet. If pornogaphy could be limited to the xxx domain set,
then Brazil should be able to implement a national filter. Since
any First Amendment hogwash does not apply in Brazil, that
should be successful. And there still would be no reason for
Brazil to claim control over something they never developed and
probably couldn't run.
? China's hope for the UN has mostly been disproven by the UN's
abysmal performance in most of its other international
regulatory exercizes.
? Ghana is smoking the wrong tobacco - again trying to put the
UN up as a technically competent and unbiased opersation-
both clearly disporven qualities.
In general, the majority of nations which have had virtually
nothing to do with the development of the Internet or its
maintenance, now want to seize control of the Internet via the
UN. Next, I suppose that these same countries might want the
UN to take control of the economies of the major countries, or of
the military forces of the major countries, or of anything else
that the big boys have over the peanut galleriy cry babies.
Sorry folks, The UN loses. And it should lose. There is no
denying that the Internet must be run for the maximum benefit
of all users, no matter what country they reside in. But don't try
a power grab until you're big enough and smart enough to make
a serious claim.
From what I am seeing most spam is sent from bot-net US computers that are not on as much on the weekend. Could be a co-incidence but I doubt it.
US Military launches the internet to the general public.
The rest of the world launches thier own connections and hooks up with the USA connection then demands that the USA gives up control.
Sorry eveyone but giving up control of the core assets of the web to an international body that has a history of not being able to agree on its own budget.
Add the very fact that the UN over all dose not agree with our (USA)international policys and at times has worked to undermine them really gives to me a strong personal distrust and wonders of the true intentions of the UN.
I do not believe the UN should control the Internet nor do I think the US should either. We as human life forms on this planet earth need to set aside all manmade level of classes / difference and look at the better for ALL life, not just mankind. Control need to be put in the local people, as far as the rest of the world the high up the chain, the less control one group should have. Make it simple!!!!
Let?s look at the root of the issue (pun intended), Spam, Prone?. The root of all of this these posts are greed of money making industries. The large US has a lot of greedy people who like the control of the Internet to stay as is, why? I can hide my server over there where ?Uncle Sam? cannot tell me what to do. If this control is released, then maybe the controllers will have the power to go over there and turn off the power so to speak. We cry business but the Internet is a super informational highway. Not an economical exploit machine that it has become.
most nations. Apparently Syria wants to isolate themselves from
the Internet - and maybe that's a good idea. Butg, Syria has no
rational claim to running the Internet except greed and jealousy.
? Brazil has a point about the degree of pornography on the
Internet. If pornogaphy could be limited to the xxx domain set,
then Brazil should be able to implement a national filter. Since
any First Amendment hogwash does not apply in Brazil, that
should be successful. And there still would be no reason for
Brazil to claim control over something they never developed and
probably couldn't run.
? China's hope for the UN has mostly been disproven by the UN's
abysmal performance in most of its other international
regulatory exercizes.
? Ghana is smoking the wrong tobacco - again trying to put the
UN up as a technically competent and unbiased opersation-
both clearly disporven qualities.
In general, the majority of nations which have had virtually
nothing to do with the development of the Internet or its
maintenance, now want to seize control of the Internet via the
UN. Next, I suppose that these same countries might want the
UN to take control of the economies of the major countries, or of
the military forces of the major countries, or of anything else
that the big boys have over the peanut galleriy cry babies.
Sorry folks, The UN loses. And it should lose. There is no
denying that the Internet must be run for the maximum benefit
of all users, no matter what country they reside in. But don't try
a power grab until you're big enough and smart enough to make
a serious claim.
From what I am seeing most spam is sent from bot-net US computers that are not on as much on the weekend. Could be a co-incidence but I doubt it.
US Military launches the internet to the general public.
The rest of the world launches thier own connections and hooks up with the USA connection then demands that the USA gives up control.
Sorry eveyone but giving up control of the core assets of the web to an international body that has a history of not being able to agree on its own budget.
Add the very fact that the UN over all dose not agree with our (USA)international policys and at times has worked to undermine them really gives to me a strong personal distrust and wonders of the true intentions of the UN.
I do not believe the UN should control the Internet nor do I think the US should either. We as human life forms on this planet earth need to set aside all manmade level of classes / difference and look at the better for ALL life, not just mankind. Control need to be put in the local people, as far as the rest of the world the high up the chain, the less control one group should have. Make it simple!!!!
Let?s look at the root of the issue (pun intended), Spam, Prone?. The root of all of this these posts are greed of money making industries. The large US has a lot of greedy people who like the control of the Internet to stay as is, why? I can hide my server over there where ?Uncle Sam? cannot tell me what to do. If this control is released, then maybe the controllers will have the power to go over there and turn off the power so to speak. We cry business but the Internet is a super informational highway. Not an economical exploit machine that it has become.
Internet is so that it can control the future of commerce.
I'm to tired to go on.
internet as a cash cow. The price of names would
go up in the US and down in Ghana. "It is only fair that the poor get more" Fair is a level field. They would may internet control as fair
and equitable as the Kyoto accords.
China and India get a free pass and the US pays
for it all.
Internet is so that it can control the future of commerce.
I'm to tired to go on.
internet as a cash cow. The price of names would
go up in the US and down in Ghana. "It is only fair that the poor get more" Fair is a level field. They would may internet control as fair
and equitable as the Kyoto accords.
China and India get a free pass and the US pays
for it all.
How so? As far as I know, the only people who have seen the report are the members of the WGIG and the Secretary General's Office. Everyone else is guessing. Why not wait to see the report and see what is in it?
Plot to dethrone ICANN? LOL!!! The WGIG had 4 ICANN members in the group! Why would ICANN directors, At Large members etc participate in a PLOT?
Closed door meeting? That was an open consultation, advertised on the web, via email, via snail mail, press. If it was closed door, then why would the transcript be posted online? And why would it be webcast live? Many members of the Board of ICANN were there. There were over a hundred people there, and many more participated via webcast.
To me, this article is pushing an agenda to discredit the work of the WGIG before the report is released. This isn't news, it's propaganda.
As for the ICANN reps, they did participate as a defensive matter. As would I -- it's better to be in the process than to be only able to criticize it from afar. What counts is what the report will say, not whether ICANN was invited to give its point of view.
Finally, as for the closed-door meeting, my understanding is that the public and reporters were not invited. That counts as a closed door to me. It's good that they posted the transcripts online, but that's not the same as holding a meeting that's open to the public.
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=3DAB967F-10AC-4EE0-A090-82CEE524452A
Read it and see where it says that ICANN is going away. Even the most radical proposal keeps ICANN, but changes and reformulates it.
The main issue is and has always been unilateral US control of the root zone file, which is seen as an international resource. Plain and simple.
Content ownership, local culture - all that is important, but not the main issue.
How so? As far as I know, the only people who have seen the report are the members of the WGIG and the Secretary General's Office. Everyone else is guessing. Why not wait to see the report and see what is in it?
Plot to dethrone ICANN? LOL!!! The WGIG had 4 ICANN members in the group! Why would ICANN directors, At Large members etc participate in a PLOT?
Closed door meeting? That was an open consultation, advertised on the web, via email, via snail mail, press. If it was closed door, then why would the transcript be posted online? And why would it be webcast live? Many members of the Board of ICANN were there. There were over a hundred people there, and many more participated via webcast.
To me, this article is pushing an agenda to discredit the work of the WGIG before the report is released. This isn't news, it's propaganda.
As for the ICANN reps, they did participate as a defensive matter. As would I -- it's better to be in the process than to be only able to criticize it from afar. What counts is what the report will say, not whether ICANN was invited to give its point of view.
Finally, as for the closed-door meeting, my understanding is that the public and reporters were not invited. That counts as a closed door to me. It's good that they posted the transcripts online, but that's not the same as holding a meeting that's open to the public.
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=3DAB967F-10AC-4EE0-A090-82CEE524452A
Read it and see where it says that ICANN is going away. Even the most radical proposal keeps ICANN, but changes and reformulates it.
The main issue is and has always been unilateral US control of the root zone file, which is seen as an international resource. Plain and simple.
Content ownership, local culture - all that is important, but not the main issue.
internet must continue to grow as a universal body superseding the
U.S. and all those other Balkan-Byzantine regions. (Say, let's start
by stopping to use 'Balkanization' as a pejorative term. Sounds like
colonialist lingo to me.)
internet must continue to grow as a universal body superseding the
U.S. and all those other Balkan-Byzantine regions. (Say, let's start
by stopping to use 'Balkanization' as a pejorative term. Sounds like
colonialist lingo to me.)
"balkanization". For me that shows lack of education and
disrespect. So, please stop using it.
Thanks
"balkanization". For me that shows lack of education and
disrespect. So, please stop using it.
Thanks
Too much of the world's economy depends on the internet to let a single country decide it all and become a global censor.
On the issue of spam, and at a time where Europeans and Australia are taking some legal steps, Bush's double meaning CAN-SPAM act is all about legalizing it to please his DMA campaign contributors. Why should the world accept it ?
The rest of the world wants Bushs finger off the button and he thumbs his nose at them and tells them in no uncertain words to "bugger off".. I dont blame the rest of the world for plotting to force the issue.
No one at the UN has suggested that their country have control either so enough with the jealousy and power mongering slander. The rest of the world wants control over the system spread out or better yet, under the jurisdiction of no country but rather a group comprised of representatives of them all.
I dont see how thats an unfair request and Im American.
And why should the US accept UN control over the internet? If your worried about censorship now wait until corrupt dictatorships such as Lybia and Cuba get an input into internet control, which they most assurdly will if the UN gets control over the internet.
Too much of the world's economy depends on the internet to let a single country decide it all and become a global censor.
On the issue of spam, and at a time where Europeans and Australia are taking some legal steps, Bush's double meaning CAN-SPAM act is all about legalizing it to please his DMA campaign contributors. Why should the world accept it ?
The rest of the world wants Bushs finger off the button and he thumbs his nose at them and tells them in no uncertain words to "bugger off".. I dont blame the rest of the world for plotting to force the issue.
No one at the UN has suggested that their country have control either so enough with the jealousy and power mongering slander. The rest of the world wants control over the system spread out or better yet, under the jurisdiction of no country but rather a group comprised of representatives of them all.
I dont see how thats an unfair request and Im American.
And why should the US accept UN control over the internet? If your worried about censorship now wait until corrupt dictatorships such as Lybia and Cuba get an input into internet control, which they most assurdly will if the UN gets control over the internet.
Eg. if the US Government vehemently disagrees with the online content provided by a business (say gambling, sex, racism, drugs/alcohol), they could prevent that business from getting their website authorised by ICANN.
So while this is unlikely, the power exists and as we've seen to many times with the current administration, it's only a matter of time before that power gets abused.
Europeans, Africans, South Americans, Asians, etc all have very different views on what's culturally acceptable, what the internet should be used for, and how they want their sites ordered.
It makes more sense for an independent, multi-national organisation to control domain name s, extensions, etc, so that no one political extreme can censor another.
Allowing the 'net to fragment will ruin more than people understand. The communication that exists across continents between everyday people is just one example of something that could be at risk, purely from technical issues, if the 'net becomes a fragmented mess.
So while this is unlikely, the power exists and as we've seen to many times with the current administration, it's only a matter of time before that power gets abused.[/b]
Darn right that's unlikely - given that all those things already exist. Just try a google search for gambling sites, sex sites, white supremacy, NAZIism, and if you're really adventurous, you can even try finding militant Islamic web sites.
And even if they didn't get their domain name. Big deal. Where there's a will, there's a way. Sure, so someone would have to type in an IP address, or even simpler still, go to one of those web sites that creates short URL redirectors and get one that way.
This is a power grab by the UN. Pure and simple. They want to decide what's fair and what's not.
Eg. if the US Government vehemently disagrees with the online content provided by a business (say gambling, sex, racism, drugs/alcohol), they could prevent that business from getting their website authorised by ICANN.
So while this is unlikely, the power exists and as we've seen to many times with the current administration, it's only a matter of time before that power gets abused.
Europeans, Africans, South Americans, Asians, etc all have very different views on what's culturally acceptable, what the internet should be used for, and how they want their sites ordered.
It makes more sense for an independent, multi-national organisation to control domain name s, extensions, etc, so that no one political extreme can censor another.
Allowing the 'net to fragment will ruin more than people understand. The communication that exists across continents between everyday people is just one example of something that could be at risk, purely from technical issues, if the 'net becomes a fragmented mess.
So while this is unlikely, the power exists and as we've seen to many times with the current administration, it's only a matter of time before that power gets abused.[/b]
Darn right that's unlikely - given that all those things already exist. Just try a google search for gambling sites, sex sites, white supremacy, NAZIism, and if you're really adventurous, you can even try finding militant Islamic web sites.
And even if they didn't get their domain name. Big deal. Where there's a will, there's a way. Sure, so someone would have to type in an IP address, or even simpler still, go to one of those web sites that creates short URL redirectors and get one that way.
This is a power grab by the UN. Pure and simple. They want to decide what's fair and what's not.
really needs to be focused in one organization, and ICANN has
become that organization.It is quite reasonable to expect ICANN
to listen to requests from appropriate individuals, organizations,
and political groups to provide the best service o for all. It would
be totally irresponsible to surrender ICANN's control to any
newly contructed UN organization even if there were a possibility
that the organization might be able to handle the control issue.
Unfortunately, too many governmental groups are concerned
primairly with censoring the Internet, especially when the
Internet communications can clearly define the oppressive
policies of those groups. China is a prime example - the Internet
will show the Chinese people what freedom really is, and the
current Chinese government is doomed. No wonder they would
like to gain control.
The Internet has become what it is because people didn't try to
force the Internet into some preconcieved structure for political
or propaganda purposes. The Internet has to stay unforced.
The UN can develop its own internet.
Tell the USA to turn it over is like telling IBM that since everyone uses their mainframes, they should turn control of the company over to the UN. Sure, majority of banks and such are running their systems in one fashion or another, but that doesn't make the company a democracy for the UN to take over.
This is one party that the other countries have no right to crash. The Internet is our product and they are paying for access to use it. It behooves the USA to continue to allow the world to use it as it benefits the USA.
Domains require centralized control due to the very nature of the hierarchal system of the domain name system. Therefore, someone needs to control it, where as web "content" need not have any centrilized control, as there is no heirarchal system in place.
lol, sorry if some of that didn't make sense, it's early in the morning and I've had to come into work and it's wayyyy too cold.
Kieran.
Department of Defense and ARPA. It was originally called
Arpanet. CERN was involved when one of its employees (who
was British, by the way) came up with the idea for the world wide
web. So only one development, though notably significant,
came from Switzerland. All this to say, if other countries want
control of something, try inventing something. Everyone thinks
that they are entitled to Internet access like it's a God given
right. If you don't like it, don't allow it in your country. If
the .xxx domain is offensive to your culture (which it should be
to every country) and you have laws that allow you to limit
speech or obscenities, block the domain.
Interesting comparison, one that on the surface would seem to be analogous, but is not quite applicable. Look beneath the surface,
"A brief history of the Interent" by
Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark,
Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
The Web is more analogous to, for example, the 'Traffic Signal' system (computerized of course), that manages traffic in congested urban areas. Important, integral, and indispensible, without it, traffic and society would grind to a halt.
Yet, it would be nothing and no value w/o the underlying infrastructure of, road*making*, roadmaking technology, and the roads, streets, highways, themselves.
Also, just as importantly, government (Federal, State, and local) financing, investment and incentive, as well as *private* financing and investment. The American citizen's tax dollars.
Included, too, must be the actual Cars, for which all was built.
Now, what you, others, and those prodding the U.N., think is that because a non-American 'invented' (incorrect use of the word, but it will suffice for the purpose) the *Traffic Light*, such person or *interest* have the right to claim the entire automoblie INFRASTRUCTURE!
Surely, you must be jesting.
If not, then, as a good American capitalist, and as a Citizen of the United States, a Commercial Democracy, I put this offer to those interests behind the U.N. musings:
US$1,000 Trillion dollars.
Payable, in installments of US$1 Trillion dollars per annum for the next 1,000 years.
---
Don't like that analogy? How about this:
I allow you to drive my car. I allow you to drive it at will, and to whatever purpose you desire. I ask for nothing!!
You become dependant upon MY car. In fact, your very existence and future prosperity is dependant upon the use of MY car. I ask for NOTHING!
All of a sudden upon the realization of YOUR dependancy, you make *claim* to ownership of MY car.
Are you serious? Get the F outta my car!
---
Even the CERN derived *Web* would not be, if not for U.S. funding, both governmental and private.
---
Let's get down to brass tacks, and forget everything I ascertain above. The move to "take over" the Internet, by the U.N. is a POLITICAL manuever---it's politics!
The question(s) behind any political manuever is, 'Who is behind it'? Whose interest would it serve for *control* to be removed from U.S. direction?
The reality is that the U.S., as a government, doesn't truly control the Internet. Organizations of individuals, the vast majority of whom are, indeed, Americans.
The other, striking, reality is that few, if any, non-Americans or non-Europeans are a part of the 'Organizations', public and private, that do *control* the Internet.
The **Government** that would benefit most from the lessening of U.S. (and possibly European) influence (control if you will) is CHINA.
An Open and Unregulated *Internet* is a threat to the government of China.
The other nations, under the guise of the U.N. are simply acting as pawns of the Chinese government.
The *liberals* posting to this forum, as well as most liberals everywhere (the U.S. and Europe), are ***dupes***! Their seeming altruistic motivations, actions and thoughts, act against the interest of their nation and FREE people everywhere.
The shortsightedness of the duped Left and the greedy right will undermine the U.S. into oblivion.
Each begets the other.
Realize and remember, the majority of countries are NOT democracies. The majority of democracies are NOT democracies.
Which is not to ascert that the U.S. is a true democracy, or truly espouses democratic values, or even that democracy is utlimately best. Yet the notion of turning over the Interent to the control and greater influence of those with even less democratic values than the U.S. is economically and politically stupid.
Please do away with the thought that the Internet is a benign entity. It was not born as such, and has not become such.
really needs to be focused in one organization, and ICANN has
become that organization.It is quite reasonable to expect ICANN
to listen to requests from appropriate individuals, organizations,
and political groups to provide the best service o for all. It would
be totally irresponsible to surrender ICANN's control to any
newly contructed UN organization even if there were a possibility
that the organization might be able to handle the control issue.
Unfortunately, too many governmental groups are concerned
primairly with censoring the Internet, especially when the
Internet communications can clearly define the oppressive
policies of those groups. China is a prime example - the Internet
will show the Chinese people what freedom really is, and the
current Chinese government is doomed. No wonder they would
like to gain control.
The Internet has become what it is because people didn't try to
force the Internet into some preconcieved structure for political
or propaganda purposes. The Internet has to stay unforced.
The UN can develop its own internet.
Tell the USA to turn it over is like telling IBM that since everyone uses their mainframes, they should turn control of the company over to the UN. Sure, majority of banks and such are running their systems in one fashion or another, but that doesn't make the company a democracy for the UN to take over.
This is one party that the other countries have no right to crash. The Internet is our product and they are paying for access to use it. It behooves the USA to continue to allow the world to use it as it benefits the USA.
Domains require centralized control due to the very nature of the hierarchal system of the domain name system. Therefore, someone needs to control it, where as web "content" need not have any centrilized control, as there is no heirarchal system in place.
lol, sorry if some of that didn't make sense, it's early in the morning and I've had to come into work and it's wayyyy too cold.
Kieran.
Department of Defense and ARPA. It was originally called
Arpanet. CERN was involved when one of its employees (who
was British, by the way) came up with the idea for the world wide
web. So only one development, though notably significant,
came from Switzerland. All this to say, if other countries want
control of something, try inventing something. Everyone thinks
that they are entitled to Internet access like it's a God given
right. If you don't like it, don't allow it in your country. If
the .xxx domain is offensive to your culture (which it should be
to every country) and you have laws that allow you to limit
speech or obscenities, block the domain.
Interesting comparison, one that on the surface would seem to be analogous, but is not quite applicable. Look beneath the surface,
"A brief history of the Interent" by
Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark,
Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
The Web is more analogous to, for example, the 'Traffic Signal' system (computerized of course), that manages traffic in congested urban areas. Important, integral, and indispensible, without it, traffic and society would grind to a halt.
Yet, it would be nothing and no value w/o the underlying infrastructure of, road*making*, roadmaking technology, and the roads, streets, highways, themselves.
Also, just as importantly, government (Federal, State, and local) financing, investment and incentive, as well as *private* financing and investment. The American citizen's tax dollars.
Included, too, must be the actual Cars, for which all was built.
Now, what you, others, and those prodding the U.N., think is that because a non-American 'invented' (incorrect use of the word, but it will suffice for the purpose) the *Traffic Light*, such person or *interest* have the right to claim the entire automoblie INFRASTRUCTURE!
Surely, you must be jesting.
If not, then, as a good American capitalist, and as a Citizen of the United States, a Commercial Democracy, I put this offer to those interests behind the U.N. musings:
US$1,000 Trillion dollars.
Payable, in installments of US$1 Trillion dollars per annum for the next 1,000 years.
---
Don't like that analogy? How about this:
I allow you to drive my car. I allow you to drive it at will, and to whatever purpose you desire. I ask for nothing!!
You become dependant upon MY car. In fact, your very existence and future prosperity is dependant upon the use of MY car. I ask for NOTHING!
All of a sudden upon the realization of YOUR dependancy, you make *claim* to ownership of MY car.
Are you serious? Get the F outta my car!
---
Even the CERN derived *Web* would not be, if not for U.S. funding, both governmental and private.
---
Let's get down to brass tacks, and forget everything I ascertain above. The move to "take over" the Internet, by the U.N. is a POLITICAL manuever---it's politics!
The question(s) behind any political manuever is, 'Who is behind it'? Whose interest would it serve for *control* to be removed from U.S. direction?
The reality is that the U.S., as a government, doesn't truly control the Internet. Organizations of individuals, the vast majority of whom are, indeed, Americans.
The other, striking, reality is that few, if any, non-Americans or non-Europeans are a part of the 'Organizations', public and private, that do *control* the Internet.
The **Government** that would benefit most from the lessening of U.S. (and possibly European) influence (control if you will) is CHINA.
An Open and Unregulated *Internet* is a threat to the government of China.
The other nations, under the guise of the U.N. are simply acting as pawns of the Chinese government.
The *liberals* posting to this forum, as well as most liberals everywhere (the U.S. and Europe), are ***dupes***! Their seeming altruistic motivations, actions and thoughts, act against the interest of their nation and FREE people everywhere.
The shortsightedness of the duped Left and the greedy right will undermine the U.S. into oblivion.
Each begets the other.
Realize and remember, the majority of countries are NOT democracies. The majority of democracies are NOT democracies.
Which is not to ascert that the U.S. is a true democracy, or truly espouses democratic values, or even that democracy is utlimately best. Yet the notion of turning over the Interent to the control and greater influence of those with even less democratic values than the U.S. is economically and politically stupid.
Please do away with the thought that the Internet is a benign entity. It was not born as such, and has not become such.
-Paul
-Paul
The only way to allow the UN to participate in the management of the Internet is through an independent governing body that the US controls, or like the Security Council, wields a controlling Veto as necessary.
- UN control of Internet equals Internationalized Incompetency
- by bdennis410 July 12, 2005 8:34 AM PDT
- There is no way we should allow the UN bureaucracy to obtain control over the Internet. Free Speech turns into controlled speech when the politics of the UN intrude on what should be a techical competency issue. We know that everybody dislikes the US, our ability to develop technology and the ability of the capitalist system to utilize what we develop. Now, the UN wants what we developed to be "internationalized," to become the property of countries that want to destroy the US. NO WAY!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (202 Comments)The only way to allow the UN to participate in the management of the Internet is through an independent governing body that the US controls, or like the Security Council, wields a controlling Veto as necessary.