dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
183
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

The Devil You Know

While there is always reason to be skeptical of our government's motives and intent, we are far better off having them in charge, wherein we can keep an eye on them and counteract their missteps, than hand over control to an even more corrupt "world" body.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

That may be true for us (U.S. citizens) but not for those in other countries. They don't vote in our elections, and they can't influence our politicians (whether we can is debatable, but we won't go there right now).

But let's imagine that the Internet's core infrastructure was under the control of, say, France. I chose France because, although it's a democratic society, there are some in the United States who have taken issue with some of their policies. Now, what if France was in control? Would the situation be a bit different for those in the U.S. then? I suspect that, for some, it would.

I think that we have a multi-layered situation here.

Some in the UN may want to get control of the Internet because, well, regulators like to regulate, and having control of the Internet could be quite a nice feather in their caps.

Some national governments would also like the UN to regulate the Internet because it could serve their own varied interests, which are too many to name here.

Finally, some ordinary citizens of other countries may not necessarily favor UN control, but they don't like the U.S. having absolute control, either, and they want another option.

Personally, I don't care what the UN or any government, ours included, wants. I think the best way forward is to come up with a solution that puts ultimate control in the hands of Internet users. One person, one vote, and keep the governments out of it. I don't know what that solution would look like, but I think it's doable.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

said by ISurfTooMuch:

That may be true for us (U.S. citizens) but not for those in other countries. They don't vote in our elections, and they can't influence our politicians (whether we can is debatable, but we won't go there right now).

Finally, some ordinary citizens of other countries may not necessarily favor UN control, but they don't like the U.S. having absolute control, either, and they want another option.

Personally, I don't care what the UN or any government, ours included, wants. I think the best way forward is to come up with a solution that puts ultimate control in the hands of Internet users. One person, one vote, and keep the governments out of it. I don't know what that solution would look like, but I think it's doable.

One person, one vote, runs the risk of becoming "One person, one vote, one time", or as we see out of Chicago, "one person, voting early and often".

I don't like the US having "absolute" (we don't, by any measure) control either.
But until a proposal is offered that demonstrates a better approach, that doesn't strip us further of our basic rights and sovereignty, I don't see any reason to change the status-quo. Change for change sake doesn't achieve anything.

We don't need a "world body" ruling on commerce, employment, banking, religion, entertainment or communications. Its hard enough to have consensus on such with your next-door neighbor.