 | | Who Cares If they don't like our position they don't have to participate in the internet!
I think a technical term for this would be "we have them by the Balls"!!
=) | |
|
 |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Re: Who Cares
said by theeinstein:If they don't like our position they don't have to participate in the internet! I think a technical term for this would be "we have them by the Balls"!! =) »www.globetechnology.com/servlet/···hnology/
The United States refuses to relinquish its role as the Internet's principal traffic policeman, rejecting calls in a United Nations meeting for a U.N. body to take over, a top U.S. official said Thursday.
One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.
"We think that that's inappropriate," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "The genius of the Internet is that it has been flexible (and) private sector led."
Keeping the UN from ruining the internet is the best thing that could happen. The UN can't run anything without turning it into a disaster. ICANN already has international membership and doesn't need UN involvement or interference. Global government is a bad idea whose time should never come.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Who Cares said by Romney2012:[Keeping the UN from ruining the internet is the best thing that could happen. The UN can't run anything without turning it into a disaster. Hmmm... So the ITU's 170-year track record of developing telecom standards is a "disaster"? Who do you think is responsible for the fact that you can pick up just about any phone in the world, punch in a few numbers, and reach just about any other phone?
You should try to learn at least a little about the issue your talking about, before commenting on it. Spouting off ideological pronouncements from a position of ingorance, that may be wholly inappropriate to the specific issue at hand, adds nothing to the discussion.
As it is, it looks like this standoff is leading to a second DNS system: one controlled by whoever happens to be in the White House at the time, and one by an intergovernmental body. 'not surprising these days that most of the world is alot more comfortable with one than the other. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Who Cares IMO there is a difference between creating standards and running/regulating things.
I am all for standards, be it business or the UN ITU.
At this time I just don't trust the UN to running/regulating the internet. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | "You should try to learn at least a little about the issue your talking about, before commenting on it. Spouting off ideological pronouncements from a position of ingorance, that may be wholly inappropriate to the specific issue at hand, adds nothing to the discussion."
Bravo! Way to go! You told that 'no-body' with an 'opion' off but good, now didn't you? Who died and left you moderator.
Instead of bashing him for his opinion, and you yourself looking like a power hungry superiority ingorant person yourself in an open and free forum, why don't you just lay out the facts?
What I saw in his post was, like many people in American, is that he doesn't like or trust the U.N. - many people believe that the U.N. is nothing more than the old disbanded League of Nations.
To the small time that the U.N. has held the ITU as a specialized unit, telecommunications may be running O.K., but there are many other areas where people believe the U.N. is corrupt and ineffective. I thend to look at the over all picture when judging any 'body' instead of just one small area. It's how everyone is looked at - no different that when people look at your credit score. You can have one great 10 yera history on your home loan and suck and keeping your creidt cards and other bills paid. Doesn't make you a good risk.
Like many others say, if the internet ain't broke, don't fix and, and it ain't broke. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Who Cares yes learn about the real issue,,, and that would be the pissant euro trash country's wanting to control information. The last thing these governments want is a informed public. You think is the only country trying to block information,,,umm hell no. If just a few of the french could read and understand what we in this country have, they would revolt. Keep the people ignorant, that is the only hope for socialist regimes. | |
|
| | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | said by PDXPLT:Hmmm... So the ITU's 170-year track record of developing telecom standards is a "disaster"? Who do you think is responsible for the fact that you can pick up just about any phone in the world, punch in a few numbers, and reach just about any other phone? You should try to learn at least a little about the issue your talking about, before commenting on it. ... I'd think the ITU did a non-cruddy job if I could just "punch in a few numbers". Instead, I have to carry a long list of "country codes", a separate list of "international dial out codes" and various notes about when to pause, when to speed things up by hitting "#", etc.
Aside from problems involving the UN's tremendous desire to control something they could turn into a cash cow to fund corruption now that "oil for food" is past, I don't want to have to remember that to reach websites in part of the former Yugoslavia I have to type "gttp://" because folks in that region are offended that "http" used to stand for "Hail To Tito's Papa" or some other such "politically correct" cr@p that the UN so excels at.
(Also, for future clarity, you might explore the difference between "your" and "you're".)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | Keeping the UN from ruining the internet is the best thing that could happen. The UN can't run anything without turning it into a disaster.
Give us one example that is not military or Iraqi in nature. Better yet, explain how the ITU is a disaster. | |
|
| | | noone1
join:2004-06-04
Nashua, NH
1 edit | Re: Who Cares Can someone PLEASE tell me WHY we should change the current means of Governance?
I do not accept, "Its a world resource." This is not a valid argument since many of the world's resources are controlled by a limited number of governments.
So, tell me...
1. What is *broken*
2. How it will be fixed
3. How no OTHER problems will arise
You MUST address ALL three points.
The burden of proof is on those who want the change.
*edit due to lysdexia. Thanks Kapil for pointing it out* | |
|
| | | |  kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL |  Re: Who Cares
| |
|
| | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | said by Azio :
... The UN can't run anything without turning it into a disaster.
Give us one example that is not military or Iraqi in nature. Sudan?
Unicef?
UN HQ personnel management?
Bosnia? (Oh, sorry, that WAS military--at least it became so by the time Clinton had to bail out the UN, though it started as "aid".)
BTW, the Internet began as a military communications protocol for command and control messages. So wouldn't that disqualify it from the list of "non-military" things you think the UN might be capable of managing without FUBARing?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | said by Romney2012:said by theeinstein: The UN can't run anything without turning it into a disaster. ICANN already has international membership and doesn't need UN involvement or interference. Global government is a bad idea whose time should never come. Ha ha, I am from the states and I don't think the UN is useless, its not perfect but I would actually not mind if the UN shared some of the power, you must be one of those fanitic american. Get a life, its not only not perfect here, its not that incredible either and yes I have lived and visited other places. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Who Cares With that said is it possible the next time you visit those "other places" that you stay there?
 :D:D:D | |
|
|  mgbaker
join:2000-05-14
Charlotte, NC | »www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/history.html
ITU is the organization many want to take over ICANN's
job.
The ITU is very well run, it is because of them that
global standards are in place and I can pick up the
phone and talk seemlesly to someone in India or France. | |
|
| | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Who Cares said by mgbaker:The ITU is very well run, it is because of them that global standards are in place and I can pick up the phone and talk seemlesly to someone in India or France. And it takes them years to forge an agreement on anything. Yes, the telephones work, but they have had 50 years to get it right. That organization moves too slow to manage something like the ever changing internet.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|
| | | kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: Who Cares Good decisions take time. It takes time and thought to do things right as opposed to, say, invading a sovereign country because someone pissed off your daddy.
--
Buy Stuff From Me! - »www.DomainObjects.com | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Who Cares You find some way to work the Iraq conflict into every single one of your posts, don't you? Give Ms. Sheehan a kiss for us. | |
|
| | | | | kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: Who Cares It's not about the Iraq war...I just don't understand when we as a nation started to mistake fast decisions for good ones? Sound decision-making takes time and thought. There are no shortcuts.
--
Buy Stuff From Me! - »www.DomainObjects.com | |
|
| | | | | |  TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
 ·Comcast
| Re: Who Cares Yes, the way you'd prefer is to take 50 years deciding whether Iraq is a threat, while they're developing cruise missiles and other weapons. Then by the time that the 50 years is over and you're about to give your long, winded, boring, and mostly off-topic speech, Iraq will simply launch a missile in your face.
Sometimes time is of the essence. Some people can't understand that.
--
"True warriors do not follow paths, they make them. It is not just their desire, it is their nature." (Battletech) | |
|
| | | | | | |  imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: Who Cares said by Tsume: while they're developing cruise missiles and other weapons. hmm.. I though this ill conceived war proved that they weren't making weapons of mass destruction?  | |
|
| | | | | | | | TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | Re: Who Cares If they had 50 years of the US doing jack shit, do you think that Hussein and his govt wouldn't be making weapons? | |
|
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | said by Romney2012:And it takes them years to forge an agreement on anything. Yes, the telephones work, but they have had 50 years to get it right. That organization moves too slow to manage something like the ever changing internet. Actually, under current rules, it takes as little as 6 months to finish a standard. The ITU-T director has said recently he's gotten comments from people in the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), that they happen too fast. I know folks here will be appalled, but alot of IETF standard depend on ITU documents (the horror! The sky is falling! the sky is falling!). They'd probably also wouldn't believe that more Americans work on ITU committees than any other country. | |
|
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | What you forget is the ITU predates the UN by a couple of decades. It set the standards before the UN started to muck things up. | |
|
| | ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | I can reach websites in Uzbekistan today w/o the ITU being involved, so what value would they bring now? | |
|
|  bistro777Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?Premium
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO | said by theeinstein:I think a technical term for this would be "we have them by the Balls"!! Given the history of deployment here in the States, I think the correct phrase is "we have them by the Bells." 
"I base my fashion sense on what doesn't itch." - Gilda Radner | |
|
| | | If you are not WITH us your are AGAINST us. | |
|
| Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
 ·Cybersurf Corpor..
·Caneris
1 edit | said by theeinstein:If they don't like our position they don't have to participate in the internet! I think a technical term for this would be "we have them by the Balls"!! =) you're a typical american. how much fun will the internet be when it stop at the us boarders?
your government has you by the balls and they have blinded you to that truth. as long as your goverment controls all media, there is only one truth, theirs.
twat. | |
|
| | | | Re: Who Cares What freaking planet are you from.. Rogers as your provider I am going to assume Canaduh ?
I am a typical American. We have freedoms that men and women have earned! We stand for what we believe and don't ask other countries what they think or feel before we do something. Get used to it. By the way if the internet stopped at the US boarders The content would still be plentiful so don't kid yourself! | |
|
| |  Storm72
join:2003-07-03
Bourbonnais, IL | And here I thought the CBC staff was locked out. Silly me, I guess the sheep need to be fed their state and Liberal Party approved propaganda somehow. | |
|
| | | I'd hate to see two internets, but there will be so many gateways between the two that everyone will still get the information. It will just give us one more hack to work on. Moreover, all the major providers will probably feed their sites to both networks.
It will, however, give cybersquatters the opportunity of a lifetime. | |
|
| | | | Re: Who Cares very true I would hate it also. But I do very much agree with ICANN and the Govt's position on the issue.. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | No Big Deal Let the UN decide that they want to control the Internet, and then let them assemble the armies and raise the money needed to pry that control from our cold, dead hands.
Oh wait a minute, never mind
If the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can go create their own Internet and control it all they like. The last thing we need is for countries like Iran, China, North Korea and Cuba having a say in how the Internet is "governed."
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
|
| RokHed
join:2000-09-09
Pennsville, NJ | Re: The results are in LOL it also says France would beat china.
We all know this to be false as France will surrender before the fight even started .. | |
|
 neosolaceStay In It
join:2003-08-25
Verbena, AL | waiting for.... all the crybabies to start whining about this..... | |
|
 bokambaChengdu RocksPremium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA | It's not theirs for the taking The UN cannot claim any "right" to governing the Internet. The United States invented it and has maintained it extremely well all things considered. How is giving Ghana and Bangladesh a measure of control going to help anything? | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| yep quote:
"We think that that's inappropriate," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "The genius of the Internet is that it has been flexible (and) private sector led."
yeah. flexible, amen to that. so why couldn't someone else (country) forge their own internal system that still communicated w/the outside world. seems China is getting close after all... through some help from us obviously. what would really stop them, or anyone, from just subbing their own system? As long as blahblahblah.blah worked in blahblah land, and you could still type whatever .com etc., who cares right?
it took us years to even get it working at all, let alone graphically, so that anyone could click this or that. then came commercializing, and so far the commerce section of the net is relatively small compared to the tons of info out there. point I'm trying to make is that we did do a boatload of headwork, it didn't happen overnight.
the UN should stick to learning/working with technology before they even consider controlling any of it. | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| We Paid For It The U.S. taxpayer built the Internet by funding the ARPANET. There was nothing to prevent some foreign technology such as the French Minitel system from having been adopted worldwide. We just had the better system. If the E.U. or U.N. wants something to govern, they are certainly free to go out and spend some money and develop their own private version of the Internet. In fact, because the E.U. could not control GPS they are planning to build there own version called Galileo. So why not go all the way and build a new Internet as well? In fact, if they adopt IPV6 from the start, they could pretty much guarantee the U.S. will not be on board ! While oversight by the ITU would probably be acceptable since they have done a very good job with telephone and radio, it would still be subject to the whims of the U.N. and that would be a non-starter.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
|
See 18 replies to this post |
|
| | ICANN A quick look at ICANN's meeting location, show's they clearly arent US specific. Yes, they are based in the US, but they hold quarterly meetings in various countries.
»www.icann.org/general/calendar/index.htm
11-15 July 2005 ICANN Meetings Luxembourg City, Luxembourg
4-8 April 2005 ICANN Meetings Mar del Plata, Argentina
1-5 December 2004 ICANN Meetings Cape Town, South Africa
19-23 July 2004 ICANN Meetings Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2-6 March 2004 ICANN Meetings Rome, Italy
--
»www.reverse.net | |
|
| | | Re: ICANN All this means is that two armies of bureaucrats will exchnage increasingly polite letters with each other for perhaps, 20 years, and as they all retire the issue goes away. Of course, they require 6 figure salaries, staffs, office buildings, conferences, perhaps a leased jet or two, to exchnage these letters.
If they cant figure what to do with crazy people building nukes, do you really think they'll resolve an issue like this? | |
|
| bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | The problem is that, while ICANN is a group with people from all around the world, their decisions are subject to the whim (or whimsy) of the US government, specifically the of an agency within the Dept. of Commerce. That agency has the ability to overturn ANY decision the group makes with respect to the root servers, such as adding a new suffix or country codes.
--
This space intentionally left blank... | |
|
 Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Heres the flaw in the slaw »www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/3···481.html
quote:
They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.
Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.
As opposed to leaving the US government and other services derailed by some future UN policy.
No thanks.
--
Get Your Posts Ranked At PoliticalFights.com! | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
approval from:
guitarzan 
| We built it - others joined in While I'm not going to wax on the ideological, the solution is simple. Create subwebs for those that want to leave and establish links to those "other" webs. We didn't create this for the world. That just happened along the way.
I'm rarely in agreement with the current government, but on this issue, 100%. It's not negotiable and its not something I believe we should budge on. There exist many ways to put forth suggestions for improvement and requests for changes. The web itself has empowered nations. We have not denied people that ability and its empowerment. We have made many expensive changes to accomodate worldwide needs. No one reimbursed us for this. We have not been overly unkind in the use of the net by others, and we will change that in the future.
However the UN, and its practically inept form of managing anything technical is not a proper management system. This isn't a negotiation. If there need to be separate 'webs' to accommodate the hopes and dreams of other countries, then they should create them. China did.
I think this is mostly about people wanting access to U.S. markets, and they want to control their access. That's something we do not have any interest in agreeing to. Creating separate webs would be the answer for those seeking to leave. | |
|
 SeandhiSeeing From a New LevelPremium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX | The Worst Thing... The worst thing to happen to the internet since its inception... being politicized. I wish the world governments would just STFU and let the internet continue unabated without politicos... We've been doing just fine without them.
--
Disclaimer: The comments herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the poster, his ISP, or BroadbandReports.com | |
|
 clevere1Premium
join:2002-01-06
Vancouver, WA
kudos:1 | Screw em If they don't like it. Unplug them. | |
|
|  alphapointeDon't Touch MePremium,MVM
join:2002-02-10
Columbia, MO
kudos:2
·Socket Internet ..
·Mediacom
| Re: Screw em Yeah, I see nothing here that couldn't be solved by a few well placed hits with a pair of bolt cutters..
"We have no idea why you can't access OUR network..."
My grandfather worked with ARPANet, and he said that the UN was bitching about it then. Just before he died last year, he said he would personally start cutting fiber if anyone tried to wrest control of the internet from "the true inventors"
--
root@paradise:/home/God #make install..................................Big Bang | |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Nation-neutral internet governance... If the brilliant political minds of the world were so interested in peeling the governance away from the politically motivated US government, why not come up with a better solution to the problem than trying to stick it with ANOTHER politically motivated body? 
The .xxx domain decision, as well as other far lessor known instances, shows that the US government shouldn't have final say over the root system. The government attempted to foist their moral opinion on the world by blocking the .xxx suffix. Thankfully they saw the facts and realized that having a .xxx suffix isn't going to create anymore problems than the ten to one hundred thousand or so .com porn sites already out there...
The real solution to this is to remove the US government's control of the root away and give TOTAL control ICANN or another new group of international experts LIKE ICANN or the IETF... As well, each contry's suffix (such as .uk, .ir, .iq, etc.) should be under the control of that government/state or their designee.
But to give it to the UN.... No thanks. Politicians of every nation screw things up more than they get them right and the UN is just that, a bunch of politicians.
--
This space intentionally left blank... | |
|
| Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: Nation-neutral internet governance... said by bmn:The .xxx domain decision, as well as other far lessor known instances, shows that the US government shouldn't have final say over the root system. The government attempted to foist their moral opinion on the world by blocking the .xxx suffix. Thankfully they saw the facts and realized that having a .xxx suffix isn't going to create anymore problems than the ten to one hundred thousand or so .com porn sites already out there... The US government built it, that is why it has the final say over it. Same thing with airforce bases and battleships.
Sorry, but turning over the control over the Internet to the UN would be akin to giving them control over the interstates.
--
Get Your Posts Ranked At PoliticalFights.com! | |
|
| |  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: Nation-neutral internet governance... said by Jafo232:The US government built it, that is why it has the final say over it. Same thing with airforce bases and battleships. The goverment "built" an initial network for military use that is no longer the Internet. NFSNet topped out at T3s. The commercial Internet, which is what we are talking about here, was built with private capital, not with government subsidies. Don't rewrite history, and don't undermine our American system of private enterprise by saying the Internet is some kind of socialist fairlyland. | |
|
| | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by Jafo232:Sorry, but turning over the control over the Internet to the UN would be akin to giving them control over the interstates. How about reading what I ACTUALLY typed instead of what you THINK I typed ? My post clearly states that I oppose giving control of the root servers to the UN.
--
This space intentionally left blank... | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Buy a Share. They want control, they can buy some. They can own their very own 5% of the Internet for as long as 500 Billion Dollars.
At this rate, the U.S. can pay off it's debt in no time! | |
|
| | | Re: Buy a Share. pay off debt? wha!!! we don't use money to pay off debt, are you crazy? we just spend it on more stuff!!!
see "Internet for Food" post below | |
|
| | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Buy a Share. said by nonner :
pay off debt? wha!!! we don't use money to pay off debt, are you crazy? we just spend it on more stuff!!!
see "Internet for Food" post below
You're right! What was I thinking!
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP!
LiveWhois.Net - It's Never Been So Easy!
RR.CX My Blog.. | |
|
approval from:
Transmaster
| internet for food? Maybe we can set up an Internet for Food program with the UN. The USA will give away Internet, and in return, we will receive goods necessary to keep people alive.
shhhh... if we do it right, we can embezzle tons of money !!! | |
|
| | | Re: internet for food? HAHA ROFL THAT'S SO FUNNY! OMG XD XD! HOW CLEVER AND ORIGINAL! | |
|
| | don't forget arpanet was created so that bases of operation could remain in contact, it's a redundant system meaning nodes can be added and removed, it was a military based project
IMO, the internet is still a tool based on arpanet, which means it still has military value, and i'm sure usa gov't agencies use the internet to get information from other countries, it can be considered a tool of war
now ask yourself, why would any country hand over control of a tool with so much potential power? | |
|
| | | Re: don't forget The US government surely has much better and more secure tools than the Internet at their disposal by now. | |
|
| | | | Re: don't forget through what tool do you suppose they monitor e-mail and chat boards? there isn't one.....
they use the internet to gather information, they use the internet to hack into information in foreign countries, they use the internet to track locations of messages...
but apparently they have a better tool that they can use? oh wait i know! they use camera's to take pictures of every computer screen that is hooked up to the internet, then they sort these billions of images and then use another imaginary tool to decode all the important data on each screen, and then store this information in some special storage bowl which was given to them by aliens? | |
|
 TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Optimum Online
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| Playing nice with othersActually it would be quite trivial for the UN, with the cooperation of every other nation, to set up a parallel root-server, and IP Allocation system and maintain it; there is nothing which would technically prevent this from happening. Where allocation overlaps, and disagreements with the US happen, the US could simply be cut off from that portion of the IP or name space in dispute, making disputed IP addresses, and disputed names, rout-able only within the US.
After all, in-country IP routing is already under the control of each individual nation, and if they wanted to, all they would have to do is simply ignore ICANN. Name-space, and IP allocations could easily be coordinated by an International body like the UN. The US would have to go along, or jeopardise having portions of their network cut off from the rest of the world. Of course, the US may actually prefer to be further isolated, but that's another issue.
What if every nation began consulting "root servers" scattered throughout the globe, and only consulted the US system for US information? Bottom line is, the world does not need US "permission" to govern their own Internet space, they could just organise and implement it on their own.
The Internet has become an International communications medium, and I see no valid reason, technical or political, why it should not be Internationally governed. Having Internet governance centered in one country, is actually contrary to the original ARPANET concept of a "distributed" and "decentralised" system, where no single point is critical to it's operation, and where no single point can disable the entire network.
Cooperation, and "playing nice with others" here is the key, not absolute control. The concept of the US controlling a worldwide International communications system is hubris at it's worst, and in the end can only further exacerbate our already rapidly declining standing in the world community.
Further; given the US Government's ever increasing thirst to monitor, intercept, spy, control, and disrupt communications based on it's own narrow political agenda, it becomes clear, that the world at large, actually needs to dis-engage from US-based Internet control, with it's ever increasing potential for politically-motivated disruption. When you don't play nice with others, others don't want to play with you.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
| | My take... The internet, at its base, is simply a flow of unedited, uncensored information. People want control of the information. You know as well as I do, you can go online to see things that media will not show, because they feel we have 'no need in seeing things like that', whatever they are. The internet should be kept free flowing, and if that means that the US controls it, so be it. This is basically our game, if you don't want to play, go home. | |
|
 kenn10
join:2003-09-10
Kennesaw, GA | Red State/Blue State Looks like another argument between liberals and conservatives.
The US should not give up control of anything to the UN. There is enough corruption in the UN already and a it harbors a genuine desire to hurt the United States. So far as I'm concerned, the UN should be tossed out of NY to set up shop someplace they've "helped." Haiti comes to mind. | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
approval from:
pike
| Oil is a "world resource" too Why don't we all get a say in it's production? Just a thought. | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
|
