Will the U.N. run the Internet?

[Ne007]

An international political spat is brewing over whether the United Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet.

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.

At issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming. Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, "consumer protection," and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access."

Read the complete article (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/5552/Will+the+U.N.+run+the+Internet%3F/)

[riderx]

2 bad
leave it the way it is

[Digital Bliss]

This is gay fuck the U.N. it should have been them instead of the twin towers. Trying to control everything if this happens it the book 1984 was right again.... They will control the "truth" and say what is fact and not if they control it no one will have freedom the only true freedom in this world lies within the wired.

[mcovey]

UN has no authority over me, only the US gov, and the government of the state of New Hampshrie does. I'll do whatever I want within those laws (and some stuff outside them, but that's at my risk)... The UN doesn't draw it's power from the people, so I treat any rules it makes like rules Hitler or Stalin would make for their people, or like the government of France trying to make laws that affect americans.

[eivioolla]

Ironic how the americans are now whining when the US itself has tried to dictate how the rest of the world is run for decades...

[mcovey]

well they can always defend themselves.

[Digital Bliss]

Ironic how the americans are now whining when the US itself has tried to dictate how the rest of the world is run for decades...

comprising of 189 countries at the end of 2000, was established in 1945 at the end of World War II by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. The original Charter of the United Nations -- an international treaty designed to protect future generations from the scourge of war and written to affirm fundamental human rights -- as amended governs all activities. The 15-member Security Council and the Secretariat headed by the Secretary-General oversee the day-to-day operation, including meetings of the General Assembly. Ralph Bunche played a key role in drafting the Charter

Perhaps you should do some reading before you make comments.....

[dock0184]

Sieze? HAHAHA. Maybe as an early christmas gift? :icon_sant


Leave the internet with it's creator. :icon_king

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

I think U.N control would suck.

Digital..watch the callous remarks. While I'm not happy about us being targeted, wishing that upon someone else is just wrong. The U.N. is a multi-national business, just as the twin towers were.

[Digital Bliss]

I think U.N control would suck.

Digital..watch the callous remarks. While I'm not happy about us being targeted, wishing that upon someone else is just wrong. The U.N. is a multi-national business, just as the twin towers were.

I miss worded that my appoligies no one in this world should have to endure such a tragidiy. I was wrong in saying that.

[voltRis]

Make your own damn internet.

[MrEricSir]

Could someone please explain to me why the UN has a problem with the way the internet is run, but doesn't do anything in times of genocide, mass oppression, war, suicide bombers, etc?

It's not that they have their priorities wrong, it's that they couldn't possibly be any more wrong.

[FrozenShadow23]

Interesting to see how little trust we have in other humans, is it perhaps because we know what we would do with unchecked power?

I'm not saying it's wrong to not trust, just curious.

[DigitalJunkie]

U.N. may not the right organization, but I believer Internet should belong to the world. So, I would like to see an International Communities Agency, that won't be subject to any political pressure. For the good of the Internet, "NO Worldwide Surveillance" can or could be done by any country. Keep the politics out of the Internet!

[boogiedan]

well first thing is LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS
this would b another intrusion on our privacy

[eivioolla]

comprising of 189 countries at the end of 2000, was established in 1945 at the end of World War II by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. The original Charter of the United Nations -- an international treaty designed to protect future generations from the scourge of war and written to affirm fundamental human rights -- as amended governs all activities. The 15-member Security Council and the Secretariat headed by the Secretary-General oversee the day-to-day operation, including meetings of the General Assembly. Ralph Bunche played a key role in drafting the Charter

Perhaps you should do some reading before you make comments.....

Did you have a point of some kind?

[eivioolla]

Make your own damn internet.

That is the plan, I suppose. I think there's already plans to build a replacement system for the root name servers etc.

[Auggie2k]

They're not taking over my bloody internet! Screw them!

[Class316]

Let's hope not! Free speech will be gone!

[Brassen]

Free speech will be gone!
Class316, can you at least try to explain me why would that happen???

and in a second moment, why should US or any other country rule the Internet alone? I really don't care wich organization will take care it, but it shouldn't be in a single country's hand...

thats my opinion...

cheers,

[Class316]

The UN is made up of many nations that oppress free speech and the UN itself is against free speech. At least the US has the first amendment and that's why the Internet exists like it does. Sure they want to end the free nature of the Internet but it's much easier to do that with the crappy UN.

[eivioolla]

I really don't get the reaction of some people. How does transferring the control of the net from the oppressive US government under an international, independent body "end free speech"? If anything, it will be the exact opposite. Open your eyes, your "first amendment" is worth jack shit in the reality nowadays. There are many countries more free than the US and we don't like the US controlling and monitoring our traffic. Do you think the UN would have built something like Echelon?

Global thing like the internet does not belong into hands of any single nation.

[Class316]

I’m not saying the US isn’t oppressive, but at least it has a constitution. The UN and most nations don’t. A weak barrier is better than no barrier. Want an example of the UN take on free speech? Here I found one:

from http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1999/eres1999-12.htm


2. Also approves the Commission’s request to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to undertake research and consultations on the use of the Internet for purposes of incitement to racial hatred, racist propaganda and xenophobia, to study ways of promoting international cooperation in this area, and to draw up a programme of human rights education and exchanges over the Internet on experience in the struggle against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism;

The EU isn't much better. From http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite/Crime/PublicHearingPresentations/EUMC.html


Protection from prosecution: Even though most countries prohibit by criminal law racist speech (according to Art. 4 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination), some countries (notably USA) made a reservation to Art.4 of the mentioned UN Convention. USA considers racist speech as protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (as confirmed by the recent decision of the US Supreme Court R.A.V. versus City of St. Paul, Minnesota in 1992).

If they want to stop what THEY see as "criminal speech" where do you think they'll stop?

Here's something from the other side of the coin. From http://www.contenderministries.org/UN/wsis.php


They’ll start with the “we must curb hate speech” diatribe and move on from there. They’ll move from the obvious sites like white supremacist sites to conservative political sites, then pro-second amendment sites and finally religious sites that decry abortion and homosexuality…or perhaps don’t like the UN. You can bet the UN would consider any Christian ministry like Contender Ministries intolerant and hateful. After all we believe homosexuality is wrong and we point out false prophets and their religions. And, who decides what promotes the common good?! The UN would of course. Having the UN in charge of the entire Internet is insane. It would take three years and some sort of condemnation of Zionism in order for all the member states to come to any sort of complex technical standards for the Internet.

If you want to tell me the US government is oppressive etc etc I probably can’t argue with that. But to tell me the UN would be better? That’s a joke!

Bottom line is, basically all third world countries have laws against freedom of expression. And Western nations are not much better. Most notably Germany, France, and Canada.

[Face's Vette]

I really don't get the reaction of some people. How does transferring the control of the net from the oppressive US government under an international, independent body "end free speech"? If anything, it will be the exact opposite. Open your eyes, your "first amendment" is worth jack shit in the reality nowadays. There are many countries more free than the US and we don't like the US controlling and monitoring our traffic. Do you think the UN would have built something like Echelon?

Global thing like the internet does not belong into hands of any single nation.

pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaasssssseeeeeee - calling the U.S oppressive means nothing when it's coming from someone within a country so industrially retarded the people still get around by reindeer drawn carts.

this is job which begs for a country with the integrity and capabilities only the USA can offer.

USA-USA-USA-USA-USA

[Brassen]

I’m not saying the US isn’t oppressive, but at least it has a constitution. The UN and most nations don’t.

Wake up... If a country does not possess a constitution, it is not considered a Nation. How many can you count?

The UN has a statute, and all the members must obey it. So, the UN has a Constitution.

I believe eivioolla agrees...

cheers,

[Brassen]

this is job which begs for a country with the integrity and capabilities only the USA can offer.

Integrity??? Another joke... your government has so much integrity as Irak had mass destruction weapons...

cheers

*save yourself to making a comment on how we get around in Brazil... as you did to Finland. You will only embarrase yourself...

[Domethius]

I don't think any nation nor the UN should have any control over the Internet, it was supposed to be free. And as for the USA being oppressive and pushing our views on the rest of the world, that is not always the case. Look at the recent file sharing issues in Sweden (I think, maybe it is Switzerland, global geography is not my thing). Their governments chose to be bought out by the Money Hungry Greedy Entertainment Industry, we did not go their with guns or anything. Look, I am not trying to be a pain or a dick but no one is perfect, not the US, not Brazil, Not Finland, and certainly not the damn UN (remember the UN went with us to Iraq the first time, guess it was important then, must have been good for them , hell I don't know and don't care). My basic point is I trust NO ONE to govern the internet, it should be without boundaries, laws, or regulations. but that is just my opinion.

[Class316]

Wake up... If a country does not possess a constitution, it is not considered a Nation. How many can you count?

The UN has a statute, and all the members must obey it. So, the UN has a Constitution.

I believe eivioolla agrees...

cheers,

Not a constitution that protects free speech.


My basic point is I trust NO ONE to govern the internet, it should be without boundaries, laws, or regulations. but that is just my opinion.

That is a good point. But if the UN had it, say goodbye to free Internet without boundaries.

[eivioolla]

If you want to tell me the US government is oppressive etc etc I probably can’t argue with that. But to tell me the UN would be better? That’s a joke!

Ok, so there we have two bad choices. On the other hand the US gov is monitoring and spying everything we do on the net.

If it was up to me I'd have it controlled by somekind of tech organization like ITU and leave enforcing politics to each nation in their part of the network.


Bottom line is, basically all third world countries have laws against freedom of expression. And Western nations are not much better. Most notably Germany, France, and Canada.

On the other hand we don't have oppressive IP laws (yet, though the US is trying their best, as usual) nor software patents. For example private sharing is entirely legal here (Finland), as is copying for private use. Most western countries also have better protection of privacy than the US.
example: http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/55580

[eivioolla]

And as for the USA being oppressive and pushing our views on the rest of the world, that is not always the case. Look at the recent file sharing issues in Sweden (I think, maybe it is Switzerland, global geography is not my thing). Their governments chose to be bought out by the Money Hungry Greedy Entertainment Industry, we did not go their with guns or anything.

Why do you think that Sweden had to change their copyright law? Because the US had pushed their way into an EU directive that says so earlier on and now every nation has to include it in their own laws. I'm not talking about guns blazin', but sophisticated lobbying and pressuring etc. Of course the EU is as much to blame for being US' bitch voluntarily.

[eivioolla]

pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaasssssseeeeeee - calling the U.S oppressive means nothing when it's coming from someone within a country so industrially retarded the people still get around by reindeer drawn carts.

this is job which begs for a country with the integrity and capabilities only the USA can offer.

USA-USA-USA-USA-USA

LOL. How much do you pay for your connection? My 100Mbps costs 10€/month. :) I've heard they call 2Mbps lines broadband in the US, imagine that! :D

[Domethius]

That is what my point was, The EU is doing what the US wants and not standing up for themselves, you cannot blame that on the USA. It is not our fault that the EU is listening to our Ignorant Greedy politicians and the like. I am not slamming any other countries here just pointing out that they are just as bad as the USA, they are all controlled by Greed and Power.

[NoXi]

Why should US have more right to control what top-domains exists... The internet was intitlally devoloped by US military but today the net is worldwide therefore imo it should not be controlled by one country...

[voltRis]

Why should US have more right to control what top-domains exists... The internet was intitlally devoloped by US military but today the net is worldwide therefore imo it should not be controlled by one country...

It isn't controlled, that's the issue. It's unregulated. The UN wants to get their muddy little paws in the pie and start "surveillance". I'm sure China would push for global filtering (although how they'd get that through, I have no idea), Brazil would start bitching about porn and the .xxx domain, Germany gets all MEIN KEMPF ILLEGAL MUZIK DOWNLOADINGFRIEDEN, et cetera to in-FINity. Well, horseshit on that. I like the internet the way it is, and so far, keeping it the way it is has been one thing this administration hasn't monkeyed up yet. I don't see how handing it over to the UN helps anyone, anywhere. Ever.

[Brassen]

The internet was intitlally devoloped by US military

If this info is correct, its the first point of arguiment of why US should not "loose" control over Internet I've seen in this topic...

Anyway, as the whole world uses it, I guess this is not taken into consideration. For example, the Caller ID inventor is a brazilian guy by the name of "Nélio Nicolai", who invented it in 1977, patented in 1981 and some years later updated it to work on mobile phones. He has not received a single dolar of royalties for it...

Internet is free and most probably will continue to be... But, in my opinion, all countries should participate in its regulation...

cheers,

[Class316]

Internet is free and most probably will continue to be... But, in my opinion, all countries should participate in its regulation...

cheers,

A "regulated" Internet is exactly what we don't want.

[aqlo]

BRUSSELS, Belgium - A U.N. panel created to recommend how the Internet should be run in the future has failed to reach consensus but did agree that no single country should dominate.

The United States stated two weeks ago that it intended to maintain control over the computers that serve as the Internet's principal traffic cops.

In a report released Thursday, the U.N. panel outlined four possible options for the future of Internet governance for world leaders to consider at a November "Information Society" summit.

One option would largely keep the current system intact, with a U.S.-based non-profit organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, continuing to handle basic policies over Internet addresses.

At the other end, ICANN would be revamped and new international agencies formed under the auspices of the United Nations.

"In the end it will be up to governments, if at all, to decide if there will be any change," said Markus Kummer, executive director of the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance, which issued the report.

The 40 members of the panel hailed from around the world and included representatives from business, academia and government.

World leaders who convened in December 2003 for the U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva couldn't agree on a structure for Internet governance.

Some countries were satisfied with the current arrangement, while others, particularly developing ones, wanted to wrest control from ICANN and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.

Leaders ducked the issue and directed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to convene the working group to come up with a proposal for the second and final phase of the summit, in Tunisia in November.

Though the group could not agree on a single model, it does recommend the creation of a new global forum for governments, industry and others to discuss key issues such as spam and cybercrime — areas not currently handled by ICANN.

The panel recommended a larger international role for "governance arrangements," Kummer said, and participants felt no one country should dominate.

He stressed the sentiment dates back to the Geneva summit and was not meant as an attack on the United States or a direct response to the U.S. Department of Commerce statement two weeks ago that it intends to keep ultimate authority for authorizing changes to the list of Internet suffixes, such as ".com."

The United States historically has played that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development.

"The group as a whole recognizes that it is clear the U.S. has played a beneficial role," Kummer said.

ICANN chief executive Paul Twomey said the report confirmed his organization's role.

"If the Internet was a postal system, what we ensure is that the addresses on the letters work," he said. "We don't think we're a regulator. We think we're a technical co-ordinator."

Twomey said ICANN had a narrow technical coordination role for a particular layer of the Internet — specifically domain names and the numeric Internet Protocol addresses used to identify specific computers.

But ICANN critics believe the organization has drifted beyond its technical mandate. They have cited ICANN's growing budget and its involvement in creating procedures for resolving trademark dispute as examples.

Paul Kane, chairman of a Brussels-based coalition of domain name administrators called the Council of European and National Top-Level Domain Registries, said the report told ICANN diplomatically that it needed to narrow its focus.

"Keeping things focused means not having a massive budget, having a well-defined scope and a well-defined mission," Kane said. "They have neither. They're not following their original remit."

Others have expressed concerns that ICANN remains too close to the U.S. government, which gave ICANN its authority in 1998 but retains veto power.

Developing countries have been frustrated that Western countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations to share a limited supply.

And some countries want faster approval of domain names in non-English characters — China even threatened a few years ago to split the Internet in two and set up its own naming system for Chinese.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050714/ap_on_hi_te/internet_control

[TiaKo]

From what I can remember from one of my modules on my degree, Tim Berners-Lee (a Brit) invented the internet, and HTML, and the first web-browser etc. The American military took the idea and developed ARPANet. Slowly but surely individual countries had mini-internets, almost big LAN's... then they joined them all together. I'm not exactly sure what aspect of "the internet" the US maintain, but I can't really see how the UN maintaining them would be much different. But, tbh... if it ain't broke don't fix it, seems to be working well at the moment.

[the great one]

Bottom line is, basically all third world countries have laws against freedom of expression. And Western nations are not much better. Most notably Germany, France, and Canada.

That is the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time.Canada not free...PULEEASE!

[Class316]

That is the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time.Canada not free...PULEEASE!

Canada has become a book burning society. Ever heard of Ernst Zundel? Do some research.

Censorship in Canada: http://www.freedomtoread.ca/censorship_in_canada/index.asp

Canada signs protocol to fight 'cyberhate' http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/07/08/canada.cybercrime.ap/index.html

Sorry to say but you should do some research on how free speech is opressed in Canada.

[mcovey]

what if the UN decides to take it, and the US decides to keep it?

[notbob]

comprising of 189 countries at the end of 2000, was established in 1945 at the end of World War II by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. The original Charter of the United Nations -- an international treaty designed to protect future generations from the scourge of war and written to affirm fundamental human rights -- as amended governs all activities. The 15-member Security Council and the Secretariat headed by the Secretary-General oversee the day-to-day operation, including meetings of the General Assembly. Ralph Bunche played a key role in drafting the Charter

Perhaps you should do some reading before you make comments.....


maybe you should read what you just posted, moron


The 15-member Security Council and the Secretariat headed by the Secretary-General oversee the day-to-day operation, including meetings of the General Assembly

15 countries run the UN, the other 174 are effectively powerless, and of the 15, only 5, US,UK, China
France, and Russia have veto power. with that veto, anything that the other 184 pass is meaningless

did you see the part about the US having super veto power? the US does force their policies on everyone else--thanks for being such a great example of it

[Class316]

maybe you should read what you just posted, moron



15 countries run the UN, the other 174 are effectively powerless, and of the 15, only 5, US,UK, China
France, and Russia have veto power. with that veto, anything that the other 184 pass is meaningless

did you see the part about the US having super veto power? the US does force their policies on everyone else--thanks for being such a great example of it

China and France are enough to keep the Internet away from the UN. Did you know that in France they put Brigitte Bardot on trail for free speech? She didn't get jail probably because she is famous but she did get fined a good amount.

[the great one]

Canada has become a book burning society. Ever heard of Ernst Zundel? Do some research.

Censorship in Canada: http://www.freedomtoread.ca/censorship_in_canada/index.asp

Canada signs protocol to fight 'cyberhate' http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/07/08/canada.cybercrime.ap/index.html

Sorry to say but you should do some research on how free speech is opressed in Canada.

Every Country in the world censors things,be it books, video, games, movies or porn.

Canada is very accepting of things,more than most countries.

Canada is as free as it gets.Maybe in the future nothing will be censored in Canada and the USA and we'll look back at these days as very opressive times,but for the moment we've got it pretty good.

[transduction]

I agree that the internet should be left alone. The UN wants to control the Internet because of many reasons. Unlike tv they can't force us to see or hear whatever they want us to hear online. On the internet you do what you want. You download movies you want to watch, and without paying.

It eats the UN and the establishment up because they realize due to the net they have lost control of the masses. Dot.com startups can make lots of money in a short period of time, and they hate that. They want full control and dominance.

Taxing domains would be something we could expect from these corrupt bastards. It does not matter what they tax, because the federal debt will never be paid off with our current money system thanks to the fed.

As far as consumer protection? think consumer/coporate control.

[eivioolla]

If this info is correct, its the first point of arguiment of why US should not "loose" control over Internet I've seen in this topic...

I really don't see the US having a choice here. If the world wants to change the net one way or the other, then US can either join in or leave out...

[voltRis]

I really don't see the US having a choice here. If the world wants to change the net one way or the other, then US can either join in or leave out...

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't 'the world' have to first create a different set of top-level domains, and then...put content on it that people would subscribe for? Doesn't that take a couple of decades?

I could be completely wrong, though.

[eivioolla]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't 'the world' have to first create a different set of top-level domains, and then...put content on it that people would subscribe for? Doesn't that take a couple of decades?
I could be completely wrong, though.

I'm not sure what you mean by top level domains. If you mean the root DNS servers that are controlled by the US I believe there is already plans for an alternative system that would replace those.

What comes to content, well there's tons of content in the net outside of the US. Probably more outside than inside.

[z05+3R0p5]

as a matter of fact, netizens nearly everywhere outside the us are quite unhappy with how youse guys run the icann.

so stuff your nwo conspiracy drek elsewhere. internationalizing the icann would open the way for more democratic structures (the usa is the one country that has vehemently blocked extension of the 'netizen delegates' influence on the icann board) and decrease corp control (the usa is the single country that has stuffed the icann full with riaa/mpaa/name your fave copyright badguy here lackeys).

mccovey: "The UN doesn't draw it's power from the people"

ah, but your prez does? or the mpaa?

besides, the inevitable squabbles will inevitably expand this certain lawlessness in which greyware prospers.

digitaljunkie: that kind of agency is precisely the sort of thing we're talking here. as mrericsir has pointed out, the un can't do squat to enforce policies. its role is merely to set up this body; who goes into it will be decided by every country, and hopefully to a larger extent by us people here.

small factoid: as you all seem so well-informed, you probably already know that legally, the us department of commerce 'runs' the internet as of now.
oh, you didn't? well, you know now. 'splains a lot, neh?


so, you keep-it-the-way-it-ises: explain to me why in particular it is good that this big business stooge, undemocratic, bloated organization should continue to run the 'net.

AND explain to me how it would be possible to 'control' the 'net. the chinese try as hard as they can, but they have not managed it. here in germany, i can d/l mein kampf, luxury edition, in 5 minutes flat if i chose to. yes the gov't tries to stop it. but the 'net has grown to such an extent that it is impossible to control competely. if the 'governing' body is not single-interest anymore (like the us dept of commerce), control will actually decrease on a global level.

and as a final note, all you rednecks whining about how un-free the rest of the world is: i'd rather live in a country that bans guys calling for the extermination of all jews than in a country that bans the f-word or nipples. you're so full of censorship, you don't even see it anymore.

[MP3Pr0]

The UN wants a one-world government, a one-world church, so why not a one-world Internet? It's all bad. The U.S. has the majority of the Internet because it FOUNDED the Internet (beginning with ARPANET). If the UN gets control of the Internet, the type of censorship present in China will be worldwide.

[riderx]

i heard that i run the internet :)
hehe

[DigitalJunkie]

Why not "Independent" Int'l. Agency??? Trust only U.S. to do the right thing, keep the politics out of the Internet? U.S. is already censoring (spying) on everyone now.

[Class316]

If the UN got the Internet, censorships in China, Germany, France, and other places will be in place.

Keep the Internet in the US or face the beginning of the end of the Internet.

[mcovey]

mcovey: "The UN doesn't draw it's power from the people"

ah, but your prez does? or the mpaa?

supposedly, yes. they do.

the US constitution is clear on this:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[mcovey]

you guys go ahead and start your own internet, we made this one for ourselves..

can't have your cake and eat it too.

[cybertron]

MP3Pr0. No, the U.N don't want a so called ''one-world govournment'' ect ect, it's the U.S who does. Take for example the fake ''war on terror''. Even more obvious is that you had George bush senior in '92' calling for a ''new world order'', i wonder what that implys and describes?. i think you know. Just like after 11th of September, there was govourment officials ect ect saying how this could bring in a ''new world order'' a so called ''global govournment''. On the subject of the Internet being ''run'' it's just not logical, in the sense of it being a hell of alot easier to say than do, it's clearly something that will not be govourned. Yes, on the contrary... China seem to do it, but that's pure communism, Vietnam do it too, yet again... communism. you have to ask yourself why would the net have to be govourned? quite simply, it doesn't need to be. ( 90% of it) The other %10 is the sick stuff, which is obviously websites, and in my opinion should indeed be seriously got rid of.

[mcovey]

The other %10 is the sick stuff, which is obviously websites, and in my opinion should indeed be seriously got rid of.
Well I don't think they should be gotten rid of. So we have a conflict of interest and who is to decide what is to be done about this...

Well, the web is a marvelous place of free speech and free content, so if you don't like it, suck it up and deal with the fact that it exists. The web is not a newspaper where sites are pages and articles, it's like your site is your house. You get to control who enters it, you pay for it, you choose its name, and if people don't want to come, they don't have to.

[z05+3R0p5]

supposedly, yes. they do.

the US constitution is clear on this:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

GOD! Please have mercy and throw down some brains!

Diebold rings a bell? No? Thought so.

"Constitution", my ass. If judging from the Constitution alone, the Third Reich was a democratic country. Check the facts, they're clear on this. Reality is what bites, not some piece of vellum. Who was first - RIAA or SGAE or GEMA?

As an aside, have you heard about yesterday's scoop - GWB's gov't tried to push a plan for election rigging in Iraq and at a hair's breath succeeded? Can't blame him actually, now he's got Tehran's henchmen running that place.
Really, I salute the fact that the US is more democratic than many assume. Else, we'd already be screwed.

Rather than bigmouthing here you should put your guns to good use and citizen-arrest your lying snake of a prez (WMDs anyone?). Oh, why are we so awfully quiet all of a sudden? Check your laws on this one and think about it.

Being from Germany, I know damn well that nothing good does spring from a head of state dragging a country into a war on fabricated pretense. You guys saved our butts in the nick of time, but you really should take a look around you now. eDonkey "bush's brain" for a nice wake-up call.

The last I checked, the freest countries in the world were Denmark and/or Sweden. There, you can spout hatred AND have full frontal nudity, not like the anal-retentive, Puritan US, where every hate-monger is protected by law (don't get me wrong, I wish every country had a First Amendment) but that area between your legs is bah-bah.
About Finland and Costa Rica, someone with more hands-down experience than me fill in. Finland I really like, gread forests, great lakes, great bandwidth, but the language... man... Pohjanmaan kautta! is the farthest I got to date ;-)

Guys from the USA defending the status quo, no offense intended, but there is no rational reason anymore to trust you. Your gov't sold out to the big bucks cabal, and you who should be ashamed and do something about it instead choose to play blind mice. Bah.

If those guys who paint horror scenarios here were to run this place, we'd see the heads lopped of gays in public, abortionists burned at the stake and the climate going haywire. Anyone been to Afghanistan under the Taliban? Like that, folks. Just like that. No drugs, too.

[z05+3R0p5]

MP3Pr0. No, the U.N don't want a so called ''one-world govournment'' ect ect, it's the U.S who does.

The U.N. was not even able to handle the Balkans issue when there was the need to do it, much less Rwanda. Why would anone with a sane mind believe they'd be able to run the fricking Internet?

I say, hand the ICANN over to a multinational institution and more power to us. Living in the E.U., we get to see every day how hard it is to get a dozen states to agree and implement some policy. With 15 times the number, it's not gonna be any easier.

You US guys, come visit us anytime and we'll show you some pr0n. Legally. And then, we discuss censorship.

(I note that there is an appaling silence on my comment that as of now, the US Dept of Commerce legally 'runs' the Internet. I'm waiting...)

[cybertron]

Mcovey, blimey, i fully implied and empisised what a marvelous place it is (obviosuly in not so many words) for free speach, free content ect ect. Indeed, i implied nothing about me not liking it, (why the hell would i not like it?) i just pointed out a logical comment/remark about if something was ''govourned'' or along them lines where the so called ''free speach, free content'' ect ect don't come into it.

[MP3Pr0]

cybertron, you're right, the U.S. wants a New World Order (at least, the Nazi Bush family, anyways). The U.S, though, is part of the U.N., which is actually what the one world goverment would be comprised of. The U.N. is a front for the elite who have Bush by the strings and are forging forward to make the New World Order possible. With control of the Internet, they would surely try to stop free exchange of ideas just like this forum. These people truly believe that the world will be a better place under strict dictactorship, stripping our freedoms away and unifying everything.

This seems like conspiracy theory nonsense, but by all means, **do the research**. I highly recommend watching Alex Jones' videos (www.infowars.com or find them on eMule - he allows them to be copied free of charge). Ralph Epperson and Anthony Hilder are also great sources on the subject.

[riderx]

us didnt follow the un advice with iraq, they will do what they want and continue to control the servers till they see it feasable.
btw i control the internet
:)

[AgentOrange]

THIS IS A GOOD THING. The Internet conforms to a least common denominator of the legal system. For instance lets say some Afracan country has no concept of intellectual property, much less any laws governing it. You can throw up a warez page and download whatever you want.

ONE PROBLEM. The US government controls the Domain Names. They can take control over any domain AT WILL. They have used this to take over websites that they do not approve of. People have been arrested and there lives runied becase the US has control over DNS. The internet belongs to the world, the US should have say over how it should be governed.

"this would b another intrusion on our privacy"
-boogiedan
You could not be more wrong.

[eivioolla]

us didnt follow the un advice with iraq, they will do what they want and continue to control the servers till they see it feasable.
btw i control the internet
:)

Sure, they can do that, but when the rest of the world starts using the new system that replaces those servers, US will be cut off from the rest of the net. Which, of course, is fine by me. :)

[mcovey]

trying to be on topic here....

if the US gov wants to surrender the internet to the UN, fine. Nobody can make them. Except a majority voice of the people, per the way this country is run for the most part.

[Siskabush]

Its running just fine.

Let the US and ICANN (I think) run it for now.

If they warp it like the chinese did, then give it to Canada :D

[Myrodushin]

If UN does this there will probibly be more privacy invasion and could possibly leading to some bad things like riots (bad for the UN at least) They better leave it alone or they suffer from it.

[Smoovious]

There is only one place on the planet, that has not taken sides in anyone's conflicts, has never tried to force their
way of life on the rest of the planet, and has pretty much stayed under the radar in the news, except for severe
weather conditions...

So, I propose, as the only truly neutral continent on the planet, that the continent of Antarctica be designated as
the new permanent home of ICANN and the root servers and that we immediately ship the entire ICANN organization
there, by this weekend at the latest.

Any seconds?

[Smoovious]

what if the UN decides to take it, and the US decides to keep it?

Let em try! We can take em! :icon_salu

And we can even drive there to do it. :icon_thum

[Smoovious]

as a matter of fact, netizens nearly everywhere outside the us are quite unhappy with how youse guys run the icann.

Us netizens within the US are quite unhappy with how ICANN is handling things as well.

We don't run the ICANN... the ICANN, apparently, is run by VeriSign... :icon_puke

[zachary1]

Is that what Shrub meant when he heard of rumors on the Internets[I]?

[Afn]

UN is going to have world government in place by 2025 or so. They need a tax, and a domain name tax would fund the UN (would be first, and content tax second, and perhaps a land use or land owner tax) and use the tax money to clean up the mess from the world bank and other development trusts that have reaked havoc on third world nations. During the cold war the US benefited from this mismanagement, now with netcentric like opposition to first world nations, the UN is a better tool for the US to use to bring forth a global civilized earth with global property values and global social programs, ie welfare.