At UN meet, worries about US Internet control, free flow of information

At this year's just-concluded Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, countries again expressed unhappiness with the level of US control over the Internet. But civil liberties groups aren't thrilled about giving repressive regimes a say in the process, either.<BR><BR>Read More

 

[Thegn]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JournalBot:<br>But civil liberties groups aren't thrilled about giving repressive regimes a say in the process, either. </div>
</blockquote>Ah, so they're in favor of taking control away from the United States then, right? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

 

[Vipre77]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InThane:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JournalBot:<br>But civil liberties groups aren't thrilled about giving repressive regimes a say in the process, either. </div>
</blockquote>Ah, so they're in favor of taking control away from the United States then, right? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Holy flame-bait, Batman!

 

[swalsh76]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipre77:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InThane:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JournalBot:<br>But civil liberties groups aren't thrilled about giving repressive regimes a say in the process, either. </div>
</blockquote>Ah, so they're in favor of taking control away from the United States then, right? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Holy flame-bait, Batman! </div>
</blockquote>
<br>heh heh heh<br><gets out the marshmellows>

 

[Thegn]

Man, nobody has a sense of humor any more. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif -- -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

 

[hefner]

I'm not American but I sure as hell know that I'd rather have the US "controlling" the net than say, Russia & China.

 

[lyme]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InThane:<br>Man, nobody has a sense of humor any more. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif -- -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Does that go with a side of: You will not oppress us!! But we will opress you!

 

[max4677]

Just move it to Switzerland and be done with it.

 

[Megalodon]

Keeping in mind that my contempt for the US government isn't even thinly veiled anymore, I still trust it more than I trust the UN.

 

[Thegn]

I know that the U.S. is a much preferable controller of the internet to China or Russia - but the trend of increased internet surveillance by the NSA/CIA concerns me greatly. Of course, I'm a big proponent of the Transparent Society so it's more that I can't see what they're doing with what they're looking at that concerns me, not that they're looking at it in the first place.

 

[Edzo]

To me, the current state of the internet is a great tool/service and I think it's in no small part due to good fortune. Or to put it another way, knowing what we have now, the chance that something would work out as well as it has make it seems like amazing luck. <BR><BR>Given that, I'd be reluctant to make any drastic changes without very good cause. In the Ars write-up at least, there didn't seem to be any specific complaints about how the US is handling things so I wonder if it's not so much other countries fearing control by the US, as coveting it for themselves.

 

[erwos]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Edzo:<BR>so I wonder if it's not so much other countries fearing control by the US, as coveting it for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Bingo. Could you imagine what an unelected body like the UN might do with it? At least the US government is, in some sense, responsible to the people who elected it. The UN doesn't have that safeguard.<BR><BR>If the US starts screwing with the Internet, yeah, let's explore the issue some more. But for now, trying to yank control away when there's been little to no abuse of that control is just asking for problems.

 

[Walshicus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hefner:<BR>I'm not American but I sure as hell know that I'd rather have the US "controlling" the net than say, Russia & China. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'd rather have a technocratic international institution than any of those three.

 

[hobgoblin]

the only reason this is a issue at all is because of supernational namespaces.<BR><BR>if we dropped the com, org, net and others that are not national in any way, then one could let every nation do whatever they want, within their own name space.<BR><BR>sure that could lead to filtering like say not being able to access US pages from inside iran, but err, cant that be done on a ip level already?<BR><BR>the thing about the UN is that its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground for when nations have a dispute with each other (more often then not its just the leaders of said nations that are at odds, buts thats a debate for a different time).<BR><BR>i dont know, to me this comes under "damned if you do, damned if you dont".

 

[hefner]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd rather have a technocratic international institution than any of those three </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>yeah, me too. please name one [that works].

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erwos:<BR>Could you imagine what an unelected body like the UN might do with it? At least the US government is, in some sense, responsible to the people who elected it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Now all we have to do is set up 2008 Election polling stations in Elbonia and then it would actually be responsible government instead of garden variety imperialism.<BR><BR><BR><I>- Yeah, I'm looking to roast some marshmallows. Why do you ask?</I>

 

[xoa]

Honest question: for all people complain about the United States, can we have a list of other countries with similarly strong constitutional protection for free speech ala the First Amendment? I know there are a few of them, so having a list would help to figure out what other contenders for forming a decision group might be, but I have been surprised to learn that even some other first world modern nations allow actual restrictions on non-libellous or directly threatening ("I'm going to kill you tomorrow") speech.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InThane:<BR>I know that the U.S. is a much preferable controller of the internet to China or Russia - but the trend of increased internet surveillance by the NSA/CIA concerns me greatly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>InThane, related to your above comments as well, what does this have to do with the limited "control" the US has over the internet right now? Traffic surveillance has absolutely zero, nada, to do with DNS stuff and such, it could and would happen 100% independently of whatever group is helping to organize the network itself. It just involves physically tapping major line junctions and going through the traffic, and to defeat it all you need is ubiquitous point-to-point encryption of all said traffic (which we could easily do right now). If everything is encrypted then you can't monitor it from the middle, only from the ends which is fine (ie., if they suspect you, personally, of something and get a valid warrant that isn't subject to abuse like worldwide bulk traffic sifting).<BR><BR>You might be confused about what this whole "controller of the internet" thing actually amounts to, which isn't that much.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Walshicus:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hefner:<BR>I'm not American but I sure as hell know that I'd rather have the US "controlling" the net than say, Russia & China. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'd rather have a technocratic international institution than any of those three. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And I want it created with magical fairy dust. Seriously, I not only see little hope in such a thing, I also don't see it working because it wouldn't have to raw power necessary to help enforce its decisions. Like a lot of the UN.

 

[xoa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tyler X. Durden:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erwos:<BR>Could you imagine what an unelected body like the UN might do with it? At least the US government is, in some sense, responsible to the people who elected it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Now all we have to do is set up 2008 Election polling stations in Elbonia and then it would actually be responsible government instead of garden variety imperialism.<BR><BR><BR><I>- Yeah, I'm looking to roast some marshmallows. Why do you ask?</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Um, I just have no idea what point you were trying to make there. Could you clarify? erwos was absolutely right, these increasing numbers of meta-governments which are at multiple steps remove from the actual people really are cause for concern in some cases. Especially in the case of relics like the UN, which was useful as a mediator during the Cold War and for some simple tasks, but is now woefully outdated and does things like actually allow non-democratic countries a real say in important policies.

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xoa:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tyler X. Durden:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erwos:<br>Could you imagine what an unelected body like the UN might do with it? At least the US government is, in some sense, responsible to the people who elected it. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Now all we have to do is set up 2008 Election polling stations in Elbonia and then it would actually be responsible government instead of garden variety imperialism.<br><br><br><i>- Yeah, I'm looking to roast some marshmallows. Why do you ask?</i> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Um, I just have no idea what point you were trying to make there. Could you clarify? erwos was absolutely right, these increasing numbers of meta-governments which are at multiple steps remove from the actual people really are cause for concern in some cases. Especially in the case of relics like the UN, which was useful as a mediator during the Cold War and for some simple tasks, but is now woefully outdated and does things like actually allow non-democratic countries a real say in important policies. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>You seem to miss that you are equating elected by some people in one corner of the world to uphold these ideals of freedom as being the same as elected by all people of the world to do so. Perhaps you might have missed the theoretical falicy in that but have you been asleep for the past number of years that you didn't notice the demonstration of the practical falicy in that?<br><br>Hell the United States government, within the lifetime of a huge swath of people here, actively undermined and brought about the <i>death</i> of a number of democracies in South America.<br><br>Further what you don't seem to understand is that your own government works on the basis of excalating concentration of power. Sure, there are some bad eggs (Minnesota!) but eventually you representatives all have to get together and sort it out. Because a government, any government, ultimately represents those under it's jurisdiction and is <i>allowed</i> governance by the same. The nice thing about democracy is the lower lagtime between the people's startling realization that their leader is a twat and actually replacing him (also it is usually done with a lot less killing). Right now you're waiting for next fall.<br><br>P.S. The list of democracies is actually pretty long, and really is more a sliding scale. Which reminds me; I think you should know us cream of the crop** got together last night. We took a vote and your little backwater, jackbooted Thug-tatorishp is out of the club. Please take this time to remove any World Decision Making Meetings from your calendar as you are no longer invited to have a real say in important politics. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- <br><br><br><br>EDIT: ** That's a graphical map of democracy ratings of governments. Lighter is > higher democracy rating, darker is < democracy rating. Incidentally in case you think it's some sort of left-wing nuthouse that put that map together or something, surprise, it's data from an evaluation published in the Jan 27, 2007 The Economist. I couldn't get the link that includes that reference to work.

 

[Searcher619]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course, I'm a big proponent of the Transparent Society so it's more that I can't see what they're doing with what they're looking at that concerns me, not that they're looking at it in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Hmmm this sounds a bit idealistic and naive to me.

 

[bokubob]

In the end, there is some benefit to being the first. Having an easy to remember telephone country code, for instance. .com .net on the internet are similar. When these countries joined up, they knew what they were joining. If they don't like it now, they have an obvious disadvantage if they want to get something changed.

 

[Walshicus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hefner:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd rather have a technocratic international institution than any of those three </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>yeah, me too. please name one [that works]. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>http://www.itu.int<BR>There are many, but this one seems most relevant.

 

[Devin]

I'm all for fixing things that are broken.<BR><BR><BR>What's broken?

 

[Ganso]

I could see a lot of benefits for an international body regulating the Internet.<BR><BR>Something is terribly wrong when you see a legal site (a site not breaking any local laws of where the site is hosted) gets taken down because a group of corporate lobbyist half a world away strong armed the local government into submission with threats of WTO sanctions.<BR><BR>When Big Content can trumpet the US's DMCA as their God given right to issue take down notice to a site in ThisIsNotTheUSkistan, something has to be done.<BR><BR>The US government is free to regulate their own piece of the net though. By that I mean Servers, Routers and Backbones actually located in US soil. If the MAFIAAs don't want US citizens downloading torrents from the pirate bay, all they have to do is petition the government to block the pirate bay from american IPs. Of course, nobody is going to like that because is censorship (or something), so it's better to have this corporations thread on a foreign country's sovereignty and force them to comply with US standards.<BR><BR>It's just another form of Imperialism (cyber-imperialism)

 

[hobgoblin]

how is that old US saying again? money talks, bullshit walks?

 

[Tuor]

Here's another American saying: If it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

[Iron Clad Burrito]

The UN is merely worried. If they ever get pissed, we'll start seeing Resolutions. After the 15th or so, the US will take unilateral action, invade itself, and liberate the internet.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Keeping in mind that my contempt for the US government isn't even thinly veiled anymore, I still trust it more than I trust the UN </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>++<BR><BR>As usual, anthonyr makes sense.<BR><BR>I'm a radio amateur, and I end up using these things called "international reply coupons" so that I can allow fellow amateurs elsewhere in the world to send me mail back when I send mail to them (we like to commemorate memorable contacts with postcards and it is often a good idea to pay the other guy's postage again for reasons I won't bore you with).<BR><BR>In principle, the system should work. I send a coupon with the letter and I get one back. The coupon is fairly pricey and it is supposed to be good for return postage from anywhere. Again, in principle. In practice, it's all a shambles. I won't bore you with the details, but all you need to know is that most amateurs world-wide actually mail dollar bills instead of these coupons. Even, sometimes, to countries where US currency is at least nominally illegal. If there was a one euro note, we'd be mailing those, too.<BR><BR>Yes, the coupons are used, too, but no one likes them much because it's so screwed up as actually administered. About half the time, you get "stiffed" one way or another. Sometimes, it's the local postal clerk who isn't trained. Other times, it's a local national policy that directly contravenes the relevant treaty and requires more than one coupon. And, it's fairly hard to find out which countries do that.<BR><BR>And, yes, mailing currency, even a lousy dollar, is a bad idea, just like you were told. Yet, here, it is a <I>superior</I> option.<BR><BR>So, yeah, the sacred "international community" can't even be trusted to administer a system where you send a coupon good for return postage to another country.

 

[Hak Foo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xoa:<BR>does things like actually allow non-democratic countries a real say in important policies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Many of the things the UN does are not matters that are freedom/oppression issues, but merely orchestration ones.<BR><BR>Aren't some of the standards for data communication set by a UN body? Yeah, them damn non-democratic countries are out to make a lousy 56k modem standard!<BR><BR>Also, even a nondemocratic regime is still more likely to have the needs of its citizens at heart than another nation. No matter how repressive you are as a government, you have to deliver just enough goods to avoid the tipping point where people rise up.

 

[audioSE]

Anyone else remember the Yahoo case?

 

[DSK]

Lets keep the internet as far and as long away from governments (non-democratic certainly, but also democratic ones) as we can.<BR><BR>I know ICANN has slipped up on this front, but it has had reasonable success as a private body.

 

[jschmeling]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Iron Clad Burrito:<BR>The UN is merely worried. If they ever get pissed, we'll start seeing Resolutions. After the 15th or so, the US will take unilateral action, invade itself, and liberate the internet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>lol. It's good to encourage humor by acknowledging the funny. heh.

 

[Walshicus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZeroZanzibar:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Keeping in mind that my contempt for the US government isn't even thinly veiled anymore, I still trust it more than I trust the UN </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>++<BR><BR>As usual, anthonyr makes sense.<BR><BR>I'm a radio amateur, and I end up using these things called "international reply coupons" so that I can allow fellow amateurs elsewhere in the world to send me mail back when I send mail to them (we like to commemorate memorable contacts with postcards and it is often a good idea to pay the other guy's postage again for reasons I won't bore you with).<BR><BR>In principle, the system should work. I send a coupon with the letter and I get one back. The coupon is fairly pricey and it is supposed to be good for return postage from anywhere. Again, in principle. In practice, it's all a shambles. I won't bore you with the details, but all you need to know is that most amateurs world-wide actually mail dollar bills instead of these coupons. Even, sometimes, to countries where US currency is at least nominally illegal. If there was a one euro note, we'd be mailing those, too.<BR><BR>Yes, the coupons are used, too, but no one likes them much because it's so screwed up as actually administered. About half the time, you get "stiffed" one way or another. Sometimes, it's the local postal clerk who isn't trained. Other times, it's a local national policy that directly contravenes the relevant treaty and requires more than one coupon. And, it's fairly hard to find out which countries do that.<BR><BR>And, yes, mailing currency, even a lousy dollar, is a bad idea, just like you were told. Yet, here, it is a <I>superior</I> option.<BR><BR>So, yeah, the sacred "international community" can't even be trusted to administer a system where you send a coupon good for return postage to another country. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that has ANY relevance to... anything really. I think the explaination is that the international community just doesn't think facilitating your hobby is of much importance. There's a long list of internationalised standards and decision making bodies which work just fine and don't have the stigma of being directly at the whim of the United States executive.

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Keeping in mind that my contempt for the US government isn't even thinly veiled anymore, I still trust it more than I trust the UN </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Agreed, for example as European I wouldn't trust the EU with their meddlesome controlfreaks with this at all. And the UN with China and Russia as security counsil members?.<BR><BR>Better the US it did work until now.

 

[Walshicus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JPan:<BR>Agreed, for example as European I wouldn't trust the EU with their meddlesome controlfreaks with this at all. And the UN with China and Russia as security counsil members?.<BR><BR>Better the US it did work until now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, I don't think you know too much about the EU if that's your belief. Even though it's a confederation now, back when it was an intergovernmental organisation it was still the most competent and legitimate body of its kind. It would have been the perfect body to regulate the internet.<BR><BR>What state are you from by the way? I know here in the UK we have a lot of trouble with general ignorance of the EU coupled with lying print media [literally lying, not even exagerating the truth!] and a government that takes credit for the EU's benefits and blames the EU for its own failures. I figured that might have influenced your comment.<BR><BR><BR>Regardless, being a UN-based body does not mean being subject to the rulings or whims of the UNSC; and what's wrong with having a similar structure to the ITU?

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, I don't think you know too much about the EU if that's your belief ... It would have been the perfect body to regulate the internet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Really? You are talking about the same EU that just released guidelines that say that each member has to force its ISPs and telcos to save 6 months of connection data (IP addresses etc.) just in case it could be needed. (Originally they wanted 12 months). I don't know what YOU know about the EU but I think that speaks for itself.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What state are you from by the way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I am from Germany so we are usually "Pro"-EU guys. This gets a bit old if you have to pay billions to keep the small French farmer in existance. I think its annoying when the biggest deregulation they can do is that we no longer have guidelines for sugar/coffee/chocolate packaging sizes. Hey now the EU allows us to buy 250gr coffee packs instead of 500gr ones Thumps up. But seriously there are many positive aspects of the EU, easier travelling, the stabilisation and democratisation of a dozen middle-european countries, we take their relative success for granted but their aspiration to become EU members certainly helped. But for all their success the EU parlament contains too many micro-managing bastards that want control over things they should leave their fingers off, therefore they are possibly the worst possible body to control something like the Internet.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regardless, being a UN-based body does not mean being subject to the rulings or whims of the UNSC; and what's wrong with having a similar structure to the ITU? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>My opinion on that? Never change a running system. I cannot imagine that the Internet would be as open and deregulated with any other controlling body. The US may have some issues but free speach and deregulation are still more ingrained in its system than with any other big country. It seems to work so don't change it.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that has ANY relevance to... anything really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You do realize that "International Reply Coupons" weren't set up entirely or even mostly for radio amateurs?<BR><BR>In principle (and perhaps in practice) anyone can use them. In fact, everyone is supposed to for this sort of thing. That's what it is for. This "IRC" thing has been around for ages and it is so successful. . .you haven't even heard of it.<BR><BR>The basic point is -- the "international community" can't handle something as stone simple as return postage across borders.<BR><BR>There's a lot of folks who seem to think that anything "internationalized" is automatically superior.<BR><BR>International agreements work as well as members states want them to. Just about everyone has all kinds of "opt outs" or simply "reinterpretations" whenever they please. Sure, sometimes, everyone actually cooperates. But, you can hardly count on it.<BR><BR>The internet DNS service is rather important. I don't want to have all kinds of "opt out" and "I interpret it different" for this function, in particular.<BR><BR>There's lots of folks (China for one, some in Europe for others) who seem to be eager to balkanize the internet. "Internationalizing" it is about the surest path to doing so I can think of. And, the IRC is an example of how it happens. It's "international" but so toothless that it's about as "international" as parking regulations.

 

[kdavis]

I guess U.S. control of ICANN is the worst system except for all the others, in the sense that we allow the most free speech.<BR><BR>Everybody bans child prrn (misspelling deliberate to not attract freaks to this site), fraud, etc. Some places allow more file sharing, but my understanding is that the U.S. never did try to get allofmp3's DNS cancelled (correct me if I'm wrong).<BR><BR>We can compare the U.S. to restrictions in other places<BR>- in Europe, saying homosexuality is a sin is often banned, as well as Nazi memorabilia. Anything seen as ultra-conservative, fascist, or offensive to some social group is likely to be out<BR><BR>- in Saudi Arabia and nearby nations, any sort of prrn is banned, as well as ideas considered anti-Islamic. For example, try pointing out that the prophet Muhammed recorded a legal limit of four wives into the Qu'ran and then took 10 himself and you could expect to be stoned<BR><BR>- in many many nations, opposing government policy is a criminal offense<BR><BR>I'm sure I just hit the obvious cases, but let's put it this way. If the U.S. doesn't control it, then who does? The UN doesn't seem to have any sense of independent right and wrong, it's only as good as the states that make it up, and while there may be someplace better than America, there are a heck of a lot that are worse. Most think they are defending good causes, while a few are simply brutal or thieving.

 

[Hak Foo]

Well, that's the merit of the UN, in a way-- since they're not tied to the whims of any specific government, it's unlikely they'll be able to stop bickering and infighting about HOW to be repressive long enough to establish repressive rules.<BR><BR>After all, many of the repressive states that might want to ban certain traffic will be bordered with other repressive states that want that same traffic for propaganda or undermining purposes.<BR><BR>At times, ineptitude wins.<BR><BR>I see this as much like creating an off-shore holding company, to protect the crown jewels of the information age from the local government-- only if you do it right, maybe you can put the assets outside of any individual government's reach.<BR><BR>Maybe they could make it a "shoot-out" thing-- which nation will offer the most compelling case to establish the ICANN in?

 

[Leria]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by InThane:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JournalBot:<br>But civil liberties groups aren't thrilled about giving repressive regimes a say in the process, either. </div>
</blockquote>Ah, so they're in favor of taking control away from the United States then, right? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Flame bait, but a good point as well. While the United States has not cracked down on internet or public free speech yet, if we had a chance to elect Bush for another term, he would start doing that, I am sure.