theeinstein
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Fernandina Beach, FL | 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"!!
=) |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  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 |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| 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! |
|
Maarvin
Premium
join:2005-04-11
Denver, CO | So what are we? A third world country? We created it and WE will decide on how our own technology will be used. Let them design their own internet! |
|
EKS2
join:2004-09-14
Round Lake, IL | The results are in
Googlefight shows the US having a clear victory over the world.
»www.googlefight.com/index.php?la···d2=World |
|
neosolace
Stay In It
join:2003-08-25
Verbena, AL | waiting for....
all the crybabies to start whining about this..... |
|
bokamba
Chengdu Rocks
Premium
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? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Maarvin
Re: No Big Deal
I agree - ARPANET was originally US govt. built.
If anyone else wants their 'own' internet...it may have to be all in private address space :P
The Internet may sound like the largest 'bait and switch', but I'm sure that every country knew what they were getting when they got a domain.
Until then, since they are not the U.S., and have use of the Internet, let them hack, DVD's, and everything else under the sun, as they aren't tied to U.S. law (International, yes, U.S., no) |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| 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. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Who Cares
said by TKJunkMail :[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. |
|
nightwalker
Nightwalker
join:1999-08-07
Appleton, WI
| 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 |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to n2jtx
Re: We Paid For It
said by n2jtx : 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. Can you explain how it would be "subject to the whims of the U.N."?
The ITU operates under its own multi-lateral treaty (i.e., Convention and Constitution), has a separate membership, and a separate budget.
I sure hope no one ever tells folks here that another U.N. Specialized Agency is already responsible for settling Domain Name trademark disputes (WIPO); they'd have a heart attack. |
|
Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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! |
|
orldf
@157.93.x.x
 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. |
|
goofster
@cox.net
| reply to nightwalker
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? |
|
mgbaker
join:2000-05-14
Charlotte, NC
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to theeinstein
Re: Who Cares
»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. |
|
Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium
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 |
|
clevere1
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Vancouver, WA | Screw em
If they don't like it. Unplug them. |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to Maarvin
Re: No Big Deal
said by Maarvin :So what are we? A third world country? We created it and WE will decide on how our own technology will be used. So since the Swiss invented the World Wide Web, they can keep that, and we'll take what, Gopher?
Brilliant! |
|
