| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Show-Down at the Internet Corral: Mid-November Control Show Down |
| 2005-10-25 |
| From WSJ (subscription) ...But several countries, led by developing nations, now argue that since the Internet is a global tool, no one country should control it. They contend that decisions should fall under the jurisdiction of an international body, such as the United Nations. Their argument received an unexpected boost late last month when an EU commissioner proposed removing U.S. oversight of Icann, reversing the EU's support of the current arrangement. Viviane Reding, the EU commissioner for Internet and media affairs who made the proposal, told the BBC in a recent interview: "There must not be any government involvement in the day-to-day management of the Internet, neither one of the U.S. government nor by any other government." Hmmm...it's ALL about control, madam, and some tranz international body who can't even control themselves sure as shit will fuck it up. A U.N. information society summit to take place in Tunis, Tunisia, in mid-November will address the issue. Experts place the current tiff in the context of other nations' discomfort with the U.S. as the world's only superpower, unafraid of taking unilateral action. In June, the U.S. Department of Commerce released a statement that the U.S. would retain control over the governing of the Internet, at least for the foreseeable future. Previously, the U.S. had indicated that it would sever any government connection to Icann. The matter intensified in August, when the U.S. government asked Icann to table an initiative to add a new domain name for pornography Web sites. Icann had tentatively approved the new domain name, called .xxx, several months earlier, but at the last moment the Department of Commerce removed its support, after it said it received thousands of letters of complaint from conservative Christian groups and others. Regardless of the merits of the decision, the move was proof to critics of Icann that it is controlled by the U.S., said Lee McKnight, an associate professor for information studies at Syracuse University. "Until August, the U.S. had not done anything to upset other governments," said Mr. McKnight. "Then just before these meetings, it did do something unilaterally." The original idea behind Icann was to keep decisions about the Internet's architecture in the private sector and largely free of government meddling. "Governments have not really understood the inner workings of the Internet," said Mr. McKnight. In the past two years, "they have gotten educated and now they want to get their hands on the levers." Such rethinking about the Internet has arisen in part because of its global growth and growing importance in many areas. Widely available to the public and for commercial purposes only in the past decade or so, the Internet now has close to a billion users, estimates the Paris-based Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. In that time, the Internet has become a critical means for conducting business, as well as for receiving other services, such as video and phoning. Few expect any immediate changes to the current structure from the U.N. summit, since the U.S. government would need to approve them. Then, screw them all. |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #25 "Title sites '.xxx'..." Honey? Why do all the sites under "history" for the past nine years say ".xxx"? Oh shoot. As to #8 They can build their own sub-net WITHOUT any overlapping URL addresses, or they can go piss up a rope. Passing control of the Internet to the UN is like giving a teenager the launch codes for a nuclear arsenal. The UN's web site deserves continuous hacking just for suggesting such a travesty. Where is the outrage that Microsoft, Sun, AMD, Intel, Cisco and all the other major players should be exhibiting at this naked grab for a stranglehold on the world's most powerful computing resource? This goes beyond ridiculous. DARN SKIPPY. Or, should i say, F*#% that B*$#% F&@%in' F@%@ed-Up S&@# up the @#$, to be politically correct? And what about this: ANY MALE BETWEEN 10 AND 60 WILL JUST TYPE ".xxx" AND GO BONKERS!!! |
| Posted by: OnlySaneAnonymouseLeft 2005-10-25 21:48 |
| #24 Billary08.xxx.eu |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-25 21:32 |
| #23 Hillary08.XXX |
| Posted by: Glinemp Shaimp7700 2005-10-25 19:33 |
| #22 Let the UN rent the internet, a million a minute and the second they miss a payment the UN gets shut out og the web. That should do it. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2005-10-25 19:32 |
| #21 Few expect any immediate changes to the current structure from the U.N. summit, since the U.S. government would need to approve them. Waitasecond, so it only comes out NOW that despite the hoopla, the US has held the keys to the door the whole time and the tranzis didn't figure this out before proposing the whole thing?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-10-25 19:32 |
| #20 But several countries, led by developing nations, now argue that since the Internet is a global tool, no one country should control it. How soon they forget who created this "tool", and who made it run so well. Phuquers. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-25 18:25 |
| #19 They just want our military under their command and a blank check, er, checkbook. The UN. A dead rat on the world's kitchen floor. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-25 18:24 |
| #18 Some one please, tell me why the hell we need UN? Next thing the bastards of UN and EU will ask us to hand over our Presidency to them since, US is the only super power in the world |
| Posted by: Annon 2005-10-25 18:20 |
| #17 "Then, screw them all" Thank you Captain America. Let them open their own sh*t |
| Posted by: Annon 2005-10-25 18:07 |
| #16 Does that mean that when the radical Muslim's get a say in this at the UN, Looney Tunes won't be able to have a web page because they have Porky Pig? Pigs is pigs, but hogs is hawgs. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-10-25 18:02 |
| #13 Any politwit who turns the reins over to the "unapproved" EU or irrespoonsible UN will end their fucking career, along with his/her party. This is only a microcosm of the bigger issue with the internationalists: penis envy. We got one; they want one. You think we're pissed, wait until John Q (American) Public gets a full load of this horse shit. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-25 17:50 |
| #12 How 'bout a win-win situation. The EU sets up their own alternate top-level DNS service. And everyone ignores it. That way they can add .xxx, .surrender, .wine, .whine, .antisemetic, .eurocrat, and .cheeseeatingsurrendermonkey |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-10-25 17:26 |
| #11 Lol, well I was thinking about some dom's in the XXX TLD - such as RantBonk.XXX, RantButt.XXX and RantBoob.XXX, but only thinking, heh. Mebbe we should have a little contest for the "best" (lol) .XXX name, lol. With this crowd, it ought to be a pretty good list, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-25 16:52 |
| #10 I thought .com owned the XXX TLD. Is the UN horning in on his business? |
| Posted by: Crump Whuting9144 2005-10-25 16:48 |
| #9 some of Congress has been backing the Admin in telling these punks to F*&K OFF. Time to let your congresscritter know how you feel about a less-than-total-support for this position |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-25 16:36 |
| #8 They can build their own sub-net WITHOUT any overlapping URL addresses, or they can go piss up a rope. Passing control of the Internet to the UN is like giving a teenager the launch codes for a nuclear arsenal. The UN's web site deserves continuous hacking just for suggesting such a travesty. Where is the outrage that Microsoft, Sun, AMD, Intel, Cisco and all the other major players should be exhibiting at this naked grab for a stranglehold on the world's most powerful computing resource? This goes beyond ridiculous. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-25 16:30 |
| #7 A word to the wise: If this goes anywhere at all, start building hosts files with addys you just can't live without. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-10-25 16:19 |
| #6 Agreed, JSU, except you couldn't force anyone to change, so many would've kept their .com (heh) and other TLD's. Of course it wasn't "we", either, it was some self-sanctified group who puffed themselves up to pretend to be "we" - the assclowns. Dept Comm and ICANN are cowards for even considering some mouthy little group of single-issue busybodies. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-25 15:54 |
| #5 Don't understand why we'd oppose .xxx -- makes the sites easier for parents to filter. |
| Posted by: JSU 2005-10-25 15:45 |
| #4 Does that mean that when the radical Muslim's get a say in this at the UN, Looney Tunes won't be able to have a web page because they have Porky Pig? |
| Posted by: plainslow 2005-10-25 15:40 |
| #3 Why wait? Bring it on and let's get this wimpy squeak removed. If it's a UN thingy, we veto it. End of story. Fuck it. The Internet's important precisely because it was not controlled by anyone with a political agenda. The fuckup by Dept Commerce to open its big fat irrelevant yap created this squeak. Seppuku to them for both caving to outside pressure and for thinking they had any say. ICANN (It's an acronym - cap it morons) should've told 'em to go fuck a rolling donut. Cowards all. A juicy bit of irony here is that this started over the US Dept Comm not wanting ICANN to create the .XXX TLD. The countries who are using this to launch the power grab want to prevent access to precisely the same sort of sites which would've jumped to the .XXX TLD. And more, of course. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? C'mon let's get this little dustup underway and see what's what. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-25 15:38 |
| #2 Time to brush up the cowboy hat, soap up the saddle and sharpen the spurs. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-10-25 15:34 |
| #1 They can pry this keyboard from my cold, dead hands. |
| Posted by: doc 2005-10-25 15:13 |