LOL.
Cant' wait until Iran is head of the UN internet commitee.

Aren't we talking about the same idiots who got into a fight between Microsoft and REAL Networks. Yeah lets sue those sobs; because we don't know how to disable the Windows Media Player in XP. Funny to hear that the EU's stripped down OS isn't even selling. We need more of their silly BS?

well im totaly against it thou i am euoropean i think the states has made the net the biggest sucess ever so it's only natural that they (you) should keep it. on this point i'll have to say go America but you shouldn't be to harsh on the UN, i mean they try! they don't suceed but they try anyway

It amazes me that throughout this entire thread (and others similar in nature to it), some of the people from outside of the US cannot seem to be able to keep the insults and moronic statements to themselves. We make a comment that leaves you with no plausible means of refuting our claims, and so you reply by calling us idiots and bashing our own comments. Well you know what? Here's what I think of that. I'm going to be a rascist little bast@rd. F*ck you, you communist, fascist, British, EU, ugly a$$ed, stuck up, and snot nosed little $hits. We are sick and tired of all your cr@p, and will not put up with it anymore, you hear me? Go back to your little f*cking holes, dig your head in the dirt, and shut the hell up.

A little history to help everyone here be a little more informed: -

http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/...a/internet-history.html

If the UN goes after this twice as hard as they did Saddam...well...

*yawn*

UN can kiss my butt. Bunch of un-elected tinpot armani suit wearing dip$hits.

They can write resolutions to their hearts content but they dont possess the testicular fortitude to do anything about it as usual.

a little history

http://websearch.about.c...t/a/historyinternet.htm

To me to shows countires that are involved in illegal online activities are pushing for the UN to control the Internet, due to paying to let things go buy. Call me crazy, but didn't someone in the UN just get caught for filtering in dirty money.

I rather hold 1 single country responsible for these types of issues, than the UN taking control.

However, I also see benefits to this being UN controlled. The problem is any American is going to disagree with UN taking control, because we as Americans feel we're always right, and feel that we'd be losing something if we gave up control. Either way, me being an American, I say we hold control and for the UN to focus on other issues, the Internet should be the least of their worries!

FLAME ON FLAMERS, it's what you do!

I can just see it now.... The United Nations in charge of the Internet.

In the headlines today..... "Internet for Food Scandal"

What I see happening here is that the US government created something that served its purpose, and then allowed it to become public. The public sector has taken the idea and ran with it, and it's flourished into this fabulous world-wide ... thing, and everyone loves it... needs it... wants more.

The problem then, is that it's still under control of the US public sector in a joint effort with the government (the network's creators)... and the International community doesn't like that, because it means they have to follow rules they don't necessarily approve of.

Well, you know what? Too bad! It's ours, and nobody asked you to like it... We're just telling you to shut the hell up and deal with it, or (and I shouldn't even have to say this) build something better, call it yours, and hope that we actually care enough to help it out when you come crying for assistance (like we do for everything else in the world).

I'm really sick and tired of everyone preaching openness and tolerance in some hypocritical manner. It's nonsense--- you (generally, not you personally) want openness and tolerance as long as it suits your (again, generally) interests. Then, when such openness and tolerance violates your privacy or security or safety, it is expected to be dealt with promptly.

And of course what ultimately happens is that we bend over backwards and take it up the rump-roast for everyone else... but when we need help, it's nowhere to be found.

As far as the article goes... the UN can propose anything they want, but that doesn't mean anything will actually happen.

Frankly, the Internet has enough "regulatory control" as it needs-- i.e. very little, and we don't need the UN stepping in and turning into a beauracratic nightmare.

"the US government created something that served its purpose"

probably using alot of help from european technicians and developers, who probably got very well paid for it.

"the International community doesn't like that,"

no wonder, internet is a important thing, sohuldent be in controll of the incompetent.

"We're just telling you to shut the hell up and deal with it, or (and I shouldn't even have to say this) build something better, call it yours,"

the way i see this is if someone else, lets say a developing country made something better, the US would just invade that country.VERY AMERICAN

"Then, when such openness and tolerance violates your privacy or security or safety, it is expected to be dealt with promptly."

of course one would expect this kind of thing to be delt with promptly, atleast thats the way it is here, i dont know if thats the way its in the states, nor is that what i have heard.

"And of course what ultimately happens is that we bend over backwards and take it up the rump-roast"

you like that, dont you.

"but when we need help, it's nowhere to be found."

no wonder, the states never wants help, they'r tooooo strong, they dont need it, even when they do....

"regulatory control"

i.e. stupid american laws, that do not apply internationaly, but the UN would not make sutch stupid laws, so i would still be unaffected.

"as it needs"

i wouldent mind more control and an international effort against; fraud, viruses, spam, pedofilia, and all the other bad stuff on the net. anyone dissagree?

What an absolute wanker and what an absolute load of crap.

Good post! I agree!

Thanks for your feedback, I'll take it under consideration. Do you have any additional comments to counter my argument or perhaps enlighten me to a better way of thinking?

Most of the time, your comments are vague responses that are purely speculative and have absolutely no basis in fact (i.e. european techs, US invasions, etc).

Yes, yes, indeed I enjoy that very much since it's basically what my job is here at the computer department at a liberal arts college that is not committed to technology.

Yes, we're so strong, that's why so many countries expect us to bail them out of their problems.

So, what you're saying in the end is that you want protection from an International Regulatory group such as the UN, because you're too lazy or incompetent to learn for yourself and/or teach your children how to be responsible for their actions online... is that a fair analysis?

"probably using alot of help from european technicians and developers, who probably got very well paid for it."

Probably huh? Show some facts, not speculation, thanks.

"no wonder, internet is a important thing, sohuldent be in controll of the incompetent."

The EU is by far the most incompete government in existance.

"the way i see this is if someone else, lets say a developing country made something better, the US would just invade that country.VERY AMERICAN"

More speculation by terroristic thinking...when are you blowing yourself up?

"i.e. stupid american laws, that do not apply internationaly, but the UN would not make sutch stupid laws, so i would still be unaffected."

Speculation speculation speculation...

"i wouldent mind more control and an international effort against; fraud, viruses, spam, pedofilia, and all the other bad stuff on the net. anyone dissagree?"

I wouldn't want terrorist funded organizations controlling my internet.

Yes. I started to produce a counter arguement and then halfway through I thought - hang on, I can't be bothered!

Your rant is just so much rubbish that I can't even be bothered to formulate an intelligent response. Sorry.

Not really. Why is the U.S government p!ssing themselves over the EU developing Magellan for example? And if we're talking about protection let's talk about farm subsidies in the U.S and the support that your manufacturing industry gets.

yup...classic response. "I really don't know how to counter this argument...so I'll just say the argument is so stupid that I can't be bothered to counter it".

Genius.

Whatever. [shrugs]

lol that's awesome.

Thank you. :)

The United Nations is a joke. It is becoming pointless. The U.S. puts more money into the United Nations than any other country and the U.S. backs every country in the United Nations whenever they need help. Then the U.N. gets mad at the U.S. for having control over the internet. And whoever said that the U.S. isn't the most free nation is on drugs. Picture the world without the U.S. Give me a break. I hope the U.S. backs out of the U.N. Maybe we wouldn't be some $16 trillion+ in debt if we did. If you want the internet come and get it.

The US cant survive if it cuts diplomatic bonds....... you would be back in the stone age..... lol.

"And whoever said that the U.S. isn't the most free nation is on drugs."

I say that for one, Look at The Netherlands, and Spain.

To think that what some of you are saying is representative of actual Americans, makes me almost ashamed to be an American.

That being said, while I'm not entirely sure that internet control, or however it is put should be in American hands - I simply think it's better there for the time being, until something better comes along. And sorry to say, I don't think the U.N qualifies as 'better', for pretty obvious reasons throughout the years.
In essence, for now, the U.S is a 'lesser evil'...and since for now it's not a wreck (completely). Then like most other things in life, the saying holds true - "if it's not broken, why fix it?".

Now if within 10 years there's a ratified, solid international organization which is truly representative of each and every country on earth, and is truly EFFECTIVE overall, then I may change my opinion.

Ok I would agree. ONLY if that intity does manage to organize all the different laws in all the many countries.. And Americans get the rights they have in the US on the internet. If that intity wants to restrict certain things on domains that were registered in their country. Then thats their business. And if the population of those countrys still have access to american sites then to damn bad.. Its about time the governments of those countries learn that freedom of speech is life and they have to live with it..

Anyway people, call me a troll all you want.

Just answer me this:

How old are you?

the heck question? if american can veto a country suing us through the UN, the UN ain't built right, enough said.

as far as the topic goes, just sit back and watch, we aren't hoarding anything by controlling it so why complain about us controlling it?

How old are -you-? What kind of a question is that??

The UN is far more qualified, the internet should be in international control.

The US is just another dictatorship, like former Iraq, just you dont realize it.

Thanks for all the proof and facts to back up those wild claims you just made...

You're like the speculation master...how does it feel to not have any facts whatsoever?

All you people that think turning over control of what the US controls is good, great idea. Are idiots.. I mean think about it, no one can guarantee that freedom of speech (BLOGS most importantly) will stay legal under the UN. I dont know about anyone else.. But I like being able to say whatever the hell I want and not being thrown in jail for saying something bad about a government for instance. (Not that I do..I voted for Bush!) Now Bush bashers come and bash me.. DEMOCRACY ROCKS!!

You people that want control turned over are just American bashers that hate that we have control over something as integral as the Internet.

There's one serious flaw in your argument... the US isn't the "most free" nation in the world.

It's not the most open, nor the least censored.

Not to mention the guy in charge is a semi-retarded, mentally deficient tool who's more evil than most any leader in the world...

Don't start s*** you can't finish.

EDIT: Alright, sick of the political crap. There are like a billion things you have to know in order to be able to claim to 'know' exactly how the political states of every nation works, and I sure as hell don't know them. What I do know much more of (and are learning more and more about through college) is computers and networking. I know, simply as a techie and as a student, that the system works just fine the way it is. There are procedures in place and some being currently being created (the IPv6 standard will help tremendously) that will cover all of the problems currently going on with the internet. The ONLY remaining problem? Politics. Other nations are going to b*itch about the U.S. having control of the net...please. Don't make that be a deciding factor in your vote to have the UN seize the US's control over the net. And just remember how broad spectrum that word 'control' is. It's not control over a bomb or anything...it's just the internet people! There has never been a problem with the U.S. running the internet, but now that it is widespread and the world at large knows that there is a huge profit to be made from the internet, everyone wants a piece of the pie.

What're you, brain-dead? You sound like some ten year-old who's just managed to wrap his head around spelling a new word. D-E-M...

Do you *know* - really, know what the UN is? Christ, for a second, take a look at something OTHER than your US-centric media coverage that spills BS about the UN and realise - that institution, of which you are a member among many, is by its very nature democratic.

In the United Kingdom, we don't need a constitution to "give us" our basic rights to freedom of expression, speech etc. They're all IMPLICIT - they exist without needing to be stated - your constitution starts with the premise that it tells an individual what they CAN do. Our laws simply state what we cannot do. So don't get high and mighty with me with your uninformed comments about "no on can garantee that freedom of speech...will stay legal." Take a look at your own PATRIOT act. Fool. Ever read the British press? *That's* freedom of speech.

Then don't act grown-up when you're behind a keyboard. Twat.

what can't I finish?

The US is one of many free nations - but freedom in the US has eroded in the last 10 years, while other countries have gained more freedom.

Just because someone tells you you're free doesn't mean you are - most people, yourself included, wouldn't know the difference if they suddenly lived in a facist nation...

Don't like it.

Move the fsck out dude.

ummmm... you're inferring things that don't exist.

I never said the US wasn't free - but it's not more free than most of the countries in the world, and anyone who says it is is pretty ignorant to reality.

And I don't live in the US - nor would I. I like the US, and visit it frequently, but the average standard of living is below what I find acceptable.

In my own opinion, politics have gone out the window. I just so totally don't care about politics anymore...I just can't stand it. I'll have a heart attack at an early age if I keep thinking about all the sh*t happening in the world.

So what do you suppose it is that countries want? Each country wants to be independant...YET they don't want any one power to become...more powerful than themselves by controlling any one resource. So you agree that...well, anything that the U.S.A. has control over should be taken away and given to the United Nations? Who has that right? Nobody does. You name one major resource or item that your country has the benefit of controlling. What if some other countries...even all of them, start spewing out about 'how wronged the countries of the world are because you have control over ____fill-in-the-blank-resource___. We don't think you need to have said resource any more. You have just too much control over it.' Well you have just been insulted! 'What? You want to take away our control of this resource? What gives you the right to take away what has been legally ours for so long, just because you have an agenda against our country? Bugger off buddy!'

I'm just telling you, the ideals behind all these morons attacking the U.S.A. just because we are big and bad, are getting freaking old. The only reason you want the net to be under international rule is because you are jealous and don't want the U.S.A. to have it anymore. You would rather the idiotic U.N. have control, than the supposedly 'all powerful' U.S.A.

When you get right down to the emotion behind what other countries are thinking about the U.S.A., when you get through all the cloaks and daggers B.S., and when you get through all the shrouded mystery and the politics and the statistics that you project when attacking our country...just realize that the bare emotions you are showing are the following: Rage, hatred, and extreme jealousy over what we have, that you do not. You want to get back at us, because we have a 1-up on you. You are like a little kid who wants what the other kids have, but you are too poor to have...so you try to steal it, and when you don't get it, you resort to name calling because you can't seem to wrap your mind around the simple ethical and moral values behind what I am trying to say. We currently control it and no-one else has a right to say that we cannot. It isn't all that vital a resource, people are not going to die because the UN doesn't control the internet, so stop with the posturing against us, and just let us be.

But like I said, I'm sick of the political battles, because I'm apparently never right, I never have the right ideals to match anyone elses but those of us who have to try to attempt to DEFEND our country. You just try being on the receiving end of all this bullsh*t. See how aggrevating this all becomes when you have to deal with this moronic issue coming at you from all sides.

Dear God, you are just full of insults. Why do you even bother posting, when you can't have a civilized conversation. Who will really take you seriously if you can't stop attacking people's opinions? I already know I don't take you sersiously.

wow

you can sure write a lot of words that are unrelated to the topic at hand.

either you were replying to someone else, or you just smoked a rock of crack before you started typing, because that rant was about as pointless as breasts on a hand grenade.

Never once mentioned the US was the king of crop for places to live in especially in this modern age.

Just talking root servers here, nothing more.

Actually what I said makes pretty good sense...it's not my fault you read like an 8 year old.

Yeah for real.

Gay marriage.

'nough said.

(this is coming from a anti-homo state). It must be nice to be "free" enough to be able to marry who you love. Hmm. Yeah. We don't have that luxury.

Give me Canada, the England, etc. Who puts limits on things like that? For freaking real.

Commie.

lmao!

You're so 70s - the "commie" stopped being the "enemy" when the USSR found democracy.

Nowadays, "terrorists" are the enemy...

It makes no sense at all, actually.

The EU is more economically powerful than the US... double the population helps that a lot.

Granted, the EU is a collection of countries, rather than a collection of states, but they're no joke.

I have yet to meet anyone from outside the US that thinks the US is anything particularily special... it's alright - plenty of cool places to see and interesting people to meet, but not exactly the most wonderful place on earth. Not the least either. It's a country that is currently falling behind China, India, Pakistan, Japan... Asia is far more pervasive than the US economically.

No, you not only missed the point, apparently you missed the last 10 years as well.

The only thing scary about the US is how the US will react when it realizes that it's no better than anyone else, and less important and free than many.

Oh...

and that is one of the most hideous things anyone can say to anyone.

"If you don't like it, leave!"

It's one of the most ignorant things that can come out of your mouth. The strength of a nation like the USA, or any other democracy is the capacity for dissent and disagreement.

The idea that people who don't agree, who aren't of the same mind should just LEAVE?

That's not free market, freedom, democracy - that's just plain old evil.

"DEMOCRACY" ???
You live in a 2 party system, sooooo easy to manipulate.

Not to mention the guy in charge is a semi-retarded, mentally deficient tool who's more evil than most any leader in the world...

lol...this should be the new definition for bush.

I rarely if ever post replies, so this is my first or second but after reading yours felt inclined to let you know that I feel you 100 percent.

Only 1/2 of the parties are easy to manipulate... the other half of us have firm beliefs and ideas that are based on reasonable FACT rather than simply on wishful, idealistic thinking... moreover, we actually hold to those beliefs through thick and thin-- better or worse-- right or wrong.

If memory of history serves me right... wasn't it the Magna Carta (pardon any misspelling) that defined your "constitutional rights"? Rights, mind you, that have been violated many times over the years. I know you guys have a constitution and laws as well, so take your nonsense and politely store it where it belongs.

What you're trying to say is that by default, you can do anything you want except if a law says otherwise... sounds like a dictatorship to me--- You can do whatever you want... as long as the government agrees with it, otherwise, they'll stop you in your tracks.

On the other hand, our laws give us rights that can never be taken away or limited... and any law that attempts to do so can be overturned through checks and balances.

"not exactly the most wonderful place on earth"

Then why the hell do people insist on coming here instead of staying in or going to their country of preference? If all these other countries are more open, tolerant, and better than the US.... why are people coming here instead of going to those countries?

Oh yeah, because deep down people may disagree with or sometimes even hate our laws and policies, but they acknowledge that no one else has quite figured out how to truly do it better without being a bunch of hypocrites.

No, actually, it's called "Grass is Greener Syndrome" ... People think our country sucks so they go somewhere else, realize that place sucks and then they get all upset that we don't want 'em back.

Only 1/2 of the parties

That sounds like a dictatorship to me.....
esspecialy if theres only 2...lol

Thank you, I'm glad someone agrees with me here. It really isn't about how much book knowlege I currently have, it's about my ideas and opinions. The only bashing that's been done against me was against what info I had that was wrong. But that doesn't makes my entire idea wrong.

because of all the fast food, and the lie of the american dream.

The American Dream isn't dead... it's just not in the US anymore.

And just an FYI... people move around constantly. and over 50,000 Americans live in just one Canadian city full time... people emigrate to the US, Canada, the EU, Australia, the Netherlands... all over the place. The US is not even close to the only "free" place to go.

That was a crack/slam against the other party that I'm not associated with... :)

funny thing that...

the biggest difference between the two parties in the US is one is crooked, and the other thing is loopy. They both stand for essentially the same things, none of which they advertise to the people who vote for them.

A vote doesn't mean anything in the US... it's only an indicator of who the public wants to vote for, not what will happen after the election.

There is no winner or loser, only angry people who fail to understand that their vote was completely worthless.

The US sucks because nobody in the US actually stands up for it anymore.

They stand up for themselves, yes.

But not what their country is supposed to stand for.

The US is confusing as hell.

It's all about freedom, as long as you don't say or do anything that gives someone a reason to sue you. Then it's about suing.

It's all about innovation, except if you invent anything that comes in the same colour as something invented in the last 100 years, someone is going to sue you for patent violations.

It's all about what you want, so long as it doesn't offend anyone at all.

No.

I'd live in the US, but it wouldn't be my first choice... it's a nice place to visit, but there is nothing about it that would compel anyone who isn't starving to death in a third world country to want to live there.

"sooooo easy to manipulate...I corrupted the entire state of Rhode Island in a week!"

Talking about it like you know what you are doing, good man! :)

Just so you know you laughed at your own joke there buddy...

GoodThings2Life: Very good point indeed man.

I second that. Not taken seriously but laughed at alot.

Were you involved with that crooked governor, who just got indicted for crimes, which make Tom DeLay look like a petty crook!

The BSA motorcycle company makes military hardware. Britian's merchants of death are selling thousands of vintage .303 enfield rifles across the ocean for prices less than a cheap handgun. Freedom of speech is the corrupt BBC newscasters, who complain about gun toting colonists; but never their own government's dirty business.

And who Dubya's lap dog?

A constant deluge of immigration tells me that more people want into the US than wanna get out of there, legally or not...

Wah. And too bad...

It's where Japan's SONY Corporation owns the COLUMBIA Record Company and sells CD burners to pirates. Then their RIAA friends sue people who used them. This hypocrisy is more than confusing...

GoodThings2Life, perhaps you'd like to show me our written constitution. And for that matter, copy Lord Goldsmith.

"On the other hand, our laws give us rights that can never be taken away or limited... and any law that attempts to do so can be overturned through checks and balances."

Have you read the PATRIOT ACT? Oh no? That's OK, neither did your GOVERNMENT before it was signed into law. Nice 'checks and balances' there.

We, the unknowing and unthinking, demand that you turn over useful items to us.

If you do not, we'll say really really mean things about you.

Signed, UN Oil for Food

honestly, couldnt agree with you more
100% true
i love you, that was great... made my day =)

I am tired of reading all these mindless comments...most of them are just bashing other commenters, and spewing uber-patriotic/narrow-minded garbage, so I will just make this simple - no one "owns" the internet...no one every WILL "own" the internet...it is not exactly a tangible item that can be owned...the US may control much of the content, and many of the domains, but they do not in any way, shape, or form control the internet itself...if Europe came out with a new type of domain, and EVERYONE started using that, and abandoning .net, .org, .com, etc...well, then the US would have even less control over the internet, wouldn't they? And don't kid yourselves, such a thing could very easily happen...just because some American scientists were integral to the start of the internet as we know it, does not give the United States of America ownership in any form, over the final product...a Canadian invented basketball...you don't see us saying that we OWN basketball...hell, we don't even have a national league :-P End of point. Thank you, have a nice day. ^_^

Good grief. Alright, look. The big thing that the U.S. does with the internet that the UN has no business stealing away, are the organizations that create the new protocols and ip and other networking standards for the internet. These organizations are already a union of the finest minds from universities across the globe. We aren't talking about corporations that own domain names here...anyone can get whatever domain name they want, I could care less about that. The point is that the people that create the standards, protocols and such...the engineers, are maintaining the rules (I'm talking networking protocols here, not rules as in boundaries), and they are doing a damn good job of it.

here, read this article...it explains more clearly than betanews is.

http://news.com.com/2010-1028-5181327.html

By allowing the "finest minds" from *other* countries to contribute IN ADDITION to those from US universities, which is what goes on now, you somehow have an issue with this?

The fundamental flaw in your logic, rather than the unidentifiable one in your ego, is that somehow you assume that the US is going to *lose* the ability to run, govern, set the tone and direction for the Internet if the governing body were international. Is somebody locking out your corporations? Erm, no.

Who's taking away .com and .net from Verisign? NO ONE. Who's stopping top minds at ANY university from doing exactly what they're doing now? NO ONE. Who thinks you're well-informed....... Yep.

Hello outofcoffee. Just have a question. Where do you get your information?

the finest minds from other countries already work with people from US universities dude...we are already all working together on the issue. The big issue here is that everyone thinks that only americans are working on this project, and they are wrong. The scientific community working on this is already world-wide. The only problem here is that it's taking place on U.S. soil...and for some reason that stirs up quite a ruckus.

And insults are really getting old. You can't have a civilized conversation without slinging mud, then you shouldn't be having conversations at all.

Ditto.

At risk of offending your "boys":

Me:
"allowing the "finest minds" from *other* countries to contribute IN ADDITION to those from US universities, which is what goes on now..."

You:
"the finest minds from other countries already work with people from US universities dude..."

Yes. Read the post again.

You:
"The only problem here is that it's taking place on U.S. soil...and for some reason that stirs up quite a ruckus."

Yes that's the problem. Not with me, no, take a breath for a second - with some countries, that, seriously, politics aside, DO NOT LIKE YOU. It's a fact. They also don't like Britain either. But the UN, PERHAPS at least might *seem* a little more democratic, dontcha think?

A different planet, clearly.

Al Gore is not gonna like this at all.

Ok, before I even read anyone elses responses, have to say that I've already had my fair share of arguments on this exact same matter approx. a month ago. Anyone remember that? We had what...hundreds upon hundreds of posts on the matter? I swear, even with cable internet it took awhile for that page to load on my computer every day...I couldn't IMAGINE how bad it had to have been for dial up users (if there are any more of you poor souls out there!)

Honestly, my view on this matter is simple and too the point.

The answer is a simple "NO"

The reasons behind this? Maybe because the UN has no right to swoop in and take away private foundation control of the internet. Can you say "International Big Brother"? I don't want the UN in control. They can go f*ck themselves for all I'm concerned. This isn't closed mindedness or anything of the sort, on my part. I just do NOT want the world wide web to be in control of the UN. This is definately one of those

"We are a corporation/organization/government/etc, who wishes to take control of your 'fill in the blank'. Once we have control of your 'fill in the blank', we will have planted the seed. With this one victory, we will begin to take control of everything! Brew-ha-ha, we are the almighty corporation/organization/government/etc...!!! Bow before us!!!!"

Seriously...here's a proposistion for someone with much more time and resources than myself, cause I'm about to run out the door to work. Will somebody do some research to discover just what all is entailed in this attempted takeover of the internet? Just what are the exact aspects of the internet that the almighty UN wishes to control? Or do they just want to takeover everything? If they take over, what will happen to digital media? To open source software? To secured area's of the net, like government agencies? To our right to free speech, because we only have that in the states and a few other countries. What if the UN imposes an international law that disallows ANYONE on the International Internet from speaking thier mind and thier own opinions? Just what the hell kind of positive changes will the UN make that the US wasn't already doing or could have done? Are we willing to pay the price...the hidden costs for this takeover?

Sigh, this whole mess sucks donkey balls, because unfortunately I am just one person, you are all just one person, and even us banding together to send those stupid email 'petitions' won't make the UN shed a tear. What it will take is actual getting up off of your butt and writing letters, going and protesting to the people that matter...Are you going to continue just sitting there and accept all these changes and then when you are older and your kids ask "Daddy, why do we have so few freedoms? A little girl who downloaded an mp3 in class today got accosted by the UN and her parents got a multi thousand dollar fine! She was crying so hard, because now her parents are going to lose thier home and thier jobs, because we are labeled as THIEFS. All for a 99 cent song! Daddy, why didn't you do something to stop this when it would have mattered?"

I know it's a cheesy and overused method of getting people to see the point, but seriously people. How could you face your children and tell them to thier face that everyone in your generation was responsible for allowing the United Nations to take over the world a little slice of pie at a time...and before you guffaw too loudly at that statement, I hope you realize that the internet is a freaking huge a** piece of said pie (when you consider my previous statement).

I'll leave you with that...(of course some democrat somewhere is going to go all nutsy on me, but just remember that G. W. Bush is totally against the UN siezing control of the Internet. He see's the UN for what it is and what it is becoming. The old post-war UN is gone people. This is a new UN which, quite seriously, does want to take control of everything. This whole news article completely proves that fact, guys and gals. Sorry to burst your cutsie little comfortable bubble there.)

Alright, go ahead and nitpick my whole statement one line at a time...I can take it.

I don't want to have kids...ever. :)

Ok your comment is far to long for me to read in one sitting.

Thanks for playin'.

My comments are almost always long, because I have alot to say. The best comments are usually the ones bigger than the article being commented on! :) j/k of course. I just had a lot to say on this matter.

Nitpicking, nah. Just this paragraph got me:

"The reasons behind this? Maybe because the UN has no right to swoop in and take away private foundation control of the internet. Can you say "International Big Brother"? I don't want the UN in control. They can go f*ck themselves for all I'm concerned. This isn't closed mindedness or anything of the sort, on my part. I just do NOT want the world wide web to be in control of the UN. This is definately one of those"

Your "big brother" government stalled the introduction of the XXX domain, which HELPS protect kids, for five years. When the supposed "indepedent" ICANN was instructed by Congress to halt certification of the new domain it simply sat back and did nothing.

XXX, as an example, works for porn companies because they don't want to serve content to under-18s who can't pay. So it saves them bandwidth. Parents can block all XXX domains to protect their kids - everybody wins.

But ohh no, your goverment in its infinite wisdom and non "big-brotherliness" strong-armed the process because it couldn't rationalise protecting kids with its so-called "family values".

What the hell? This, as point in case, is a perfect illustration of the fallacy of your comments. You can't justify stupidity with post length.

So you think that switching control over from a national government that you don't like to an international organization that is corrupt...is a good idea?

If people want to ban little kiddies from accessing porn, there is PLENTY of software available to prevent access to any kind of porn. With the right pop-up blockers, Anti-spam, and Anti-virus software, there IS no porn accessible by kids. If you know what sites you want your child to access, you can choose to allow only those sites, and password protect anything else (so that you, the parent, can allow certain sites and add them to the trusted list if applicable).

How can that possibly sound stupid to you? Why bother spending the time, money and effort on a new, and redundant domain, when there are already abundant resources available to block porn? You just want to simplify the matter by creating a domain that forces the hand of porn webmasters to use ONLY the new XXX domain. Yeah, that will make site blockers much more usable if they can block all xxx domains...but it's an easy matter to redirect a .com domain to a .xxx domain...if you really want to be devious about it. The ultimate solution is to block it at each end user. If you secure your home pc, than nothing can reach you. I don't want to put my family security in the hands of another organization, regardless of whose soil it's on. What my family views on the net, is totally in my control and is up to me to make safe.

Impose a time limit on web use for your children (or just plain WATCH them...you are the parent after all, it's your job to keep an eye on them! :) ), have a trusted website list (by choosing to only allow certain sites, instead of just trying to block every single porn site, is a much better policy), password protect the ability to view sites outside of the trusted list, and install all the anti-everything software.

Against what you said but enough of the owners of those sites rallied against the .XXX idea and had it over-turned. That happens here in the states :P

"So you think that switching control over from a national government that you don't like to an international organization that is corrupt...is a good idea?"

I'm arguing that, as a principle, an INTERNATIONAL governing body is appropriate for an INTERNATIONAL system. Like the ITU and telephones, for example.

Please don't put words like "you think...blah...is a good idea" in my mouth. I'm not dictating a timescale on this, so get down off your horse.

Be careful when blurting the 'corrupt' word around, mate.

We will first release iraq and is oil before seeing this happening. The UN is in part own by the US since they get most of their money from the US. They are just puppets and can't do much.

Not really the place for this, but a good movie involving a little of what you mentioned.

http://www.brokenpromisesmovie.com/

Actually you *owe* the UN quite a lot of your most recent membership fees.

US supports democracy around the world, doesn't it? Like pumping money into Iraq?

Yeah, like the UN is going to kick us out. The building is in the United States. Haha.

The building is in the United States. Haha

you sure on that, last time i checked the HQ of the UN was in central EU

I am not sure when the last time you checked was, but if you need me to rub your face in the mud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ed_Nations_headquarters

Why doesn't Kofi Ann just move everything to his headquarters in Geneva Switzerland! I'm not sure why they wanna refurbish that Manhattan facility, and spend more money doing it, than Donald Trump will on bigger New York real estate projects...

Holy wow, people.

I got some sad news for ya'll. The US created "part" of the internet. We then connected it to similar projects going on around the world. Most of the existing infrastructure outside the US was bought/built/paid for by other countries.

We *may* have been the first big push for it, and we *may* have gotten the ball rolling, but if it wasn't for the other networks we connected it to, it'd be a USnet, not an Internet.

That said, we don't own s***. The very makeup of the thing belies any kind of "ownership".

Still, as far as UN control goes, I'd rather see the old Soviet Bloc resurrected to watch over it than see the UN get it. I'm sure they couldn't do *much* worse.

Does the name Robert Kahn hold any meaning to you? He was an American. Take those quotes off "ownership" and just let it be. Somebody else made a good point at the bottom that nobody else has ever managed the internet before so why would we hand it over to people who have never done it before?

Edit: That "part" was the entire framework that everyone else got to work with and be amazed.

Haha! You're wrong.

THere were not "other projects" going on around the globe like the original ARPANet. Nope.

We created what the Internet was back in the early 90's. After that everyone else started hopping on and wanting to be part of what the U.S. created.

Where do you get your info from? What country are you in? I bet you're not over 30 for sure, because if you were you'd know what really happened.

ServerMechanic: The first time it was ever mentioned and referred to on paper as "Internet" was by Dr. Bob E Kahn in 1974.

But if you mean the first time diverse computer networks ever interconnected and communicate with each other was 1973.

But your point still stands, all of this was in the US. The only thing even close was the Russians and sputnik and that is not even really related.

Yeah I totally agree with you. I know the Bob Kahn stuff. I just meant when the general population started to connect to the internet (other than universities) to use it. :)

Reading back it really looks like a sweating Dr. Kahn's balls but I really do not. The guy was just that important and his name is all over the timeline of things.

Agree with you too about the early 90's when the web exploded. s***, the first website for the White House wasn't until like 1994 and that was with Mr. Clinton.

Another point I never thought of, ICANN and the US are so very liberal with the internet that whitehouse.com was registered before anything for the real whitehouse was. Anyone who has been to whitehouse.com knows it's no operated by the goverment :)

Wrong.

Ever hear of the WWW? ya know, that thing just about EVERYONE considers to BE the internet?

The World Wide Web part of the Internet was actually invented in Europe at CERN (located on the border between France and Switzerland), by Sir Tim Berners-Lee (from Britian) along with Robert Cailliau (from Belgium).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web

I'd say "Word", but the 80's called and gave me a cease and desist order to stop using it.

In the opening paragraph from that link:

"The term is often mistakenly used as a synonym for the Internet, but the Web is actually a service that operates over the Internet."

What good is the translation service unless the framework is there for it to even function? All of this is after the fact it was developed in the states. Just a point I thought I should make.

Yeah and you're mistaking the WWW for the beginning of the Internet.

Wrong again newbie.

Call me when you were actually around back then like I was. :-P

Try again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

Maybe you should re-read what he said.

He said that the world wide web, which most people consider to BE the internet, was a european creation.

What he said was exactly factual - he never insinuated or implied that the www WAS the internet, simply that the vast majority of humans consider the www and internet to be the same thing.

Couldn't have highlighted it better myself. :)

Inter-network. Inter-national. "The" internet wouldn't exist as we know it today if people in OTHER COUNTRIES (you know those funny odd shapes and colours on a "map") didn't have networks connected to it.

Otherwise you'd be living with a lovely nation-wide WAN - "Democranet", might I venture? What would you have developed on top of that communications infrastructure?

http://usww.company.com

Mmm. Delicious.
Hey, it'd be just like your "World Series"! Ahh bless.

The Internet is thus international. How do you qualify an international entity *governed* by a simgle country? I don't see your justification for this.

Go play with your Barbie's.

Don't stray from the point. It was built here and you are just using it.

I don't have any, but if you want to lend me yours...

or are you too busy playing with them...?

Good Grief, I think mr. outofcoffee and squireboy here need to hook up...they are two halves of the same damaged brain. Maybe something they say together might actually be productive rather than destructive. D*mn, what an Idea!

Why don't you take the time to read sh1t instead of ignoring everyone else's contributions to the argument using the obviously incorrect assumption that they are far younger than *you* and could never have been around to see the birth of your precious Intarweb.

How "young" do you really think I am? Just because I do not think the US deserves all the credit for the internet does not make me 15 years old again.

DARPA was one thing. Big, but one thing, but it's not "The Internet"...just the underlying protocols..which for the most part are horses*** by today's standards.

I won't even go into how popular "The Internet" would be (or not) without WWW. At that point, who'd give a sh1t who ran it.

FYI: I ran BBSes before there was a "Net", I ran MUDs when it came to colleges, and now I run forums and public/private web-portals. Still want to take a guess at my age, buddy?

Relax, take a few swigs, and leave the age-guessing to the carnies, who are obviously better at it than you.

Would we really give a rats a** about the framework if the WWW didn't exist?

PhoenixPath: Ditto. What the hell is the point of WWW without the ability to connect one computer to the other?

All I'm saying is WWW is AFTER the fact. Not to mention you are not even on topic. We are talking about 13 computers out in Cali. that convert all names into address.

Heh...

I'm off topic? This whole damn *thread* is off-topic.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously though, neither would be incredibly useful without the other. Should we act like children and each go our own way, or perhaps show a little maturity and share, eh?

This whole discussion could be solved by an attentive 6 yr-old. In the words of my son, "Why don't they just share it?"

that's awfully intelligent of you to say - maybe you can join us, as it appears your hemispheres are rather poorly tuned also.

What a mature comment you have made. All hail voyager and his classroom wit. Bravo.

"It was built here and you are just using it."

If that's your argument, we'll take the Web then. Pathetic nationalism.

The UN is a joke and so are half of the countries on this globe.

Get over it people :)

We own !

Don't you just love the balanced and open-minded conversations round here!?!?

They're always completely balanced. You can count on idiots on both sides in every conversation. I call that balanced. =p

Ah, you must be French.

Why would a French person be arguing for the benefit of the American side of the argument? Duh...

Well, I just keep slapping down these crazy ideas you keep coming up about the US owing the rest of the world anything other than a second look?

Please tell me that was tongue-in-cheek.

Regardless of who "owns" the internet, it's a global community, and the vast majority of users on the internet nowadays are not in the USA.

It's amazing that such a small nation in terms of world population, and a steadily shrinking share of the world markets is so self important... then again, in the next 10 years or so the internet will be the US's only available export, so I can see why they'd cling to it.

Whatever dude.

It's very aparent that other countries cannot creat their own stuff so they want part of what we creat. Screw 'em. Again, THEY CAN CREATE THEIR OWN NETWORK AND MANAGE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you honestly think in your heart that in just one decade the Internet will be US's only export then your whole point is just moot.

And at the same time I can almost be sure you are the kind of guy that would love to bash America if we did do something as stupid as relinquish control of the ICANN.

Well since the US market share is decreasing so fast, how about you go use an Operating System for your computer that is not US born.. Hmm I cant think of any, can you? How about all that software you use? Your internet browser, hell the processor in your computer!!!.

Thats right, made in the US of A =)

So no the US market share is not shrinking.

I guess i must be making up all of the above, since the us market is shrinking

Actually, I quite like the US... but my argument was (although fallacious) just as good as any of the arguments against UN control of the internet :)

I have yet to do the research into the issue, so I have yet to form an actual opinion on it.

And it is highly unlikely that the US will be down to exporting internet to the world in 10 years... but it is also unlikely that it will be a major exporter of anything other than technology related products, with available natural resources falling behind consumption rapidly.

Most countries do build their own infrastructure... the US portion of the internet is essential, however, because the vast majority of domain names are controlled by a company based in the US

.com .net and .org (and .us) are used internationally...

and for the record, US companies benefit from the international scope of the internet vastly - if the rest of the world went on a different network, those companies would likely follow.

Actually, the processor was made in China... the company that owns the fab is indeed American, although the OS CD was manufactured in Canada.

All the parts in my computer were built in Asia, most by companies based out of Asia...

FYI... so was yours.

My home computer runs an OS built offshore as well - UBUNTU Linux.

"how about you go use an Operating System for your computer that is not US born.. Hmm I cant think of any, can you?"

Ooh, what's a Linux?

Motherboard - fabbed in Taiwan. TSMC probably.

Case, PSU, made in China / East Asia.

M-A-R-K-E-T S-H-A-R-E
Understand what it means before posting.

Biggest economy give you bigger balls does it? Nah, just a bigger nose.

Correct. Learn how an economy works ServerMechanic.

With ZERO online brand-presence US companies will export practically nothing in the global market. You'd doom your economy and your nation.

But hey, if if means no more of your posts..

Can you "creat" me a grammatically-correct sentence?

It's a wonder a nation of you lot invented anything other than Krispy Kremes.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah....

.....and you're drunk.

I wish

and you must've failed to actually read the previous replies to my post.

Either that... or...

You have a good point there. If the women don't find you handsom at least they should find you handy!

Mmmmmmmmm...Krispy Kremes

The UN Should let the United States have control over the entire UN. :-D

aaaaammmmeeeennn!!!!!

The HQ is in New York. Er, well that is considered "international" ground there :P

""We will not agree to the United Nations taking over management of the Internet," U.S. State Department official David Gross told reporters, saying the government finds such a solution "unacceptable.""

Good. I understand people's concerns, and I'm not sure the Internet should stay under complete U.S. control, but ANYONE BUT THE U.N.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explain why.

Its simple. We built it, we over see it. I know that sounds harsh, but it is what it is. We all know how well the UN run things, so why would we give this away?

Some countries are whinning that the US used up most of the IP addresses and DOMAIN names, but guess what, it was born and breed in the US of A, so I guess that gives the US the right to take the first chunk of it.

Amen.

I'll have to secound that Amen.
Why should we help the UN accomplish anything when they wouldn't help us catch that animal that blew up up the twin towers. I clearly remember reading that they refused to get involved.

Because the animal that blew up those towers happened to be the president of the United States.

Oh yeah, when can we expect some progress on that? Over 4 years since 9/11 and your country's policies have gotten nothing except more enemies. Nice job.

OK then.

You take the Internet.

We'll take the Web.

Let's see how far that gets us. No? Feel like being a big boy now?

Let's say, hypothetically, that due to the Web, the Internet became USEFUL to the VAST majority of people for anything other than being a PIPE.

This website you're posting on now? Probably would be a BBS if it wasn't for the Web.

Your comment isn't harsh, it's ill-informed. I'd love to see how useful the Internet would be to you if the Web existed in the rest of the world only.

Your argument is really one sided. Could do the same right back at you. Moot point.

Just because I live here doesn't mean I agree with the Presidents international policies...talking about the root servers for the internet here, not 9/11. Ugh.

Maxwolf listen.

My argument is designed to show how one-sided your OWN position is. That's the point.

The Internet was created by the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, and a couple Universities.

They have also funded the majority of what it has become.

If you want to control an "Internet" build your own and call it EU Internet.

I guarentee the minute that other people control it it will become more screwd up. At that point the United States will end up creating another one and Keeping it to themselves.

Why is it that people these days think they are owed something? We don't owe you jack sh!t.

You have to bust your @SS to get stuff done. Don't just think you can come in and take something because it has become global. It's become global due to the United States.

The EU can go get bent.

Yeah, I know. The US created the interned and did a good job. I also agree that the EU probably just want a piece of it, but that's not the point I was making. I thought the UN should get to govern the web because it's a global body.

One of the major issues as far as I can tell is Developing Countries. Like it or not, there is quite a lot of anti-American (and anti-European, for that matter) feeling in a some other countries. The Developing World is one of the UN's major targets for the internet which I think is a great idea. It has wide-reaching capabilities such as Education, Communication and even news and information that some dictatorships censor.

By passing control to the UN, I believe several other countries will benefit. The EU probably won't notice any difference since they won't be in charge of it, although I'm sure some narrow-minded EU people would brag about "taking" the internet from the US.

I think there will be a major benefit, and it strikes me as a bit unreasonable for the US to demand to keep control over it. Why? What do they get out of it? Ah yes... so they can say they OWN the web.

Amen!

Hows does getting the internet into third world countries have anything to do with handing over control of the thing? If they don't want the internet in their country because the US owns it then I am going to quote ServerMechanic and tell them to get bent ;)

Hey FYI.. Even if these countries were to get online, they can still censor the hell out of their citizens. Just because you have internet doesnt mean you have access to all information. They can just setup a Siteblocker at the ISP and block any and all sites containing information that is not of their thinking.

Amen!(tm)

(do I have to pay a royalty on that now?) =p

*Assigns registered mark rights for wincement.* You may now legally use "Amen!" ® ©
Have a nice day :)

w00t!

Holy Crap, Amen again and again. It's just like the UN to go swoop in and take something that's been built up to be bigger than just ourselves. As if we are too incompetent to control it. It's not like someone has to be holding the reigns like the internet is a horse. But protocols and security measures have to be made. Common people. Let the Universities and the big brains keep control. I would LOVE to see a nice big post on here from someone who actually works for one of the organizations that currently control the web. That would be pretty awesome to see thier own comments on the matter.

EU ?!!?! EU ?!?!?!

UN you conceited twat. I can't believe you'd actually post something so ignorant.

Do you know who the initial members of the League of Nations were? Do you know the countries that are members of the UN?

READ SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THE US.

Better than nothing isn't it? Your approach is "deny them any access because they can't have complete access". It's not perfect, it's realistic.

Then they'll bomb you.

Stop being a hater :P

I would love to see some foreign duster fly over Ohio and drop anything considering it even gets within 20 miles inland before being intercepted.

It seems a bit strange that the internet is "controlled" by the US when the whole point in the web is that it's a totally global community. I reckon the overseeing power should be handed to the UN since it's a worldwide organisation. This would mean that all internet traffic isn't governed by a single country's law, and juristiction problems wouldn't be encountered.

As far as I can see, the US are being quite unreasonable... "No, you can't have it! It's mine! I'm keeping it..."

Exactly. It is ours and I hope in every way shape and form it stays that way. The rest of the world uses the services the internet provides.

Need I mention that the US does not impose any crazy laws or anything against any of these countries. Most the argument is simply founded on the fact that some foreign countries don't like the fact the US controls it.

ICANN. .xxx domain. Protects kids. US Government steps in. Stops certification. Shut up.

What is wrong with forcing p0rn sites to use the .xxx domain? If you are looking for p0rn then it just makes it easier to find.

Now this again! These silly people need to figure out that the internet was CREATED here in the United States so it's going to stay here. Sorry about your luck.

I think we should agree to give away our control over the internet as soon as the Oil producing countries of the world agree to GIVE AWAY their oil to US! The internet is just as important a resource as anything else the world has to offer. We should never give away our control!

Agreed, you can not have other countries that sensor material controlling the "information super highway". Example goto that website that it a carbon copy of google that china built. Then try searching for anything democratic, its blocked. I would not want anyone who sensors my information to that extreme controlling my internet. granted the US is not perfect nor our goverment, but it is far better than everyone else. our freedom to POST, READ, SHOUT, about any topic we want it fanastic, and NO one shold be able to senor it!!!!

Even more then that.. the problem with handing over the registry information is a significant one; ICANN has done a very good job at keeping uniqueness of database handy to make sure that DNS works.. for everyone globally. So, let's turn over that to someone who has NEVER DONE IT BEFORE. That sounds like a great idea! And yes, as someone pointed out above, there are probably nations who hate the US, etc. blah blah blah.. and handing DNS over to them helps.. how? Do they assure that they will not censor or block DNS resolutions through a UN resolution opposing such content?

As much as people here in the US can gripe about our govt. etc, I've never seen them "step in" and shut down websites based on content (unless illegal) and even then, it's not the refusal to register or manage the domain, it's a trial of facts or a push from a company to buy them out or whatever.

Handing over registration services to the UN would be an utter disaster. And any administration who agrees to it would be a gaggle of idiots.

lol, a gaggle of idiots. I like that.

HEY, TOM SERVO!!! You're a MST3K fan!!! wOOt!!!

GOVERNANCE of the Internet != Natural resource.

I-N-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L B-O-D-Y to oversee policy-making is not oil.

Nor is the UN run by the oil-producers.

Anyone thinking the US is not "free", or would not survive if diplomatic ties were cut, or not strong enough to do what must be done, etc (just repeating the comments I have read in this bunch of drivel) have not met me, or the hundreds of thousands more just like me.

I would like to know what in the heck any of this has to do with the original article, anyways.

Besides, every post that bashes the US comes from a nation that has greatly benefited from the generosity of the American people. When the chips were down, the US people willingly gave their lives to pull yours out of the fire.

When hunger and disease ravaged your populations, it was the US who came to your aid.

And would do so again. Because of the folks like me. Not because of who writes what law where, or anything of that sort.

You should keep that in mind when posting such disparaging comments about the most generous people on earth.

And consider conducting yourself with respect, consideration, and decorum.

SEMPER FI.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.

Have you considered that it is the US who hosts most of the servers that you use to post such drivel on, and that allows you to express such opinions, right or wrong?

Consider that last statement to be the reality check and pretty much all that is needed to set the record straight.

"Because the animal that blew up those towers happened to be the president of the United States. "

I am interested to know what type of illicit drugs and/or what mental process one has to go through to arrive at such a conclusion, much less POST it PUBLICLY.

Review the videotape where GW was at that school, and was told what was occurring on 9-11, and watch his eyes closely.

Now, I am no GW supporter, mainly due to the fact that the "Patriot Act" is simply a means to hold down and monitor the masses, and the lives of 3000 + people have been disrespected and misused to accomplish it.

However, to state that GW had anything to do with religious fanatics (who in no way represent the majority of the Muslim community, nor anyone else) and their actions-

and to "skip right over" that look of steely determination to find those responsible and assure justice was done-

foolish is a quite mild term, however, politeness dictates I use it instead of what really comes to mind.
----------------------------

By the way, folks...

"IE Spell" is a very good and free tool. Posts that contain a lot of misspellings do not seem as credible as perhaps they should.

We created it, we maintain it, we develop it.
Without opinions involved, what exactly would giving control over to the U.N. do to benefit the internet?

I don't mean what can they do "better" than us, I mean what will it "fix", what serious compelling issues will it diminish?

For example, I don't see "big brother" watching people as an issue, if you truly do nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Law breakers are upset that they might get caught.

What REASON is there beyond "we want to feel more powerful than one of our members" is there?

The net is still very much one of our government's important tools. Just because you don't see anything on the WWW of the internet doesn't mean it's not there, God knows what they use but I refuse to believe that our government found good use for the net in its early stages and then just got bored with it and moved on to better things.

It may not be a natural resource, but it just happans to be the groundwork and the very resources thousands of economic entities rely upon to function, so I can easily see it as being treated the same.

We may not be the "free'est" country but then who the hell cares? I don't live every day like some high school students do, questioning my freedoms and feeling "victimized" or "cheated" because something I like is considered illegal. The internet has nothing to do with who's more free than who, this issue in particular has to do with WHY the hell would it be a pressing issue to relinquish command of the internet over to the U.N. purely on the basis of "we say so", when we are a large part if not entirely responsible for its existance in the first place (the UN).

EU may or may not be economically "stronger", same goes for Asia, but this has nothing to do with command and control of the net itself. Someone stated that this was like a reaction by little kids, and to me it seems the same. The world's a large kindergarden class, and we happen to have the rich parents that bought us a new toy; we share its use with all the other kids, then they all convene to vote it into their posession. When there's an oversight that the rich kid's parents built the school in the first place.

but then of course, there're the "you're always wrong because you don't agree with me people" or the "you're always wrong because you're American" people, but lol, I really discourage them from responding to me because without a viable, reliably sourced, unemotional response, I just dont care.

The fanatical posters sound like our newsmedia.
They also put too much loaded language in their posts, and extremely skewed statistics, and opinions disguised as "facts". Which btw sounds more like our newsmedia, which I write off as bias reporters not worthy of literary expression with any sort of credibility.

IF anyone is truly "hurt" or "damaged" or in any way "insulted" by Americans or the way the Americans manage the internet, that's a personal problem you're just going to have to come to terms with the realities of. It's also a very "young" mentality to be "Deeply Insulted" by something that you have pure OPTION to make use of in the first place, it's as if you're whining about something that you willing choose to use. Nobody has a right to use the net, it's a privelidge lol, It's like driving in this country, it's not a right at all. Nobody has "the right to drive". It's the US Government's toy, that they've been very generous with, and now the U.N. wants it and makes an attempt to "pressure" us into giving it up. If that doesn't spell out "power hungry" to you then I don't know what else does. wait, maybe only if I say something you agree with, then it will make sense, otherwise it's just nonesense right?

That's called sociopathic behavior.

"These people tend to embrace a particular and often limited belief system to the exclusion of others. They have no doubts. Typically these belief systems have an internal logic. Actions based on the belief system often produces the desired and predicted outcomes. Their views do not stand up to criticism when alternative understandings are used."

so think before you post, and speak.

Don't bother replying to me if all you can muster is a flame. :-)

no flames.

Just a question:

Who are "we"?

Since the "internet" developed by the USA doesn't include a World Wide Web... which was developed by a Brit...

Since the company that has control over the main servers now is a private company, not directly influenced by the US government... (although they do answer to the US government)

Why is it that "America" is somehow a more proper place to keep the primary DNS servers than anywhere else in the world, and what, exactly, about the internet requires the US government to have any more (or less) say than anyone else?