Login:
Password:

ITU Ready to Assume Control of Net

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

September 30, 2005, 2:02 PM

The head of the International Telecommunications Union says the United Nations stands ready to take over control of the Internet if the United States relinquishes control as it is being pressured to.

Yoshio Utsumi said the ITU "could do it if we were asked to" at a news conference Friday. However, it appears the chances of such an event happening are slim to none.

The United States has made it clear that it has no intentions of turning its Internet traffic policing duties over to the United Nations, much to the chagrin of a majority of the rest of the world. The stance threatens to create a roadblock in international Web policy for the foreseeable future.

Currently, California-based ICANN controls the direction of net traffic through a partnership with the US Government.

"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."

At issue is countries like Iran, who say the United States could use control of the Internet for political gain, and to shut its enemies out. The U.S. calls such talk nonsense, saying it never would harm the operation of the Internet in that manner.

The United Nations will hold an Information Society Summit in Tunis, Tunisia in mid-November, and the argument will likely overshadow any other topics discussed at the meeting. It is expected that the issue will be raised during the three-day summit.

The European Union said that the United States must realize that some countries will not accept the fact that Americans control the Internet in their country. Thus, the EU is planning to suggest the Internet and ICANN fall under International law instead of U.S. law as it does in the current system.

Add a Comment (187 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ribuld

edited Oct 2, 2005 - 5:30 AM

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

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Oct 4, 2005 - 8:45 AM

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?

Score: 0

By UnstAblE

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 2:12 AM

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

Score: 0

By voyager4383

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 10:58 PM

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.

Score: 0

By FluffyERug

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 11:43 AM

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

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

Score: 0

By smith288

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 1:19 PM

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.

Score: 0

By xavair

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 1:12 PM

a little history

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

Score: 0

By jordenpro

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 1:03 PM

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!

Score: 0

By davewalden

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 9:55 AM

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

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

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 2:01 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 8:33 AM

Good post! I agree!

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 8:00 AM

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

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 11:10 AM

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?

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 12:04 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 2:58 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 5:38 AM

Whatever. [shrugs]

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 10:36 AM

lol that's awesome.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Oct 5, 2005 - 4:02 AM

Thank you. :)

Score: 0

By citizen420

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 3:06 PM

"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?

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 11:49 AM

"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.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 11:17 AM

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?

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 12:06 PM

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.

Score: 0

By pafinator11

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 9:21 PM

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.

Score: 0

By citizen420

edited Oct 2, 2005 - 11:10 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

edited Oct 1, 2005 - 12:36 AM

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.

Score: 0

By citizen420

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 11:15 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 11:50 AM

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

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 8:35 AM

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

Score: 0

By ServerMechanic

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 11:53 AM

Just answer me this:

How old are you?

Score: 0

By jojosupp

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 2:07 AM

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

Score: 0

By itanshi

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 2:33 PM

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?

Score: 0

By statm1

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 12:49 AM

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.

Score: 0

By statm1

edited Oct 1, 2005 - 12:39 AM

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.

Score: 0

By citizen420

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 11:17 AM

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

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 8:37 AM

"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! :)

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 8:50 AM

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

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 1:32 PM

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.

Score: 0

By citizen420

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 1:57 PM

Only 1/2 of the parties

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

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 8:59 PM

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

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 9:38 PM

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.

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

edited Oct 1, 2005 - 5:31 AM

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.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 8:57 AM

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.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 1:37 PM

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.

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Oct 6, 2005 - 4:37 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

edited Oct 1, 2005 - 6:26 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 12:48 AM

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...

Score: 0

By citizen420

edited Oct 2, 2005 - 11:23 AM

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.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 8:59 AM

And who Dubya's lap dog?

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 8:39 AM

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

Score: 0

By voyager4383

edited Oct 1, 2005 - 1:52 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 11:41 AM

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...

Score: 0

By shicaca

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 1:00 AM

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.

Score: 0

By voyager4383

edited Oct 1, 2005 - 2:31 PM

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.

Score: 0

By SlySpy25

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 11:56 AM

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.

Score: 0

By voyager4383

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 3:20 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 5:53 PM

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.

Score: 0

By voyager4383

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 12:50 AM

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

Score: 0

By Squire72

edited Oct 2, 2005 - 3:26 AM

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.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 1:44 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Oct 4, 2005 - 9:06 AM

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

Score: 0

By Squire72

edited Oct 3, 2005 - 1:36 PM

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.

Score: 0

By ServerMechanic

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 11:54 AM

Don't like it.

Move the fsck out dude.

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 3:46 AM

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.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 1:46 PM

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.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 9:07 AM

Wah. And too bad...

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 8:42 AM

GoodThings2Life: Very good point indeed man.

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 9:47 PM

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.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 9:10 AM

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...

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 12:15 PM

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.

Score: 0

By jojosupp

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 2:09 AM

Commie.

Score: 0

By Squire72

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 3:18 AM

lmao!

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

Nowadays, "terrorists" are the enemy...

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 5:33 AM

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

Score: 0

By voyager4383

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 2:58 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 3, 2005 - 8:45 AM

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

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Sep 30, 2005 - 10:57 PM

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

Score: 0

By mehvii

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 10:37 AM

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

Score: 0

By tamahome320

posted Sep 30, 2005 - 9:42 PM

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. ^_^

Score: 0

By voyager4383

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 1:51 AM

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

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 5:39 AM

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.

Score: 0

By voyager4383

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 2:41 PM

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.

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Oct 6, 2005 - 4:43 PM

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?

Score: 0

By Hillard

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 8:39 AM

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

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Oct 6, 2005 - 4:45 PM

A different planet, clearly.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 6:27 PM

Ditto.

Score: 0

By Hillard

posted Sep 30, 2005 - 6:49 PM

Al Gore is not gonna like this at all.

Score: 0

By voyager4383

edited Sep 30, 2005 - 4:27 PM

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.

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 5:47 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 6:29 PM

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

Score: 0

By voyager4383

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 2:56 PM

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.

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Oct 6, 2005 - 4:52 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By ServerMechanic

posted Sep 30, 2005 - 4:36 PM

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

Thanks for playin'.

Score: 0

By voyager4383

edited Sep 30, 2005 - 4:40 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Sep 30, 2005 - 4:29 PM

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

Score: 0

By xoineg

posted Sep 30, 2005 - 4:01 PM

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.

Score: 0

By outofcoffee

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 5:50 AM

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?

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Oct 1, 2005 - 6:05 PM

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

Score: 0

By citizen420

posted Oct 2, 2005 - 11:37 AM

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

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Oct 4, 2005 - 9:23 AM

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...

Score: 0