Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Insists On Keeping Control Of Internet
veggie boy writes "A U.S. official strongly objected to any notion of a U.N. body taking control of the domain servers that direct traffic on the Internet." From the article: "'We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet,' said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. 'Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable.' Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development."
Because, you know, the UN is so effective at doing this sort of thing.
Really? Where were the blue helmets in Darfur? And how many died in Rwanda while the world watched?
I'm not sure that the UN works fairly well for anything other than funneling Iraqi oil contracts to political cronies of Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, etc. "No war" for oil, indeed.
Rather UN than USA which is a far from fee and democratic. It's corrupt legal and political system is many times worse than UN. No thanks! I prefer UN over USA. A country where schools want to teach creationism and were a White House political staffer were arrested in the West Wing and lead out in handcufss, doesn't instill any confidence in me.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
So... what country would you recommend then? Since you obviously think the U.S. shouldn't, then you obviously know who should.
Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control,
And here I thought all the toplevel root DNS servers and domain registration was done in Canada.
Shows what I know.
I must agree though, that most of "The Internet" (in the form of infrastructure) is in North America. For the most part, it works. Why invite an opportunity to screw it up?
do() || do_not();
The organization that put Libya in charge of human rights. Yes, Brilliant.
What are the following words associated to?
US, Human Rights, Guantanamo
You get the point? I don't believe the US is better or worse then Libya. I just have the impression there is a liberal interpretation going on about wrong or right, depending on the interests of some people.
I could have post this anonymously, but this is not a troll or a flamebait.
We're the best constitutional republic. Our republic comes with principles attached that will continue to make it superior to any democracy for as long as the individual remains the primary.
If the Internet becomes some UN program I'm sure the same well connected dudes who ran oil for food programs would dig their nails into this program and run it into the ground. I bet Kofi's lubing up his son for another run at corruption.
http://herbopen24hours.blogspot.com or http://tolietman.blogspot.com
Flawed reasoning. Your argument incorrectly assumes that the poster was talking about European countries when, in fact, the poster's point was that the US is not the only county centrally founded on individual liberties and moreover, in recent years the US has, compared to similar individual liberty countries, curtailed individual liberties a considerable, and surprising, amount.
Your one sentence reply also contained an ad hominem attack. (That's bad.)
D
Before the inevitable US bashing starts,
You spelled "UN" wrong.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Mmm. Unlike European nations. Those bastions of freedom and liberty...
I'm amazed at the stupidity and arrogance of Europeans sometimes. Look, the US ins't perfect. We know this. It never has been. It's *always* been partisan with two parties. It's always had infighting. There has always been corruption.
What's layed down in the constitution and the talk of Freedom are the *ideals* toward which we try to strive. Nobody I know from the US ever claimed that we met those ideals on all accounts. Christ, we had *slavery* up until the mid 1800's! But it's better to have an ideal to strive towards than a reality IMHO. Always set your goals beyond your reach. This is why the equal rights advocates had the *constitution* to hold up while marching. This is how the government can be pulled back into check when necessary. It's own charter demands it. Your nation may set down "realistic" goals and you may acheive them. We'll try to do better than that.
Things wax and wane in the US. Throughout our history there have been power-grabs and loss of power. Rapid change and conservative movements. Think of a pendulum. Europeans seem to think that "conflict" is by nature a bad thing. We see it as necessary and the natural order of life. If you don't have conflict, how can you expect change for the better?
Not that you'll listen. I'll probably get some remark about how "Bush is the anti-christ" or some such, and that I'm really not as Free as Europeans (tried selling your Nazi memorabilia in France lately?). We're taking an active part in the world now too (since WWII). We've seen how Europe runs things and we believe it's our turn and we can do better. Or would you rather we just sit and wait until Europe tries to destroy itself or conquor the world yet again?
NB. I won't reply to any responses to this. Just thought I'd rant a bit. I'm just sick of haughty Europeans calling *me* arrogant...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin