Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Wants Immunity
rprins writes "In what is perhaps a reaction to recent Homeland Security demands, a strategic report by ICANN suggests that it should take on the model of a private international organization (PDF). That would make ICANN immune from US law and regulations. However, it's unlikely that the Bush administration would grant ICANN these privileges. So the organization might opt to relocate to Switzerland where such privileges are easier to attain."
Frankly, for one country to "control" ICANN, with what ICANN "controls" is foolish.
Not really when consider that what ICANN "controls" is essentially owned by that country.
All you people who are hoping that the US will loose control of the Internet are complete fools. The relative freedom you have on the Internet is because of US control, not in spite of it. Here are just a few reasons why you people are total idiots. 1) Most countries of the world are not concerned with Internet freedom, only Internet censorship. China anyone? If the US were to loose control you will at some point see censorship built into the infrastructure of the Internet as a whole, succumbing to the overwhelming pressure of nearly all of the world's governments. I mean give me a break, even freedom loving France shuts down websites that show a swastika even for historical purposes. Fortunately for all you Internet freedom lovers out there the US pioneered freedom of speech, and is big enough to be immune from the bullying, censor loving governments that make up most of the world. 2) There has been a lot of pressure to put a tax on the Internet from many countries and especially from the UN. Freedom on the Internet doesn't just mean free speech, it also means freedom from taxation. If control of the Internet goes international, I guarantee that the UN will finally get its way and tax all of you idiots. And where will the money go? To support the Internet's infrastructure? I seriously doubt it. To support the inevitable out of control bureaucracy that would be created? Maybe... More likely the money will go to the governments that represent the "less fortunate" and a small portion will go to give Internet to those who don't have it while the rest gets put where ever the dictators want it. Seeing as much of the money that the UN gives out goes into the pockets of corrupt foreign leaders, I doubt much good will come out of your monthly check you will fork out... "Oil for Food" anyone? Fortunately for us the US is in control for now, and has put a ban on Internet taxation. 3) US tax payers paid for the Internet. US government agencies and US tax payer funded Universities paid for the development of the Internet. Fortunately, the US decided to be nice and let the rest of the world connect to their network, instead of making the rest of the world actually develop their own network, which would have been cost prohibitive for most of the world without Americans giving it away for free, and the Internet would be nowhere the size it is today. When it comes down to it though, the rest of the world is still sitting on the backs of a primarily US government developed TCP/IP protocol and a US government and US university created network. Every time you connect to another computer via TCP/IP you should thank the government and people of the United States for developing it for you and giving it to you for FREE. You people are all a bunch of cry babies.... The freaking US develops a national and then global network for you people for free, gives you the software to connect to the network for free, and then "Ohh wahhhh, I think the US government has too much control of the Internet! They are squashing my freedom!" What a bunch of ungrateful pieces of.... My 2 cents
70% of the US Population disagrees according to any reasonable poll you care to name. Ten of those 70 percents represent the more intelligent segments of the population, the other 60 percents represent the actual cattle that comprises most of the population and the case against the Bush regime is so blatant it has sunk in there as well.
The other 30% of the population are either extremly thick or profiting by Bush policies. It probably includes a bunch of soldiers who are being brainwashed to believe that they aren't dying for NOTHING in Iraq.
A US site was bombed by an extremist group in 2001. We have been sending the CIA in to secretly finance and arm religious factions one week and topple them the next throughout the middle-east for decades. It really isn't a shock that some of them are pissed at US. That doesn't make them states, that doesn't make opposing them a 'WAR' that doesn't make any of it relevant to the mass murders we have sent innocent US troops to commit in Iraq. That doesn't make it appropriate for a religious fanatic to rig an election, assume wartime powers without a declaration of war on anyone, or to redefine laws with signing notes.
Bush infringes upon the freedom the press, not only with gag orders associated with his fradulent war but by exerting political power and restricting the press who has access to critical press conferences. If your news outlet reports against the president then you will have no access when we announce our next reign of terror.
In this case Bush is suggesting that the Dept of Homeland security should have a measure of control over IP and DNS assignments. That serves no purpose other than censorship and propoganda spreading. There is no legitimate reason for the Dept of Homeland security to EVER be able to compromise security mechanisms that provide assurance that the website you are viewing is the website you think you are viewing.
I wouldn't trust my mother not to abuse the powers the Bush administration has claimed it needs to fight a war against an unspecified enemy.