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.
Yes, the Swiss are very trustworthy... ask the Nazis who stored their stolen art and gold there.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
Moslems were crusaders in their own right. Know any widespread organizations of Zoroastrians? Anywhere outside
of a few countries in south central Asia. The moslem conquest of this area literally buried this religion as well as some others. Take the Nestorian Catholic Church. It was centered in Isfahan in what is now 'Iran'...ie, short and contracted for 'Aryan'. This Gnostic branch of Christianity was shunned by the Trinitarians who by force and treachery triumphed over the Arians in their own area (the new Carthaginians of the fifth century AD--the Vandals). The moslems literally wiped the nestorians from the face of the planet. It has been said that the moslems themselves borrowed parts of Nestorian Catholicism and incorporated it into the moslem church. Nestorian Christians hung on for some time as a persecuted faith. The Crusaders that the moslems talk about so much were actually minor players in the region and only basically 'crusaded' along the Mediterranean coastal cities. They brought no huge armies and little technology, and actually only successful because the moslems were being 'crusaded' by the biggest crusasder in the history of the world. This crusader led huge armies for over several generations, and for over two hundred years laid waste to all of moslemdom. This crusader took the moslems from an unexpected direction, the East. He was Genghis Khan. Genghis sister was a Nestorian Christian, as were many members of the Khan family. The Mongol armies had the best technology and military organization in the world at that time. Western students are taught a Eurocentric view of history and are often handed the lie that the Mongols were barbarians. Mongol armies had cannon and many siege engines. They also had firearms of all discriptions, but many preferred to us the recurved bow with steel arrowheads and damascus steel swords that had no equal in Europe. Genghis and his successor Hulagu and later Arghun Khan and their Christian generals took the moslem 'world' from the east to the west as far as Egypt, destroying every moslem army it faced. The Mongols did not get besieged like the Roman Christians did. They DID the besieging. The Mongols laid fierce siege to Baghdad , using heavy artillery and rockets and bombs and hundreds of thousands of troops in precise military formations. Bagdad was sacked and razed to the ground, its people killed wherever found and the rest scattered. It was said that the Tigris River out of Baghdad first ran red with the blood of the moslems and then black with the ink of the burned libraries that for some unknown reasons the moslems allowed to exist. The Mongols went on to kill millions of moslems and burn and destroy their cities, farms, villages, churches all over the middle east from Kashmir and north India to the gates of Constantinople. The Mongols helped protect Constantinople inasmuch as the Mongol royal family had intermarried with the Eastern Roman Empire royal family, the Paleologuses. The Paleologus family was seeking to protect its very existance at this time, a job made more precarious due to the treachery of the supposed Roman Christians who occasionally made traitorous alliances with the muslims against their own Christian kind, the Nestorians, out of greed, fear, and the old Arian/Trinitarian/Gnostic feud of hundreds of years before. The Paleologuses also intermarried with the Russian royal family as well, giving rise to the Russian ideas of the present day as being successor to the Roman Empire, an empire that according to them never really died completely as long as a Russian yet lives. Moslems hate the mention of the Paleologuses and fear trhe association of the name with the Khans, and that is why they reacted violently when the Pope mentioned the name in a speech that told the truth about the real intentions of the moslems and their habits unchanged for over a thousand years of murdering all who do not adopt their religion. So when the moslems harangue us about Americans being 'crusaders', they ignore their own history. The real