Not your papas interwebnet

Mr.Fitnah

Dreamcrusher
Jul 14, 2009
14,480
3,397
48
Paradise.
After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.

Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.

The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.

Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together.

But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.

Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control.

"It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "This is a very significant shift because it takes the wind out of our opponents."

He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin. Many countries have lobbied for the shift in recent years, as the expansion of the web reaches out deeper into society and business.

US relinquishes control of the internet | Technology | guardian.co.uk
 
This will lead to censorship of criticism of Islam.

Most likely not though. From what it sounds like they will open it up more so other companies can start to move into the primary networks instead of just one. If we are lucky it will encourage one per continent at least.
 
IOC took over the human rights @ the UN and made it a farce.
Dont be so sure.
I understand the benifits.
 
This will lead to censorship of criticism of Islam.

Most likely not though. From what it sounds like they will open it up more so other companies can start to move into the primary networks instead of just one. If we are lucky it will encourage one per continent at least.
I'm likely not getting this, but if the net is going to be run by some consortium of international organizations, how can Americans be ensured that this consortium of sorts will not impose the sort of speech restrictions that the UN has demanded and that exist in so many in the EU?

I don't want some bleeding heart overly sensitive fuck in the EU telling me that I can't tell a Muslim that I would buy him a pig's blood on the rocks in real life or that I am denying the Holocaust, for example.
 
This will lead to censorship of criticism of Islam.

Most likely not though. From what it sounds like they will open it up more so other companies can start to move into the primary networks instead of just one. If we are lucky it will encourage one per continent at least.
I'm likely not getting this, but if the net is going to be run by some consortium of international organizations, how can Americans be ensured that this consortium of sorts will not impose the sort of speech restrictions that the UN has demanded and that exist in so many in the EU?

I don't want some bleeding heart overly sensitive fuck in the EU telling me that I can't tell a Muslim that I would buy him a pig's blood on the rocks in real life or that I am denying the Holocaust, for example.

Right now one company regulates the primary networks.
 
Most likely not though. From what it sounds like they will open it up more so other companies can start to move into the primary networks instead of just one. If we are lucky it will encourage one per continent at least.
I'm likely not getting this, but if the net is going to be run by some consortium of international organizations, how can Americans be ensured that this consortium of sorts will not impose the sort of speech restrictions that the UN has demanded and that exist in so many in the EU?

I don't want some bleeding heart overly sensitive fuck in the EU telling me that I can't tell a Muslim that I would buy him a pig's blood on the rocks in real life or that I am denying the Holocaust, for example.

Right now one company regulates the primary networks.
Yes, but at least that one company operates under US laws - laws that currently protect our freedom of speech.

So we move to a UN-like consortium - one involving countries from the EU where there is much, much less freedom of speech.

Look at what the UN did earlier this year on curbing free speech (UN bodies OK calls to curb religious criticism). This would seem to open such a door as well.
 
Last edited:
Wait...now you people trust the federal government? Now you've found a federal government program that runs to your satisfaction?

Ironic.
 
Wait...now you people trust the federal government? Now you've found a federal government program that runs to your satisfaction?

Ironic.

pay attention Ravi---we are talking about abdicating foreign entities
Doesn't change the irony of the situation.

uh--yes it does--most sane people would hate to be regulated by the UN MORE than they hate being regulated by our own federal govt.
 
Wait...now you people trust the federal government? Now you've found a federal government program that runs to your satisfaction?

Ironic.

pay attention Ravi---we are talking about abdicating foreign entities
Doesn't change the irony of the situation.
No irony at all. ICANN is private sector and you said it was a "federal government program". It would be irony if you actually got it right. You didn't - you were completely wrong.
 
pay attention Ravi---we are talking about abdicating foreign entities
Doesn't change the irony of the situation.
No irony at all. ICANN is private sector and you said it was a "federal government program". It would be irony if you actually got it right. You didn't - you were completely wrong.
Actually, that's not what I said at all, but thanks for playing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top