Skip to comments.
United States cedes control of the internet - but what now?
The Register ^
| 27 July 2006
| Kieren McCarthy
Posted on 07/27/2006 7:36:40 AM PDT by atomic_dog
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Bad precedent if correct.
To: atomic_dog
"In a meeting that will go down in internet history, the United States government last night conceded that it can no longer expect to maintain its position as the ultimate authority over the internet. "
Here comes the censorship.
2
posted on
07/27/2006 7:38:17 AM PDT
by
EQAndyBuzz
(Democrats - The reason we need term limits)
To: atomic_dog
Bad, bad news. This day will be looked upon historically as a watershed event.
3
posted on
07/27/2006 7:39:03 AM PDT
by
TChris
(Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
To: atomic_dog
Didn't DARPA develop the internet (with my tax dollars)?
4
posted on
07/27/2006 7:39:03 AM PDT
by
taxed2death
(A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
To: atomic_dog
I am so sick of the globalists! You see this every day... company X makes a product so good that it becomes a resource. Therefore company X shouldn't be profiting from a vital resource and should now give the product to a global market.
Forget that! We made it, we operate it--they like it, they can use it. We should maintain control of the product in which we invested so much.
5
posted on
07/27/2006 7:41:40 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(Christ embraces sinners; liberals embrace the sin.)
To: atomic_dog
I don't like this at all. it's like ceding the control of ports...
To: taxed2death
"and it then has to sell that decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate"
mindlessly patriotic? I think not...I'd rather have my nation controlling the internet than letting countries like China have a say in what goes on.
To: atomic_dog
1. That the US government recognises it has to transition its role if it wants to keep the internet in one piece (and it then has to sell that decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate) 2. That ICANN has to open up and allow more people to decide its course if it is going to be allowed to become the internet's main overseeing organisation
This blather betrays a mindset so twisted that I have to walk away from the computer!
8
posted on
07/27/2006 7:45:20 AM PDT
by
gogeo
(The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
To: atomic_dog
As long as they can keep the UN out of it...
9
posted on
07/27/2006 7:47:18 AM PDT
by
observer5
("Better violate the rights of a few sometimes, than of all always!!)
To: pgyanke
I am so sick of the globalists!
BUMP!
10
posted on
07/27/2006 7:50:01 AM PDT
by
jpsb
To: atomic_dog
If this is true...
Life as cybercitizens as we know it...just went to H311. Giving our honest, not-so-PC opinions, as we do in FreeRepublic, will end. I have a BAD feeling about this. We've just lost a great deal of our freedom.
To: atomic_dog
Nothing like abdicating sovereignty, eh?
In other news, McCain, Feingold, Kofi and Hillary no doubt toasted the announcement.
12
posted on
07/27/2006 7:52:01 AM PDT
by
The Spirit Of Allegiance
(Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
To: madison10
(and it then has to sell that decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate)
That's us, you know.
13
posted on
07/27/2006 7:55:13 AM PDT
by
xroadie
To: EQAndyBuzz
To: atomic_dog
remains an English-speaking possession.
represented only a tiny minority of those that now use the internet every day.
highlighted the very parochialism of those that currently form the ICANN in-crowd.
why landowners or the educated classes shouldn't be given more votes than the masses.
A stark warning came from the Canadian government - the only government except for the US government invited to speak.
there needs to be an explanation of the decisions and the reasons for it; and ultimately there needs to be a mechanism for the board to be held accountable by its community."
Ultimately, what came out of a gathering of the (English-speaking) great and the good regarding the internet was two things:
(and it then has to sell that decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate)
2. That ICANN has to open up and allow more people to decide its course if it is going to be allowed to become the internet's main overseeing organisation
The next step is for everyone invited into the party this time to recognise that they too play only a small role in the global revolution
Ohhhh Yes Communism and Socialism rears it's ugly head again...
15
posted on
07/27/2006 8:03:16 AM PDT
by
Syntyr
(Food for the NSA Line Eater -> "terrorist" "bomb" "plot" "kill" "overthrow" "coup de tas")
To: ThisLittleLightofMine
This article appeared in "The Register"
whose web address is:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/
The US invented and developed the internet.
So far as I am concerned, it is US property.
16
posted on
07/27/2006 8:03:32 AM PDT
by
Allan
(*-O)):~{>)
To: EQAndyBuzz
Here comes the censorship.Don't worry, that's for our own good. And of course, we'll have to enact some taxes, fees, surcharges, and service funds to ensure that this regulation is done properly. (For reference, take a look at the back of your phone bill.)
It was only a matter of time before the greedy Socialists got their corrupt, dirty hands all over the Internet. It's downhill from here.
17
posted on
07/27/2006 8:04:07 AM PDT
by
FlyVet
(What would Hezbollah do to a guy named Sulzberger?)
To: atomic_dog
In a meeting that will go down in internet history, the United States government last night conceded that it can no longer expect to maintain its position as the ultimate authority over the internet.
WAIT A MINUTE !! The internet started as Arpanet, a MILITARY project. The internet belongs ultimately to the US TAXPAYERS. I wasn't asked if MY INTERNET could be disposed of! More globalist BS from this administration.
To: atomic_dog
I remember news from last year about ICANN . (I tried to find last year's articles posted to FR but no luck.) The consensus on FR in 2005 was that ICANN would be given a face lift making it look like a multinational decision making body, but the US would in fact retain ultimate control, that ICANN was mainly "window dressing" to placate mindlessly multinational idiots here and abroad. I hope that's true. If the author of this editorial is correct, this is one of the worst things I've ever read on FR. The rest of the world is the home of blasphemy laws, no First Amendment rights, and confiscatory taxes on everything-to 110% of income, per one recent FR article. They want the internet-let them set up their own servers and run them as they please. (But I'll admit much of the technical aspects of the net is beyond my understanding.)
19
posted on
07/27/2006 8:06:55 AM PDT
by
kaylar
To: atomic_dog
holy cripes !
The US fought like hell to keep control during the UN meeting in tunisia in 11/2005. Any transition wouldn't take place for 5 years or more.
This turnaround is stunning - though no target dates are mentioned.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson