[atomic_dog]

Bad precedent if correct.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"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.

[TChris]

Bad, bad news. This day will be looked upon historically as a watershed event.

[taxed2death]

Didn't DARPA develop the internet (with my tax dollars)?

[pgyanke]

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.

[the invisib1e hand]

I don't like this at all. it's like ceding the control of ports...

[gogeo]

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!

[observer5]

As long as they can keep the UN out of it...

[madison10]

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.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Nothing like abdicating sovereignty, eh?

In other news, McCain, Feingold, Kofi and Hillary no doubt toasted the announcement.

[Syntyr]

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...

[lost_sovereignty]

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.

[kaylar]

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.)

[stylin19a]

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.

[SlowBoat407]

This is indeed a disturbing development. It won't be long before we may be subjected to censorship if content or subject matter don't meet some international code of acceptibility.

I guess we're nearing the days when we can no longer gripe about CENSORED or CENSORED. It'll make us long for the time when we could advocate CENSORED or say nice things about CENSORED.

[Redcloak]

It's a bad idea indeed if China, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. get to decide what may or may not be allowed online.

[adorno]

What does Al Gore, the inventor of the internet, have to say about his invention being handed over to the rest of the world?

[Psycho_Bunny]

and it then has to sell that decision to a mindlessly patriotic electorate

F*ck you too, Kieren.

[JOAT]

That the US government recognises it has to transition its role if it wants to keep the internet in one piece

And what would the other 'pieces' amount to if we bid them adieu?

Not much. Let them leave.

[madison10]

Not sure if the writer of the article knows of what she speaks. ICANN is the non-profit, private group that names the domain name system management. Maybe we only gave up control of naming. If that's it...so what.

Hearings on ICANN Privatization Set

ICANN

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

July 25, 2006, 1:57 PM

The U.S. Commerce Department has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the progress toward privatization of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit organization it currently controls. While a transition is scheduled to take place on September 30, the U.S. government has the option to extend that deadline. Foreign governments have pushed for such a change, complaining that the United States has too much control.

It has become a worry among some Internet analysts that continued control by the U.S. could result in a fracture of the Internet, where countries break off and run their own domain name servers. However, some are cautioning against an independent ICANN. "ICANN has definitely made progress towards independence, but more needs to be accomplished before a complete transition is appropriate," Steve DelBianco, Executive Director for interest group NetChoice said.

[TC Rider]

Why not just turn it over to the Chinese, Russian, and Nigerian spammers.