Internet is still in good hands.
Posted on 10/02/2009 6:51:07 PM PDT by NorwegianViking
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. "...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...
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Internet is still in good hands.
- CENSORSHIP
- on-line gun/ammo sales BANNED
- Warrantless searches of anything you have on line (on-line back-up, banking, medical records, mail accounts, etc)
- No more free Internet, bandwidth limitations
- P2P software/use BANNED
- UN-approved Global fees and taxes
- US Constitutional law not applicable to the "Global" internet
Ok just for arguments sake. How will that square with our Constitutional rights.
You posted, in part: Great. We invent it at taxpayer expense. The world (especially the communist and muslim world that never invents anything) wants it and begins whining because we won’t give it to them. Obama comes along and hands it (and our 1st amendment rights) over to them on a silver platter.
***
Your analysis is perfect, and strikingly similar to the attitudes of many in the US regarding health care and pharmaceuticals. “We know you invented the drug, but we need it, can’t afford it, so give it to me for free.” “We know you went to college, med school and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years to learn to be a doctor, but we can’t afford you, need your care, so give it for free, because health care is a right.”
Kyle will fix the Internet
http://gizmodo.com/381088/how-to-fix-the-internet-according-to-south-park
They (well, I) don’t know about it yet. This is kind of surprising; thank you, MSM. Altough Free Republic didn’t make it easier to know either :(
I wondered why my computer was acting so squirrely lately...all those furriners in my business!
Geez...what else do we have to give up with this insane administration!?
Stupid question, I know!
“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.”
This is ominous.
http://nocompromisemedia.com/2009/10/01/dr-paul-williams-goes-on-trial-in-canadian-court/
Williams insists that the problem at McMaster was evidenced by the fact that several of the terrorists who were taken into custody in the plot to kill the Canadian Prime Minister and to blow up Parliament were students at the school...
Supporting Williams’s contentions, Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, has testified on tape that Anas el-Liby, a founder of al Qaeda, attended McMaster and managed, along with other al Qaeda operatives, to steal 80 kilos of nuclear material from the poorly guarded facilities at the school....
In Canada, any person offended by a statement can file a lawsuit, and it remains up to the respondent to prove his innocence.
****Limbaugh and Levin and Hannity and all of them would be affected by any curtailing of free speech on the net. If there were any certainly to this move, they would all be talking about it daily****
I suppose it will sink in soon that this is nothing more than the silencing of the lambs.
You did fine! Thank you for posting it...we wouldn’t have known about it otherwise! I’m not that picky about paragraphs. :D
FreeStateYank,....clever you!...But Whoopi's "But it's not rape-rape" comment about Polanski is totally incorrect. I know you agree....thanks for seeing some humor....I really needed some.
"In Canada, any person offended by a statement can file a lawsuit, and it remains up to the respondent to prove his innocence".
http://nocompromisemedia.com/2009/10/01/dr-paul-williams-goes-on-trial-in-canadian-court/
I have a bad feeling about this . . .
I predicted this because the U.N tried the same thing in 2003... President Bush slapped it down, of course.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2003/nov/17/20031117-113002-7678r/#
U.N. group seeks control of Internet
November 17, 2003
” Governments spearheaded by China, Brazil, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia are trying to place the Internet under the control of the United Nations or its member governments, a move that the United States and other developed countries are determined to resist.”
(snip)
“****but if this were really some ceding of free speech that subjected the US internet network to foreign control the net would be on fire about it.****
This is what concerns me. If this is just not understood there would still be lots of talk about it.
Is it possibly widely understood that this is nothing more than a curtail of conservative and christian speech, therefore the liberal community is well aware of it but chooses to endorse it? As well as be silent about it?”
Is it possible we are exaggerating the danger? The article says “an advisory board”—that doesn’t sound like control to me.
| Just like EVERYTHING these socialists do - just FOLLOW THE MONEY. THIS was proposed ten years ago - I'm sure we're headed to something similar: http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/14/un_proposes_email_tax/ UN proposes email taxFees would fund expansion of Net into developing countries Posted in Business, 14th July 1999 11:46 GMT The United Nations wants email users to subsidise the extension of the Internet to Third World countries, according to a report released by the UN Development Programme earlier this week. Essentially, the report calls on governments to introduce legislation that would require Net users to pay a tax of one US cent on every 100 emails the send. Such is the volume of email that, had such a scheme been introduced in 1996, it would have generated $70 billion in that year alone. Given the quantity of spam we're now all being subjected to, the mind boggles at how much revenue would be generated now. Whatever funds were generated, however, it would be enough to give developing countries the help they need to catch up with developed nations and so "offset inequalities in the global community", as the report puts it. A worthy goal, for sure, but we can't help wondering whether the real winners here would be the telecoms companies who would be contracted to create all these extra connections. However, the report argues that leaving the expansion of the Net into the Third World to market forces will simply not allow the technology to spread far enough sufficiently quickly. Still, the report admits the UN can't enforce such a tax itself, and with most Western governments keen to encourage Net use in order to promote their countries as preferred territories for e-business, they're unlikely to introduce such a tax unilaterally. |
Thanks for the additional links.
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.