Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 20th Jun 2009 15:57 UTC
Internet & Networking The relationship between the United States government and ICANN, the private non-profit corporation which oversees the assignment of domain names, has often been a thorn in the eyes of the European Union. A recent document issued by the European Commission again advocates a change in internet oversight - but at the same time, the document also states that ICANN has actually been doing a pretty good job.
Thread beginning with comment 369526
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by werfu
by werfu on Sat 20th Jun 2009 17:28 UTC
werfu
Member since:
2005-09-15

Actually the ICANN have been doing fine exception on some sensitive issues in the US. Just think about the XXX domain name. I think requiring by law that all domains hosting adult content having to be registred by this domain name extension is logical. But both the sex industries and those stupid right-wing religious lobbists opposed the move, one saying the opposite of other. Having the ICANN not overseen by the (puritanical) US government would lead to some great improvement and would at the same time garantee (to some degree) freedom of the net.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by werfu
by darknexus on Sat 20th Jun 2009 17:56 in reply to "Comment by werfu"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And who would be overseeing it if the U.S government wasn't? You can bet that if it wasn't the U.S it'd be some other government instead. It's not that I particularly trust or admire our government here in the states--far from it, in fact--but I'd rather have it be our government than one in favor of a great deal more censorship and control. The internet is one of the few things these days with very little government control, and I'd prefer it were kept that way. To that end, it would probably be best if no government or international group such as the U.N were able to oversee it, but that just isn't possible. I trust them less than I trust our own government these days, although since the UN is rarely able to come to any decisions in any reasonable amount of time perhaps it would end up being the equivalent of no oversight.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by werfu
by gustl on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 19:16 in reply to "RE: Comment by werfu"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I partly agree.

Involving the EU would definitely not be a problem, think about all the good work it is doing regarding unhealthy markets (cracking down on illegal monopoly expansion by Microsoft) which the US government refused to do.

But I would rather have the US government oversee the ICANN for another 1000 years than letting someone appointed by the current Chinese government near it.

Let's face it. If every country in the world had one voice (how else could it be if a change is made), and the question of censorship is brought up, the countries upholding the right to free speech would be easily outnumbered by dictators.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by werfu
by ricegf on Sun 21st Jun 2009 11:42 in reply to "Comment by werfu"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I guess I'm one of those "stupid right-wing religious lobbists (sic)" opposed to a .xxx domain. At least, I find the idea stupid on its face.

Who exactly would define "adult content"? Is GoDaddy.com "adult" enough? Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition? Victoria's Secret? Playboy? Hustler? Bianca's Dungeon?

How long would it take before liberal zealots claim that pro-family (read: anti-gay marraige) sites are "adult"? Should they be relegated to "shameful" domains, as Dr. Laura was banned from Canadian airwaves for daring to call homosexuality "abnormal"? Howzabaout banning all those sites that oppose abortion? Or those "shameful" anti-Obama sites?

And who would enforce penalties for "adult content" that was posted outside the .xxx domain? Do we want the USA to enforce it's idea of morality on the EU? Or, God help us, the UN to define "morality" for the world, and enforce penalties against individual citizens of their respective countries?

Stupid, stupid, stupid. I have a much better idea. How about we stick with... liberty?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by werfu
by werfu on Sun 21st Jun 2009 12:26 in reply to "RE: Comment by werfu"
werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

Adult content is adult content, you know what I mean. Except in case of science or art, picture of a naked person is adult content. The XXX as been an attribute to qualified this kind of content for a while. I don't know why we should redefine it now. Yes, a web site of girl in swimsuit is adult oriented, but it is not pornography.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by werfu
by oakgrove on Sun 21st Jun 2009 19:07 in reply to "Comment by werfu"
oakgrove Member since:
2009-06-21

Wow, I created an account just tell you how much of an idiot you are. It's 'tards like you that would have us all rush headlong straight into full blown internet censorship. Think about it, dummy, if you relagate all "objectionable" content to a particular domain, it is trivial for the powers that be to simply block that domain. What's next? Political speech? Religious speech? Whatever a particular administration finds distasteful? The US government made a masterstroke in blocking this. You and people like you are completely thoughtless lemmings.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by werfu
by JAlexoid on Sun 21st Jun 2009 20:54 in reply to "RE: Comment by werfu"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

FYI: All countries, except for anarchic ones, censor pornography.
The xxx domain names, would help us identify those sites very easy. And I would be all for it.
But maybe, you represent those people that actually benefit from pornographic cybersquatting.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by werfu
by mabhatter on Tue 23rd Jun 2009 04:10 in reply to "Comment by werfu"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

Actually the ICANN have been doing fine exception on some sensitive issues in the US. Just think about the XXX domain name. I think requiring by law that all domains hosting adult content having to be registred by this domain name extension is logical. But both the sex industries and those stupid right-wing religious lobbists opposed the move, one saying the opposite of other. Having the ICANN not overseen by the (puritanical) US government would lead to some great improvement and would at the same time garantee (to some degree) freedom of the net.


That's a great reason to have exactly the situation under the US government. After all, the whole point of EU or UN control is to let every country legislate what is "XXX" material... once you classify speech you control it (and silence it) Once you classify XXX speech you might as well classify religious speech too, right! And political speech that's from Approved parties and speech that's not... it's just a "classification" By keeping ICANN a separate corporation, then it's free to protect free speech under US law... which is still generally the best at protecting free speech.

ICANN gives each country it's own domain initials to control anyway, and has nothing to do with serving content anyway. It's like blaming the power company for giving "bad people" house addresses.

The UN is the last place you want controlling the internet anyway... they're an organization composed of mostly non-democracies that view the US and North Korea as equal forms of government... it's all about "tending the serfs".

Reply Parent Score: 2