Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2005 11:36 UTC
Internet & Networking A new resolution introduced in the US Senate offers political backing to the Bush administration by slamming a United Nations effort to exert more influence over the Internet. At the heart of this international political spat is the unique influence that the US federal government enjoys over Internet addresses and the master database of top-level domain names - a legacy of the Internet's origins years ago. The Bush administration recently raised objections to the proposed addition of .xxx as a red-light district for pornographers, for instance, a veto power that no other government is able to wield.
Thread beginning with comment 47942
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Geez...
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:25 UTC in reply to "Geez..."
Member since:

China, Iran, syria, NK, lybia

That's all you've got ? Do you know how many countries are in the UN ? Do you know any other way to give a supranational power aver the Internet ? I don't see why UN would not be the perfect place, but personnality, I have nothing against a balanced team, as long as it is fair to anyone.

Don't us .xxx

It's just too easy to just dismiss the latest intervention of the US government. We just had the proof that it is not working correctly right now.
But US people replying to this thread are just not trying to understand what others have to say. Internet is an international invention, combining the work of many people around the world. What's more, Web content is fully international, mainly due to its origin (a combination of international networks). There is a need to have an Internet not threatened by national politics, and as such, there is a need of supranational dominance.

Then, why is it so hard to understand ?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Geez...
by on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:30 in reply to "RE: Geez..."
Member since:

If we put the UN incharge of the internet do you know what will happen? Nothing. One nation or another will veto any idea or change. It's a moronic suggestion in it's purest form. You have a place where 1 veto kill anything dead and you want to put the internet in it's hand? Hello? Get a clue. Everytime China tries to do something it will get vetoed by the US and the UK cause till probally involve censorship and other lovely things the reverse is also true. We don't want the internet to be another UN play toy to help nations get there way in unrealted feilds.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Geez...
by lezard on Wed 19th Oct 2005 17:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Geez..."
lezard Member since:

You don't understand one thing. Passing charge to the UN doesn't mean that any decision has to pass through all the process. If you knew better UN, you would know that they are open to the fact that they can create commission with regular way of working (which means no veto or that sort of thing). Anyway, it's kind of stupid since the country which veto quite everything is US, and then, they blame nations which almost never use this way. They just need to understand that different nations have different objectives. My country has a law against "incitation la violence", which means that promoting violence or racism is prohibited. The big difference is that it is perfectly accepted by anyone here and it is barely used by officials.
A website promoting the murder of arabs have been closed six months ago, and I do understand why ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1