Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/6/2005 7:32:03 PM EDT
Anti-American Guardian Link



...now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.



Someone explain to me why, if the US controls ICANN
and the TLDs, why can't we just say: fuck you. It is
going to be pretty interesting if the EU attempts to
create their own authority with their own rules (incl.
TLD definitions). This could royally fuck up the internet
without central control (read: DNS name collisions).
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:35:32 PM EDT
We don't want the masses to be able to speak freely and think, do we?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:36:23 PM EDT
Theoretically they could set up their own root name servers, then demand that everyone in the universe point their DNS config files at them.

Basically their proposal is all lose and no win. The US government has a policy of benign neglect on ICANN. They give them money and that's about it. Put it under the control of the UN and it would be a football. All the two-bit dictators would want to finagle a way to shut down web sites they don't want someone else to see.

The system works fine as it is. Don't dick with it.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:37:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:
We don't want the masses to be able to speak freely and think, do we?



If that is sarcasm, I ain't getting it.
Care to explain?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:46:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By bblake00:
We don't want the masses to be able to speak freely and think, do we?



If that is sarcasm, I ain't getting it.
Care to explain?



I think he is thumbing his nose at the UN tyrants.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:49:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By bblake00:
We don't want the masses to be able to speak freely and think, do we?



If that is sarcasm, I ain't getting it.
Care to explain?



If you control the net in a centralized way, or any way you can also dictate what people can look at at on the net. You can also controle any information that you do not want the population to see.

If the .gov any .gov gets involved in any way thats stops or hinders the free flow of information it becomes a bad thing. Take a look at North Korea. China controls what goes in and out of the net in their county too. I'm sure there are ways around it but the ones that know about in thouse countries are not shareing with the little people.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:51:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pangea:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By bblake00:
We don't want the masses to be able to speak freely and think, do we?



If that is sarcasm, I ain't getting it.
Care to explain?



I think he is thumbing his nose at the UN tyrants.



That too.

I'm a big proponent of free speach in every form as long as it does not exploite people for personel gain.


I may not like what you have to say, but it's your RIGHT to say it.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:52:51 PM EDT
I think the EU should spend thier own trillions and develop thier own net... then charge me for using it.

Can you really see that shit happening?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:53:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By bblake00:
We don't want the masses to be able to speak freely and think, do we?



If that is sarcasm, I ain't getting it.
Care to explain?



If the UN takes control of the internet, they decide what the world can access and/or disseminate...i.e. keeping the masses from speaking and thinking freely.

It's all about one world government and controlling the governed.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:56:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:
If you control the net in a centralized way, or any way you can also dictate what people can look at at on the net.



Unfortunately, when dealing with root name servers,
you're going to have to be centralized in order to
prevent people from stomping all over each other.

The point the US is making is that ICANN has been
government-neutral for over 20 years, why fuck with
it now?

Maybe we should just block inbound BGP traffic on
the boundary US routers for a week. The world would
come crawling back to the table without their US
based porn and Google.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:58:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pangea:
I think he is thumbing his nose at the UN tyrants.



Gotcha. The "we" kinda threw me.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:14:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 8:16:34 PM EDT by bblake00]

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By bblake00:
If you control the net in a centralized way, or any way you can also dictate what people can look at at on the net.



Unfortunately, when dealing with root name servers,
you're going to have to be centralized in order to
prevent people from stomping all over each other.

The point the US is making is that ICANN has been
government-neutral for over 20 years, why fuck with
it now?


Maybe we should just block inbound BGP traffic on
the boundary US routers for a week. The world would
come crawling back to the table without their US
based porn and Google.



Centralized was the wrong word of choice. I should have chosen controled by a .gov

That's what rings my bell. You turn over control to some group thats not goverment-neutral then it's going to be world where you can't speak your mind or share information about the freedoms we have or others want depending on what country has control over the net in the area you are living.


But I would love to see what happens if all inbound traffic is halted.
Top Top