[spacefreak]

Just a heads up here, folks.

Plans for U.N. to run internet

An attempt by developing countries to put management of the internet under United Nations auspices is likely to be shelved at next month's world information summit in Geneva - but the issue is now firmly on the international agenda, summit sources say.

It will be one of the main bones of contention this week as government negotiators and non-governmental organisations descend on Geneva for the final round of preparatory talks on the draft declaration and plan of action due to be endorsed by heads of state and government at the summit on December 10-12.

Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones, are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago.

The critics argue that the internet is a public resource that should be managed by national governments and, at an international level, by an intergovernmental body such as the International Telecommunications Union, the UN agency that is organising the information summit.

However, the US and the European Commission are staunchly defending the Icann model, which is based on minimal regulation and commercial principles. Icann members are predominantly drawn from industrialised countries and the established internet community.

Defenders of the status quo say handing over power to governments could threaten the untrammelled flow of information and ideas that many see as the very essence of the borderless internet.

But these arguments appear to be losing force against the emergence of new challenges such as unwanted advertising ("spam"), privacy and security worries, hate speech and child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.

[eklipse]

[chris v]

Originally posted by eklipse:

Pull ur pants up: yr l33t skillz are showing.

I don't know what's scarier-- t hat you wrote that, or that I can read it...

CV

[spacefreak]

"Internet Access Fees for the 5 most networked countries will be doubling, with an overusage tax to be implemented when a nation's internet traffic exceeds our predetermined limits. For the year 2004, Bhutan, Eritrea, Nauru, and Iran will serve on the oversight council, and they will be determining what such usage limits will be, which nations are in violation, and the amount in fines each overtrafficked nation will pay.

Proceeds and incomes derived from such fines will then be distributed to those poor countries who have most lavishly wined and dined me over the past 12-months."

[Millennium]

If someone must "run" the Internet, then it should not be under the control of any government or the UN. Preferably a body with voting power as though it were a nation.

The Internet, and the societal changes it has brought about, are too important to be governed by anything other than a sovereign power decidated exclusively to the task.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If someone must "run" the Internet, then it should not be under the control of any government or the UN. Preferably a body with voting power as though it were a nation.

The Internet, and the societal changes it has brought about, are too important to be governed by anything other than a sovereign power decidated exclusively to the task.

Here, here! An elected cyber-legislature is the most fair. I've pondered that position for quite some time and it makes more sense than the proposed alternatives.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If someone must "run" the Internet, then it should not be under the control of any government or the UN. Preferably a body with voting power as though it were a nation.

Agreed.

[davesimondotcom]

Well, I don't want ANYONE regulating the internet. UN, US, France, me.

But we should be able to shoot spammers on sight.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Well, I don't want ANYONE regulating the internet. UN, US, France, me.

But we should be able to shoot spammers on sight.

exactly!

[gadster]

They're dreamin' if they think they can control it. No one can control it. It can be monitored (the military wouldn't have released it otherwise), but it can't be controlled. Then it'd be just, TV.

[Mister Elf]

No, no, no. The UN will never have any control over my UNITED STATES registered site. I didn't buy a web page in the US to have it monitored by the UN. Jeez, they're getting very Communistic in the UN. Why?

1.) Everyone in the world should share stuff with everyone else in the world. Poverty and hunger should not be problems for these reasons.

2.) We have the right to police what people say and do in communications, even though those people never asked to handle that.

3.) Every nation will help us build up our blue-helmet (or brown-shirt, whatever) security force...or else.




It pisses me off to realize that me and my shipmates may be forced to work under the UN; we joined the US Navy, not the UN Navy.

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by eklipse:

rofl

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Just a heads up here, folks.

Plans for U.N. to run internet

That one must have come from the U.N.'s Special Commission for Bad Ideas.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
That one must have come from the U.N.'s Special Commission for Bad Ideas.

It did - via a proposal offered up by Theo Epstein.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by eklipse:

Kofi is l33t

[thunderous_funker]

Bad Idea, indeed!!

Of course, the more likely (and equally heinous) scenario is that the internet will be completely dominated by corporate interests until its fully metered and homogenized so it resembles Cable TV.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Of course, the more likely (and equally heinous) scenario is that the internet will be completely dominated by corporate interests until its fully metered and homogenized so it resembles Cable TV.

I just wish cable would offer some sort of NFL package. Currently, and for the forseeable future, only Direct TV (through their deal with the NFL) offers a package.

I'm tired of spending money at bars to watch my team play. I'd rather spend money and sit on my couch, and not have to be hostily engaged every week by drunk, devastated Giants fans who takes issue with my Cowboys hat. My knuckles are getting too worn.

[thunderous_funker]

Digital cable (in most areas) offers the sports packages. If that offers some hope to your and your stinky cowboy fetish.

(as if we didn't have enough to disagree about, I'm a steelers fan since childhood...wouldntchaknow?!?! )

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Digital cable (in most areas) offers the sports packages. If that offers some hope to your and your stinky cowboy fetish.

Really? Not in my area, but I'd be up for a move.

(as if we didn't have enough to disagree about, I'm a steelers fan since childhood...wouldntchaknow?!?! )

I'd hope all fans of teams had been since childhood.

A very good friend of mine is a Steelers fan. If they're in the hunt, I sorta pull for them. Jets too. The only time I don't is if they play Dallas in the regular season or (fingers crossed) the Super Bowl.

On your front, it would be nice if the Steelers would at least dabble in the free agency market, or at least resign their own high-profile free agents. It seems like (over the last 7 years) anytime a stud develops on the Steeler defense, they just let him walk. A few more duckets paid out, and you guys could have been to another Bowl or two in the late 1990s.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
On your front, it would be nice if the Steelers would at least dabble in the free agency market, or at least resign their own high-profile free agents. It seems like (over the last 7 years) anytime a stud develops on the Steeler defense, they just let him walk. A few more duckets paid out, and you guys could have been to another Bowl or two in the late 1990s.

Tell me about it. For the last 3 years I've actually made a concerted effort to avoid reading any Steeler's off-season news because its all too depressing.

Seems like an entire defensive unit of pro-bowlers have walked away over the last few seasons.



And don't get me started about their secondary. They couldn't cover me.

Oh, and I'm so done with the whole Mike Malarkey offense. The novelty of it has worn off and the joke is over. Go back to college if you want to run that tricksey-dicksey crap. Sometimes they get lucky and score with it, but its not how you succeed in the league. At least not with the kind of talent the Steelers have. They don't need that crap. They need to simplify and get back to basics.

Watching that offense, its like a crap shoot every down. Like every play is "hey, let's see what this does!!!" How is a struggling and injured OL supposed to improve when you never run the same play twice???

Done with it. Fire his retarded ass and get back to playing real football.

/rant

[gadster]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Really? Not in my area, but I'd be up for a move.

I'd hope all fans of teams had been since childhood.

A very good friend of mine is a Steelers fan. If they're in the hunt, I sorta pull for them. Jets too. The only time I don't is if they play Dallas in the regular season or (fingers crossed) the Super Bowl.

On your front, it would be nice if the Steelers would at least dabble in the free agency market, or at least resign their own high-profile free agents. It seems like (over the last 7 years) anytime a stud develops on the Steeler defense, they just let him walk. A few more duckets paid out, and you guys could have been to another Bowl or two in the late 1990s.

Smooth.



Acknowledged and noted.

[ghost_flash]

It belongs to everybody, and yet nobody.

I can't wait til the day where we can all join together our computers via the internet
and become a singularity using the power of our processors to cure cancer.

I need a cigarette.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If someone must "run" the Internet, then it should not be under the control of any government or the UN. Preferably a body with voting power as though it were a nation.

The Internet, and the societal changes it has brought about, are too important to be governed by anything other than a sovereign power decidated exclusively to the task.

That's original.

I second that!

[voodoo]

This thread is so last year.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by voodoo:
This thread is so last year.

At this time, last year is 90 days away only!!!

Rejoice!

[macvillage.net]

I'm all for it... with an addition.

THe net should become it's own country. And it should be the only one to have veto powers and a perminent seat on the security council.

That would level the playing field a bit.

[3gg3]

Originally posted by voodoo:
This thread is so last year.

Just right for Al Gore to run the show.