lyte said:
Geez, why does every topic turn into US bash fest.
It only turns out to be a "US bash fest" when you interpet it as one, nobody here as intentionally made this a thread/conversation about outright bashing the USA, but rather is simply just a topic about a topic at times seen as heated.
lyte said:
Another scary issue raised was the UN (or those countries involved) might decide to start using their new found power for propaganda.
Doesn't suprise me if FOX was depicting it as an attempt to spread propaganda... As if they themselves aren't into that often times. The UN isn't a political propaganda machine, it's a global forum for political collaboration and mutual welfare. As if the US doesn't already have a veto in the UN Security Counsil, very large political influence on it in general, etc. You too are a member of it and it represents you as well. Don't make it look now like the UN and the US aren't anyhow in the same bed, when they actually are.
To me the USA is already well represented also in the UN, so with some reforms and with some mutual understanding for what's plausible (ie. "we must stop this stupid ICANN debate and solve it") the UN could just as well take control of the Internet, because American interests would still be protected. But in the current climate I think it's not the time to make the UN or the US masters of the Net, but rather keep all of these current parties away from the magic control panel for controlling the root DNS, etc.
IAmAllanShore said:
The question here is about UN governance of the internet; not about whether or not the US deserved 9/11.
Please point out where anyone was refering to Osama, WTC, 9/11, terrorism, Al-Qaida, etc. Because nobody did, except you yourself. Comments like that aren't thus called for, unless you try to divert this into a "Bush suxx0rz Osama haxx0rz" thread.
CrazyTech said:
The EU is the only group crying about the situation and threatening to go play with their own toys like a two year old would.
Actually statements by George Jr. have been pretty much like a two year old grabbing his ICANN toy and keeping it firmly to himself, objecting any diplomatic solution and sharing that toy, so that everyone would enjoy the ICANN toy.
Jeffrey said:
The present run of the internet is already doing fine, why do these people want complications?
No, that's actually not the case. I pointed out in my list of ICANN problems some key signs of why the current ICANN just doesn't work for the common good of the cyberspace. Because it's just not capable doing it, being rigged mostly with the financial interests of a few, one single government clearly oppressing it and it not vigorously expanding the Net and making it's infrastructure more redundant. Right now it's more the ISP corporations doing it, rather than ICANN having any stake in it, despite they should.
Ultimately, dear fellow domainers, this
IS NOT an issue about the UN, US, EU, ICANN, etc, but about what will happen to the Internet itself. Remember this. Do we want to cherish it and keep on domaining or do we want it to be ruined by a few players? I presume no. To avoid this, we need to push for the Net being independent and make sure it develops further. Any traditional politics causing the Net to split would be terrible, so this needs to be avoided. And that can only be done with an impartial body. Call it for instance the "Internet Federation."
