One of my main questions is what grievances countries have against the current system (other than the USA controls it)? How are they hurt by it? More info would be appreciated
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think that (USA control) might be their main objection. I don't think I share it -- after all, Al Gore invented the internet anyway, right?
(In all seriousness, I'm not sure if the objections are legitimate, but as I'm satisfied with the current state of the internet I have a hard time believing that the complaints are terribly meritorious.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: (other than the USA controls it)
Do you really think the people in question need more of a reason than that?
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
The USA does not really "control" the Internet in any appreciable fashion. All we control is the domain name servers, and those are leased out to private companies. They do not censor it in any way, although of course they do prosecute those within the U.S. who use it for illegal purposes, such as terrorism or child pornography.
The bureaucrats of the U.N. and of many a country, on the other hand, would love nothing better than to regulate and censor. China, Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and other authoritarian states would love to use any kind of influence they can get their hands out to stomp out political/religious dissidents (in Iran these are essentially the same thing). France and a few other EU bureaucrats want to keep out "corrupting" Anglo culture- damming the Amazon, anyone?
As a sidenote, any culture that cannot survive peaceful contact with another culture-we're talking about an influx of language, ideas, and arts here-was doomed anyway, sooner or later. And I believe that all cultures can potentially benefit from that sort of exchange.
Cultures which, like France, try to mantain some sort of mythical "purity" are both foolish and abysmally historically ignorant, for reasons painfully obvious to anyone who has ever given even cursory thought to historical matters.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yank: The USA does not really "control" the Internet in any appreciable fashion. All we control is the domain name servers, and those are leased out to private companies. They do not censor it in any way...
Yes, exactly. That is why I have trouble understanding how even the U.N. can entertain the idea and find necessity for giving it up to international control. I guess they're just itching for a Domainname-for-Food scandel. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:The bureaucrats of the U.N. and of many a country, on the other hand, would love nothing better than to regulate and censor. China, Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and other authoritarian states would love to use any kind of influence they can get their hands out to stomp out political/religious dissidents (in Iran these are essentially the same thing). France and a few other EU bureaucrats want to keep out "corrupting" Anglo culture- damming the Amazon, anyone?[
I don't think that's the issue at all. . . . I also don't think it's about any problems that may currently exist because of US control, but instead is about the US' ability to abuse that power if it so desired.
I think the US would react the same way if some other country had the same type of control.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems like the issue of USA ability to abuse this 'power' we have over the Internet is a convenient afterthought for those nations which have political censorship much higher on their lists.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Besides, he who creates a thing, owns that thing. There is nothing at all stopping the EU, for example, from making a competing Internet protocol. It would, of course, be utterly impractical, but this doesn't change the fact that these nations really had nothing to do with the Internet's creation. Their only real argument for ownership boils down to, "We use it too, and we want it." Well, I use the airlines but I don't think that gives me a legitimate stake in controlling them. And the "because I want it" argument is shameful for anyone over the age of three.
Speaking of "capacity for abuse," China *already* abuses what control of the Internet they do have to the very limit of their ability to do so. And I would say the U.N.-which has installed Castro's regime on the Human Rights committee and repeatedly attempted to block the "corrupting cultural influences" of the Anglosphere-is a much worse risk for "possible abuse" of control.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)