Whose Internet Is It, Anyway?
Should America Control the Internet?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/10/20/congress.internet.reut/index.html
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
If you browse the Internet (and if you don't you're not reading this!) the websites that you visit ultimately get their names from ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.) ICANN is a non-profit agency, based in California. Which means that they are regulated to one degree or another by the US Commerce Department, a part of the US Government.
Which means that the US Government controls the Internet. And some nations have a problem with that.
Countries such as Brazil and Iran have argued that the Internet is too important a resource for one country to control. Hence, the argument goes, an international body such as the UN should have the final say. In response, Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has introduced a bill calling for the addressing system to remain under US control.
The first thought that occurs to me is the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The second, is that there is no body more capable of administering the naming conventions. The UN? With its glorious history of efficiency and expedient action? Ha! The only problem that would solve is finding a new job for some of Kofi Annan's unemployed relatives.
Perhaps Iran itself? Peace-loving, law-abiding Iran? You can visit Iran' s website at www.wearebuildinganuclearreactorforpeacefulpurposessniggersnigger.com (Not a real website in case you haven't gathered that. A little sarcasm.)
Or that model of efficient governance, the EU? Would it be "Le Internet" or "Das Internet?" Oh, and by the way, the Internet will be closed during August.
At the risk of invoking Al Gore jokes, the United States built the Internet and has done a remarkably good job of maintaining it. What is broken that needs fixing, one should ask, and who would be better at maintaining it? Internet-wide problems have been, with some exceptions, few and far between. Legislative interference has been almost unknown. There is no reason for change that I can see.
I do understand the concerns of countries that fear that, at some future time, the Internet could be politicized. But, until that happens, leave well enough alone.
Which means that the US Government controls the Internet. And some nations have a problem with that.
Countries such as Brazil and Iran have argued that the Internet is too important a resource for one country to control. Hence, the argument goes, an international body such as the UN should have the final say. In response, Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman has introduced a bill calling for the addressing system to remain under US control.
The first thought that occurs to me is the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The second, is that there is no body more capable of administering the naming conventions. The UN? With its glorious history of efficiency and expedient action? Ha! The only problem that would solve is finding a new job for some of Kofi Annan's unemployed relatives.
Perhaps Iran itself? Peace-loving, law-abiding Iran? You can visit Iran' s website at www.wearebuildinganuclearreactorforpeacefulpurposessniggersnigger.com (Not a real website in case you haven't gathered that. A little sarcasm.)
Or that model of efficient governance, the EU? Would it be "Le Internet" or "Das Internet?" Oh, and by the way, the Internet will be closed during August.
At the risk of invoking Al Gore jokes, the United States built the Internet and has done a remarkably good job of maintaining it. What is broken that needs fixing, one should ask, and who would be better at maintaining it? Internet-wide problems have been, with some exceptions, few and far between. Legislative interference has been almost unknown. There is no reason for change that I can see.
I do understand the concerns of countries that fear that, at some future time, the Internet could be politicized. But, until that happens, leave well enough alone.
WinCustomize Forums
