Not your papas interwebnet

[Si modo]

Doesn't change the irony of the situation.

No irony at all. ICANN is private sector and you said it was a "federal government program". It would be irony if you actually got it right. You didn't - you were completely wrong.

Actually, that's not what I said at all, but thanks for playing.

Yeah, this is what you said:

Wait...now you people trust the federal government? Now you've found a federal government program that runs to your satisfaction?

Ironic.

So, Ravi, as most here are in support of ICANN and no one but you seems to see some "federal government program" discussed in the thread, are you hallucinating?

 

[del]

pay attention Ravi---we are talking about abdicating foreign entities

Doesn't change the irony of the situation.

Especially when Libruls are impervious to facts and common sense

frank, why don't you list the top three reasons this is a bad idea below

__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________




you people crack me up

 

[Si modo]

Doesn't change the irony of the situation.

Especially when Libruls are impervious to facts and common sense

frank, why don't you list the top three reasons this is a bad idea below

__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________




you people crack me up

And then you can list what is good about it and we ('we people', I suppose) could actually have a discussion, eh?

KK has brought up one positive - no longer a single corporation controlling it.

Let's see other pros, and discuss.

 

[Ravi]

ICANN is the entity that controls web address endings (forget what they are called), like .com, .gov, .simpleminds.

The US government was the sole reviewer of ICANN's actions. It is no longer. Now ICANN will now take suggestions and reviews and input from people all over the world...NOT other governments. ICANN will no longer have any control from a government, it will become a truly private sector operation (well, except they are probably still tax exempt as a non-profit).

One morning you may wake up and be able to have a web address ending in .simpleminds. I suggest you doofuses take advantage of it.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm likely not getting this, but if the net is going to be run by some consortium of international organizations, how can Americans be ensured that this consortium of sorts will not impose the sort of speech restrictions that the UN has demanded and that exist in so many in the EU?

I don't want some bleeding heart overly sensitive fuck in the EU telling me that I can't tell a Muslim that I would buy him a pig's blood on the rocks in real life or that I am denying the Holocaust, for example.

Right now one company regulates the primary networks.

Yes, but at least that one company operates under US laws - laws that currently protect our freedom of speech.

So we move to a UN-like consortium - one involving countries from the EU where there is much, much less freedom of speech.

Look at what the UN did earlier this year on curbing free speech (UN bodies OK calls to curb religious criticism). This would seem to open such a door as well.

Aah ... but the laws don't actually protect it here completely anyway. Each server can enforce their own restrictions as it is, as well as each website. They are not talking about what is on the servers, these companies do not truly control that, what they are talking about is who "organizes" the traffic ... damn I don't know all the technical terms for this so it's hard to explain.

 

[Si modo]

ICANN is the entity that controls web address endings (forget what they are called), like .com, .gov, .simpleminds.

The US government was the sole reviewer of ICANN's actions. It is no longer. Now ICANN will now take suggestions and reviews and input from people all over the world...NOT other governments. ICANN will no longer have any control from a government, it will become a truly private sector operation (well, except they are probably still tax exempt as a non-profit).

One morning you may wake up and be able to have a web address ending in .simpleminds. I suggest you doofuses take advantage of it.

Setting aside you not-so-clever ad hominems, thank you for the input. KK brought that point up and it's a good point. Few like monopolies.

However, the internet organizations in most EU countries are government entities to the best of my knowledge. Considering the restrictions on speech in the EU, there is this issue to consider.

I'm looking for an open and honest discussion about this as I want to hear others' views. I'm communicating my first thought upon reading this for the first time; and I want to hear more points about the issue - no pissing contests, no ad homs, etc. - just some discussion, please.

 

[Ravi]

ICANN is the entity that controls web address endings (forget what they are called), like .com, .gov, .simpleminds.

The US government was the sole reviewer of ICANN's actions. It is no longer. Now ICANN will now take suggestions and reviews and input from people all over the world...NOT other governments. ICANN will no longer have any control from a government, it will become a truly private sector operation (well, except they are probably still tax exempt as a non-profit).

One morning you may wake up and be able to have a web address ending in .simpleminds. I suggest you doofuses take advantage of it.

Setting aside you not-so-clever ad hominems, thank you for the input. KK brought that point up and it's a good point. Few like monopolies.

However, the internet organizations in most EU countries are government entities to the best of my knowledge. Considering the restrictions on speech in the EU, there is this issue to consider.

I'm looking for an open and honest discussion about this as I want to hear others' views. I'm communicating my first thought upon reading this for the first time; and I want to hear more points about the issue - no pissing contests, no ad homs, etc. - just some discussion, please.

You started it, as usual. If you want to have a rational discussion don't quote my posts and call me an idiot, a liar, or whatever else strikes your fancy.

This doesn't give government entities anywhere control over ICANN. End of story. The OP was designed to cause hysteria. Simple internet searches can help you get past your confirmation bias.

Good luck with it.

 

[del]

ICANN has never had any control on content; it focuses solely on assigning domain names (.com, .mil, .gov etc) and corresponding IP addresses to make sure that they are all unique and it works on improving the flow of traffic across the net and the sucurity of the net. it has nothing to do with free speech. if it did, then china, iran etc would not have been able to censor the internet as they have in the past and undoubtedly will continue to do in the future.

What does ICANN do?


To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet.

ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet’s unique identifiers.

ICANN doesn’t control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn’t deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet’s naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet.

ICANN | Participate in ICANN

 

[Ravi]

So basically, ICANN has been released of government control of any sort...something most conservatives would be happy to see.

 

[del]

So basically, ICANN has been released of government control of any sort...something most conservatives would be happy to see.

well, i don't have a problem with it. it makes sense to enable other countries to be able to have web addresses in their own alphabets and i don't see the downside.

 

[Ravi]

So basically, ICANN has been released of government control of any sort...something most conservatives would be happy to see.

well, i don't have a problem with it. it makes sense to enable other countries to be able to have web addresses in their own alphabets and i don't see the downside.

The only one I read about is if suddenly ICANN goes nuts and allows things like .basketball, .football, etc. and businesses have to scramble to buy up all the additional dots before something like FOXNEWS.lunacy starts to pretend to be the real FAUX.

 

[Si modo]

ICANN is the entity that controls web address endings (forget what they are called), like .com, .gov, .simpleminds.

The US government was the sole reviewer of ICANN's actions. It is no longer. Now ICANN will now take suggestions and reviews and input from people all over the world...NOT other governments. ICANN will no longer have any control from a government, it will become a truly private sector operation (well, except they are probably still tax exempt as a non-profit).

One morning you may wake up and be able to have a web address ending in .simpleminds. I suggest you doofuses take advantage of it.

Setting aside you not-so-clever ad hominems, thank you for the input. KK brought that point up and it's a good point. Few like monopolies.

However, the internet organizations in most EU countries are government entities to the best of my knowledge. Considering the restrictions on speech in the EU, there is this issue to consider.

I'm looking for an open and honest discussion about this as I want to hear others' views. I'm communicating my first thought upon reading this for the first time; and I want to hear more points about the issue - no pissing contests, no ad homs, etc. - just some discussion, please.

You started it, as usual. If you want to have a rational discussion don't quote my posts and call me an idiot, a liar, or whatever else strikes your fancy.

This doesn't give government entities anywhere control over ICANN. End of story. The OP was designed to cause hysteria. Simple internet searches can help you get past your confirmation bias.

Good luck with it.

No supporting information for your points will be forthcoming from you, then, eh?

 

[Ravi]

Setting aside you not-so-clever ad hominems, thank you for the input. KK brought that point up and it's a good point. Few like monopolies.

However, the internet organizations in most EU countries are government entities to the best of my knowledge. Considering the restrictions on speech in the EU, there is this issue to consider.

I'm looking for an open and honest discussion about this as I want to hear others' views. I'm communicating my first thought upon reading this for the first time; and I want to hear more points about the issue - no pissing contests, no ad homs, etc. - just some discussion, please.

You started it, as usual. If you want to have a rational discussion don't quote my posts and call me an idiot, a liar, or whatever else strikes your fancy.

This doesn't give government entities anywhere control over ICANN. End of story. The OP was designed to cause hysteria. Simple internet searches can help you get past your confirmation bias.

Good luck with it.

No supporting information for your points will be forthcoming from you, then, eh?

No, they won't. I'm not your research monkey. It should take you about 10 minutes to find all this information on googlenews and wikipedia.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thanks Del, for explaining it more clearly.

 

[del]

Thanks Del, for explaining it more clearly.

no problem. i used to be fairly involved in this stuff a long time ago (pre-web).

it's come a long way. people used to get upset if you used a sig. file because it ate up too much bandwidth.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thanks Del, for explaining it more clearly.

no problem. i used to be fairly involved in this stuff a long time ago (pre-web).

it's come a long way. people used to get upset if you used a sig. file because it ate up too much bandwidth.

Even today many servers restrict bandwidth for small sites, and I have actually found a couple ISPs that still do oddly.

 

[del]

Thanks Del, for explaining it more clearly.

no problem. i used to be fairly involved in this stuff a long time ago (pre-web).

it's come a long way. people used to get upset if you used a sig. file because it ate up too much bandwidth.

Even today many servers restrict bandwidth for small sites, and I have actually found a couple ISPs that still do oddly.

well, it does cost money, although nowadays it's really cheap in comparison.

anyway, this is probably a neutral to good thing, overall.

 

[Gunny]

Wait...now you people trust the federal government? Now you've found a federal government program that runs to your satisfaction?

Ironic.

You're grasping at straws, ma'am.

 

[Gunny]

Wait...now you people trust the federal government? Now you've found a federal government program that runs to your satisfaction?

Ironic.

pay attention Ravi---we are talking about abdicating foreign entities

Doesn't change the irony of the situation.

You mean an irony you base on a strawman?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

This will lead to censorship of criticism of Islam.

Most likely not though. From what it sounds like they will open it up more so other companies can start to move into the primary networks instead of just one. If we are lucky it will encourage one per continent at least.

I'm likely not getting this, but if the net is going to be run by some consortium of international organizations, how can Americans be ensured that this consortium of sorts will not impose the sort of speech restrictions that the UN has demanded and that exist in so many in the EU?

I don't want some bleeding heart overly sensitive fuck in the EU telling me that I can't tell a Muslim that I would buy him a pig's blood on the rocks in real life or that I am denying the Holocaust, for example.

This will mean we cannot call out all these paedophile catholics and child raping christians, and closeted fundies that get busted for being who they are. I don't like this at all, as I think that we should be able to grind these so-called "christians" into the muck that is their natural environment!