United Nations to Govern the Internet?

[zoodboog]

It's just anti-Americanism.  Socialistic nations have fallen behind the capitalistic US.  So, instead of switching to capitalism and competing in the marketplace, they are going to try to force the US to hand over what America has built up with American money and manhours.

And by exploting foreign labour & resources

[DELTA75329]

Mate, obviously is a TV show, I'm not brain-dead as you said (thank for the insult), but is based in a better conception of the world, the vision of G. Roddenberry about a more fair mankind, represented in a TV serial...

?and has nothing to do with reality, much less my constructs or opinions. You?re the one who elected to take a personal tack, not me. Speaking of which, what part of ?brain-dead criteria? do you feel insults you directly? I?m always amazed at how people can?t seem to grasp even the most basic concepts of reading comprehension. I stated your criteria is brain-dead, not you. Keep this anti-thought up and my opinion on the subject just might change.

I never intended to insult your intelligence, maybe when I used the phrase "...you must think..." I picked the wrong words. Sorry, my native language is not english and I can't express myself in a more "elaborated style". Obviously you can think in the way you want, my real intention was simply state the way of thinking being "inside" the philosophy contained in the creation of the Star Trek show.

Huh? OK, no biggie on the language thing. I?m the last person to get on your case for it. But you seem to be sophisticated enough to handle basic reading comprehension. Or at least you should be. You should also be able to see when you are actually insulted as opposed to having your thoughts challenged. Take things personally all you want, but do so knowing that won?t help you defend your position. Speaking of your position? what does Star Trek have to do with this topic? I believe that the answer was firmly been established as ?nothing? from my first response. Let?s move on.

About your love to Star Trek, my position is exactly the opposite, I love that serial because represent in some way my conception for a future society, a mature society... we are still in the "tribal" stage, fighting for the power and resources...

Here we go? The only reason Star Trek has anything to do with this topic because you insist on drawing a correlation where none exists. (Didn?t I already tell you it wasn?t a good idea to debate Star Trek with me?) All the same, I can almost see your point here. But your argument has a built in flaw: you contend that wefictional?tribal stage? based on fictional standards. I found this monumentally impressive, but only because I couldn?t make up something this idiotic all by myself. A clue: Star Trek is fiction, so how exactly does it serve as a timeline for the human race? Here?s another clue: It doesn?t. (See? I gave you another one. You?re welcome.) Given our progress over the last 100 years, I think we?ve come a long way. If you know your history, then maybe you can appreciate that. Sure, we humans have a long way to go, but please, don?t suggest we are primitive because we?re not as advanced as people that don?t even exist. Sorry, but that just doesn?t compute. Even I have never been so devoid of logic and reason as to suggest an asinine point like this one merits even remote consideration.

There?s no guarantee that we, as a human race, will achieve what has been shown on the show. Even if we did, not everyone is going to be happy. Perfection in relation to the state of human affairs is unattainable. Disagree? Then why have you flown off on this Star Trek tangent? If we could relate perfectly, then you would know better than to use Star Trek as a means for supporting your position. Especially in the flawed manner in which you?ve chosen to employ those ideals. That?s a flawed contention right from the start because it isn?t real. So, allow me to set a course for reality. Ensign! Get us back on topic! Set a course and engage at warp 9!!

Sure all men are not created equal, that's why in the civilized world, in the democracy, you protect the minorities, there are social services, etc, etc... is not the jungle law, that's is what we call "civilization"... Thanks for the clue...

Your dramatic and tear-jerking sentiment not-withstanding, you?re welcome. Now, what the hell is your point?? Wait? before you hurt yourself on that one, can you please tell me if you even have any concept of how to debate on topic?? Really now, after you explain to me how your customized definition of ?civilization? helps make the case for an international internet governing body, then perhaps we can discuss social services and minority protection as they relate to surrendering management of the internet to some world utopia council.

[sarcasm]Thanks god we don't live in Nigeria or Biafra...[/sarcasm]

Indeed.. I wonder how long you would last in such places. Especially considering some of the concepts you advocate.

About the Internet, I disagree, Internet is what it is now because there is no frontiers there. Sure it started in the USA, but now is a global structure and grows thanks to that... thanks to the work of millions... thanks to the developments made in a lot of countries... not only in one of them...

Oh, finally! Here?s that the topic that evidently got lost 47 light-years away! Ensign, we?ve arrived. You can take us out of warp now. Hey, guess what, the USA maintains the bulk of the internet, and picks up the tab for doing so. We can afford to do that. You?re suggesting some international coalition would be a better idea? Based on what premise? I don?t think other countries would, if they could, contribute the required amounts to keep everything on the internet operating as smooth as butter. They would expect the USA to continue to pick up the tab because we have the money. They already get the same benefits of the internet as we do, but they want the power to control and manage it, and they want us to buy it for them. I say no dice.

I never said "f**k off to the American economy", I said Internet now is beyond only one country and maybe will be better an international organization to manage the net, because it's global structure, I don't said specifically "the UN". Again, to be clear, I don't want "control" in the net.

Of course you never said that. Your opinion makes that concept perfectly clear. How?d you like to run a business? A real successful business? You?d be rich, and who wouldn?t want that. You can guide this great business overseas. Sell to anyone, anywhere in the world at anytime. Before you know it, you?ll be a global structure! Yea!! Go you! Oh? wait? those ?global structures?? yea?they have to be governed by an international organization so that we can be fair to everyone the world over. OK, you can just surrender your business now. I mean, it?s just not fair to run it from a single country with that country?s principles and cultural attitudes infesting your offices. This of course means that if you sell products that offend Muslims or Christians, well, then you won?t be able to sell anything offensive to them. But since you?re a global structure, you can?t sell it period. After all, what happens if that Harry Potter DVD gets into the hands of an innocent Christian child? For Christ?s sake! Will someone please think of the god-damned children!?

Surrender your business to the control and management of an international organization. Why? Because it?s a global structure. This passes for reason according to you? The internet may in fact be a global structure, but it?s not controlled by one. In case you haven?t noticed, the vast majority of countries in this world don?t exactly cherish free speech and other American principles. Turn over management of the internet to people like that and then tell me how we can avoid ?control? and censorship of the internet. Think I?m being paranoid? Then allow me to illustrate the possibilities. The internet is a lot more like a business than you suggest. You?re showing it as this wonderful happy place of free thought and world unity. What happens then, if I can?t renew my domain name because my web site offends too many cultures the world over? In a way, my web site is a lot like that business I mentioned. I?m offering my thoughts and ideas to anyone who will read them. I?m not charging money, just the time it takes to read what I have to say. There?s an exchange taking place, much like in business. I offer ideas, and in return, I only ask that one give me the time it takes to read them. What, if some politicized, bureaucratic world internet management organization decides I?m a threat to Muslims and refuse to allow me to operate unless I decide to censor myself in order to conform to their happy guidelines. I?m ?free? to operate anyway I want, so long as I don?t offend Muslims. That?s not paranoia, that?s pomaybeu?re not even completely sure that an international organization would make things better. You said >mighternet now is beyond only one cowhymaybe will be better an international organization?? Maybe? What do you mean ?maybe??

So, the internet might better? Better how, exactly?? And why would that be better? What?s the benefit to all the surfers out there?

Maybe before you tackle those questions you should ask yourself if we even have a problem to begin. Seriously, why bother to fix something if it?s not broken?

BTW, yes, you credited to boort;)com, but was unclear to me where finish the quote and where start your comments... Sorry, I'm a dead-brain-tree-hugging guy and maybe a little analphabet too...  ;)

You said it, not me. I think it?s one thing in your trite post I with which I completely agree. Feel free to take that personally if you so desire. And while you?re brushing up on that reading comprehension, kindly take notice of how I have not once called you anything. Notic:whistle:arget your ideas or your post. Nifty, isn?t it? You?re the only one putting yourself down here; I just happen to agree with your self-inflicted insults.

:whistle:

/EDIT: Typo correction.

Edited December 12, 2003 by DELTA75329

[JHAres]

Ok mate, no problem, it's clear we wave different points of view about the things but It's ok...

You certainly have a good writing skill and I can't compete with you in english. I know I have a lot of limitations trying to express an idea or make it clear. Maybe someday we can debate in my terrain, in spanish where is obviously more easy to me... :p

I only want to state when I think in our civilizacion stage, I'm not comparing it with that series, of course, forget the ST fantasy, I'm taking the whole human history as a unit, and we can see we only changed "the ways", but not "the reasons" for the social behaviours. That's why I (and not only me) consider we are still in the "tribal" stage. There is a lot of psicology or philosophy works around to go deep in this topic. We are "animals" (no pun intended) and the major part of our behaviour is induced by our primitive instincts.

About your point about the "business", ICANN is a non-profit organization, I'm talking about that kind of administration. Of course every Internet company can keep doing business as usual, that's absolutely right and must be respected...

Sorry to everyone because the OT... :happy:

[DELTA75329]

Ok mate, no problem, it's clear we wave different points of view about the things but It's ok...

You certainly have a good writing skill and I can't compete with you in english. I know I have a lot of limitations trying to express an idea or make it clear. Maybe someday we can debate in my terrain, in spanish where is obviously more easy to me... :p

I only want to state when I think in our civilizacion stage, I'm not comparing it with that series, of course, forget the ST fantasy, I'm taking the whole human history as a unit, and we can see we only changed "the ways", but not "the reasons" for the social behaviours. That's why I (and not only me) consider we are still in the "tribal" stage. There is a lot of psicology or philosophy works around to go deep in this topic. We are "animals" (no pun intended) and the major part of our behaviour is induced by our primitive instincts.

About your point about the "business", ICANN is a non-profit organization, I'm talking about that kind of administration. Of course every Internet company can keep doing business as usual, that's absolutely right and must be respected...

Sorry to everyone because the OT... :happy:

ICAAN is also not really hindered by world politics. This is precisely why it should be left exactly as it is.

For the most part, it looks like that's exactly what's going to happen.

[electic102]

DELTA75329, I agree. ICANN is rarely hindered by world politics and countries from the U.S. to Vietnam have the ability to participate in the current structure. In fact, the next meeting is in Rome and is open to all who wish to address the multi-national panel with suggestions or complaints.

The U.N on the other hand is not an organization that should be running the internet. The reason that this discussion is even taking place is because countries such as China want more control over the internet and that is something that will not happen. ICANN is not about control and does not institute policies such as taxes. The governments are clearly responsible for this. Remember the guy in the Philippines that created the Luv Bug virus? He could not be prosecuted because there was no law in his country to do so. If governments want to work together and making laws more uniform across all countries, I believe that is a good idea.

But it is clearly evident that the U.N really does not have any clue what the Internet is by Annan?s comment that read, ?Most of the information on the internet is useless?. This statement is almost embarassing. Every one who has access on the net has the right to publish whatever content he/she wishes to express regardless if it results in the improvement of human life. That is why the internet is such a great tool to exchange ideas and why countries like China find it so threatening.

But the Internet is the effort of many people in the U.S, Europe, and Japan and I think it is absolutely absurd to force them to create infrastructure in countries that do not have one. No one gave the U.S. anything and they weren't lazy. They used their creativity and willingness to embrace new ideas in order to create the internet. Countries that did not have the internet 10 years ago now do and prove that the internet can indeed spread through foreign countries (e.g. China, India) with little effort. The bottom line is that the Internet is not going to solve hunger or the current problems in Africa. Handouts will create stagnation in the economy and with the Internet. If you want the internet to transform your life then transform yours first with education and free-thinking?.don?t expect handouts.

Leave it in private hands?.