Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (14861)	10/8/2005 10:07:16 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

There's good reason to be concerned. But I believe that the UN failed or will fail to get their wishes. House backs Bush on Internet stance news.com.com Obnoxious slanted headline of the day: Message 21753674 Brevity is the soul of wisdom Message 21755614 A War Over The Internet? Doubt It. Jason Lee Miller Staff Writer From the way the Guardian's Kieren McCarthy described last week's European Union sucker punch to United States ambassadors, a tiff that began over the who should control Internet's root servers, you'd think that World War III was about to break out next month in Tunisia. US officials walked away from the Geneva meeting, the final preparatory meeting before November's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, Tunisia, a little stunned at the overwhelming and sudden collective demand on behalf of the UK, the EU, China, Iran, Tunisia, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil that the United States government hand over control of the Internet's 13 root servers to international governance--perhaps under the watchful and efficient (please read that part with sarcasm) eye of the United Nations. David Gross, the US State Dept.'s coordinator for international communications and information policy, answered them with, "some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable," which was much more diplomatic than flipping them the bird and squealing out of the parking lot. The perspective stateside on this issue is that the story pretty much ended there. It was a preposterous proposal for the US to give up even a little sovereignty to be governed by other countries, many of whom had done nothing but quell freedom of speech and commerce and freedom of pretty much anything else, all of whom had no real investment in building, paying for, or maintaining of these crucial root servers. It's very simple. They're ours. We paid for them. You can't have them. Everything runs just fine as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The end. But a week later you learn that the other side of the ocean is still smoldering over the rejection, even if was based upon some very valid points put forth by Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Department of Commerce, the current governor of the Internet. In fact, according to McCarthy, it's much worse than anger. "But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce," writes McCarthy. Um. You think so? And what exactly is the EU or the UN or any of these other nations going to do to "award themselves ultimate control?" Will there be a war? Who leads the attack? France? Maybe a UN resolution will be passed and then forgotten about, and then Germany will attack. The thought that this so-called "political coup" will accomplish anything more than hurt feelings is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the thought that some sort of world government will wrest control of a critical part of US infrastructure the US paid for and built, and ultimately runs very well. Good luck with that. Ain't gonna happen. If you do decide to invade and claim these root servers, make sure to come in through the Southern route where you'll be met by bullet-toothed Dixie patriots who can show you the meaning of true Southern hospitality. webpronews.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (14861)	10/10/2005 2:50:25 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats?) Keep your U.N. off my Internet. BY ADAM THIERER AND WAYNE CREWS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Sunday, October 9, 2005 Kofi Annan, Coming to a Computer Near You! The Internet's long run as a global cyberzone of freedom--where governments take a "hands off" approach--is in jeopardy. Preparing for next month's U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (or WSIS) in Tunisia, the European Union and others are moving aggressively to set the stage for an as-yet unspecified U.N. body to assert control over Internet operations and policies now largely under the purview of the U.S. In recent meetings, for an example, an EU spokesman asserted that no single country should have final authority over this "global resource." To his credit, the U.S. State Department's David Gross bristled back: "We will not agree to the U.N. taking over management of the Internet." That stands to reason. The Internet was developed in the U.S. (as are upgrades like Internet 2) and is not a collective "global resource." It is an evolving technology, largely privately owned and operated, and it should stay that way. Nevertheless the "U.N. for the Internet" crowd say they want to "resolve" who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global "digital divide"; and how to "harness the potential of information" for the world's impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online. While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we've comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N.--such as China and Iran--are among the most egregious violators of human rights. Meanwhile, regulators across the globe have long lobbied for greater control over Internet commerce and content. A French court has attempted to force Yahoo! to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens. An Australian court has ruled that the online edition of Barron's (published by Dow Jones, parent company of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws--which, following the British example, is much more intolerant of free speech than our own law. Chinese officials--with examples too numerous for this space--continue to seek to censor Internet search engines. The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet. A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically impossible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you. The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies. We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression. The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster. Mr. Thierer, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Mr. Crews, vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are the editors of "Who Rules the Net?" (Cato, 2003). opinionjournal.com