![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
GENEVA -- A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.
Bradley S. Klapper, "U.S. Insists on Keeping Control of Web" for The Washington Post
Who should control the Internet!? Monk is surprised that it is an issue, as he thought the Internet was a sort of Frankenstein - a prodigy that was once created but has now grown beyond any question of control. Live and learn!
Notwithstanding jokes that Al Gore invented the Internet, American control "stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development." Naturally, other nations are concerned about this control over an increasingly important medium in global trade.
No doubt there are a lot of important issues involved. Generally, one prefers American control where it can be had, especially in an environment where The United States is held in such opprobrium. However, considering the evangelical fervor that is spreading and burning hotter in this country, our primate-protagonist is wondering whose control would be better for pornography, that is, whose governance would allow a freer and uncensored flow (notwithstanding child pornography and actual non-consensuality).
Well, after all, our F.B.I. is now conducting a War on Porn - mainstream porn! Sure, more important and vital issues are in play, but this is a matter of heartfelt interest, and this blog will not overlook and ignore this matter!
___ ___ ___
GENEVA -- A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.
"We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet," said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."
Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development.
Gross was in Geneva for the last preparatory meeting ahead of November's U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia.
Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy.
But Gross said that while progress was being made on a number of issues necessary for producing a finalized text for Tunis, the question of Internet governance remained contentious.
A stalemate over who should serve as the principal traffic cops for Internet routing and addressing could derail the summit, which aims to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world.
Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.
They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.
One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.
Gross dismissed it as unacceptable.
"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."
He said the United States was "deeply disappointed" with the European Union's proposal Wednesday advocating a "new cooperation model," which would involve governments in questions of naming, numbering and addressing on the Internet.
In 1998, the U.S. Commerce Department selected ICANN to oversees the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them everyday, likely without knowing it.
Although ICANN is a private organization with international board members, Commerce ultimately retains veto power. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography.
-- Bradley S. Klapper
xXx
GENEVA -- A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.
Bradley S. Klapper, "U.S. Insists on Keeping Control of Web" for The Washington Post
Who should control the Internet!? Monk is surprised that it is an issue, as he thought the Internet was a sort of Frankenstein - a prodigy that was once created but has now grown beyond any question of control. Live and learn!
Notwithstanding jokes that Al Gore invented the Internet, American control "stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development." Naturally, other nations are concerned about this control over an increasingly important medium in global trade.
No doubt there are a lot of important issues involved. Generally, one prefers American control where it can be had, especially in an environment where The United States is held in such opprobrium. However, considering the evangelical fervor that is spreading and burning hotter in this country, our primate-protagonist is wondering whose control would be better for pornography, that is, whose governance would allow a freer and uncensored flow (notwithstanding child pornography and actual non-consensuality).
Well, after all, our F.B.I. is now conducting a War on Porn - mainstream porn! Sure, more important and vital issues are in play, but this is a matter of heartfelt interest, and this blog will not overlook and ignore this matter!
___ ___ ___
GENEVA -- A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.
"We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet," said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."
Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development.
Gross was in Geneva for the last preparatory meeting ahead of November's U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia.
Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy.
But Gross said that while progress was being made on a number of issues necessary for producing a finalized text for Tunis, the question of Internet governance remained contentious.
A stalemate over who should serve as the principal traffic cops for Internet routing and addressing could derail the summit, which aims to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world.
Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.
They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.
One proposal that countries have been discussing would wrest control of domain names from the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.
Gross dismissed it as unacceptable.
"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."
He said the United States was "deeply disappointed" with the European Union's proposal Wednesday advocating a "new cooperation model," which would involve governments in questions of naming, numbering and addressing on the Internet.
In 1998, the U.S. Commerce Department selected ICANN to oversees the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them everyday, likely without knowing it.
Although ICANN is a private organization with international board members, Commerce ultimately retains veto power. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography.
-- Bradley S. Klapper
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 01:41 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-09-30 04:17 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-10-01 12:36 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-10-01 04:27 pm (UTC)From:If companies raised the prices any higher to offset the amount they have paid, most smokers would literally not be able to afford to smoke anymore. Huge numbers of people would quit, or majorly cut back, out of sheer necessity. I already spend more on cigarettes in a month than I do on rent.
However, consider that in America, cigarettes are still sickeningly cheap, and the Canadian ruling regarding companies paying for medical costs was actually inspired by the same thing that happened in America... so it didn't really affect you guys in terms of costs.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-01 04:37 pm (UTC)From:My god, I would only hope you are paying really cheap rent somehow - partly socialized somehow. Chain smoker??
If the Canada legal suits hit the companies that hard, then they may spread the cost elsewhere, such as in America, I would guess, though I suppose it is an interesting question how big a market Canada is for them. I guess I just don't see them being too hurt, as it is near impossible to hurt cats that fat.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-01 04:43 pm (UTC)From:I pay $477 for a small one bedroom, plus I pay Hydro (whatever you guys call electricity). That's pretty decent for this area, the fact that the building's in great shape.
I pay about $500 in cigarettes a month. I smoke about a pack and a half a day.
I don't know what will happen. We have different cigarette brands here than you do, I'm not sure to what extent they are owned or related to the same companies as yours. Like, we barely sell any of your weird, bad-tasting American cigarettes (you can find Camels in some places) and have all of our own brands. Canadian cigarettes use only blonde tobacco, American cigarettes use some kind of gross-tasting blend.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-01 04:56 pm (UTC)From:THIS TIME FOR REALZ.
Date: 2005-10-01 05:37 pm (UTC)From:I've done some investigating.
The biggest brands in Canada are Du Maurier, Players, and Benson & Hedges. I've seen those three brands in a few states that border on Canada (Michigan and Illinois had B&H, North Dakota has Du Maurier and I think Players).
Du Mauriers taste the same in both countries but Benson & Hedges, which are the most delicious cigarette here IMO, taste like... CRAP in the States.
Du Maurier (my current brand) AND Player's, which are BY FAR the most popular brands here, are owned by Imperial Tobacco Canada, which is unrelated to Imperial Tobacco (the UK company which is the 4th largest tobacco company in the world). From what I can tell on the company's website, ITC is 100% Canadian without any foreign ownership. All cigarettes are manufactured in Canada.
After the popularity of Du Maurier and Player's, few other brands really occupy the market much here.
Benson & Hedges is owned by a few different companies depending on the region. The UK-based Gallaher Group owns it in the UK and Europe, but Phillip Morris owns it in Canada and the United States.
However, given just how massively overpowering Players and Du Maurier are on the Canadian market (as well as ITC's other popular brands, like Matinee and Avanti), it's reasonable to say that the majority of Canadian cigarettes sold are produced in Canada, by a Canadian company.
Re: THIS TIME FOR REALZ.
Date: 2005-10-01 06:25 pm (UTC)From:Re: THIS TIME FOR REALZ.
Date: 2005-10-01 06:29 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-10-01 08:02 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-10-01 11:11 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2005-10-02 08:35 pm (UTC)From:The war on porn is laughable. Look at the recent 2257 rules for background files on all actors that was extended to the internet. Sure it made an impact and is still being sorted out, but it doesn't apply to amateurs and there are a ton of offshore websites waiting to fill in. You cut off one head and others either grow back or pick up the slack.
Even with the moralists whipped up in fundie frenzy, one wonders what the real state of porn is. It has gone as the article says from being still somewhat questionable to a pretty basic entertainment right/option by not only men but women all over. It is esp. interesting when the internet has altered what "local community standards" might be.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-03 04:37 pm (UTC)From:As for the War on Porn, what concerns me is that, as the article also points out, the more fetishistic stuff is perhaps still vulnerable today, such as hard BDSM.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-03 07:07 pm (UTC)From: