![[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)
From:(no subject)
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)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:THIS TIME FOR REALZ.
From:Re: THIS TIME FOR REALZ.
From:Re: THIS TIME FOR REALZ.
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
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)
From:(no subject)
From: