UN and EU want US to give up Net control
The despots who run the UN and the wannabes from the European Union are in a power grab to wrest control of the Internet from the U.S. Hands off the Internet.
The despots who run the UN and the wannabes from the European Union are in a power grab to wrest control of the Internet from the U.S. Hands off the Internet.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Remind me again why the government wastes our tax dollars supporting the UN. Whatever its original purpose, the UN is now a menace to society.
The UN is about the last organization on planet earth that should be controlling the net.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:07 am
I’ve come to feel that the UN is being used as a force to gang up on the US.
The UN wants control so they can presumably tax or limit access as they see fit. I feel that since the US invented the internet, we have no obligation to hand over control. Period. If the UN wants to create their own, they can do as they please. Best of luck to them.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5301963-117422,00.html
Heck, the UN allowed Robert Mugabe to speak at a UN event commemorating the 60th anniversary of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. He called George Bush and Tony Blair “unholy men” and compared them to Hitler and Mussolini because they invaded Iraq.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/10/17/un.mugabe.ap/
But, it gets better. Today, Iran’s president swore to the destruction of Israel (and the US). Several countries condemned the remarks, but will we see the UN taking action? Of course not. The reason is that the United Nations is also an anti-Israel (and becoming an anti-US) organization.
How lovely…
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/ahmadinejad.reaction/
October 29th, 2005 at 12:49 am
re: “UN and EU want US to give up Net control” entry, and comments.
I have, for the most part, really enjoyed this blog over the last couple of years. However, I find this “op/ed” piece, and the comments that it has inspired, more than offensive and, moreover, lacking in professionalism. “Despots”?! “Wannabes”?! Who are you kidding? (You write for the Free Press?) State your opinion and make your case. But, this occasionally transparent and vitriolic rancor turns me off and is, frankly, driving me away.
October 29th, 2005 at 3:16 am
rkmann,
The internet is the last bastion of free speech. If it were up to the EU (and you), this sort of discussion could be deemed “off limits” or even illegal. That’s why the US will *NEVER* yield control.
Like I said, if other countries don’t like it, they have 2 choices:
1) Accept the fact that we’re not giving up control. Period. Get over it.
2) Build your own “replacement” internet.
I don’t see one good reason WHY we should hand over control. We’re not restricting your speech. We’re not taxing your access. So please, tell me WHY we should just hand over control to the UN? Could someone please answer me that?
The UN has become a parody of its former self. It’s now used to gang up on the US and Israel and has become corrupt and ineffective. Hand control of the internet to this organization? I think not.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:16 am
Dear Mr. Wendland,
Perhaps I sacrificed clarity for brevity in my earlier post. I have read your original entry and comments on the topic, as well as the Washington Times Op/Ed piece for which you provided a link. In fact, I do not disagree with your position on the issue. Nor, was I claiming that you failed to state and make your case with respect to your position. My comments were directed, principally, toward your choice of language in the original entry and follow-up comments.
I imagine that you started and continue to invest in this blogging project out of a spirit of public service and a natural passion and proclivity for journalism; this I respect and applaud. Furthermore, your right to express your opinions as you may, especially since this is your blog, is one that I would vigorously defend. However, I do not see how the firing of a blanketing, incendiary pejorative in the general direction of an institution with many worthy missions (e.g., promoting and monitoring democratic elections in the third world, etc.) serves your public readership. This approach blends well with today’s political environment in which a drive toward the extreme is the go-to method of choice for promoting change, but I personally find this acerbic language distasteful and I seriously doubt it would come close to being tolerated at the Freep (even in the Op/Ed section). Does hardball really have to be the only game in town?
All of this business aside, I have enjoyed reading your takes on technology and society in this blog and consider it a valuable contribution to internet journalism.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:41 pm
If you want other countries to build a “replacement internet”, then you’re going to have a serious problem with access.
Depending on your location, www.pcmike.com will connect to a different site. While that may not be a big deal for you, Ford, GM, CNN, Microsoft, might not take too kindly to this.
I do think ICANN and Internet2 show the US is making progress in getting “world” input…but saying hands-off smacks of US arrogance.
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:06 am
The “Mike” who is posting above and me are two different people…
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Sounds good!