The U.S. Abandons the Internet - and the U.N. takes over, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 3-10-2009 @ 04:52 PM by Iamonlyhuman
The following WSJ article asks some very good questions... To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on this. What I DO see here is another example of the U.N. taking control of one more responsibility that the U.S. has been responsible for. We are quickly marching toward global governance. Leave it to our illustrious leader, Obama, to give away the internet in an attempt to appease the world. What say ye fellow ATS'ers??

The U.S. Abandons the Internet
Has the Obama administration just given up U.S. responsibility for protecting the Internet?

Since its establishment in 1998, ICANN has operated under a formal contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce, which stipulated the duties and limits that the U.S. government expected ICANN to respect. The Commerce Department did not provide much active oversight, although the need to renew this contract, called the Joint Project Agreement (JPA), helped keep ICANN policies within reasonable bounds. That's why last spring, when the Commerce Department asked for comment on ending the JPA, the U.S. business community opposed the idea.

But the U.S. government's role in ICANN has long been a source of complaint from foreign nations. United Nations conferences have repeatedly voiced concerns about "domination of the Internet by one power" and suggested that management of the system should be handed off to the International Telecommunications Union—a U.N. agency dominated by developing countries. The European Union has urged a different scheme in which a G-12 of advanced countries would manage the Internet.

(The Obama Administration) has replaced the latest JPA, which expired Sept. 30, with a vaguely worded "Affirmation of Commitments." In it, ICANN promises to be a good manager of the Internet, and the Commerce Department promises—well, not much of anything.

Even more disturbing is the prospect that foreign countries will pressure ICANN to impose Internet controls that facilitate their own censorship schemes. Countries like China and Iran already block Web sites they regard as politically objectionable. Islamic nations insist that the proper understanding of international human-rights treaties requires suppression of "Islamophobic" content on the Internet. Will ICANN be better situated to resist such pressures now that it no longer has a formal contract with the U.S. government?

It may be that the Obama administration expects to exert a steadying hand on ICANN in indirect or covert ways. Or here too it may have calculated that winning applause from other nations now is worth taking serious risks in the long run.



reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 05:24 PM by December_Rain
reply to post by Haydn_17


Exactly, A International body should take over internet. Internet today is a powerful mechanism and no single country should control it.


reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 05:45 PM by Iamonlyhuman
Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Haydn_17


Exactly, A International body should take over internet. Internet today is a powerful mechanism and no single country should control it.


So you haven't liked it for the past 12 years then? How much censorship have you seen occur? What websites have you been not allowed to see?

I say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

P.S. I guess I have formed an opinion now... lol.


reply posted on 3-10-2009 @ 06:24 PM by crimvelvet
reply to post by December_Rain




Exactly, A International body should take over internet. Internet today is a powerful mechanism and no single country should control it.


Just like an international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, WTO and NAFTA should dictate trade policies and quarantine at borders???

The rate of farmers’ suicides in INDIA – the largest sustained wave of such deaths recorded in history – has worsened particularly after 2001, by which time India was well down the WTO garden path in agriculture. link

"since NAFTA went into effect 33,000 small farmers in the US have gone out of business— more than six times the pre-NAFTA rate.....According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% - from 2.3 million to 575, 000" www.globalexchange.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">link

Just incase you did not think WTO open borders did not effect you.

Dr. Logan said, "the disease is extremely rare in U.S. herds. However, more TB-lesioned cattle are being detected at slaughter, and ear tags indicate that many of these animals are of Mexican origin.” www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2002/302TBMx.pdf

“The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle was discussed. A multiagency investigation in New York city identified 35 cases of human M. bovis infection. Fresh cheese from Mexico was identified as the likely source of infection” (Winters et al., 2005). www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/riskprofiles/FW0320_Mbovis_in_meat_final_May_2006.pdf

“Cattle crossing facilities on the U.S. side of the border are operated primarily by private firms (in Arizona and Columbus, NM) and the Texas Department of Agri- culture. However, at Santa Teresa, NM, Chihuahuan cattle producers operate both sides of the cattle port-of-entry” www.ers.usda.gov/publications/Agoutlook/june2001/AO282d.pdf


So do you STILL think an international body is BETTER???



Regulations = Control = Censorship

The LAST thing we need is MORE control handed over to an unelected international body. The internet is a threat to the international Central bankers and Corporate Cartels. They already censor the US news media, what makes you think they will not censor the internet if they can physically do it?



Pages:     ^^TOP^^