[nycbug-talk] U.S surrenders ICANN control

Marc Spitzer mspitzer at gmail.com
Sat Jul 29 15:58:07 EDT 2006

On 7/29/06, George R. <george at sddi.net> wrote:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > On 7/27/06, Jonathan Vanasco <nycbug-list at 2xlp.com> wrote:
> >> i'd argue that the us doesn't have free speech anymore either.  the
> >> difference between other countries and the us is that overseas speech
> >> is censored / illegal from the outself, while in america speech is
> >> 'free' in theory and the price of a good lawyer in practice.
> >
> > It has always been that way, the social restraints are what are
> > comming undone.  People did not want their names assocated with a
> > court case.  Also vilonece was also more common to settle the mater.
> >
> >> i'm pretty sure that there's never been an actually effective
> >> international body.  at best the new group can be as functional as
> >> the UN-- which means at best, they'll accomplish absolutely nothing.
> >
> > The UN(spit) has never had the good grace to do nothing, it would be a
> > major improvement over what they do.  They are not stupid they are
> > fucking evil.
> Woah tiger. . . keep that tone on your Slashdot posts. .. not here.

I was being restrained, turtle bay is a curse upon the earth.

If people in blue helmets show up to protect you, run for your life.
UN peace keepers have the dubious honer of being responsible for
collecting oppressed minorities so they can be killed easier.
Engaging in child prostitution and pornography rings.  And in two
cases the need to be medically evacuated for damage to there members
after trying to have oral sex with a goat.  How stupid do you have to
be not to realize there are teeth on that end and the goat is not gona
be happy with the situation.

I could go on and on on the subject, oil for food, the tysume a few
years ago, China, Cuba Syria on the high commission of human rights.

> The ultimate problem is who is neutral.  Certainly not the US government
> or private industry.  I dred the day when the root servers that are in
> the US blacklist TLDs based on executive orders.  Even our
> intellectually numb president is aware of the internet and the role it
> plays.

While George Bush was and is not my first choice for the job either,
he was much better the the other choice.  I do not remember, in 20
years of voting, voting *for* a candadate for federal office.  I
generally vote against the other guy.

> Is the UN in a better, more neutral position?  That is highly doubtful.
>  The UN has always been a battleground of super and regional powers. . .
> But that's another OT discussion.

No the issue is that the US paid for the internet and if you do not
like it go build your own.

> It would be wonderful if there was some truly neutral, non governmental,
> vendor-neutral solution to this. . . But the reality of the IETF just
> makes that laughable.

we can agree to disagree on that.

> shrug. . .
> Maybe NYCBUG could volunteer. . . ;-)

always be careful of what you ask as soneone may give it to you.

"We trained very hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to
form into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it
can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion,
inefficiency and demoralization."
-Gaius Petronius, 1st Century AD

More information about the talk mailing list