What is Digg?231 Comments
- gbudavid, on 06/27/2009, -39/+154NO!!!
- DaDrake, on 06/28/2009, -17/+127Two of the biggest countries pushing for this is China and Iran (Venezuela another lovely country signed up on this bandwagon). According to them, they are doing this so the internet can have more transparency and not be influenced by one country. Except, you would be hard press to find an example of such American abuse. In fact, its almost funny considering the ways some of these countries promote transparency within their own country.
Yes, this is 100% politics ... - zoziw, on 06/28/2009, -18/+106I'm not an American but even the people supporting getting the US government out of it say the current system works well.
Just leave it alone. - rangah, on 06/28/2009, -11/+86The only countries interested in taking it over are countries with long lists of censorship.
Unless your country values freedom of speech, GTFO. - bennny, on 06/27/2009, -28/+97Not No But Hell NO!!!
- Antiman1337, on 06/28/2009, -18/+86ICANN't think of a reason why we should
- onederwall, on 06/28/2009, -15/+75What's wrong with the job they're doing now?
- Demigawd, on 06/28/2009, -21/+78I understand that a lot of people hate The United States but nothing good ever comes from messing with something that works.
- dsanonline, on 06/28/2009, -18/+57Oh, hell no. ICANN is fine the way it is. We can't trust any of your screwed up countries enough to give you any control. We thought we could always count on Australia and look at the ***** they're pulling.
- ZippyV, on 06/28/2009, -6/+39Too much politics are involved in the decisions like for example the .xxx domain.
- draculthemad, on 06/28/2009, -7/+36Whats the alternative?
The UN? Didn't they just have Iran chair the human rights committee not that long ago?
So would China or one of the other companies that puts their entire countries network behind a single handful of proxy servers get control? - inactive, on 06/28/2009, -7/+36If someone wants to show me what someone else can do better with it then let him or her speak.
- slapded, on 06/28/2009, -3/+31just dont create any more lame TLD's like .asia and .name
- dagamer34, on 06/28/2009, -5/+29When did the EU become a country? O_o
- Bloodwine, on 06/28/2009, -3/+25Privatize ICANN? Can you even fathom the corruption and asshattery that would ensue?
If they went the international governance route, I'd imagine the politics would escalate, not smooth out.
Either way, it'd make things worse. - bapwa, on 06/28/2009, -1/+21What pisses me off, is that the whole thing was privatized before the public even got the chance to use it; and it was the public that paid for it.
- DiscoUnderpants, on 06/28/2009, -1/+21Russia... is that you?
- gsnedders, on 06/28/2009, -2/+21The problem is if some other organization got involved they may well and try to influence it more. :( I don't like the US having the control, but seeming the control has more or less never been exercised, I can live with it.
- lorddazzer, on 06/28/2009, -7/+25Well I have heard the opposite... I believe they call it Congress.
- cran, on 06/28/2009, -2/+19You don't want ICANN leaving the U.S. Say what you will, but look at Germany and Australia and how they deal with the internet.
- DriXiLB, on 06/28/2009, -7/+24I believe EU started this? Anyways, I like the neutrality thing. Why should ANY government control it? Don't we want the internet to be neutral?
- yonoz, on 06/27/2009, -11/+28Pretty please?
- Ragzouken, on 06/28/2009, -3/+18ICANN
- Suricou, on 06/28/2009, -0/+14Not too much - they are handling the administrative stuff well, and only one major decision in recent years has been influenced by political meddling by the US government - the .xxx domain, which ICANN was forced to reject due to objections of the social conservatives who at the time dominated the government. The concern is over what ICANN could do, in the future, under direction of the DoC - should a future administration choose to. They could, to give a purely hypothetical example, decree that pornographic sites are no longer permitted to register domains. Or kill a country code, essentially blacking out the internet of another country, maybe as part of a sanctions attempt. Or withdraw the domains of sites which are considered to be contravening US law, such as some gambling sites and bittorrent trackers, even if hosted overseas.
The only decision on which ICANN has recently been criticised is the TLD expansion - it's widely believed the motivation for that is pure profit. Lots more domains means lots more to sell, espicially as all major companies will be forced to buy their company name in every single TLD to prevent someone grabbing it for a phishing site.
None of the proposed solutions actually *solve* these problems, though. They just move the potential for abuse from the US government, and hand it to a board of directors. - MtheoryX, on 06/28/2009, -1/+14lol, China is complaining about transparency?
I swear, you can't even make this ***** up. - Tanktunker, on 06/28/2009, -6/+19Yes, might as well privative the army too, and the control of nuclear weapons.
Privatize the post office, everybody can afford to pay UPS rates, right?
Privatize the school system, universal education is socialism.
Privatize ***** everything. - jmferris, on 06/28/2009, -9/+22Spoken like someone who didn't read the article.
- jblade, on 06/28/2009, -5/+18If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
- glitchbit, on 06/28/2009, -0/+13personally as a conservative any conservative that is against the .xxx domain is an idiot because it would make filtering from their home PC or router like a million times easier if all those type of domain names had to switch over to it...
- localzuk, on 06/28/2009, -6/+18Wow, nice knee-jerk reactions there...
What would be wrong with an international, independant ICANN? One which doesn't have the US government forcing them to make decisions? (Like the .xxx domain farce).
No-one suggests handing it over to another single country, that would be dumb! - NMRgentleman, on 06/28/2009, -1/+13Kind of like how the UN Human Rights Council is made up of such promoters of human rights as Cuba, Sudan, China, and Zimbabwe?
- Suricou, on 06/28/2009, -2/+14In that case, I wish to reclaim the web on behalf of the UK. You may have invented the internet - but hypertext is ours. Or possibly belongs to the French - it's debatable. British inventor, but working at a French facility at the time.
- daPhoenix, on 06/28/2009, -3/+14Well then, better stop using the web then - I mean you wouldn't want to use a non-US developed system.
- theghoul, on 06/28/2009, -2/+13[citation needed] or STFU
- TheNik, on 06/28/2009, -1/+12Yeah, domain names are really just a huge mess. Can anyone explain to me why people are still legally allowed to squat domain names?
- Atomic1fire, on 06/28/2009, -10/+21I motion to replace the Chinese and Venezuelan tlds with .commi
- X0rn, on 06/28/2009, -1/+11"As the USA invented democracy"
LOL WAT?!?! - stevethepocket, on 06/28/2009, -2/+11How can ICANN be truly independent of any government? Would its employees just be their own little independent country, like the Vatican?
- Rogor, on 06/28/2009, -18/+27I cant believe anyone here thinks ICANN has done anything other than institute a complete mess of obscure TLDs which do little more than pump spam now and what could arguably be one of the biggest worldwide blackmail scams ive ever seen with new TLD registrars knowing full well that their new customers are existing company IP departments effectively forced into buying their trademark.*scam* TLD or be blackmailed by squatters.
The http:// bit and www are bad enough for your average joe public to deal with now they have an endless amount of garbage on the other end too, how can we train people to spot phishing domain sites with this nonsense.
To top it off many years ago I busted ICANN staff anonymously posting on public discussion forums trying to influence public opinion.
PS for what its worth I still think it should be run by America and i am in Hong Kong - Suricou, on 06/28/2009, -0/+8But if they can't make new TLDs, what will the registars sell?
- metamethod, on 06/28/2009, -3/+11i'm fine with joint control with countries who have free speech constitutionally enshrined and more importantly a political culture that is laissez-faire on free speech (except in rare cases of clear and present danger).
- milkmage, on 06/28/2009, -3/+11you mean Switzerland, right?
- fgdg56, on 06/28/2009, -6/+14ICANN HAS INTERNETZ?
- RobertWright, on 08/13/2009, -25/+32Absolutely No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- sooperdooper, on 06/28/2009, -0/+7Property rights trump usage rights. Sucks, don't it?
- mdmcgee, on 06/28/2009, -2/+9The problem isn't solely the "America built it it's ours" *****, nor is the problem of neutrality or of political interference but instead "Who would you give control of ICANN?".
If you give control to a private corporation then they don't have to answer to anyone.
They have just become the most powerful corp on the planet and they can set their fees and rules as they see fit. They can change the rules at a whim, they can add TLDs for any reason and then ***** becomes a real mess.
If you give it to the UN then you have taken control away from one political entity that has exhibited very minimal political interference over the last 25 years or so and giving it to the mother of all political entities who is known to meddle in everything and has prominent members who are prone to extreme censorship and are die hard control freaks or the EU who believes in prosecution for "hate speech" or criticizing religion. At this point in time the U.S. government has it's own issues as any countries government does but they are the least likely entity to start imposing censorship or implementing strong arm tactics to shut down free speech. Why? Because free speech and free expression are more profitable in the long run. - EarlOfLade, on 06/28/2009, -2/+8Works?
You must not know much, if anything about ICANN and the controversies surrounding it.
.sex .adult .whatever is being opposed by puritan religious idiots in the US
US runs ICANN as it is some national only organization. Anything that affects the world as a whole, should NOT be in the hands of a single country. - futurepastnow, on 06/28/2009, -1/+7No! Every week we get a new story about some government- Europe, Asia, the Middle East, even f*cking Australia- pushing censorship on the internet.
No power for censors. Keep them the hell away from control of the internet. - glitchbit, on 06/28/2009, -4/+101) US understands the importance of free speech better than any other nation on earth, period.
2) Very few people here even know what ICANN is and those that do will likely also understand its importance and need of neutrality.
You sir have simply fallen into a trap of sensationalism by your own media against the US. Have a good day. - RonPauls, on 06/28/2009, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN
Ummm, it's already private. Did you guys read the article? -
Show 51 - 100 of 234 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is