Jeffrey,
Governments and ccTLDs: A Global Survey at
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/geistgovernmentcctlds.pdf
Column at http://shorl.com/fastokobruhako [Toronto Star]
Think Web's virtually government free? Think again
MICHAEL GEIST
LAW BYTES
This study is seems flawed.
Franck said:
Well to come back to my original comment, is that IETF, IANA and ICANN
by being individual members organisations do not have the front of
ITU, which is unfortunate as the Internet is not being done in ITU.
Governments have to understand that and for that dissociate themselves
from the
At 07:30 PM 12/3/2003, Dean Anderson wrote...
There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on
telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to
ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it.
E911, for example. Radio, TV,
On 06:27 04/12/03, Paul Vixie said:
there's plenty to worry about wrt the big boys controlling things, but the
internet is definitionally and constitutionally uncontrollable. yay!
This seems untrue in terms of operations if I refer myself to the USG
relations with the nets.
This sounds like
At 10:45 AM 12/4/2003, Steve Silverman wrote...
The Internet is _in part_ an intellectual construction but so is
the telephone network.
I disagree.
It doesn't do much without a physical implementation.
Cognitive thought doesn't exist without a brain. That doesn't mean that thought is
only _in
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Mike S
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dean Anderson
Subject: Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
At 07:30 PM 12/3/2003, Dean Anderson wrote...
There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on
telecom. Whether these controls
At 15:17 04/12/03, Mike S wrote:
Sure, some governments can try to control some of the physical media which
the Internet makes use of, but getting around that is simply a matter of
reconfiguration.
Dear Mike,
I am only interested in technical issues in here. You may realize that the
very
--On Thursday, 04 December, 2003 18:29 +0100 jfcm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Is there a technical way against spam for example? All I see
here is please, call in the lawBut law is not the USG
outside of the USA. Law is necessarily ITU. Because Law is
States and for 136 years States use
It always striked me that a programme as popular as BBC Click online, never showed up at an ISOC (INET) or IETF meeting, but went to meetings where the Internet is made (Internet World, CeBit,...)
Cheers
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 01:14, Dan Kolis wrote:
So... The big contracts are pulled.
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 01:05, jfcm wrote:
On 06:27 04/12/03, Paul Vixie said:
there's plenty to worry about wrt the big boys controlling things, but the
internet is definitionally and constitutionally uncontrollable. yay!
This seems untrue in terms of operations if I refer myself to the USG
John C Klensin;
ITU-T is quite insistent that they make _Recommendations_ only.
W.r.t. enforcement, ITU-T makes standards, regardless of whether
it is called recommendations or requests for comments.
Interpretation and enforcement is up to each individual government.
No. WTO agreement helps a
Mike S wrote:
[..]
Many governments have over time attempted to control thought and personal speech,
and none has been successful for any extended period of time.
OT, but in my more cynical moments i'm inclined to think govt (societal) control of
thought and speech has been far more
Dean said:
But of course, governments have the sovereign right to control the
communications of their citizens...
Dan says:
Well, I don't agree. If you believe in speech divorced from action; (ex.
Commercial speech, inciting to riot, fraud), in which speech is a component
of an act...
Just
I don't mean to say I think excessive government control is a good thing.
Rather, this is a political question that ICANN/IETF/IANA has to avoid.
The ITU has avoided this studiously for decades, throughout the cold war
even. As I think you note, its just is the way it is. As the saying goes
Dean said:
There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on
telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to
ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it.
E911, for example. Radio, TV, cellphone allocations. Ham Radio
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:19, Dan Kolis wrote:
Dean said:
There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on
telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to
ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it.
E911, for example.
I find this and a couple of other threads completely and totally fascinating. I find myself wondering who really is dialed in to what's going on and who isn't. And that includes Vint. Of all the people that stay tuned in, Vint is the one that should know.
The things that are going on are not
... just a sign of the times. And a sign that the Internet has succeeded
so well that the big boys want to control it. For their own purposes.
And they will.
to misquote john gilmore, the internet interprets control as damage and
routes around it. anything nonconsensual ends up
18 matches
Mail list logo
