Heres the part Ranger left out

[Heath_Bogenreif]

Of his govt appologist thread and pretty much sums up what I had posted about ICANN and their direction and the reasons why.

U.N. Panel Presents 4 Internet Options

By AOIFE WHITE, AP Business Writer
Fri Jul 15, 5:40 AM ET

BRUSSELS, Belgium - A U.N. panel created to recommend how the Internet should be run in the future has failed to reach consensus but did agree that no single country should dominate.

The United States stated two weeks ago that it intended to maintain control over the computers that serve as the Internet's principal traffic cops.

In a report released Thursday, the U.N. panel outlined four possible options for the future of Internet governance for world leaders to consider at a November "Information Society" summit.

One option would largely keep the current system intact, with a U.S.-based non-profit organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, continuing to handle basic policies over Internet addresses.

At the other end, ICANN would be revamped and new international agencies formed under the auspices of the United Nations.

"In the end it will be up to governments, if at all, to decide if there will be any change," said Markus Kummer, executive director of the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance, which issued the report.

The 40 members of the panel hailed from around the world and included representatives from business, academia and government.

World leaders who convened in December 2003 for the U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva couldn't agree on a structure for Internet governance.

Some countries were satisfied with the current arrangement, while others, particularly developing ones, wanted to wrest control from ICANN and place it with an intergovernmental group, possibly under the United Nations.

Leaders ducked the issue and directed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to convene the working group to come up with a proposal for the second and final phase of the summit, in Tunisia in November.

Though the group could not agree on a single model, it does recommend the creation of a new global forum for governments, industry and others to discuss key issues such as spam and cybercrime — areas not currently handled by ICANN.

The panel recommended a larger international role for "governance arrangements," Kummer said, and participants felt no one country should dominate.

He stressed the sentiment dates back to the Geneva summit and was not meant as an attack on the United States or a direct response to the U.S. Department of Commerce statement two weeks ago that it intends to keep ultimate authority for authorizing changes to the list of Internet suffixes, such as ".com."

The United States historically has played that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development.

"The group as a whole recognizes that it is clear the U.S. has played a beneficial role," Kummer said.

ICANN chief executive Paul Twomey said the report confirmed his organization's role.

"If the Internet was a postal system, what we ensure is that the addresses on the letters work," he said. "We don't think we're a regulator. We think we're a technical co-ordinator."

Twomey said ICANN had a narrow technical coordination role for a particular layer of the Internet — specifically domain names and the numeric Internet Protocol addresses used to identify specific computers.

But ICANN critics believe the organization has drifted beyond its technical mandate. They have cited ICANN's growing budget and its involvement in creating procedures for resolving trademark dispute as examples.

Paul Kane, chairman of a Brussels-based coalition of domain name administrators called the Council of European and National Top-Level Domain Registries, said the report told ICANN diplomatically that it needed to narrow its focus.

"Keeping things focused means not having a massive budget, having a well-defined scope and a well-defined mission," Kane said. "They have neither. They're not following their original remit."

Others have expressed concerns that ICANN remains too close to the U.S. government, which gave ICANN its authority in 1998 but retains veto power.

Developing countries have been frustrated that Western countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations to share a limited supply.

And some countries want faster approval of domain names in non-English characters — China even threatened a few years ago to split the Internet in two and set up its own naming system for Chinese.


Not quite as conspiracy laden as ranger would have you believe but wheres the drama in that? ;)

[SFC]

Thanks for clearing that up Heath. :thumbsup: ranger still won't buy it though, but we already knew that now didn't we?

[Heath_Bogenreif]

He will when I forward him Roves e-mail outlining ICANNs involvement in the Vietnam drug trade. ;)

[Tiberon]

I think ya done run ranger off:roll:

[Hill_billy]

hell, rangers prolly off on another of his event filled camping trips. Shitting in a rippers car, having close encounters with LEO, having contact with UFO's and conversations with spirits from the nether...;)

[Heath_Bogenreif]

I think ya done run ranger off:roll:


I seriously doubt rangers pride will let himself be run off. I only wanted to show him that ignoring me wasnt exactly his best course of action. That he would have been better off engaging me in debate rather than have me unfetter the leash of mockery. At least with civil debate theres a modicum of respect.

[herbgrower]

I'm with Hill_billy on this one ! :thumbsup:
:blazed:

[rangerdanger]

No one ran me off.
There was a modern-day range war (NOT rangeR war) out in these parts that involved new owners of nearby properties, electricity, and a really weird arrangement former owners/tenets had of divvying up their bills.
In any event, I was off-line and without electricity for 8--count 'em, 8--days with temps around 100 each day.

I guess it all depends on who you want to believe.
I cut n pasted a small excerpt from an article web420 posted re: government possible shutting down cultivation web sites, yet there are some people who would rather read "it's all right, just relax, we know what's best for you" from the gov't.
Like "Mission Accomplished" and "saddam has WMD" and "there was an Iraq-al-Queda link", et al.
Don't you ever get sick of eating all the shit the gov't shovels?

[Heath_Bogenreif]

Ah the old arguement of " If you dont take whats coming out of my mouth as 100% truth then your just another mindless sheeple waiting to be slaughtered. "

Well, dangermouse, were all still here and none of us being slaughtered by your ominous "predictions" and foresight. So far theres not been one inkling that they are going after pot sites and even if the impossible should happen what else are they going to do but close it down?

When most of your ranger-rhetoric is hot air instead of precedented fact what does the avg person need to fear? When growing pot is legal in some places then pictures of pot growing on the internet become useless unless they can clearly show a location where growing pot is illegal. Same goes with giving advice on growing pot. If you cant establish location and the pictured act is legal in places then you dont have squat to go on. The same cant be said for shit like kiddie-porn which is illegal in all countries and why people that distribute it are tracked down and prosecuted to the extent they are.

[SFC]

Thats Right!!! :thumbsup: Glad you made it back ranger it's kind of boring without you. BTW where has Daze been.

[rangerdanger]

Thanks SFC, I'm glad you and I can agree to disagree.
As I said to Tibs in an earlier (now closed) thread, you, I, and most everybody hear, and indeed nationwide, want a better, safer U.S. of A.--we just have differing opinions on how that should be accomplished.
Unfortunately, some members continue to sink to the level of atacking the messenger instead of the message.
Sorta like hearing bad news on t.v. and shooting the t.v.

A few years ago, Cal's own senator Feinstein(sp) co-sponsered a bill that would have outlawed sites that give how-to info on illegal drug "manufacture". Her intent was to shut down sites that told people how to convert i.e. "cook" over-the-counter cold remedies into meth.
But it would have also included sites such as this.
I totally disagreed with her (and guess what, she's a dem. :eek: ) and I wrote, e-mailed and called her (well, her office) to voice my discontent.

The ranger is a 100% dyed-in-the-wool believer in freedom of speech (this does not include for instance yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre), but once you limit/outlaw speech, you are on a slippery slope. Who deciedes what site is allowed and which isn't? Majority rules? No, that's the definition of a lynch mob. And where does it stop?

Some of what I read on the internet sickens me, and I'm not speaking strictly re: porn (Jeez I thought I was kinky until I saw what some people are into!!!) (damn no puke smilie).
Things like a site I visited where people were advocating killing doctors and gays, for instance. And giving thanks to God for the Tsunami since it killed lots of non-Christians.
But ya know what? As disgusting as I find murder and bigotry, I defend their right to say it.
Yes, even a omnipotant all-knowing rangerdanger doesn't believe he has the right to tell other people what they can and cannot say or think.

Cause I'm been wrong about stuff. And looking at ALL sides of ANY issue is the only way, imo, to make an informed decision on how you feel about things.
Take the proposed anti flag-burning amendent. I'm NOT in favor of someone burning the U.S. flag. I neither support or condone anyone doing so.
But I DO believe in people having the right to do it.

I've been wrong about a lot of things, but I've also been RIGHT about a lot of things.
Like the war in Iraq.


When I see something that concerns me, I voice my concern. Apparently that offends some members.
Tough.

And finally let me say that, like any good debater (in fact you might call me a master debater :D ), give me any subject and I can argue either pro or con. I LOVE the exchange of idea's.

It would be nice if we could henceforth debate issue's WITHOUT personal attacks, and I thank people who refrain from it.
When I see someone attack me PERSONALLY, it tells me that they're out of ammo (something to back up their opinions of the topic) and have been reduced to spitting and flinging shit, like a monkey in a cage.

[Heath_Bogenreif]

Bah, you avoid a good debate like you avoid the truth. You claim to be abhorrily offended by my suggestion you injure your nephew to prevent him from being a drug peddling war cog and refuse to accept the fact that it not only made a valid point but it further showed the extent of your hypocrisy. And I would go so far as to say that he would probably be sprinting around at this very momment had you done so, but instead as you indicated he'll probably never walk again, shame on you twice ranger.

None of it can be or was construed as a shit flinging personal attack, only you came up with that answer as a means to bow out of any further debates/exchange of ideas where you are clearly the loser. Talk about running out of ammo dude. Unlike you I like challenged freedom of speech, the ability of anyone else to question the free speech of others.