The relationship between the United States government and ICANN, the private non-profit corporation which oversees the assignment of domain names, has often been a thorn in the eyes of the European Union. A recent document issued by the European Commission again advocates a change in internet oversight – but at the same time, the document also states that ICANN has actually been doing a pretty good job.
It’s a weird document. It goes to great, very great lengths to emphasise the success of the private sector in building and maintaining the backbone of the internet, whether we’re talking early days or right now. Basically every management aspect of the internet (including here in Europe) is handled by private companies, relatively to completely free from government meddling.
The document dedicates an entire section to the success of ICANN, and only points to the lack of international oversight as a flaw. What this basically means is that the EU admits that the current setup works just fine – even without its input. If it’s all been such a success, why change it?
The biggest reason the EC brings forward is local accountability. The internet has become such a vital piece of everyday life that if something were to go wrong, like interruptions in service or other forms of breakage, citizens will hold their local governments accountable – they won’t have the technical knowledge to place the blame where it could (possibly, of course) belong: ICANN. ICANN’s influence stretches far beyond the United States border, and if something goes wrong, the EU and its member states have no way to respond.
There are two sides to this issue: a practical one, and a philosophical one. Practically, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to change all that much about how the internet is governed. ICANN and the US government have ensured that the internet has a free flow of information – no matter how objectionable (but still legal) some content may be. This is intrinsically a good thing, as that’s what the internet is all about.
The philosophical side of the coin is that it is an absurd idea that the US government – a government most of the world did not elect – has such a possible influence over the workings of the internet, while the rest of the world sits by the sidelines without any form of influence.
When it comes to government influence, I believe in a case-by-case approach. Stating that government control is always bad is just as short-sighted as stating that the government should control everything. The ideal solution is somewhere in the middle, where individual aspects of society are evaluated to see if they might benefit from some governmental handywork.
Drawing this closer to the internet, I see no reason to extend the influence of any government over the internet. It works fine the way it is, and the US government and ICANN have done an outstanding job. As much as I personally dislike the US governmental system, there is no denying that the internet is a success story.
On top of that, if there is one institution I really don’t want even an inch closer to influencing the internet, it’s the EU. I don’t trust the EU one bit when it comes to this matter, as they have shown an almost uncanny ability to regulate even the tiniest of details of every day life.
If memory serves right, the EU does not push for having control over the ICANN too, but would prefer a UN oversight, or a merge with the International Telecommunication Union.
The current system is good, but is not robust to a change of heart of the US gov.
The ICANN is a interesting demonstration that a disinterested, private monopolistic organisation can be efficient. It is a thorn in the eye of both liberal economists and state control.
Actually the ICANN have been doing fine exception on some sensitive issues in the US. Just think about the XXX domain name. I think requiring by law that all domains hosting adult content having to be registred by this domain name extension is logical. But both the sex industries and those stupid right-wing religious lobbists opposed the move, one saying the opposite of other. Having the ICANN not overseen by the (puritanical) US government would lead to some great improvement and would at the same time garantee (to some degree) freedom of the net.
And who would be overseeing it if the U.S government wasn’t? You can bet that if it wasn’t the U.S it’d be some other government instead. It’s not that I particularly trust or admire our government here in the states–far from it, in fact–but I’d rather have it be our government than one in favor of a great deal more censorship and control. The internet is one of the few things these days with very little government control, and I’d prefer it were kept that way. To that end, it would probably be best if no government or international group such as the U.N were able to oversee it, but that just isn’t possible. I trust them less than I trust our own government these days, although since the UN is rarely able to come to any decisions in any reasonable amount of time perhaps it would end up being the equivalent of no oversight.
I partly agree.
Involving the EU would definitely not be a problem, think about all the good work it is doing regarding unhealthy markets (cracking down on illegal monopoly expansion by Microsoft) which the US government refused to do.
But I would rather have the US government oversee the ICANN for another 1000 years than letting someone appointed by the current Chinese government near it.
Let’s face it. If every country in the world had one voice (how else could it be if a change is made), and the question of censorship is brought up, the countries upholding the right to free speech would be easily outnumbered by dictators.
I guess I’m one of those “stupid right-wing religious lobbists (sic)” opposed to a .xxx domain. At least, I find the idea stupid on its face.
Who exactly would define “adult content”? Is GoDaddy.com “adult” enough? Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition? Victoria’s Secret? Playboy? Hustler? Bianca’s Dungeon?
How long would it take before liberal zealots claim that pro-family (read: anti-gay marraige) sites are “adult”? Should they be relegated to “shameful” domains, as Dr. Laura was banned from Canadian airwaves for daring to call homosexuality “abnormal”? Howzabaout banning all those sites that oppose abortion? Or those “shameful” anti-Obama sites?
And who would enforce penalties for “adult content” that was posted outside the .xxx domain? Do we want the USA to enforce it’s idea of morality on the EU? Or, God help us, the UN to define “morality” for the world, and enforce penalties against individual citizens of their respective countries?
Stupid, stupid, stupid. I have a much better idea. How about we stick with… liberty?
Adult content is adult content, you know what I mean. Except in case of science or art, picture of a naked person is adult content. The XXX as been an attribute to qualified this kind of content for a while. I don’t know why we should redefine it now. Yes, a web site of girl in swimsuit is adult oriented, but it is not pornography.
Ah yes, the “I know it when I see it” principle of judging obscenity.
Okay… suppose I want to post naked pictures of my 1- and 2-year old daughters to my personal web page, so that my parents can look at them. (I don’t want to do this, but some European cultures like images of naked children at that age, and probably some non-European cultures do, too.)
As it happens, my personal web page is indexed by a web browser, and so people from all over the world can see it. Some perv finds my web page, downloads the images, then uploads them to one of the more unsavory mailing lists.
An FBI officer monitoring this list stumbles across the images; manages to trace them to my website, and an overzealous prosecutor strings me up for not posting them on the XXX domain. A lot of people, incited by newspaper op-eds and others, label me as a monster and demand my head.
It is art? is it science? I don’t think either applies. So what is it?
BTW I think that some pictures of girls in swimsuits are pornography. Context matters, and by now I can no longer trust a judge to use his head when making the call.
“Adult content is adult content, you know what I mean.”
I most certainly do not, and you KNOW I do not – otherwise, you would not have immediately proceeded to try to define it thus:
“Except in case of science or art, picture of a naked person is adult content…”
So photos of the Holocaust, which are neither science nor art, but history, should be relegated to the .xxx domain? Does this not demonstrate to you unequivocably why you’re on a fool’s errand here?
You see, the problem with your definition is that it begs the question it tries to answer. What’s “art”?What’s “science”?
Yes, I thought so. You know THAT when you see it, too.
Sorry, not willing to bet my freedom on a judge “seeing” things the way I do.
“I don’t know why we should redefine it now.”
We don’t have to redefine it now – we have PLENTY of definitions! Even a cursory examination of reality (hint: start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography#Legal_status) shows that the legal definition of pornography is all over the map in various countries around the world. Heck, do you really think the definition of pornography in San Fransisco, CA and Bovina, MS (which, per the Supreme Court, is defined by “community standards”) are the same? Even in the USA we’re all over the map!
Thus, trying to legislate “pornography” (whatever THAT is) into a .xxx domain in a worldwide medium such as the Internet is, to use your word, “stupid”.
Even as a “religious fanatic” of the Christian persuasion, I’ll continue to advocate and fight for liberty on the Internet. It works better every time.
FYI: History is a social science.
So any “photos of the Holocaust” would fall under definition of science.
Wow, I created an account just tell you how much of an idiot you are. It’s ‘tards like you that would have us all rush headlong straight into full blown internet censorship. Think about it, dummy, if you relagate all “objectionable” content to a particular domain, it is trivial for the powers that be to simply block that domain. What’s next? Political speech? Religious speech? Whatever a particular administration finds distasteful? The US government made a masterstroke in blocking this. You and people like you are completely thoughtless lemmings.
FYI: All countries, except for anarchic ones, censor pornography.
The xxx domain names, would help us identify those sites very easy. And I would be all for it.
But maybe, you represent those people that actually benefit from pornographic cybersquatting.
Ooo! Good one! Someone has a viewpoint counter to your own so you insult them (albeit in a passive-aggressive manner).
That’s a great reason to have exactly the situation under the US government. After all, the whole point of EU or UN control is to let every country legislate what is “XXX” material… once you classify speech you control it (and silence it) Once you classify XXX speech you might as well classify religious speech too, right! And political speech that’s from Approved parties and speech that’s not… it’s just a “classification” By keeping ICANN a separate corporation, then it’s free to protect free speech under US law… which is still generally the best at protecting free speech.
ICANN gives each country it’s own domain initials to control anyway, and has nothing to do with serving content anyway. It’s like blaming the power company for giving “bad people” house addresses.
The UN is the last place you want controlling the internet anyway… they’re an organization composed of mostly non-democracies that view the US and North Korea as equal forms of government… it’s all about “tending the serfs”.
I seriously hope that this is ignored. Until ICANN actually makes some big mistakes there is no need for change.
Having dealt with a number of UN reps on some international projects, I have seen nothing but either ineptitude or outright corruption.
(FYI Americans and western nations hold quite a bit of control within the UN administration, I don’t think this really wrests control away from Americans, just away from the “wrong” Americans)
In it’s defense an organization with the UN’s goals cannot give up the tool of bribery and be able to function in the developing world.
This is probably more of a power play to get people within an corruptible org to run something that has proven itself to not be so easily manipulated, under the guise of internationalism and “freedom.”
I am actually impressed with ICANN not screwing things up royally except for perhaps not coming down hard enough on DNS and Registrar related issues. It’s probably because ICANN is a more academic institution more than anything else, and somehow less corruptible.
Edited 2009-06-20 17:53 UTC
Actually, after further reading, it looks like this is a tremendously bad idea.
I think a lot of people who read OSNews are from western countries with a pretty decent background in networking and understand the internet better than anyone who wrote this document.
This plainly looks like an attempted power grab by foreign countries (understandable) and not something that would be under UN control.
Having worked abroad on IT projects extensively, the lack of experience in the more nitty-gritty aspects of networking and how the internet functions would most likely cause disastrous committee-based concessions and implementation parameters.
Whoever came up with creating ICANN in America was an absolute genius in that it doesn’t have to answer to congress or any other politically run technically ignorant group. This has probably more to do with the internet’s success in the last decade than about anything else.
What this document could do which would be a good thing, is perhaps get ICANN to develop backup root zone servers for ipv6 (to calm anyone with legitimate concerns about ICANN being a US nonprofit) that are hosted by the EU and other developing countries.
Except if I am mistaken (or too naive), the EU does not attack the ICANN and ask for more meddling in its internals, but rather would like somebody else than the US gov. deciding if the ICANN is good enough to have its bail renewed. Well done, it could lead in fact to a reinforcment of the independance of the ICANN.If the ICANN does not have to answer the US Congress, it would not have to answer the UN (or anybody else oversighting) either, if that should happen.
From the EU document:
“Continuing to pursue an exclusively ‘back-seat’ approach to the development of international
Internet governance practices is therefore not an option. However, this does not mean that
governments need to have any stronger role in managing or controlling the day-to-day
operation of the Internet.”
Edited 2009-06-20 18:36 UTC
Their are rootservers around the world, their isn’t any problem their:
http://www.root-servers.org/
It’s the controlling body people have problems with.
Edited 2009-06-21 07:56 UTC
Funny, that’s exactly how I feel about the arrogant western asses who come over here and think they know everything when they actually don’t. (Note: I am a westerner)
Also, much of Europe and Japan, for example, is a lot more ahead than the US in terms of internet deployment, research and understanding.
Edited 2009-06-22 13:52 UTC
Well, the US Federal Gov is not very efficient either – the only thing more hated than G.W.Bush by the end of his second term is the US Congress, according to polls. Maybe we should ask the Nederlands to take over? Or Switzerland? Norway? Nigeria?
The UN solution is the one making sense, politically speaking, but yeah, I know it is also a diplomatic trap.
Maybe the UNESCO.
Or an alliance of the CERN and a few other academic/scientific organisations around the world. Y’know, “back to the roots” (the internet & hypertext as a mean of scientific collaboration).
Anyway, the EU is not (openly) pushing for gaining direct control over the internet. It is better to do it know, especially since the contract is coming to its end, rather than when there will be a problem and we’ll see a diplomatic war & bargaining during a period of international tension. Let’s do it before the governments everywhere wake up and decide internet is a major nuisance (today Iran, tomorrow, it could be you! Think the equivalent of 2000 botched American Presidential Election spanning countrywide protests).
Edited 2009-06-20 18:38 UTC
So far the ICANN has been doing a good job as i can tell. We have unicode characters in domain names (see for example http://å.com/). The bad thing is the bad ipv4 allocation, but the mistakes were made before anybody could know the internet would be this big.
Normally i would say that an international body should handle cross border issues. In this case the ICANN is doing such a fine job this is not really needed.I don’t like all the new wierd TLD’s, but that’s about it.
I agree. This just seems like a solution looking for a problem.
…EU counsel BS just like with Microsoft in regards to IE and WMP. They start running their mouths, complaining and then flexing their muscles instead of putting their collective a**es together to come up with a real beneficial solution. I’m not attacking their intentions but they need to put up something good or just shut up already instead of acting like a bunch of whining kids fighting over who gets to play with the ball at recess.
And for the sake of everyone, I hope their ideas don’t involve the good for nothing UN as one poster suggested.
Unfortunately the EU is filled with people from top to bottom with the giant size collective ego – yet they ignore that the continent, morality and culture are collapsing under the malaise of relativism (and ultimately nihilism). This, along with the bash against Microsoft is nothing short of the last dying grasp from a people who can’t get over the fact that they no longer have an empire and their influence over world politics is a bit of a joke – the lack of any real contribution to NATO in the form of troops shows that Europeans are all words but when push comes to shove they hide in the corner hoping the American-Anglo (plus commonwealth) pick up the slack.
The United Nations, like you said, is a joke – one only needs to look at the so-called ‘conference on racism’ which turned into nothing more than a J e w (why is J e w a censored word on osnews.com, I had to put gaps between the letters just for it to show up – anti-Semitism from the owners?) hating fiesta which is balanced off with a repression of any criticism of Islam – where funny enough those who pushed the treaty to repress criticism of Islam were unwilling to sign a treaty that ended persecution of GLBT people. If the UN evaporated tomorrow I don’t think the world would be any worse off given what a joke it has turned into.
Edited 2009-06-21 02:31 UTC
Uhm…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Forc…
Perky buns, learn the definition of “real contribution”. The UK has less population than Germany and yet allocates twice the amount of man power. You’re telling me that a country with a higher population and yet providing less man power is actually making a ‘real contribution’ – or do you lack education on the phrase ‘real contribution’?
Europe wants all the trappings of being able to beat their chest on the world stage but when it comes to the European Union doing something useful, like a combined defence force – its next to impossible. French are pandering to the large Muslim community in their own country whilst holding onto the dream that ‘France will rise again’, the Germans believing influence can appear out of no where and are still held hostage to the same sort of guilt that robs Japan from taking to the world stage – and perish the though of leaving the Dutch in charge of anything after the Srebrenica Genocide.
You want to step on the world stage and be a world power – start acting like one instead of being a whiny bi*ch expecting people simply to give you respect because you have a nice personality. Power is derived form the ability to back up your ideals with brute force. If you have no brute force anything you say is nothing less than pissing into the breeze.
If you’re so concerned about all this, then why haven’t you enlisted in the New Zealand Defence Force to fight the good fight?
Look, you can talk about this nonsense until the eagles choke, but you’re back there, sitting comfortably in a home, using your 4000NZD worth of Macs and writing posts on the internet about how other men and women hould be sent to war, but the fact of the matter is that we, the people, don’t want our men and women to be there. We Dutch, for instance, have extended our mission in Afghanistan, since no one else is willing to step up – AS WAS AGREED.
And referencing the Srebrenica Massacre like that only further illustrates your lack of knowledge when it comes to these matters. I think you ought to read up on the events leading up to and surrounding this horrid event.
While I may not often agree with kaiwai, he does have a good point that is somewhat of a sorepoint in US/UK circles. It is valid to point out that the UK’s contribution, and sacrifice, is incomparable to other EU partners. And let us make something quite clear, a lot of the contributions NATO partners have given are merely support and logistical, or based solely in safe zones. I don’t mean to minimize the losses that any nations have faced over the past 8 years. But the fact does remain there is an unequal partnership. The whole issue of Afghanistan is has ramifications that spread across the whole globe. Lets not forget that beyond the issues of terrorism, Afghanistan is the leading resource for the heroin trade (which in this day and age reaches globally as well).
There are more wars going on than just Afghanistan. I can’t speak for other countries, but bear in mind that the Dutch military is currently active in:
Afghanistan
Bosnia
Kosovo
Somalia
Bahrein
Sudan
Iraq
However, you never hear of any of those (other than Afghanistan) if you’re not living in The Netherlands. This is the issue I’m taking with people like kaiwai and other armchair folk: they are not enlisted in the military, but do advocate sending men and women everywhere. In addition, they simply have no clue WHATSOEVER about who is serving where, and who is fulfilling which role where.
The Netherlands is a top-notch contributor to peacekeeping missions all around the world, for a long time now. However, Afghanistan is NOT a peacekeeping mission, and hence, we do not want our men and women to be there.
On top of that, it makes no sense to look at population figures. Our military employs 60000 people, which includes civilian personnel. You should look at the size of the military, not the population.
The drug question is also an interesting one – one that has little relevance in The Netherlands. Contrary to most other countries, our drug policies are NOT failing, and hence, our drug and drug-related problems are much smaller than those of many other nations. Why should OUR men and women fight so that other nations can maintain their failing dug policies?
The summary here is that the world looks simple from behind a computer screen. The truth is – the world is rarely simple, and people are hypocrites.
Edited 2009-06-21 09:50 UTC
In all fairness to the original critic, I don’t think he was targeting the Netherlands. He explicitly named the Germans, for example. And quite a few people, including Europeans, have pointed out that NATO’s commitment to Afghanistan has been an embarassment. Maybe they don’t mean the Netherlands, though.
BTW, I’m one of the Americans who likes it that way. Someone, somewhere, recently pointed out that too many nations involved makes for too many generals to coordinate, usually unsuccessfully.
But I don’t want to pursue this, because isn’t this wayyyyy off topic now?
Edit: Incidentally, to head off anyone who might want to call me an armchair critic willing to send others: I was turned down several times from the military for health reasons (asthma, primarily) but one of my brothers serves.
Edited 2009-06-21 14:54 UTC
Bahrain?
Thom, I was working in Bahrain a year ago, I haven’t seen anything in the news to suggest that there was any conflict outside of a few Shia protests on major holidays.
Could you please elaborate?
The one in Bahrein is a mission related to terrorism and the prevention of the rise of it. It’s a fairly vague mission, and a small one at that.
In addition, I’ve actually missed a few places where the Dutch military is also active: Burundi, Congo, and Israel/Syria/Lebanon. Those are small missions when you look at the number of personnel in the field, but there’s still a military apparatus around it that takes up resources.
However, my point is not to boast about this stuff – it’s only to point out that just because a country might not be fully active in the conflict zone du jour, that doesn’t mean they’re not fully committed elsewhere in the world. The world quickly forgets if something’s out of the media for a while.
And this is just The Netherlands we’re talking about – god knows where other European countries might be active. The point is that judging a country’s commitment to international security just by looking at Afghanistan is utterly ignorant. Sadly, for many people around the world, media == world.
Edited 2009-06-21 16:13 UTC
I hope you mean EU countries not hearing about those other places? I have served in all of them except for Bahrain, and at least in the US, to anyone who pays attention, they are all mentioned.
No, I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn’t clear. What I mean is that you rarely – if ever – hear of all the places various western countries have troops in, other than the conflict zone du jour.
It looks like I did. That point is absolutely correct. Here in the US we hear more about Iraq at times, and then more about Afghanistan at times. It all depends on what the media deems is most appropriate for whatever reason. I believe that is an issue in every country, the media deciding what people should and should not know. They just need to report it, not decide it.
That is a non sequitur argument that has no relevant. To that sentence I might as well say, “why aren’t you over here giving me a foot massage?”
Mate, not only are Australia and New Zealand making sure our back yard isn’t falling to pieces in the form of working in the pacific nations, both our countries also have deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. We are pulling our weight alot more than you’d realise.
As for what I do, my brother is in the army and my father has just retired after being in for over 30 years. So don’t give me this crap that I don’t know what I am talking about. I’m at university but I have actually done aid work in the past. Unlike you, I actually got off my chuff in the past and contributed to something besides my own online ego.
I suggest you read:
http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/TrialC1/judgement/index.htm
A litany of failures that resulted in 8,000 innocent civilians being brutally murdered.
1.) First off Thom, please do not even suggest in the remotest that there is no drug problem in Holland of all places. I am one who has seen in first hand. While your countries drug policy may be amenable to you, it is far to say there is no consequences from the global trade in heroin that is perpetrated by organized crime, which uses procedes to also fund just about every single criminal operation you can think of in every EU country (thanks to the open border system).
I say this with first hand knowledge for a good reason. The very first day I was ever in Amsterdam I was accosted by a junkie on the street. I saw with my own eyes that while you may not have criminalized users, you do in fact have addicts. You also by the way have had both American and Sicilian Mafia operating in your country for the past 30 years alone in the operation of the worldwide drug distribution of heroin. Those operations in even your own small counties have fueled as well illegal gambling, prostitution, political corruption, and most significantly in your country alone the trafficking of women as slaves for sex. While I certainly do not feel it necessary to single out the Netherlands, and yes they have done a significant job, the fact remains you have seemed to simply have closed your eyes and turned away from the problem. But no matter how much you and your fellow citizens care to deny and ignore, the reality is that tens of billions of dollars flow through every European country that is supported and protected by organized crime.
2.) Secondly, while we may commend the Netherlands for “extending” their Afghan mission, it needs to be made quite clear to your countrymen specifically then that their is a commitment to see the job through and not just merely satisfy yourselves with a pat on the back for “extending”. This is a NATO operation, to which the Netherlands are a full NATO member who along with the benefits of being protecting also has obligations inherit in the signing. Just because the war is unpopular is not an excuse, I am sure every single UK soldier that has served would probably liked to have been elsewhere as well. But I do agree with Kawai, (and this is NOT just about the Netherlands specifically) ..and let me make this clear, this is about ALL NATO members.
And while you are absolutely correct to point out that one should look merely at military personal totals and not population totals, this still does not shine brightly on many NATO countries. If anything this is been an abject failure among politicians of all parties to explain their obligations and the necessities for the mission at hand. Excuse me for playing this card, but I am sure that every American who served in both the liberation of your country, and other EU nations, and those that served in the decades later under NATO command would have loved to have been elsewhere.
And let us be quite clear about another subject at hand. Violent extremists and terrorists who have conducted post 9/11 operations have all been homegrown on your side of the pond. The fact remains that throughout ALL of Europe you have maintained extremely liberal immigration policies whilst at the same time done pathetically poor jobs in integration and assimilation; which have in turn done nothing but fuel extremism. The fact is simple; within European nations the UK has been bearing a significantly higher cost than ANY other EU nation both in terms of blood, time, and cost. And I would reiterate that there is a few nations in that list whose sole contribution is mere logistical support far removed from any combat zone. It is quite clear that Europe has itself it’s own problems with extremists, and making little documentaries attacking evil Islam is not going to end it!
It is also significant to point out that ISAF totals do NOT include those US and UK personal serving outside the NATO command. Believe me when I say this is a significant thorn here that once again Continentals like yourself wish to get ALL the benefits from a US/UK coalition, without spending a dime. The peace with which you Europeans enjoy today was paid for in both blood and significant money by the U.S. It is quite apparent over the past two decades that the only nation that understands the role requirement for European stability and peace is the one nation that is not even attached to the continent. I am sure you would all just love it if the next time the Germans decide to go on holiday and invade your little nations if the UK said “sorry, we are on vacation and have better things to do.”
Edited 2009-06-21 20:29 UTC
According to that Wikipedia page the UK actually contributes ~1.6 times as much man power per-capita as the States.
Come on US, pull your weight!
:p
Your ignorance of the history is staggering. Last 2 world wars started in Europe. Last 50 years were the first ones, that did not see any massive military conflicts. Do you really think we give a s**t what NZ thinks of us? You probably can’t even comprehend the ethnic and cultural diversity that is stuffed in this area.
To put into perspective, if I take a car and drive west of my city, for 48 hours, I pass through Baltic, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic lands. And all different cultures, languages and traditions.
UK was dragged in by the American warmongering into Iraq, and that only proves to me that we have better understanding where to commit our people.
Though, I wish Europe would have stepped up more in preventing wars.
Why should I care about the opinion of a person who registered just over a month ago as to spew bile and vitriol against those whom you disagree with.
In New Zealand we have 213 ethnic groups, over 30% of the population is non-European (the statistics on wikipedia is based on language which is hugely inaccurate).
I only need to look at the racist attitudes of Europeans when it comes to the failure to integrate immigrants into the mainstream to thank the lord that we don’t have the myopic vision embraced by the continent.
Who said anything about Iraq. Iraq was a war that should never have been started because there was no justification for it. There was more justification, if ‘democracy spreading’ and ‘security’ were lynch pins, to sort out North Korea or Burma.
You can’t step up when you lack the muscle to put behind what you say; Europe’s population is considerably larger than USA and yet when it comes to a coherent defence policy and a harmonisation between the defence forces, its non-existent. Rather than a united Europe you have a Europe divided along country lines where the combined forces are never put behind any declaration or position taken.
Edited 2009-06-22 03:32 UTC
You know what I am gonna go a big limp of reality here and state the obvious :
* You have no clue what the EU is and do.
* You have no clue what the UN is and do.
* You have no clue what NATO is and do and where the troops come from.
* You obvioulsy bought the Microsoft is poor mistreated company bulshit campaign.
* Your a racist who think some people , in your words
“race” are more important then others …
Just to be clear on that last point racist : there is only one race on the planet “The Human race” , the rest are animals and plants.
* The last two time the UN was disolved there was a World war …
Someone been feeding you garbage and instead of doing some proper research and educate yourself with real data , you been following the sensionnalist press and you decided to believe the bullshit propaganda …
http://www.un.org/
http://europa.eu/
http://www.nato.int
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Don’t go there , the truth is more realist …
A large bloated organisation that wastes $300 billion per year on agricultural subsidies? am i getting close?
I know more about it than you’ll even know about the contours of your own ass crack.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation that was created as a bulwark against communist expansion; the Soviet Union created their counterbalance in the form of the Warsaw Pact. Getting close am I?
You really think that Opera’s complaints are justified – show me where Microsoft has stopped you from installing a browser (or infact any software) of your choice.
Where did I mention race, or are you another dickhead you can’t differentiate between race and culture?
No one said there was racial superiority of one group of people over another. You may indulge in collectivism in the form of ‘the good of the people’ but I don’t.
Yeah, yeah, you keep telling yourself that. The UN is nothing short of a paper tiger that is turned into a joke where legitimate human rights treaties are routinely scuttled by the Islamic world if it dares to seek to protect females, gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered, ethic minority groups and religious minorities from being persecuted.
But hey, you keep dancing around naked knowing that the human rights council in the UN is dominated by some of the worlds worst human rights abusers on the planet. Isn’t it nice to be judged by the Sudanese representative as they unilaterally obliterate those who don’t fit into their racial view of Sudan.
Edited 2009-06-21 17:12 UTC
Clearly you know nothing personnaly of the subject you discussed here …
And thus you demonstrate that you lack the intellectual capacity to break down my points and critique them. Where am I wrong? where I am incorrect or are you yet another individual on this website whose understanding of the world comes out of leftist clap-trap written under the auspicious gaze of Edward Said and Co.
You’ve been here how long? And you’re arguing with Moulinneuf??
Oh, and go easy on the the armchair politics—you’re sounding like a high-strung seppo.
Point noted; I should remember that arguing with Moulinneuf is an exercise in futility. I guess having seen but a small number of useful posts by him that maybe he will engage in a debate using more than just retorts about supposed deficiencies in an argument whilst lacking the ‘why’ component’
You’re right – I do like a good robust debate regarding politics but it irritates me when I see Moulinneuf ignore reality in favour of name calling and complaining. It kinda brings a degree of fear knowing that maybe one day Moulinneuf might have some influence in the world – even in a minor capacity of a voter.
Edited 2009-06-23 02:09 UTC
To have a point , you have to have a minimal understanding of what you discuss. You clearly don’t.
Your thinking that your sensionalist and over simplified mention of lies you where told second hand are realist.
Your writing here in this case are beyond ridicule and laughable , I am simply in awe that someone could be so miss-informed or more accurately brainwashed into such position of lies and more importantly that you would be such an individual.
Mouli, are you referring to “EU Admits ICANN Is Doing Fine…” or this derailed thread of armchair-politics?
Instead of pretending to engage with the issues here, I’ll just cut to the chase and state my political leanings. I’m a liberal socialist non-federalist pro-european.
As a European, I have no influence if ICANN muck me about. As long as that isn’t happening, I don’t care who they answer to but I’m glad the EU are preparing for other eventualities. Indeed, the fact that ICANN have been playing nice may in part be a defensive move based on the threat of a change in the status quo.
If anyone has any other arguments that aren’t based on their own opinion of the organizations involved, I’d be glad to hear them. As for what you think of the US government, the EU or the UN, I really couldn’t give a pair of foetid dingo’s kidneys.
Foetid dingo kidneys? Ew.
.com and all other high level domain space isn’t for US or any one country to decide, which is why the EU aren’t happy. .us is United States space and they can knock themselves out with legislation, hosting of content with the US can also be regulated by the US.
Now having a XXXX domain space for Adult Content should be very simple, if it is pornographic then it should be XXXX is it is xxxx.us or xxxx.au then the respected Countries can legislate their asses off to restrict allow whatever. XXXX should be all the content that COM, NET, ORG etc don’t allow, but who is going to decide the rules for registration as there appears to be none for top level domains?