CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › UN to regulate the internet ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UN to regulate the internet ? - Page 2

post #51 of 88
12/7/03 at 6:33am
Do people read links?

Quote:
Originally posted by LlamaRama
Oh, and sure, communist nations are really pushing this. And India. And Brazil. And any number of other developing nations. So don't pretend like this is some sort of liberal plot to smash dissent.
Quote:
LONDON (Reuters) - A controversial plan to grant governments broad controls over the Internet has stolen the spotlight of a United Nations conference on IT next week, where China and Cuba will be among its strongest supporters.
That China and Cuba are Communists means nothing, the trouble is their current internet policies and the obvious reason they want this, to censor the internet even further.

Are you familiar with China's and Cuba's internet policies at all?
Reply
post #52 of 88
12/7/03 at 8:00am
Any news article designed solely to frighten the life out of its reader quite simply isn't worth the paper it is written on.

For a more thorough (as well as less politically biased) interpretation of the mechanics behind ICANN, it might be worth seeking out the multitude of associated scientific journals, FAQs and other documents that can be easily found at the end of a Yahoo search.

I must warn you beforehand however: informative as they may be, they aren't very interesting. But then again, the truth rarely is - hence the number of people who earn money out of scaring people with the brand of whimsical nonsense that can be found above.
Reply
post #53 of 88
12/7/03 at 12:23pm
Quote:
...how is world control of the Internet any worse than US control of the Internet or corporate control of the Internet?
Not World control...it's UN control that has people upset. The World is already in control of the internet. That's what's got the UN all in a tizzy.
Reply
post #54 of 88
12/7/03 at 2:55pm
I would like to know how you define the word "WORLD" to mean "ICANN," a company in California.
Reply
post #55 of 88
12/7/03 at 3:02pm
Better ICANN than the UN controlling domain names and unique IP addresses.
Reply
post #56 of 88
12/7/03 at 3:08pm
Why?
Reply
post #57 of 88
12/7/03 at 8:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devincf
I would like to know how you define the word "WORLD" to mean "ICANN," a company in California.
The local domains are handled by their respective countries, for example *.uk is controlled in the uk, not in the US or the UN.

Why don't I want UN control of all domain name registration? Because I didn't come to this country to have Cuba and China dictate to me what our domain names should be. Even with the inneficiencies of ICANN here in the US, I have the solid US contitution as a recurse for abuse. If we give up our control, I don't have a similiar document to back me up, nor do I have the power of voting to fix any problems in the system.

No thanks.

To the person who said the article was scare mongering. Why? If a resolution dealing with issues of freedom of speech has strong support from China and Cuba, the only sane response is to be highly skeptical, specially when it comes to internet matters. Again, I refer you all the current example of how China censors the internet already.
Reply
post #58 of 88
12/7/03 at 8:29pm
How is the constitution there for recourse in case of abuse? The constitution does not protect your speech from private corporations, only the government.
Reply
post #59 of 88
12/7/03 at 8:30pm
And voting is of no use to you either! ICANN is, as I said before, a private group!
Reply
post #60 of 88
12/7/03 at 9:38pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
To the person who said the article was scare mongering. Why?
Quite simple really: China and Vietnam, or any other such cabal of ‘disreputable’ nations stands absolutely no chance whatsoever of wresting 'control' of the Internet out of the hands of the United States and placing it into those of the United Nations.

And even if they could achieve such a Herculean feat of arm-twisting politics, it would still be impossible for those nations to curtail 'freedom of speech' throughout the Internet.

Taking this into consideration, we are left with three possible explanations with respect to the articles listed above:

1. The author, who is fully aware of the fact that in a world of paranoia - 'fear' sells, is shamelessly attempting to cash-in on this gravy train with a tired old prevarication about ‘Reds’ still ‘hiding under the bed’.

2. The author is too lazy to perform even the barest smidgeon of research on the subject matter.

3. The author is a fool and truly believes his own nonsense.
Reply
post #61 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devincf
And voting is of no use to you either! ICANN is, as I said before, a private group!
The ICANN is subject to the laws specified by the US constitution. Just look for example, the debate of copyright and branding issues with regards to distributing domain names.

As a matter of fact the ICANN has been sued and will continue to be sued for a variety of reasons, and I take confort that they have to abide by US laws.

To the other poster saying something about China and Vietnam (I don't think Vietnam was one of the countries listed, btw), the point is again, that if Cuba and China are strongly lobbying for it, it is wise to question the motives of said law. In addition, I'm not too worried about Cuba, but I'm even more worried about draconian European laws. I don't want German hate crime law, which is not the law of this country, to govern me.
Reply
post #62 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:18pm
The constitution establishes the government of our country, and pertains to that only. Please be informed when making statements.
Reply
post #63 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:23pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devincf
The constitution establishes the government of our country, and pertains to that only. Please be informed when making statements.
This is very simple pal, domain names are a form of free speech (and a whole lot more). Last time I checked, that area pertained to the constitution.

If I want to start a domain called, ithinkallwhitepeoplecantdancemeregue.com, I have a right to do so. If ICANN restricts that right, because of their guidelines, I can challenge them thanks to rights guaranteed to me by that Constitution.

Doesn't take a legal scholar to connect the dots there.
Reply
post #64 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
This is very simple pal, domain names are a form of free speech (and a whole lot more). Last time I checked, that area pertained to the constitution.

If I want to start a domain called, ithinkallwhitepeoplecantdancemeregue.com, I have a right to do so. If ICANN restricts that right, because of their guidelines, I can challenge them thanks to rights guaranteed to me by that Constitution.

Doesn't take a legal scholar to connect the dots there.
I think it might SINCE THE FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY COVERS YOUR FREEDOM FROM HAVING SPEECH CURTAILED BY GOVERNMENT.

That means that the First Amendment does not protect you if McDonalds kicks you out for saying "fuck." Or if ICANN decides not to give you a domain name. Seriously, this is not complicated. Have you gotten to this part of social studies yet? Because I think this stuff needs to be taught in sixth grade.
Reply
post #65 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:40pm
google.com

search "freedom of speech domain names icann"

hit "google search"

Let's see ... tralalali, tralala, hum, hum ...

Decision in Domain Name Dispute Upholds Freedom of Speech

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Freedom of speech on the Internet was upheld by a landmark decision in a domain name dispute decision released today. According to the decision, an individual can use a domain name containing the name of a government agency for the purpose of criticizing the government's activities.
...
Today's decision supported the individual's right to freedom of expression and held that ``there is a general, legitimate interest in allowing citizens to use descriptive domain names to publish criticism about their government.''
Citing Free Speech Concerns, Cyber-Rights Groups
Call for Hearings on Internet Domain Name Decisions]

CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution (Some random decision, see discussion of respondent's claim of freedom of speech and how that's handled. Do they think repsondent has a right to free speech?)

etc, etc, etc

BTW, yes, I do hate how unimformed people are in today's society. I think everybody should take the citizenship exam they made me take for naturalization purposes. Not for keeping citizenship, but just to show people they need to read a little about their own country's principles. No crees?
Reply
post #66 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:46pm
Well, link one stops GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS from limiting what names people can register (ie, names that sound like or play on government organizations). 1st amendment dealing with govt only - check.

Link 2 is a group looking to have HEARINGS into what free speech protections are available. It's 2 years old, that article. I would like to know what came of these hearings, if they even happened.

Link 3 is some dispute resolution group that has no bearing on US law.

Show me a Supreme Court decision on this matter, thanks.
Reply
post #67 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:52pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
Do people read links?
Your links refer ICANN establishing its own "freedom of speech" rules. Not quite the government-protected freedom of speech we were talking about.
Reply
post #68 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:57pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Kronos
Better ICANN than the UN controlling domain names and unique IP addresses.
Because the UN is clearly run by an evil cabal of communist Zionists.

Call me crazy, but when it comes to freedom of speech, I think I'll trust an organization that at least gives lip service to democracy over a corporate entity.
Reply
post #69 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devincf
Well, link one stops GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS from limiting what names people can register (ie, names that sound like or play on government organizations). 1st amendment dealing with govt only - check.
And that's the most relevant protection when it comes to this UN issue, so that a country like China can't prohibit dissient domain names from other countrys to be established. Your dismissal that is "dealing with govt only" is absurd, since the case favored an individual for political (protected) speech.

Never the less, see link coming up after this.

Quote:
Link 3 is some dispute resolution group that has no bearing on US law.

Show me a Supreme Court decision on this matter, thanks. [/B]
This is the domain resolution complain process, notice how they have to take into account the Respondent's freedom of speech rights. Why? Because of their goodness of their heart, or because it's guaranteed by something? humm.

Again, google is your friend, please ...

"GRIPE SITES": TRADEMARKS, DOMAIN NAMES AND FREE SPEECH

Quote:
SIXTH CIRCUIT FINDS CONSUMER’S USE OF TRADEMARKS AT CONSUMER COMPLAINTS SITE SUBJECT TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION; METATAGS ISSUE REMAINS OPEN

On February 7, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that a "gripe site" devoted to complaints about a shopping center owner was afforded First Amendment protection for its use of trademarks to attract visitors to the website. Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, Nos. 01-2648/2725 (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2003).

The plaintiff, a large shopping center owner (Taubman), obtained preliminary injunctions against the defendant (Mishkoff) in connection with his registration and use of domains such as <shopsatwillowbendsucks.com> and <taubmansucks.com>, after Mishkoff had originally registered the domain <shopsatwillowbend.com> as a "fan site." Mishkoff was upset by Taubman’s efforts to shut down his initial site and to obtain this first Taubman-related domain. Protracted litigation followed, eventually leading to this decision. The history of the litigation is detailed exhaustively from Mishkoff’s perspective at http://www.theshopsatwillowbendsucks.com/condensed.html

Taubman argued that Mishkoff was engaged in trademark infringement and sought injunctions against Mishkoff and his domain use and an order transferring the domain registrations to Taubman. Mishkoff’s principal arguments were that he was not using Taubman’s marks as trademarks (i.e., his uses were not commercial and his First Amendment free speech rights were invaded by the injunctions) and that there was no likelihood of confusion. Taubman was represented in the appeal by Public Citizen Litigation Group, a leading public interest law firm (with whom this author has worked in similar cases, which is noted in the interests of full disclosure), and the American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief.

The Sixth Circuit dissolved the injunctions, agreeing with Mishkoff in two major respects, (1) that his use of the Taubman marks was noncommercial, non-trademark use and, accordingly, the injunctions constituted prior restraints of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and (2) that there was no likelihood of confusion.
Now, are you going to ask the SIXTH CIRCUIT Court, "Have you gotten to this part of social studies yet? Because I think this stuff needs to be taught in sixth grade."?

C'mon man.
Reply
post #70 of 88
12/7/03 at 10:59pm
Quote:
Originally posted by LlamaRama
Your links refer ICANN establishing its own "freedom of speech" rules. Not quite the government-protected freedom of speech we were talking about.
No, 2 of those links were court cases decided in a real court. One was in the SIXTH circuit. golly!

BTW, the link comment was posted before those links. Unless I'm a prophet, I think I was refering to the UK Reuters article.

Mas atencion por favor
Reply
post #71 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:01pm
What, specifically, seems to be the problem with ICANN? ICANN is simply a "...private, non-profit technical coordination body for the Internet's name and numbering systems."
Reply
post #72 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:04pm
Kronos

There are many problems with ICANN, lots of criticisms about it's complaint resolution process, and about controversial issues like cybersquatting (accused of biased for trademark holders) etc.

I'm just trying to tell these folks that this organization has to abide by the US Constitutions. These native sons of the US are telling me, this organization is immune from it, that is if you ignore the relevant court rulings in this matter.
Reply
post #73 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:07pm
I'd wager if UN was in control over domain numbering and naming system there would be no dispute system.
Reply
post #74 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:13pm
The Sixth Circuit ruled that the government could place an injunction. There was a ruling about copyright, but that is not First Amendment protected. IE, I cannot create a character named Mickey Mouse and use him as my corporate spokesperson. This Taubman's case was about how copyright laws are to be interpreted, not the First Amendment.

"I'd wager if UN was in control over domain numbering and naming system there would be no dispute system."

I'd wager you're just making that up out of a general kneejerk reaction which happens whenever any of your ilk hear the letters UN. I bet their black helicopters are going to come take us all away to domain name internment camps, right?
Reply
post #75 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:15pm
Anyway, I can't believe I am arguing something as simple as WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES TO here.

Let's put it this way - if Nick didn't like the cut of your gib and told you to fuck off from his message board, or edited your posts - YOU HAVE NO FREE SPEECH GUARANTEE. Think about why that is.
Reply
post #76 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:20pm
In your opinion, is it right that he can do this?
Reply
post #77 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:22pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devincf
The Sixth Circuit ruled that the government could place an injunction. There was a ruling about copyright, but that is not First Amendment protected. IE, I cannot create a character named Mickey Mouse and use him as my corporate spokesperson. This Taubman's case was about how copyright laws are to be interpreted, not the First Amendment.
I'm sorry man, but that's not what the opinions says:

Quote:
We find that Mishkoff's use of Taubman's mark in the domain name "taubmansucks.com" is purely an exhibition of Free Speech, and the Lanham Act is not invoked.
As simple as that. You are saying you can't use first amendment protection in domain name disputes, here the court is explictly saying that. Yet you have the balls to say the court is not saying that when the wording "FREE SPEECH" is deliniated .

Your weak example of the message board is not applicable, because these types of forums have the freedom to censor and regulate what is posted. Even then , posters can't ignore the US constitution, let's say in case of defamation.
Reply
post #78 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:23pm
Don't tell me - China wouldn't allow it!
Reply
post #79 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:25pm
And that's just domain names, if we talk about actual content, there are even more examples of the constitution deciding cases dealing with actual internet content.
Reply
post #80 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:27pm
While you're googling, can you find me the part of the constitution that deals with defamation?

I think you don't understand where the Constitution ends and our laws begin.
Reply
post #81 of 88
12/7/03 at 11:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devincf
While you're googling, can you find me the part of the constitution that deals with defamation?

I think you don't understand where the Constitution ends and our laws begin.
Defamation, outside of common law, comes mainly from a (or a set) of US Supreme Court decisions. As the court interpreted it, it came from the 1st and 14th amendments of the Constitution. Since, the court is the ultimate interpreter of said document, it follows that this protection (or restriction) comes from it.

BTW, again, the 6th circuit decision could not be more clear. Why did they invoke "freedom of speech" if it's unrelated, in their ruling?
Reply
post #82 of 88
12/8/03 at 11:13am
These guys might get support for their proposal if they agree to ban spam and pop ads. And get Google to admit its just Yahoo with a different name.
Reply
post #83 of 88
12/8/03 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally posted by Nighttrap38
These guys might get support for their proposal if they agree to ban spam and pop ads. And get Google to admit its just Yahoo with a different name.
If you're referring to "these guys" as the UN just how would the UN enforce such a ban? Or even define the term? And is this an issue the UN should have their mitts in?

The United States government released the internet to the general public a number of years ago. Now people are proposing putting the essential core of the net back under the control of a quasi-government that NOBODY has control over.

Yeah...right.
Reply
post #84 of 88
12/8/03 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally posted by Nighttrap38
These guys might get support for their proposal if they agree to ban spam and pop ads.
Install Mozilla.

Quote:
And get Google to admit its just Yahoo with a different name.
Heretic!
Reply
post #85 of 88
12/8/03 at 2:49pm
It is not heresy, and I will not repent!
Reply
post #86 of 88
12/8/03 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CapitanAmerica
We find that Mishkoff's use of Taubman's mark in the domain name "taubmansucks.com" is purely an exhibition of Free Speech, and the Lanham Act is not invoked.
In other words, Taubman can't turn to the government to force Mishkoff to stop using the domain name "taubmansucks.com". If ICANN wanted to prevent Mishkoff from doing the same thing, they could.

Free speech means the government can't censor your speech. Private bodies can censor whatever they want.
Reply
post #87 of 88
12/8/03 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Kronos
If you're referring to "these guys" as the UN just how would the UN enforce such a ban? Or even define the term? And is this an issue the UN should have their mitts in?

The United States government released the internet to the general public a number of years ago. Now people are proposing putting the essential core of the net back under the control of a quasi-government that NOBODY has control over.

Yeah...right.
So in other words, you're complaining that the UN lacks the authority and ability to... enforce a ban on free speech.

Hm, sounds fine to me.
Reply
post #88 of 88
12/11/03 at 11:57am
The UN kicks ICANN out of their meeting about the internet:

Twomey, reached by mobile phone outside the conference room, said: At ICANN, anybody can attend meetings, appeal decisions or go to ombudsmen, and here I am outside a UN meeting room where diplomats most of whom know little about the technical aspects are deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet. I am not amused.


Full Story Here
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › UN to regulate the internet ?