Perry,

You had good points and should've posted more. I think the blogjam format favors the fast fingers.

The only point left I wanted to make (but the clock ran out) was in response to:

Peng: Dan is right. I'm referring to the root zone system. In fact, for Iraq, Saddam had no control over the .IQ domain name.

And this was... bad? I think it is outrageous that a French bureaucrat can stop me registering a .fr domain, so not surprisingly the last people I want to see in control of who can control a national domain registry (such as .fr or .iq) is the government and that includes the Iraqi government. Anyone in Iraq could get on-line and set up a .com or .org, so I hardly think the US government was stopping Iraqis from saying what they wanted on the internet. It was (and is) not hard to find pro-Ba'athist stuff on the internet, so I still cannot see how the US (meaning the US government) 'controls' the internet.

I disagree that it is completely a freedom of speech issue.

"Would you tolerate people asking 'who should control your ability to make mobile phone calls?' or 'Who should control pens and writing paper?"

Well - no one, I guess, provided you have those things available. Just so long as you do not expect those things to be provided to you as a right.

For example, mobile phone companies take (in most cases) considerable risk and invest a lot of money to create some sort of infrastructire so that folks can make mobile phone calls. To the degree that they can charge for this service to recoup some of that risk and investment, I'd say that they have some degree of, well, control.

Freedom of speech? Of course. Freedom to *force* others to accomodate you (or hear you)? To pay for your phones so that you can use them? I don't think so.

I think you must be having a different discussion... I actually agree with all your points but they are also irrelevant to the discussion.

It is a freedom of speech issue because UN attempts to 'administer' the internet are in fact disingenuous attempts to control it.

Also it does not matter if a mobile phone company 'controls' their network, just so long as the state does not prevent other networks from being established which might have different ideas about how they should 'control' their network.

Agreed, Perry.

Perhaps my focus was too narrow. I would say that the UN cannot (should not) control, or even administer, that which it never created. Now, can they control (administer) a separate internet that they create? Well, yeah. Will they create this separate internet? Uh, no. Not likely.

To bring this more in line with what is being discussed: I can't imagine that the US would prevent another entity (the UN) from creating a separate internet that it could "administer." I do imagine that the UN is not after that kind of freedom. Rather, the UN is after the "freedom" to administer the current internet - which it did not create.

I have to admit - it might be fun to watch the UN try to administer one of the "internets." I suspect even the most dedicated internationalist leftists would sour on it quick once the tedious regulations started coming.

But of course - I suppose it could backfire (the US government might start to get ideas once the "other" internet got bogged down in regulation... "Less choked than theirs" is still choked.)

Hillary will give it to the UN in 2009. It will be given in the "spirit" of a truly "free information society." Her way of cozying back up to the internet.

As soon as the censorship starts, I'll wager some American genius will perfect an internet using cellular technology where the net is literally hosted in free airspace.

The free spread of information is responsible for the truth emerging here and there in little bubbles throughout the MSM. Political correctness cannot withstand the truth if the truth is reported.

Well, google and blogger have just done away with me. No complaints, no arguments and no answers. Blogger won't answer e-mails. Just a message that host refused to connect you. As Blogger and google too, I believe are both located in the beatiful socialist paradise San Francisco, I guess that piece I did on the S.F. gun ban and then my rather lengthy rant against the democrats in general and Rep. Murtha was too much for them. And so goes liberal tolerance

We all know blogspot servers sucks, but am I missing something or that last comment completely and utterly off-topic?

Oh yea, forgot to mention my last post at Acme Liberation Front was a nice little piece on how every freedom loving American should have Samizdat on their favorites list and read it daily. And no I'm not kissing up, just kinda weird I thought

Oh yea, forgot to mention my last post at Acme Liberation Front was a nice little piece on how every freedom loving American should have Samizdat on their favorites list and read it daily. And no I'm not kissing up, just kinda weird I thought

I don't care how many degrees that prof has, he's clueless.

"I must confess that I was not wearing my pajamas however."

In the words of Dan Maskell "Oh I say!".

Perry, I trust you were wearing that nifty "celebrate diversity" T-shirt.

I'm somewhat at a loss as to why the topic was even under discussion.

You have an international body which promotes countries like Sudan and Libya to chair the Human Rights Committee; a body whose members by and large have no problems suppressing free speech at home; and a body which is so corrupt it rivals (say) Nigeria.

And this same body should be allowed to control the Internet, apparently.

Remind me what the question was, again?