From: Trina <tgrltl@yahoo.com>
To: <DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Mon, Jul 24, 2006 3:57 AM
Subject: Handing control of the internet over to the U.N.

Handing control of the internet over to the U.N.

Among the countries that would have a say in regulating and controlling
the internet are ones that have already restricted or attempted
restriction of the internet. Countries which don't have the greatest
human rights histories would have a say in what we can access. So, from
that we can logically derive a censorship in what we print or wish to
access.

Regulators around the world have lobbied to control the content as well
as commerce that takes place over the net. Some, like Australia, have
already stated they would impose libel laws on those printing content on
foreign websites if they saw fit to do so. While Americans may respect
the right to sue those who make injudicious claims against them, one can
see a kettle of worms unfolding if a country were to be taken to task
before a national court every time it printed something another country
found offensive. Personally, I find international law to be a mixed bag.
While we place sanctions on countries for flagrant human rights
violations, if too many countries dislike one in particular that country
could be paying dearly for possibly stepping on too many political toes.
Let's face it, the US ain't too popular right now and isn't likely to be
until it stops poking its spears in everybody else's affairs for its own
ends.

Up for grabs with a world regulating body would be: libel laws, commerce
(and taxes thereof), privacy, anti-trust statues, intellectual property,
and freedom of expression. That last one is a thorn in the side of those
who seek to strong-arm legislators as much as they can out of the public
purview as possible and we can't forget what has been born in secrecy or
what some have attempted to keep that way. A few things that come to
mind are: the Federal Reserve, big pharma's constant attempts to sell
more drugs for more new conditions, while the FDA bans the use of herbs
and natural substances that work better, the National I.D. in the name
of terrorism, the waging of a war in the same name, and the history of
human rights violations of various countries. No, we don't have any
incentives here for censorship. While the concern comes to mind that
they might attempt to eventually strangle the internet from within the
U.S., it seems a far greater concern if we abdicate control of it to a
world body.

A confusing tangle of regulations would mire the internet and its users
in a bog down resulting in a loss of time, access to information,
revenue, and freedom of expression. We may hate some of the content of
the internet, but respecting the rights of those who print or publish it
to do so, expresses our own heartfelt wish to be able to.

A better alternative was stated by Brian Carney of the editorial board
of The Wall Street Journal. The idea of having a country set up its own
root server. Though this may be a problem for the citizens of that
country that might not like the regulations that are imposed on their
access of the net, it beats having those regulations imposed on the world.

As I write these words, Andy Snitzer's beautiful tune "Passion Play"
streams through my audio feed. God forbid we should be regulated on what
we listen to for tax or content reasons. While you're at it, please
rethink this treaty.

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=227
<https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=227>

Being that computer technology is the fastest changing technology and no
doubt in large part because of its not being government regulated, do we
really want a world governing body delivering edicts on its further
evolution?

--
What Americans all need to know:
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

Freedom has a thousand charms to show that slaves,
howe'er contented cannot know. --William Cowper