Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« Wow, This Blog Is Much Classier Than Mine.... | WILLisms.com | Blame Is Not A Plan »

U.S. Won't Relinquish the Internet

Let's see, the UN wants the US to relinquish control of the internet traffic governance.

Umm... NO.

Sorry, those guys couldn't manage a Jiffy Lube. I don't think that international oversight by, say, China, is in the best interests of free flowing information. For some reason, I don't see a reason to share this with the international community. It seems that Gross, the coordinator for international communications and information policy, doesn't see a need for it either.

"We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet....Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."
I think he sounds a little ambigous. What else does he say?
"The genius of the Internet is that it has been flexible (and) private-sector led."

"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross said. "It's not a negotiating issue, this is a matter of national policy."

Now while this has ruffled a few feathers at the UN, (I know it's hard to believe that the US isn't universally liked there) I have a feeling that this isn't going to change.

Information, and the control of it, secures our superpower status for the future. Just like Russia lost out to the US in the cold war due, in part, to economic power, we can now control a vast amount of the worlds economic power via information. You have to know that China, who is trying to ramp up, is very aware of this and would love nothing more that to regulate that flow both inside and outside that country. Likewise, other countries would as well.

This is something that will contine to creep along in the backpages of the news, but make no mistake it is an issue that is as important as the ones me make on North Korea, Afghanistan or North Korea.

Rob B. usually usurps the UN over at File it Under.

Posted by Hoodlumman · 30 September 2005 12:33 PM


The UN's tendency to botch just about everything they do makes me hesitant, also.

Plus, as it is now, any country and anyone can get on the internet. It's not broken - don't try and fix it.

Posted by: Hoodlumman at September 30, 2005 12:45 PM

Rob, as I asked at FIU, can we add the U.N. to the list after Pink Flamingoes?

Posted by: Cullen at September 30, 2005 01:07 PM

You are naiive if you think the UN can't run a Jiffy Lube. We've ample evidence that the UN and its cronies have had plenty of experience at greasing palms!

Posted by: DL at September 30, 2005 01:10 PM

The are reall good with grease, they just seem to have a problem with figure out what to do with Saddam's oil.

Posted by: Rob B. at September 30, 2005 03:05 PM

The U.N. is very uncool... I don't understand why our country doesn't untie our binds with it?

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at September 30, 2005 03:23 PM

It's kinda like being the rich guy in the gated community: Everybody wants you to pay to fix the fences and you want them to shut up so you can go home and watch the game.

Posted by: Rob B. at September 30, 2005 04:17 PM

Keep an eye on both of the Clintons on this issue. The recent conference of movers and shakers that Bill headed included some questionable international characters, as well as Google and Yahoo bigwigs. Hillary herself has indicated that there is a need to establish some "control" over the Internet-- probably viewed as another aspect of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The Clintons' cozying up to figures who determine what is news and what is an opinion blog (Ask Michelle Malkin about this issue.) and "their warm relations" with the Chinese give one pause. In addition, didn't Yahoo recently turn in a dissident Chinese blogger? Will free dissemination of facts and opinions be lost to the world?

Posted by: onlineanalyst at September 30, 2005 08:43 PM

Who cares what the Clintons think? I don't! I don't! Does anyone know that song?...I made it up.

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at October 1, 2005 01:14 PM

Online's right. The "flexible, private-sector" - and I'll add Anglosphere-mediated - internet is a bee in statists' bonnets the world 'round. They're bothered because the internet is creating a dynamic, democratic alternative to their traditional state-craft.

We should expect to see progressive patronage machines "push-back" against the net soon. It is a natural bureaucratic reaction to resist turf-encroachment.

In this case, the internet is threatening the monopoly that govenment enjoys over census-taking and wealth redistribution. The net delivers a plurality of news and views, and has demonstrated the potential to "gauge" real-time public sentiment anti-bureaucratically. Also, from its reaction to the Tsunami and "Kat-Rita," the internet has proven it can mobilize this public sentiment to the tune of 100's of millions of dollars, and deliver non-coerced welfare to national and international "pain-points".

Inform, measure and non-coercively enact the public's sentiment...Gee! That's how a free people's government is supposed to work.
BTW: I don't think that when Hillary says "It takes a village," the private-sector Internet is what she means. All indications are it's the public sector she wants to empower. The private sector is supposed to pick-up the tab.

Posted by: Steve at October 2, 2005 02:33 PM

We won't relenquish the internet, but for a small fee you may keep its inventor. (As to that fee, I meant we'll pay you!)

Posted by: DL at October 2, 2005 06:25 PM