Well, my gut reaction is that I don't trust the current US administration enough to want them to keep the present level on control.
I voted for a completely independent body, but in the real world the UN should be enough of a hodge-podge to stop any one country having complete dominance.
If the root servers are owned privately then the fact that the US wants to hang on to control of them so badly surely indicates that they want to leave some nefarious option open
beyond the normal running of the internet. Something similar to having the ability to shut off GPS in a time of war for example?
My gut reaction is that the internet should be unregulated, but then I'm a pro-privacy small-government kind of guy. I will concede some small regulation to bring down websites that are globally believed to be immoral but am deeply against any one country having the say-so, especially when (lets face it) the interests of that country will always trump everyone else when decisions are made.
Love the final option - nice touch [img]smile.gif[/img]
Edit: Because
Quote:
|
"Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable."
|
surely this is another argument in favour of control by coalition or organisation - the future of internet access is more likely to be secured when such policy decisions cannot be taken at a whim.
[ 09-30-2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]