The U.S. Abandons the Internet - and the U.N. takes over

The following WSJ article asks some very good questions... To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on this. What I DO see here is another example of the U.N. taking control of one more responsibility that the U.S. has been responsible for. We are quickly marching toward global governance. Leave it to our illustrious leader, Obama, to give away the internet in an attempt to appease the world. What say ye fellow ATS'ers??

The U.S. Abandons the Internet

Has the Obama administration just given up U.S. responsibility for protecting the Internet?

Since its establishment in 1998, ICANN has operated under a formal contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce, which stipulated the duties and limits that the U.S. government expected ICANN to respect. The Commerce Department did not provide much active oversight, although the need to renew this contract, called the Joint Project Agreement (JPA), helped keep ICANN policies within reasonable bounds. That's why last spring, when the Commerce Department asked for comment on ending the JPA, the U.S. business community opposed the idea.

But the U.S. government's role in ICANN has long been a source of complaint from foreign nations. United Nations conferences have repeatedly voiced concerns about "domination of the Internet by one power" and suggested that management of the system should be handed off to the International Telecommunications Union—a U.N. agency dominated by developing countries. The European Union has urged a different scheme in which a G-12 of advanced countries would manage the Internet.

(The Obama Administration) has replaced the latest JPA, which expired Sept. 30, with a vaguely worded "Affirmation of Commitments." In it, ICANN promises to be a good manager of the Internet, and the Commerce Department promises—well, not much of anything.

Even more disturbing is the prospect that foreign countries will pressure ICANN to impose Internet controls that facilitate their own censorship schemes. Countries like China and Iran already block Web sites they regard as politically objectionable. Islamic nations insist that the proper understanding of international human-rights treaties requires suppression of "Islamophobic" content on the Internet. Will ICANN be better situated to resist such pressures now that it no longer has a formal contract with the U.S. government?

It may be that the Obama administration expects to exert a steadying hand on ICANN in indirect or covert ways. Or here too it may have calculated that winning applause from other nations now is worth taking serious risks in the long run.

Is there anything our 'leader' won't sell us out on....Dang...we won't recognize the U.S. in 3 1/2 years....or maybe sooner!

Good find...S & F for you

Excellent, the last developed country I want the internet in the hands of is America. I don't see a down side to this at all.

What gets me is that the UN has a long record of being an inept and corrupt organization.

Why do governments from across the world continue to put so much faith in this organization?

There has to be a valid reason.

Good, internet is for everyone, we dont need daddy america looking after us on it.

reply to post by Haydn_17


Exactly, A International body should take over internet. Internet today is a powerful mechanism and no single country should control it.

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Haydn_17

 

Exactly, A International body should take over internet. Internet today is a powerful mechanism and no single country should control it.

So you haven't liked it for the past 12 years then? How much censorship have you seen occur? What websites have you been not allowed to see?

I say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

P.S. I guess I have formed an opinion now... lol.

Originally posted by Haydn_17
Good, internet is for everyone, we dont need daddy america looking after us on it.

Everyone has been allowed so far haven't they? In the past 12 years, how many countries or people have been denied access??

If the U.N. gets control you might as well smash your PC. They will screw it up so bad we wont be able to use it. How many people want their credit card info in their hands?

This is horrible news. This weakens our national security tenfold.

Originally posted by jam321
What gets me is that the UN has a long record of being an inept and corrupt organization.

Why do governments from across the world continue to put so much faith in this organization?

There has to be a valid reason.

You're absolutely correct about your first point. In answer to your second
question it's not about trust, it's about giving the gangsters what they
want. The UN is the political front for the New World Order. The
Rothschilds still finance everything which is why we had to pay them off
last fall to the tune of untold trillions. That's also why bernanke won't tell
us WHO got the money. My best guess is Deusche bank and UBS,
traditional money changers for fascism. Same old game, new faces is all.

Giving the UN control of the internet is really the next to last straw to
destroy freedom. After this it's the 2nd amendment they will come after.
Should we allow them to take that we deserve whatever chains we wear if
we're lucky enough to still be alive.

I never even heard of this coming. Very, very bad.

The handover of America continues!

If you think we gave up alot under the Bush Administration, just wait. Obama is going to be the worst President of all time. He's not even acting like a President --he's too busy going on talk shows and doing commercials for God-knows what.

I wonder if we'll see Dante as we get farther within the circle?

reply to post by December_Rain

Exactly, A International body should take over internet. Internet today is a powerful mechanism and no single country should control it.

Just like an international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, WTO and NAFTA should dictate trade policies and quarantine at borders???

The rate of farmers’ suicides in INDIA – the largest sustained wave of such deaths recorded in history – has worsened particularly after 2001, by which time India was well down the WTO garden path in agriculture. link

"since NAFTA went into effect 33,000 small farmers in the US have gone out of business— more than six times the pre-NAFTA rate.....According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% - from 2.3 million to 575, 000" www.globalexchange.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">link

Just incase you did not think WTO open borders did not effect you.

Dr. Logan said, "the disease is extremely rare in U.S. herds. However, more TB-lesioned cattle are being detected at slaughter, and ear tags indicate that many of these animals are of Mexican origin.” www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2002/302TBMx.pdf

“The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle was discussed. A multiagency investigation in New York city identified 35 cases of human M. bovis infection. Fresh cheese from Mexico was identified as the likely source of infection” (Winters et al., 2005). www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/riskprofiles/FW0320_Mbovis_in_meat_final_May_2006.pdf

“Cattle crossing facilities on the U.S. side of the border are operated primarily by private firms (in Arizona and Columbus, NM) and the Texas Department of Agri- culture. However, at Santa Teresa, NM, Chihuahuan cattle producers operate both sides of the cattle port-of-entry” www.ers.usda.gov/publications/Agoutlook/june2001/AO282d.pdf


So do you STILL think an international body is BETTER???



Regulations = Control = Censorship

The LAST thing we need is MORE control handed over to an unelected international body. The internet is a threat to the international Central bankers and Corporate Cartels. They already censor the US news media, what makes you think they will not censor the internet if they can physically do it?