Internet governance talks in jeopardy as Arab states, Russia ally

I’m surprised Obama hasn’t told the US reps to just get it done, and cave to the UN.

The prime minister in NZ is ramming internet regulation through on behalf of his Hollywood masters at the expense of his citizens… while most of them are distracted by the footy.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10852640

Then there will be two Internets, the one in Free countries, and the one in countries that aren’t. I demand that my American representatives to the conference refuse any control on the Internet that is is not based on free flow of information. Regulation should be adopted for standardization, domain name allocation, etc. Then each member country should then internally implement those restrictions it deems necessary.

I’m sure the backward totalitarian governments in the Middle East want total control of the Internet, so that they can eliminate the biggest threats to their regimes, INFORMATION & TRUTH. Assad would have loved total government control of the Internet, so would Mubarak, and the Ayatollahs in Iran, on and on…

This article says nothing much of substance. It leaves it all to the readers imagination and the comments are saying as much.

It would help to know what other countries would like to control.

No one rules the internet, now or ever.

This article is a bit ambigious without much specifics, I bet there is much much more to this than meets the eye. In days of past laws were written ambigiuosly hence we have lawyers to translate the legal language of law. Now we will have a different breed of these internet advisors which will keep us entangled in a web of deceit. We will have mercenaries like hackers used on contract basis, so far “annonymous” seems to be the Robin Hood of our times.

I don’t generally use Russian or middle eastern sites while I am on the internet. I am sure traffic could easily be routed without use of servers in those countries too.

the internet must remain free and unregulated. we, the united states, created this network and shared it with the world. many world leaders, in turn, now want to grab power and stifle the flow of information and use this invention as an iron fist of suppression. under no circumstances should the united states relinquish this tool to the global body until clear and PERMANENT language is adopted ensuring that the internet is and always will be a free and unregulated framework. anything less in unacceptable. russia and the arab countries still employ barbaric and extreme governmental controls over their people. china’s unwavering governmental control of the internet and current and historical human rights abuses are right in check as well. NO to these nations. the united states has my support in their stand against these regimes who want nothing more than to CENSOR, CONTROL, SUBJUGATE and RESTRICT the freedoms of their people. the internet should be designated as a human right. and any nation who continues to deny fundamental human rights to their people should have NO VOICE in it’s governance.

Then there will be two Internets, the one in Free countries, and the one in countries that aren’t. I demand that my American representatives to the conference refuse any control on the Internet that is is not based on free flow of information. Regulation should be adopted for standardization, domain name allocation, etc. Then each member country should then internally implement those restrictions it deems necessary.

This article is a bit ambigious without much specifics, I bet there is much much more to this than meets the eye. In days of past laws were written ambigiuosly hence we have lawyers to translate the legal language of law. Now we will have a different breed of these internet advisors which will keep us entangled in a web of deceit. We will have mercenaries like hackers used on contract basis, so far “annonymous” seems to be the Robin Hood of our times.

@gullfaraz- “anonymous” is a very popular source with many legitimate news articles too – haven’t you noticed?

I still have a hard time believing “face eating zombies” and think that story was a litmus test of public gullibility. I’ve never read or seen so called “proof”, with all the trapping of a legitimate news report, that was such spurious baloney.

Of course – All sorts of other baloney news articles, I may actually be accepting as facts, could have been just as suspicious but were presented in ways most like me are inclined to believe because of a lifetime of infotainment I tended to passively accept. TV news casts don’t seem to worry as much about accuracy and providing all the details, as much as they are concerned for ratings and catering to the prejudices and tastes of their fans.