Re: [ga] A Monroe Doctrine for the Internet

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's funny how the british will say it's Blair's war and the british people don't agree but it's "americans" who attacked Iraq as if all americans agreed with bush. Off-list you can find out my opinions about bush and Iraq by going here http://www.newsandmediablog.com 

Again, the reason countries want to take the Internet out of US control is because they don't like the US or don't like it's policies under the current administration. That does not mean they have a better plan of running the Internet and the wrong reason for placing it under the control of an International org or the UN.

As Hugh and others said, countries can start their own root servers and will. No one can stop them. We don't need to take this root to an International body nor would any of these other countries have given up the root server if they had it before the US did. Let them start their own. It won't fracture anything or cause instability. It will probably be an improvement to most people.

Chris McElroy, 
http://www.newsandmediablog.com
http://www.wholettheblogout.com



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Henderson 
  To: RBHauptman@xxxxxxx 
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 7:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] A Monroe Doctrine for the Internet


  America invaded Iraq "because it was able to" regardless of what the rest of the world wanted or any processes they had already set in motion.

  America retains control of the Internet's functions "because it is able to" regardless of how the rest of the world feels about that.

  This is *not* an endearing way of "winning hearts and minds".

  Yrs,

  Richard H

  * * * * *

  yes, the two things are linked by the common thread of "Might is Right"... it's despotism, ok... oh and by the way (a) I have lots of American friends, I am not anti-American, I am anti-American policy and your disappointing president in particular (b) before you mention it, Iraq is *not* the UK's war too, it is Blair's war... his team 'hyped up' the myth of imminent threat from WMD that didn't even exist... he defied 80-85% of British public opinion by going to war in defiance of the UN processes... repeated opinion polls at the time showed this was so... so please don't imagine that the British people sanction Bush's invasion and occupation... anymore than the rest of the world agrees with the US retaining control of the key functions of the Internet. - Richard Henderson www.newamericancentury.info www.presidentbush.info ... the "up" side is that so many US citizens I have met have been wonderful human beings, welcoming, friendly, decent... but a right-wing minority in US politics seems to be pushing its own agenda further and further down a cultural and political cul-de-sac.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: RBHauptman@xxxxxxx 
    To: andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 10:35 PM
    Subject: Re: [ga] A Monroe Doctrine for the Internet


    Okay so the USA gives more money to THIRD WORLD countries than ALL the OTHER countries in the WORLD.  Let's say, Kidsearch, that you are correct here (but of course we all know that you are not). But for Arguments Sake let's assume that this Posit is correct.

    What does that have to do with anything at all in re ICANN or how the Internet is Governed? Nothing Whatsoever.  Just because I have lots more money than you do (which I do) does not mean that I can take control of everything and anything I want to.  That would make me despotic, and irrational, and a bully.  And hated.

    xxoo
    Rick

    andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

      On Nov 8, 2005, at 11:15 AM, kidsearch wrote:

      > So, I gather that you can give a list of countries that have given  
      > more aid to 3rd world countries than the USA has.

      Japan, but that's only if you look at the total dollar figure. If you  
      take it on e per-capita basis or % of GDP, the USA is well down the  
      list. Quoting http://www.realityofaid.org/roareport.php? 
      table=roa2002&id=21

      "Total aid from all 22 DAC donor countries in 2000 was US$53.7  
      billion, down 0.4% in real terms from 1999. Japan and the USA were  
      the largest donors in cash terms, with Germany the UK and France also  
      giving from US$4 billion to just over US$5 billion. (See Graph 16).

      While donors from G7 countries with large economies show up towards  
      the top of the list of aid donors in terms of volume, their  
      performance looks much worse when aid given is measured as a share of  
      donor GNI. (See Graph 17). Only five donors â Denmark, Netherlands,  
      Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg â meet the UN 0.7% target for aid as a  
      share of national income, established in 1970.

      Countries such as the United States and Italy give a pitiful share of  
      their wealth in aid. Most G7 donors have allowed their aid to decline  
      as a share of their growing wealth over the last ten years. Even as  
      the Financing for Development Summit approached, G7 donors allowed  
      their aid to fall by 3% in real terms between 1999 and the latest  
      available figures covering the year 2000. On average the G7  
      countries, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the USA  
      now give just 0.19% of GNI in aid â even lower than their 0.21%  
      figure for 1999."

      Is our children learning?

      > Have to ask that question because as much fun as some people have  
      > bashing the USA, it is the very first country they call on for help  
      > when they are attacked or have a problem too big for them to handle.
      >

      Well, if you want to lay  claim to be the "greatest nation in the  
      world" I'm afraid you're going to have to put up or shut up.