Ejected in Geneva

The organizers of the Internet Summit in Geneva have had Dr. Paul
Twomey, the president of ICANN (the organization that’s chartered to
administer the international domain-name system), ejected by security
guards after he’d flown twenty hours to participate in the
meeting.

I was not especially surprised. The organizers of the Geneva
summit seem to be very much the same scum of the planet that one
normally finds running these U.N. events — third-string
diplomatic timeservers, addle-brained NGO moonbats, a scattering of
celebrity Eurotrash, and a legion of gray apparatchiks from
authoritarian Third World pestholes. It didn’t astonish me that
they’d use force to keep out anyone who might interfere with their
plans for a government-friendly, politically-correct, censored, and
very thoroughly controlled Internet.

No, the really surprising part is that I found myself sympathizing
with Dr. Twomey. ICANN’s performance, while not the unmitigated
disaster many of its critics like to portray, has not been glorious.
Way too many deals have been done in back rooms and the organization has
been far too kind to expansive trademark claims and other sorts of
corporate land-grab.

Perhaps the one salutary effect of the Geneva summit is to remind us
that things could easily be worse — and almost certainly will be, if
the U.N. gets control.

17 thoughts on “Ejected in Geneva

  1. Can someone explain *how* exactly they could ever act on their totalitarian plans for internet control? Most of the hubs and a great deal of infastructure is run off of corporate servers and private boxes. The entire POINT of the internet is that it is almost completely decentralized, aside from *trying* to enforce some sort of new browser standards that allow 3rd world autocratic censors to hijack your viewing content, what can they do? The only thing I can think of is that they do what beauracracies do best…release regulations trying to stipulate what can and can’t be posted. All the same, the very fact that these dingbats are even throwing this idea around strongly suggests that *sigh* we really need a new “frontier” system again, without ICANN, Carnivore, or meddling UN pissants. Do we really need more evidence not to be in the UN, we pay them billions so that they can piss on our nation, regulate us, give aid to our enemies and condemn our allies, have on numerous occasions tried to enact institutions that would hinder our national freedoms…and then they piss on us some more when they think we aren’t looking. Sorry for venting, but anyone who thinks the UN has even a shadow of a positive role for the US (or any other industrial and technologically vibrant nation for that matter) needs to have their brain examined for blunt tramua.

  2. Actually the funny damn thing is that some of those same bloated corporate interests won’t want the U.N. fucking around with all their fiber optics and assorted hardware I’d think. I can’t see the big telcoms, Time Warner, et al being that thrilled with the U.N. fuck ups getting control of their expensive communication infrastructure and equipment investments. Maybe they’ll kill each other off?? One can hope….

  3. The article Digital Imprimatur by John Walker points out how the Internet could be controlled and regulated if we’re not vigilant. It could be implemented by either corporations trying to control intellectual ‘property’ or by governments. Seeing how the U.S. has stampeded away from freedom after 9/11 ought to make us more aware of how relevant is the statement that, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

  4. US gov’t also want a very thoroughly controlled Internet, the only thing is that they want absolute control of it, not alowing other to mess with it.

  5. If they wanted a thoroughly controlled internet…why didn’t they make that so when it was nothing but DARPANET hubs that they owned? They certainly could have built system standards then that would allow central control if they so desired. I’m no friend of FBI snooping or RIAA blackmailing, but for the moment the bigger picture is the very real issue of a bunch of dictators trying to take over the worlds largest information system. I *THINK* theres more to complain about than internal morons dicking about with us, stop trying to blame this somehow on organizations in the US gov that are actually on our side in this.

  6. Unfortunately the UN didn’t abolish the lure of easy money. We shouldn’t be too surprised when rich countries want to use the UN to protect their monopolies and poor conties want handouts.from the rich counties.

  7. The US *then* wanted a decentralized intranet, so that it could survive the nukes. The US *now* wants an internet that they control so they can catch terrorists, find child pornography rings and stifle speech.

    The UN would rather like to do that as well. As would just about every other government out there, because governments tend to think in terms of what makes their job easier.

    Which is why the US has a constitution in the first place — to (theoretically) make sure that some things that make a government’s job easier will not happen…

    In terms of the UN thing… well, it’s more grist for the mill. I’m not entirely sure how they’ll manage to convince companies in the US that they really control the internet either, but it’s annoying that they’re even trying.

  8. `Eurotrash’ is an American slang term for a particular segment of the European idle rich, especially decayed aristocrats and show-business types. Eurotrash are the people who keep Dom Perignon, cocaine smugglers, and haute-couture houses in business. They frequently become loud exponents of left-wing causes, bringing to politics exactly the same sort of showy fecklessness they exhibit in their frequent divorces and sex scandals. Show me a Vogue model vaporing about the Kyoto treaty, show me a Crown Prince caught frolicking with a starlet half his age, show me a has-been Eurodisco star with blown-out sinuses and a retinue the size of a short platoon — and I’ll show you Eurotrash.

  9. You would be a much better writer if you left out the ad-hominem attacks, stopped using neologisms, and familiarised yourself with the word ‘concise’.

  10. “Euro-trash” is not a neologism. It’s a commonly known term on this side of the pond, it has been in use for at least 30 years, if not longer, and assorted UN “summit meetings” are, as I have personally been able to witness, peppered with the loathsome things.

    Get a grip.

  11. Andy: I happen to find the fact that he decided to call a spade a spade (or in this case, Eurotrash precisely that) amusing.

    I like straight talkers who aren’t afraid of offending some little pantywaist’s sensibilities.

    As I’m fond of saying “Sorry, did I just upset you? Well consider this: Every time someone says or does something STUPID it upsets ME. So tell you what, when I’m not constantly bombarded with maddening affronts to common sense with monotonous regularity, I’ll promise to be more sensitive to your feelings. OK?”

  12. And how is ‘Eurotrash’ any different from what you have to offer in the same genre ‘over there’?

  13. At least one guy (Mugabe, of all people!) made some sense. He rather bitterly pointed out that the squabbling about how to raise African use of the Internet from 2% of world was stupid without getting electricity – or at least potable water – to the small towns and villages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>