Re:Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
by rickycook on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @08:20PM
(#11866768)
is it really so bad to do what everyone not in the US does and add an extra 3 characters? .gov.us; SOLVED
Re:Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
by xg15 on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @09:03PM
(#11866890)
I agree this is a problem worth solving. But shouldn't it be solved for every country, not just the US?
As a non-US citizen, I find it strange that matters of global internet governance are discussed with apparently mostly arguments about US-specific issues.
Re:Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
by BlakePetersen on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @09:34PM
(#11867023)
As a US citizen, I find it strange as well. But our Republican Party seems to believe we're special and should be treated differently. We aren't and we shouldn't be.
Re:Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
by int_19h on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @07:59PM
(#11866665)
The other option is not giving it over to some random country. As I understand it, the other option would be giving the assignment of top-level domains to ITU or some similar agency within UN, which would then delegate .gov and .mil and other things to US.
Re:Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
by wavefunction on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @08:49PM
(#11866843)
The same people who would have problems with "some random country" would have even more problems with the UN.
I'm generally less critical of the UN, but I would agree that the UN is pretty much the last body that should be invested with any sorts of power.
Or, potentially more deceptively to consumers, "healthcare.gov", etc.