Also found this tidbit a little disturbing, but not terribly suprising:

Basically, this resolution is a threat that we are united in not giving up control of the internet. Good Luck UN, heh heh.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

What right does the UN have to tax my email? Seriously, the organization is hanging on by just a thread right now. If they make ANY stupid move like that, they lose support of the American people (we love our email don't we) and therefor our government - except for maybe Ted Kennedy, who is so far detached that sometimes I like to pretend he's not in our government. And aren't we the UN's biggest donor?

Hasn't anyone learned that Americans hate taxes? Well, maybe Great Britain did

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

Since international taxes are unconstitutional.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

That we give money to the UN so a bone-head committee can even come up with that idea blows me away.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

If the UN did impose such a tax, a side benefit would be a huge reduction in spam. Such a scheme (with the tax being something like 1/1000 of a cent per e-mail) is often suggested as a way to make spam too costly to be profitable, without affecting the average user much.

I'd gladly pay a buck a month to wipe out spam. But it probably shouldn't be to the UN.

Now if they started taxing forum posts....

__________________
Man up.

this is an interesting topic and i dont quite understand it. but from what i do understand isnt it like this: you make whatever domain don't exist yet, and if USA owns .com then france can have .fr or lithuania .lt etc. etc. and it's all about servers? and promotion of which web sites are most popular. what's more to it? maybe some one can explain?

if this is true... (which is quite possible)

then i must say only one country in the world can support such a corrupt organization.

VicePresident Al Gore would never let the UN take over his invention!

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

The US controls the root DNSs (Domain Name Servers). The DNS servers are responsible for converting your IP address (123.456.789.123 or whatever) to www.whatever.com (and vice versa). The US also controls what domains are allowed (.com, .net, .org., whatever).

Other nations are bįtching because the US the US has final authority on who gets what domain. So it is the US that decides that the UK is .uk for example.

Anyone on the internet now must use our DNS servers to get a "www" address assigned to them. The only way they could circumventi it is by basically inventing their own internet and maintaining their own servers. Doing so would first required them to agree on a set of standards.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

thx for explanation... well in this case i think if theyre stupid enough not to be able to come up with their own "root dns servers" then they can (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) all they want, they still need US's...

"final authority"? - i say screw the authority all the way. if other countries can invent they have all the authority to use.