3 ms·

Hmm, there's still the issue that both ISOC and ICANN are located in the USA, and – unless they have been granted super-special status by the UN – are subject t

Hmm, there's still the issue that both ISOC and ICANN are located in the USA, and – unless they have been granted super-special status by the UN – are subject to USA laws. As long that is the case, we have an "USAnet", rather than a real Internet. I can see two ways to deal with this issue : 1.) A UN-funded organization located on "UN soil", ideally far away from the biggest powers (but then close enough to Internet nodes) – maybe Geneva, Switzerland ? 2.) A decentralized system. Freenet / Tor / Blockchain aficionados can have their field day. In both these cases, the only thing that the organization could do is to keep just enough friction to keep domain scalpers at bay. No censorship whatsoever allowed, if a country wants to block a domain name, they will have to do it on their side. Yes, this means that there will be pedo / nazi / terrorist / copyright infringement ( / &c.) domains, but you can't have both your freedom of speech cake and eat the censorship too : this is more important than Facebook comments / YouTube videos! (Hmm, I wonder why isis.org redirects (for me?) to species360.org ?) Oh, also maybe this organization could keep a database of worldwide judicial decisions about the blocking of domain names. Also there needs to be enough friction on domain name changes for the judiciary systems to be able to keep up. Oh, and it would also be responsible for verifying that the .ngo/.ong domains really belong to non-profit, non-governmental organizations.

estaseuropano 6y ago
While I agree with your premise of a neutral organisation free speech doesn't work. It never has and never will. The internet has proven that a lawless space should not be tolerated. Nazis, Islamism, rape porn, child abuse, slave sales, hitmen, ... You don't want the mob to rule the web. The question would then be if nations can find some common ground of what is unacceptable (so e.g. insulting the king of Thailand shouldn't get your site deleted) or there needs to be another system to enable global takedowns.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Sorry, maybe I should have said "The (regular) Web" since that's what we are talking about. AFAIK a lot of these not-web/"dark web"(?)–sites are available on the Internet via tools like Freenet (and Tor?) > The question would then be if nations can find some common ground of what is unacceptable This is just not going to happen. There are 195 countries in the world. They can't even agree on whether women have the same rights as men or whether it is legal to draw images of the Muslim prophet (So, depending on what you mean by the term, "Islamism" might just be the legal system of some countries, as 35 of them apply more or less the Sharia). Or another example : the USA is supposed to be a single country, yet in some of its states sex between full blown adults and teenagers of a certain age is legal, while in others a teenager becomes a sex offender by merely owning photos of him/herself naked ! (And how would you deal with potential new countries that might not agree to the previous 'common ground' ?)
nsajko 6y ago
So you want to make ISOC or ICANN even more independent/powerful than they already are, to take away the single thing that reined them in this time?
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  The current issue seems to be happening because they are able to sell .org. My version wouldn't be allowed to do that.

estaseuropano 6y ago

While I agree with your premise of a neutral organisation free speech doesn't work. It never has and never will. The internet has proven that a lawless space should not be tolerated. Nazis, Islamism, rape porn, child abuse, slave sales, hitmen, ... You don't want the mob to rule the web. The question would then be if nations can find some common ground of what is unacceptable (so e.g. insulting the king of Thailand shouldn't get your site deleted) or there needs to be another system to enable global takedowns.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
Sorry, maybe I should have said "The (regular) Web" since that's what we are talking about. AFAIK a lot of these not-web/"dark web"(?)–sites are available on the Internet via tools like Freenet (and Tor?) > The question would then be if nations can find some common ground of what is unacceptable This is just not going to happen. There are 195 countries in the world. They can't even agree on whether women have the same rights as men or whether it is legal to draw images of the Muslim prophet (So, depending on what you mean by the term, "Islamism" might just be the legal system of some countries, as 35 of them apply more or less the Sharia). Or another example : the USA is supposed to be a single country, yet in some of its states sex between full blown adults and teenagers of a certain age is legal, while in others a teenager becomes a sex offender by merely owning photos of him/herself naked ! (And how would you deal with potential new countries that might not agree to the previous 'common ground' ?)

nsajko 6y ago

So you want to make ISOC or ICANN even more independent/powerful than they already are, to take away the single thing that reined them in this time?

BlueTemplar 6y ago
The current issue seems to be happening because they are able to sell .org. My version wouldn't be allowed to do that.