Not at all. Much more likely is the desire of governments everywhere to ... how did the EU commission put it : "A review of conflicts between national laws or

Not at all. Much more likely is the desire of governments everywhere to ... how did the EU commission put it : "A review of conflicts between national laws or jurisdictions that will suggest possible remedies" [1] In case anyone doubts what this means : it means that they're angry their laws currently effectively do not apply to the internet (because the site owner is not within their jurisdiction) and they intend to use DNS assignments as the enforcement arm of their governments. Also, from this article : "Major corporations have complained, however, that con artists already swarm the Internet with phony Web sites designed to look like the authentic offerings of respected brands." We all know what they're complaining about and it's not "con artists. It's the fact that holding a trademark on the word "and" is southeast uzbaledongenirestan doesn't give them full veto rights over any dns name that matches ".and.", in any tld. Expect takedowns to get much, much worse very quickly. This move makes ICANN dependant on organisations that want to use DNS to make legal threats and force any internet site to operate in every jurisdiction their customers may be located in instead of just the one they're located. And remember : VPNs only help if the thing you're trying to reach is still on the internet. This is about moving enforcement from local ISPs to remote ISPs. [1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm