<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_28_1734243</id>
	<title>An Argument For Leaving DNS Control In US Hands</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243532640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"<a href="http://radlab.cs.berkeley.edu/directory/ariel-rabkin">Ariel Rabkin</a> has a piece over at News Corp.'s Weekly Standard arguing <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/515zoozk.asp">that the US should maintain its control over the Internet</a>.  After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Ariel Rabkin has a piece over at News Corp. 's Weekly Standard arguing that the US should maintain its control over the Internet .
After reading his piece , I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Ariel Rabkin has a piece over at News Corp.'s Weekly Standard arguing that the US should maintain its control over the Internet.
After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135077</id>
	<title>We all controll our own?</title>
	<author>pentalive</author>
	<datestamp>1243535160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) let the us drop back behind the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.US tld  so www.google.com becomes www.google.com.us</p><p>2) Each country operates their own country level tld and it's authoritative DNS roots.</p><p>3)Countries may filter at their borders</p><p>4)No body gets a say on how we number and name<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.US websites. We don't get a say in theirs.</p><p>5) use something like NAT routing so each country level domain has the full IPV4 address range<br>(thus putting off the call for IPV6 for a little longer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) let the us drop back behind the .US tld so www.google.com becomes www.google.com.us2 ) Each country operates their own country level tld and it 's authoritative DNS roots.3 ) Countries may filter at their borders4 ) No body gets a say on how we number and name .US websites .
We do n't get a say in theirs.5 ) use something like NAT routing so each country level domain has the full IPV4 address range ( thus putting off the call for IPV6 for a little longer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) let the us drop back behind the .US tld  so www.google.com becomes www.google.com.us2) Each country operates their own country level tld and it's authoritative DNS roots.3)Countries may filter at their borders4)No body gets a say on how we number and name .US websites.
We don't get a say in theirs.5) use something like NAT routing so each country level domain has the full IPV4 address range(thus putting off the call for IPV6 for a little longer)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128725</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>B'Trey</author>
	<datestamp>1243543020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your point that the US is hardly a sterling example of protecting civil rights is valid.  However, that doesn't change the fact that the US does have much more robust protections of free speech than many, many other countries, including some that outdo us in other areas of civil rights.  European countries, partly in an attempt to protect the rights of minorities, generally have much harsher laws concerning "hate speech" and libel than the US, and most non-European countries routinely censor content they deem to be against the interest of the ruling parties.  I'm as appalled at some of the recent US actions as anyone.  They're a shame and an embarrassment to a country that is supposed to be "...the land of the free..."  But I don't doubt that the article is spot on that US control results in a much freer Internet than would be the case under an international overseer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point that the US is hardly a sterling example of protecting civil rights is valid .
However , that does n't change the fact that the US does have much more robust protections of free speech than many , many other countries , including some that outdo us in other areas of civil rights .
European countries , partly in an attempt to protect the rights of minorities , generally have much harsher laws concerning " hate speech " and libel than the US , and most non-European countries routinely censor content they deem to be against the interest of the ruling parties .
I 'm as appalled at some of the recent US actions as anyone .
They 're a shame and an embarrassment to a country that is supposed to be " ...the land of the free... " But I do n't doubt that the article is spot on that US control results in a much freer Internet than would be the case under an international overseer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point that the US is hardly a sterling example of protecting civil rights is valid.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the US does have much more robust protections of free speech than many, many other countries, including some that outdo us in other areas of civil rights.
European countries, partly in an attempt to protect the rights of minorities, generally have much harsher laws concerning "hate speech" and libel than the US, and most non-European countries routinely censor content they deem to be against the interest of the ruling parties.
I'm as appalled at some of the recent US actions as anyone.
They're a shame and an embarrassment to a country that is supposed to be "...the land of the free..."  But I don't doubt that the article is spot on that US control results in a much freer Internet than would be the case under an international overseer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129255</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>yhetti</author>
	<datestamp>1243501620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, he was from UC Berkeley, that notorious bastion of right-wing extremism...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , he was from UC Berkeley , that notorious bastion of right-wing extremism.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, he was from UC Berkeley, that notorious bastion of right-wing extremism...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127637</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243540080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown.</p></div><p>No, it's not.  Censorship is alive and well all over the world, and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.</p><p>Here's a question: if we give the UN control over the DNS system, what happens to Taiwan's TLD?  You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan, they weren't allowed to compete as "Taiwan", they were "Chinese Taipei".  If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide.  They can block access to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tw inside their own country now, but they don't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU.  That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS.  And that's only the most obvious example.  I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD the next time they decide to invade, by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia, or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.</p><p>The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced.  The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , the US , as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown.No , it 's not .
Censorship is alive and well all over the world , and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.Here 's a question : if we give the UN control over the DNS system , what happens to Taiwan 's TLD ?
You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan , they were n't allowed to compete as " Taiwan " , they were " Chinese Taipei " .
If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed , the first thing they 'll do is get rid of the .tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide .
They can block access to .tw inside their own country now , but they do n't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU .
That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS .
And that 's only the most obvious example .
I 'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia 's TLD the next time they decide to invade , by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia , or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced .
The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown.No, it's not.
Censorship is alive and well all over the world, and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.Here's a question: if we give the UN control over the DNS system, what happens to Taiwan's TLD?
You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan, they weren't allowed to compete as "Taiwan", they were "Chinese Taipei".
If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the .tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide.
They can block access to .tw inside their own country now, but they don't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU.
That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS.
And that's only the most obvious example.
I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD the next time they decide to invade, by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia, or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced.
The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130481</id>
	<title>Re:For the people, by the people, but only America</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243506240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Well, let's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago</p></div><p>30 years ago, the United States was 3 years past celebrating its bicentennial.</p><p>To be somewhat more fair, the bill of rights wasn't fully ratified until 1791, but that's still a far longer standing tradition than you've cited.</p><p>Many countries, most notable of them being the United Kingdom, in fact have legislatures that have full sovereignty. A fully sovereign legislature means that they have no constitution to restrain their authority. There's nothing at all to suggest that any law they pass today cannot be repealed tomorrow, so there is no way to guarantee civil rights at all. Parliament could pass a law with the same text as the first amendment, and it would be a completely meaningless gesture.</p><p>Now, I am not suggesting that the author of TFA is correct. But I absolutely would place more faith in a constitutionally restrained legislature than a fully sovereign one every day of the week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let 's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago30 years ago , the United States was 3 years past celebrating its bicentennial.To be somewhat more fair , the bill of rights was n't fully ratified until 1791 , but that 's still a far longer standing tradition than you 've cited.Many countries , most notable of them being the United Kingdom , in fact have legislatures that have full sovereignty .
A fully sovereign legislature means that they have no constitution to restrain their authority .
There 's nothing at all to suggest that any law they pass today can not be repealed tomorrow , so there is no way to guarantee civil rights at all .
Parliament could pass a law with the same text as the first amendment , and it would be a completely meaningless gesture.Now , I am not suggesting that the author of TFA is correct .
But I absolutely would place more faith in a constitutionally restrained legislature than a fully sovereign one every day of the week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Well, let's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago30 years ago, the United States was 3 years past celebrating its bicentennial.To be somewhat more fair, the bill of rights wasn't fully ratified until 1791, but that's still a far longer standing tradition than you've cited.Many countries, most notable of them being the United Kingdom, in fact have legislatures that have full sovereignty.
A fully sovereign legislature means that they have no constitution to restrain their authority.
There's nothing at all to suggest that any law they pass today cannot be repealed tomorrow, so there is no way to guarantee civil rights at all.
Parliament could pass a law with the same text as the first amendment, and it would be a completely meaningless gesture.Now, I am not suggesting that the author of TFA is correct.
But I absolutely would place more faith in a constitutionally restrained legislature than a fully sovereign one every day of the week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130265</id>
	<title>Re:what about .sex and .xxx???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243505400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You <i>fool!</i>  </p><p>Having<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sex would have played directly into the hands of the censors.  Think about it you numb nuts.  Not forcing particular types of content that may be considered objectionable to some people or countries to only register under particular tld's is one of the best ways to keep the internet free.  If you lump the porn in with the rest of the net, it's harder to block it.  That also applies to other types of expression, i.e. political, etc.  </p><p>The US was 100 percent right on this.  You are and idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You fool !
Having .xxx or .sex would have played directly into the hands of the censors .
Think about it you numb nuts .
Not forcing particular types of content that may be considered objectionable to some people or countries to only register under particular tld 's is one of the best ways to keep the internet free .
If you lump the porn in with the rest of the net , it 's harder to block it .
That also applies to other types of expression , i.e .
political , etc .
The US was 100 percent right on this .
You are and idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fool!
Having .xxx or .sex would have played directly into the hands of the censors.
Think about it you numb nuts.
Not forcing particular types of content that may be considered objectionable to some people or countries to only register under particular tld's is one of the best ways to keep the internet free.
If you lump the porn in with the rest of the net, it's harder to block it.
That also applies to other types of expression, i.e.
political, etc.
The US was 100 percent right on this.
You are and idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129637</id>
	<title>Re:Big Assumption</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1243502880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK, COPA et al were laws that only would have affected happenings on US soil.  ICANN does not require that content on sites outside the US to conform to US law.  For example, CP eradication has been done by international government cooperation, rather than by fiat from ICANN.
<br> <br>
ICANN does not censor.  I don't trust some international body to be so neutral.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , COPA et al were laws that only would have affected happenings on US soil .
ICANN does not require that content on sites outside the US to conform to US law .
For example , CP eradication has been done by international government cooperation , rather than by fiat from ICANN .
ICANN does not censor .
I do n't trust some international body to be so neutral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, COPA et al were laws that only would have affected happenings on US soil.
ICANN does not require that content on sites outside the US to conform to US law.
For example, CP eradication has been done by international government cooperation, rather than by fiat from ICANN.
ICANN does not censor.
I don't trust some international body to be so neutral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128089</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243541400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you miss the point.  It wouldn't convince anyone to hand control over anywhere.  It argues the rationality of replacing an organization that seems to operate very well with almost no interference in social affairs, with a new one whose behavior we can't predict.</p><p>I find it very convincing on the premise that no action is better than hasty action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you miss the point .
It would n't convince anyone to hand control over anywhere .
It argues the rationality of replacing an organization that seems to operate very well with almost no interference in social affairs , with a new one whose behavior we ca n't predict.I find it very convincing on the premise that no action is better than hasty action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you miss the point.
It wouldn't convince anyone to hand control over anywhere.
It argues the rationality of replacing an organization that seems to operate very well with almost no interference in social affairs, with a new one whose behavior we can't predict.I find it very convincing on the premise that no action is better than hasty action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132447</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1243515840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet it seems that there's a littany of American voices chiming in to justify continued US control of the situation.  Are Americans the only rational people here, the only sane people who can see the situation clearly, or it there the possibility of a bit of nationalistic bias here?  Sure, the GP post was ad-hominem, so it's not a valid logical deduction... but nevertheless is it correct to infer bias?  I sure find it odd that the rational decision can only be made by Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet it seems that there 's a littany of American voices chiming in to justify continued US control of the situation .
Are Americans the only rational people here , the only sane people who can see the situation clearly , or it there the possibility of a bit of nationalistic bias here ?
Sure , the GP post was ad-hominem , so it 's not a valid logical deduction... but nevertheless is it correct to infer bias ?
I sure find it odd that the rational decision can only be made by Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet it seems that there's a littany of American voices chiming in to justify continued US control of the situation.
Are Americans the only rational people here, the only sane people who can see the situation clearly, or it there the possibility of a bit of nationalistic bias here?
Sure, the GP post was ad-hominem, so it's not a valid logical deduction... but nevertheless is it correct to infer bias?
I sure find it odd that the rational decision can only be made by Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135307</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1243537620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completely with your post, except for the fact that there is no internet in North Korea. That is, Kim Jong Il probably has it, but their citizens don't even have cell phones. Their state websites are run from mainland China.</p><p>Wouldn't be much of a punishment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely with your post , except for the fact that there is no internet in North Korea .
That is , Kim Jong Il probably has it , but their citizens do n't even have cell phones .
Their state websites are run from mainland China.Would n't be much of a punishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely with your post, except for the fact that there is no internet in North Korea.
That is, Kim Jong Il probably has it, but their citizens don't even have cell phones.
Their state websites are run from mainland China.Wouldn't be much of a punishment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28142839</id>
	<title>Re:Give control to Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243630260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we love to apologize, given half a chance.</p><p>Sorry..., that's just how we are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we love to apologize , given half a chance.Sorry... , that 's just how we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we love to apologize, given half a chance.Sorry..., that's just how we are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126473</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1243536660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoa. Godwinned in only three posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa .
Godwinned in only three posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa.
Godwinned in only three posts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133187</id>
	<title>Factual Errors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243519620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA "Britain, Canada, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites..." Australia doesn't have a mandatory nationwide blacklist in operation.  The idea is being trialed by Conroy and is backed by certain conservative religious groups but has been met with such protest that it is unlikely it will ever be put into effect.  More recently conroy has been forced to backtrack and propose a voluntary blacklist (http://viv.id.au/blog/20090527.5069/conroy-backing-down-on-internet-censorship/).  Some Australia ISPs are trialing the blacklist to show if it is even technically feasible.  Since Ariel Rabkin has that fact wrong it casts doubt on the rest of the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA " Britain , Canada , and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites... " Australia does n't have a mandatory nationwide blacklist in operation .
The idea is being trialed by Conroy and is backed by certain conservative religious groups but has been met with such protest that it is unlikely it will ever be put into effect .
More recently conroy has been forced to backtrack and propose a voluntary blacklist ( http : //viv.id.au/blog/20090527.5069/conroy-backing-down-on-internet-censorship/ ) .
Some Australia ISPs are trialing the blacklist to show if it is even technically feasible .
Since Ariel Rabkin has that fact wrong it casts doubt on the rest of the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA "Britain, Canada, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites..." Australia doesn't have a mandatory nationwide blacklist in operation.
The idea is being trialed by Conroy and is backed by certain conservative religious groups but has been met with such protest that it is unlikely it will ever be put into effect.
More recently conroy has been forced to backtrack and propose a voluntary blacklist (http://viv.id.au/blog/20090527.5069/conroy-backing-down-on-internet-censorship/).
Some Australia ISPs are trialing the blacklist to show if it is even technically feasible.
Since Ariel Rabkin has that fact wrong it casts doubt on the rest of the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135399</id>
	<title>Did anyone say "protect and free speach" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243539000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote: "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online"</p><p>I just have to LOL, as if the Americans (which by the way has a great TRADITION in defending "free speach") has anything<br>NEAR the free speach and protection of individuality, privacy and it's like as MOST european countries.<br>Besides, the sentence says it all...."if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online",now that<br>just says it all...namely the concerns for americans, crap on all others....Mind you, a TRADITION isn't necessarily<br>the way it is in reality today...</p><p>Isn't the us turning into some kind of totalitarian governed state? Besides, the us don't care much for anyone else<br>but their own, protecting and covering up for it's close friends (f.inst Israel) and denying the global community<br>to put in place effective blockades when a state step's out of line and behaves unacceptable?</p><p>Arguments are utter crap...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote : " Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition , and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online " I just have to LOL , as if the Americans ( which by the way has a great TRADITION in defending " free speach " ) has anythingNEAR the free speach and protection of individuality , privacy and it 's like as MOST european countries.Besides , the sentence says it all.... " if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online " ,now thatjust says it all...namely the concerns for americans , crap on all others....Mind you , a TRADITION is n't necessarilythe way it is in reality today...Is n't the us turning into some kind of totalitarian governed state ?
Besides , the us do n't care much for anyone elsebut their own , protecting and covering up for it 's close friends ( f.inst Israel ) and denying the global communityto put in place effective blockades when a state step 's out of line and behaves unacceptable ? Arguments are utter crap.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote: "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online"I just have to LOL, as if the Americans (which by the way has a great TRADITION in defending "free speach") has anythingNEAR the free speach and protection of individuality, privacy and it's like as MOST european countries.Besides, the sentence says it all...."if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online",now thatjust says it all...namely the concerns for americans, crap on all others....Mind you, a TRADITION isn't necessarilythe way it is in reality today...Isn't the us turning into some kind of totalitarian governed state?
Besides, the us don't care much for anyone elsebut their own, protecting and covering up for it's close friends (f.inst Israel) and denying the global communityto put in place effective blockades when a state step's out of line and behaves unacceptable?Arguments are utter crap...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129645</id>
	<title>Re:Give control to Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243502880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we'll apologize for it.</p><p>Actually, even if the mistake isn't our fault, we'll apologize anyway. That's the Canadian way.</p></div></blockquote><p>I suspect that this perception may be the result of a meme (a real one) where Canadians travelling to Europe got the idea that "sorry" is used in place of "excuse me" in Europe.</p><p>Polite? Yes. Overly apologetic? No way. Our Governor General (official representative of the Queen) recently ate raw seal heart publicly. Take that, you spoiled, bleeding-heart (pun intended), old-world EU pansies! Who was it who wanted all those beaver felt hats? Ohhh rigghttt... It is one thing to criticise the means of survival in Northern Canada, it is another thing entirely to experience it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we 'll apologize for it.Actually , even if the mistake is n't our fault , we 'll apologize anyway .
That 's the Canadian way.I suspect that this perception may be the result of a meme ( a real one ) where Canadians travelling to Europe got the idea that " sorry " is used in place of " excuse me " in Europe.Polite ?
Yes. Overly apologetic ?
No way .
Our Governor General ( official representative of the Queen ) recently ate raw seal heart publicly .
Take that , you spoiled , bleeding-heart ( pun intended ) , old-world EU pansies !
Who was it who wanted all those beaver felt hats ?
Ohhh rigghttt... It is one thing to criticise the means of survival in Northern Canada , it is another thing entirely to experience it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we'll apologize for it.Actually, even if the mistake isn't our fault, we'll apologize anyway.
That's the Canadian way.I suspect that this perception may be the result of a meme (a real one) where Canadians travelling to Europe got the idea that "sorry" is used in place of "excuse me" in Europe.Polite?
Yes. Overly apologetic?
No way.
Our Governor General (official representative of the Queen) recently ate raw seal heart publicly.
Take that, you spoiled, bleeding-heart (pun intended), old-world EU pansies!
Who was it who wanted all those beaver felt hats?
Ohhh rigghttt... It is one thing to criticise the means of survival in Northern Canada, it is another thing entirely to experience it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127579</id>
	<title>That's because...</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1243539900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's because you're an American.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading his piece , I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.That 's because you 're an American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.That's because you're an American.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129815</id>
	<title>Current price is already an abuse</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1243503600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current price of DNS records is already quite an abuse in my opinion. The US government is making money out of this.<br>What kind of legitimacy is there in a single country making profits out of the system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current price of DNS records is already quite an abuse in my opinion .
The US government is making money out of this.What kind of legitimacy is there in a single country making profits out of the system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current price of DNS records is already quite an abuse in my opinion.
The US government is making money out of this.What kind of legitimacy is there in a single country making profits out of the system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28229161</id>
	<title>Blame the Country Registrars</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1244208840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If using a local domain were as easy as using a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com domain everybody would have local domains.</p><p>And of course, no one would care about who controls the root DNS servers.</p><p>But they are more expensive, more cumbersome, and give us little benefit.</p><p>What the article argues is that this cumbersome and bureaucratic entities should not control the main DNS servers and make it expensive and cumbersome, and I agree with the article, because of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If using a local domain were as easy as using a .com domain everybody would have local domains.And of course , no one would care about who controls the root DNS servers.But they are more expensive , more cumbersome , and give us little benefit.What the article argues is that this cumbersome and bureaucratic entities should not control the main DNS servers and make it expensive and cumbersome , and I agree with the article , because of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If using a local domain were as easy as using a .com domain everybody would have local domains.And of course, no one would care about who controls the root DNS servers.But they are more expensive, more cumbersome, and give us little benefit.What the article argues is that this cumbersome and bureaucratic entities should not control the main DNS servers and make it expensive and cumbersome, and I agree with the article, because of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127263</id>
	<title>The UN would turn it into a mess</title>
	<author>nitroamos</author>
	<datestamp>1243539060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the US has its problems, but I trust American commitment to free speech and non-bureaucratic efficiency far more than the UN's ability to administer something as important as this. The UN lost a lot of my respect when Ahmadinejad gamed the system to give the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle\_east/8010702.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">anti-racism speech</a> [bbc.co.uk]. I have no confidence that the UN can't be manipulated in other ways since there's no obvious way to keep it accountable, whereas if the US impinges on free speech we can sue it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the US has its problems , but I trust American commitment to free speech and non-bureaucratic efficiency far more than the UN 's ability to administer something as important as this .
The UN lost a lot of my respect when Ahmadinejad gamed the system to give the anti-racism speech [ bbc.co.uk ] .
I have no confidence that the UN ca n't be manipulated in other ways since there 's no obvious way to keep it accountable , whereas if the US impinges on free speech we can sue it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the US has its problems, but I trust American commitment to free speech and non-bureaucratic efficiency far more than the UN's ability to administer something as important as this.
The UN lost a lot of my respect when Ahmadinejad gamed the system to give the anti-racism speech [bbc.co.uk].
I have no confidence that the UN can't be manipulated in other ways since there's no obvious way to keep it accountable, whereas if the US impinges on free speech we can sue it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128605</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243542660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. From my canadian perspective, why would a foreign country (the US) decide who is the rightfull goverment of an other foreign country (Pakistan)?</p><p>We should start a new DNS root, move the current root under<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.us or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.old, and let every country manage it's own TLD. You live in Pakistan and are not satisfied with your current goverment? Start your own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pk DNS server and try to convince other countries that you are the rightfull owner of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pk TLD.<br>You think that you are more important than other countries and need<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mil,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.us and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.edu? No problem. As long as the other countries accept that, you should have international visitors to your web site.<br>You want to start a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx TLD and can convince all countries except a few religious fundamentalists? No problem again.</p><p>There are too much political decision with DNS that can't be let to the US government. For example, some people here in Quebec want to have a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.qc TLD for the province. I don't want to start a debate on the Quebec independance question, but why would it be the US who choose if we can have our own TLD or not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
From my canadian perspective , why would a foreign country ( the US ) decide who is the rightfull goverment of an other foreign country ( Pakistan ) ? We should start a new DNS root , move the current root under .us or .old , and let every country manage it 's own TLD .
You live in Pakistan and are not satisfied with your current goverment ?
Start your own .pk DNS server and try to convince other countries that you are the rightfull owner of the .pk TLD.You think that you are more important than other countries and need .mil , .gov , .us and .edu ?
No problem .
As long as the other countries accept that , you should have international visitors to your web site.You want to start a .xxx TLD and can convince all countries except a few religious fundamentalists ?
No problem again.There are too much political decision with DNS that ca n't be let to the US government .
For example , some people here in Quebec want to have a .qc TLD for the province .
I do n't want to start a debate on the Quebec independance question , but why would it be the US who choose if we can have our own TLD or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
From my canadian perspective, why would a foreign country (the US) decide who is the rightfull goverment of an other foreign country (Pakistan)?We should start a new DNS root, move the current root under .us or .old, and let every country manage it's own TLD.
You live in Pakistan and are not satisfied with your current goverment?
Start your own .pk DNS server and try to convince other countries that you are the rightfull owner of the .pk TLD.You think that you are more important than other countries and need .mil, .gov, .us and .edu?
No problem.
As long as the other countries accept that, you should have international visitors to your web site.You want to start a .xxx TLD and can convince all countries except a few religious fundamentalists?
No problem again.There are too much political decision with DNS that can't be let to the US government.
For example, some people here in Quebec want to have a .qc TLD for the province.
I don't want to start a debate on the Quebec independance question, but why would it be the US who choose if we can have our own TLD or not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127309</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243539180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a card carrying neo-nazi, I resent you comparing the US to Hitler.</p><p>Hitler would have efficiently rounded your jew ass up by now and gassed you.</p><p>The only solace us Anonynazis can take is that geeks such as yourself will never have a girlfriend to propagate your genetic filth with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a card carrying neo-nazi , I resent you comparing the US to Hitler.Hitler would have efficiently rounded your jew ass up by now and gassed you.The only solace us Anonynazis can take is that geeks such as yourself will never have a girlfriend to propagate your genetic filth with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a card carrying neo-nazi, I resent you comparing the US to Hitler.Hitler would have efficiently rounded your jew ass up by now and gassed you.The only solace us Anonynazis can take is that geeks such as yourself will never have a girlfriend to propagate your genetic filth with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127679</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>fubar1971</author>
	<datestamp>1243540200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without DARPAnet, CERN and Tim Berners-Lee would not have had a platform to create the Web.  Am I the only on around still that remembers that the Web and Internet are 2 different things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without DARPAnet , CERN and Tim Berners-Lee would not have had a platform to create the Web .
Am I the only on around still that remembers that the Web and Internet are 2 different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without DARPAnet, CERN and Tim Berners-Lee would not have had a platform to create the Web.
Am I the only on around still that remembers that the Web and Internet are 2 different things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135657</id>
	<title>Re:DNS Should be in everyones hands</title>
	<author>webnut77</author>
	<datestamp>1243628580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent +5 Funny
<br> <br>Thanks for the laugh.
<br> <br>The U.S. has a huge nuclear arsenal and your worried about them <b>going berserk</b> and pulling the plug on the DNS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent + 5 Funny Thanks for the laugh .
The U.S. has a huge nuclear arsenal and your worried about them going berserk and pulling the plug on the DNS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent +5 Funny
 Thanks for the laugh.
The U.S. has a huge nuclear arsenal and your worried about them going berserk and pulling the plug on the DNS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128001</id>
	<title>Countries will just roll their own...</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1243541160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has been a coming since the first root servers.. the power struggle for DNS.. as countries get more technologically capable and see the real power of what that means, either it will be controlled by everyone or we will end up with a segmented DNS as they run off and do their own..</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been a coming since the first root servers.. the power struggle for DNS.. as countries get more technologically capable and see the real power of what that means , either it will be controlled by everyone or we will end up with a segmented DNS as they run off and do their own. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been a coming since the first root servers.. the power struggle for DNS.. as countries get more technologically capable and see the real power of what that means, either it will be controlled by everyone or we will end up with a segmented DNS as they run off and do their own..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28142677</id>
	<title>Written by 'News Corp'; Fox; WSJ; Murdock</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1243629600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd take anything they write with a bag-load of rock-salt.  They have highly intelligent writers, lawyers and paid-think-tank' personnel who do nothing than think of ways to package conservative thought to sound acceptable and logical to the masses.</p><p>While I usually judge an article on its merits -- when it comes to anything by owned by Murdock -- I'm immediately suspect -- as his stated mission, besides reducing the average intelligence and education level  of Americans in order to make them more 'pliable' by his heavily used and financed multi-media empire, he also has of reducing America's economic power and brain-base in order to increase the value of Australia's growing tech and IT sector -- so America will come more to rely on exported brain power from Australia.  All of their IT folks I've dealt with, are both smart and dedicated, and totally willing to follow any unethical or America-harming orders without question.  I.e. they are not brought up with American values -- (not that American values are what they used to be 30-40 years ago).</p><p>It's in Murdock's interest to recreate the deregulated and 'robber-baron' environment that existed in the early 1900's that allowed capitalist employer's to heavily exploit workers while using a stick approach of little or no social safety net to enforce compliance.</p><p>Murdock, Fox, and his ilk are quite 'anti-American' in their goals -- and are working their best to hold back responsible social behavior to the benefit of capitalistic greed and empire building even if it causes mass numbers of people to lose their homes and life savings (current recession being a prime example of Fox-related influence (though they were far from a 'cause', they set the stage for idiots electing idiots to loosen the reigns of government and allow unbridled lust to be rewarded and unchecked which created many horrible, exercised opportunities for abuse.</p><p>It sickens me to see Fox cloak itself in the US-Flag colors -- which they strongly identified with during the Bush era and and their strong encouragement for us to waste our dollars and research in 'tilting at oil-wells' in Iraq et al.  Where now, with a change toward a progressive administration, they totally set themselves up as the anti-government station while maintaining their cloak of patriotism, and the nerve to trademark the language "Fair and Balanced".</p><p>There are times American's rights to free speech need to be more examined and restricted when major media outlets are owned by very powerful foreign businessmen who very likely have the interests of their own country and own foreign-based empires first and foremost, before any consideration of what is good for the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd take anything they write with a bag-load of rock-salt .
They have highly intelligent writers , lawyers and paid-think-tank ' personnel who do nothing than think of ways to package conservative thought to sound acceptable and logical to the masses.While I usually judge an article on its merits -- when it comes to anything by owned by Murdock -- I 'm immediately suspect -- as his stated mission , besides reducing the average intelligence and education level of Americans in order to make them more 'pliable ' by his heavily used and financed multi-media empire , he also has of reducing America 's economic power and brain-base in order to increase the value of Australia 's growing tech and IT sector -- so America will come more to rely on exported brain power from Australia .
All of their IT folks I 've dealt with , are both smart and dedicated , and totally willing to follow any unethical or America-harming orders without question .
I.e. they are not brought up with American values -- ( not that American values are what they used to be 30-40 years ago ) .It 's in Murdock 's interest to recreate the deregulated and 'robber-baron ' environment that existed in the early 1900 's that allowed capitalist employer 's to heavily exploit workers while using a stick approach of little or no social safety net to enforce compliance.Murdock , Fox , and his ilk are quite 'anti-American ' in their goals -- and are working their best to hold back responsible social behavior to the benefit of capitalistic greed and empire building even if it causes mass numbers of people to lose their homes and life savings ( current recession being a prime example of Fox-related influence ( though they were far from a 'cause ' , they set the stage for idiots electing idiots to loosen the reigns of government and allow unbridled lust to be rewarded and unchecked which created many horrible , exercised opportunities for abuse.It sickens me to see Fox cloak itself in the US-Flag colors -- which they strongly identified with during the Bush era and and their strong encouragement for us to waste our dollars and research in 'tilting at oil-wells ' in Iraq et al .
Where now , with a change toward a progressive administration , they totally set themselves up as the anti-government station while maintaining their cloak of patriotism , and the nerve to trademark the language " Fair and Balanced " .There are times American 's rights to free speech need to be more examined and restricted when major media outlets are owned by very powerful foreign businessmen who very likely have the interests of their own country and own foreign-based empires first and foremost , before any consideration of what is good for the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd take anything they write with a bag-load of rock-salt.
They have highly intelligent writers, lawyers and paid-think-tank' personnel who do nothing than think of ways to package conservative thought to sound acceptable and logical to the masses.While I usually judge an article on its merits -- when it comes to anything by owned by Murdock -- I'm immediately suspect -- as his stated mission, besides reducing the average intelligence and education level  of Americans in order to make them more 'pliable' by his heavily used and financed multi-media empire, he also has of reducing America's economic power and brain-base in order to increase the value of Australia's growing tech and IT sector -- so America will come more to rely on exported brain power from Australia.
All of their IT folks I've dealt with, are both smart and dedicated, and totally willing to follow any unethical or America-harming orders without question.
I.e. they are not brought up with American values -- (not that American values are what they used to be 30-40 years ago).It's in Murdock's interest to recreate the deregulated and 'robber-baron' environment that existed in the early 1900's that allowed capitalist employer's to heavily exploit workers while using a stick approach of little or no social safety net to enforce compliance.Murdock, Fox, and his ilk are quite 'anti-American' in their goals -- and are working their best to hold back responsible social behavior to the benefit of capitalistic greed and empire building even if it causes mass numbers of people to lose their homes and life savings (current recession being a prime example of Fox-related influence (though they were far from a 'cause', they set the stage for idiots electing idiots to loosen the reigns of government and allow unbridled lust to be rewarded and unchecked which created many horrible, exercised opportunities for abuse.It sickens me to see Fox cloak itself in the US-Flag colors -- which they strongly identified with during the Bush era and and their strong encouragement for us to waste our dollars and research in 'tilting at oil-wells' in Iraq et al.
Where now, with a change toward a progressive administration, they totally set themselves up as the anti-government station while maintaining their cloak of patriotism, and the nerve to trademark the language "Fair and Balanced".There are times American's rights to free speech need to be more examined and restricted when major media outlets are owned by very powerful foreign businessmen who very likely have the interests of their own country and own foreign-based empires first and foremost, before any consideration of what is good for the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129067</id>
	<title>dial ?? for Earth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243544160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the international phone system works very well \_because\_ there is no county code for "earth"</p><p>similarity there should be no non-sovereignty specific tlds</p><p>the current situation is untenable, it's like Iran being in charge of some of the local area codes in Utah, but replace the numbers with letters....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the international phone system works very well \ _because \ _ there is no county code for " earth " similarity there should be no non-sovereignty specific tldsthe current situation is untenable , it 's like Iran being in charge of some of the local area codes in Utah , but replace the numbers with letters... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the international phone system works very well \_because\_ there is no county code for "earth"similarity there should be no non-sovereignty specific tldsthe current situation is untenable, it's like Iran being in charge of some of the local area codes in Utah, but replace the numbers with letters....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126367</id>
	<title>ICANN is a logical choice for this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just imagine the possibility:</p><p>Ned: Phil? Hey, Phil? Phil! Phil Connors? Phil Connors, I thought that was you!<br>Phil: Hi, how you doing? Thanks for watching.<br>[Starts to walk away]<br>Ned: Hey, hey! Now, don't you tell me you don't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.<br>Phil: Not a chance.<br>Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"? "Ned the Head"? C'mon, buddy. Case Western High. Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore? Well?<br>Phil: Ned Ryerson?<br>Ned: Bing!<br>Phil: Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine the possibility : Ned : Phil ?
Hey , Phil ?
Phil ! Phil Connors ?
Phil Connors , I thought that was you ! Phil : Hi , how you doing ?
Thanks for watching .
[ Starts to walk away ] Ned : Hey , hey !
Now , do n't you tell me you do n't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.Phil : Not a chance.Ned : Ned... Ryerson. " Needlenose Ned " ?
" Ned the Head " ?
C'mon , buddy .
Case Western High .
Ned Ryerson : I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show ?
Bing ! Ned Ryerson : got the shingles real bad senior year , almost did n't graduate ?
Bing , again .
Ned Ryerson : I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore ?
Well ? Phil : Ned Ryerson ? Ned : Bing ! Phil : Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine the possibility:Ned: Phil?
Hey, Phil?
Phil! Phil Connors?
Phil Connors, I thought that was you!Phil: Hi, how you doing?
Thanks for watching.
[Starts to walk away]Ned: Hey, hey!
Now, don't you tell me you don't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.Phil: Not a chance.Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"?
"Ned the Head"?
C'mon, buddy.
Case Western High.
Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show?
Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate?
Bing, again.
Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore?
Well?Phil: Ned Ryerson?Ned: Bing!Phil: Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129485</id>
	<title>Even if it were given over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243502400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US will always control the Internet by virtue of having the biggest pornography industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US will always control the Internet by virtue of having the biggest pornography industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US will always control the Internet by virtue of having the biggest pornography industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28158247</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>loox</author>
	<datestamp>1243785120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trust me, before you want Italians to have rights to argue about the DNS system, just come to see how the Internet works in Italy.</p><p>lux</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trust me , before you want Italians to have rights to argue about the DNS system , just come to see how the Internet works in Italy.lux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trust me, before you want Italians to have rights to argue about the DNS system, just come to see how the Internet works in Italy.lux</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132489</id>
	<title>Mod summary down</title>
	<author>Morlark</author>
	<datestamp>1243516200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, I'm not sure how the parent got modded flamebait, because I have to agree with that final point. The summary is entirely content-less, to the extent that <i>*shock*</i> I actually did have to RTFA, and all I can say is that I'm not impressed. Don't get me wrong, I can see where the article is coming from, but I do have to disagree with it. The arguments it presents are not particularly compelling, so if you're having a hard time arguing against it, all that tells me is that you're really not trying.</p><p>In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that the entire insight contained within the article can be summarised in a single sentence from its first paragraph: "America's special role in managing the Internet is good for America". That's it. I'm sure that reason is good enough for America, and I do have to admit that the Internet has been kinda ok under America's control so far, and for those reasons I don't expect the situation to change any time soon.</p><p>In spite of that though, the point I'm trying to make is that TFA did not make a give a single compelling reason for why America should have control of the internet. No, "because it does already" isn't a compelling argument. And contrary to what the summary (which, to reiterate, is utter crap) claims, TFA doesn't even mention international bodies. The article was trite and weak. The summary was not a summary by any meaningful definition of the term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I 'm not sure how the parent got modded flamebait , because I have to agree with that final point .
The summary is entirely content-less , to the extent that * shock * I actually did have to RTFA , and all I can say is that I 'm not impressed .
Do n't get me wrong , I can see where the article is coming from , but I do have to disagree with it .
The arguments it presents are not particularly compelling , so if you 're having a hard time arguing against it , all that tells me is that you 're really not trying.In fact , I 'd even go so far as to say that the entire insight contained within the article can be summarised in a single sentence from its first paragraph : " America 's special role in managing the Internet is good for America " .
That 's it .
I 'm sure that reason is good enough for America , and I do have to admit that the Internet has been kinda ok under America 's control so far , and for those reasons I do n't expect the situation to change any time soon.In spite of that though , the point I 'm trying to make is that TFA did not make a give a single compelling reason for why America should have control of the internet .
No , " because it does already " is n't a compelling argument .
And contrary to what the summary ( which , to reiterate , is utter crap ) claims , TFA does n't even mention international bodies .
The article was trite and weak .
The summary was not a summary by any meaningful definition of the term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I'm not sure how the parent got modded flamebait, because I have to agree with that final point.
The summary is entirely content-less, to the extent that *shock* I actually did have to RTFA, and all I can say is that I'm not impressed.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where the article is coming from, but I do have to disagree with it.
The arguments it presents are not particularly compelling, so if you're having a hard time arguing against it, all that tells me is that you're really not trying.In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that the entire insight contained within the article can be summarised in a single sentence from its first paragraph: "America's special role in managing the Internet is good for America".
That's it.
I'm sure that reason is good enough for America, and I do have to admit that the Internet has been kinda ok under America's control so far, and for those reasons I don't expect the situation to change any time soon.In spite of that though, the point I'm trying to make is that TFA did not make a give a single compelling reason for why America should have control of the internet.
No, "because it does already" isn't a compelling argument.
And contrary to what the summary (which, to reiterate, is utter crap) claims, TFA doesn't even mention international bodies.
The article was trite and weak.
The summary was not a summary by any meaningful definition of the term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133771</id>
	<title>on the contrary</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1243524180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.</p></div><p>After reading this piece, I'm inclined to say "give up the damn DNS already, you egomaniacs".</p><p>The entire argument boils down to "we're better than everyone else, so we should rule". And you're surprised nobody likes you anymore?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading his piece , I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.After reading this piece , I 'm inclined to say " give up the damn DNS already , you egomaniacs " .The entire argument boils down to " we 're better than everyone else , so we should rule " .
And you 're surprised nobody likes you anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.After reading this piece, I'm inclined to say "give up the damn DNS already, you egomaniacs".The entire argument boils down to "we're better than everyone else, so we should rule".
And you're surprised nobody likes you anymore?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127387</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>TypoNAM</author>
	<datestamp>1243539420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times do we have to keep saying this! The World Wide Web is NOT the Internet!<br>Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is port 80 of TCP/IP (Transport Control Protocol over Internet Protocol) which carriers HTML and other content, it doesn't make it "The Internet".</p><p>You're the typical fucking moron who just registers a slashdot account and immediately starts spewing bullshit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times do we have to keep saying this !
The World Wide Web is NOT the Internet ! Hypertext Transfer Protocol ( HTTP ) is port 80 of TCP/IP ( Transport Control Protocol over Internet Protocol ) which carriers HTML and other content , it does n't make it " The Internet " .You 're the typical fucking moron who just registers a slashdot account and immediately starts spewing bullshit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times do we have to keep saying this!
The World Wide Web is NOT the Internet!Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is port 80 of TCP/IP (Transport Control Protocol over Internet Protocol) which carriers HTML and other content, it doesn't make it "The Internet".You're the typical fucking moron who just registers a slashdot account and immediately starts spewing bullshit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130451</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>3247</author>
	<datestamp>1243506120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet, along several other "undesirable" countries. Notice that despite the political climate, the US has not used DNS to take action against Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, or any other country.</p></div><p>The US is much more likely to enforce embargoes by disconnecting a countrie's domain than an international body. An international body such as the UN is much more inert.</p><p>However, ccTLDs are <i>not</i> the real problem. If everyone else agrees that an agency chosen by the Chinese government should have control over ".cn", they can simply set up another root server.</p><p>The real problem is: Who runs gTLDs such as ".com", ".net", or ".info"? The operator for these TLDs is really chosen by ICANN.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet , along several other " undesirable " countries .
Notice that despite the political climate , the US has not used DNS to take action against Iraq , Iran , China , North Korea , or any other country.The US is much more likely to enforce embargoes by disconnecting a countrie 's domain than an international body .
An international body such as the UN is much more inert.However , ccTLDs are not the real problem .
If everyone else agrees that an agency chosen by the Chinese government should have control over " .cn " , they can simply set up another root server.The real problem is : Who runs gTLDs such as " .com " , " .net " , or " .info " ?
The operator for these TLDs is really chosen by ICANN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet, along several other "undesirable" countries.
Notice that despite the political climate, the US has not used DNS to take action against Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, or any other country.The US is much more likely to enforce embargoes by disconnecting a countrie's domain than an international body.
An international body such as the UN is much more inert.However, ccTLDs are not the real problem.
If everyone else agrees that an agency chosen by the Chinese government should have control over ".cn", they can simply set up another root server.The real problem is: Who runs gTLDs such as ".com", ".net", or ".info"?
The operator for these TLDs is really chosen by ICANN.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127501</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1243539720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're an enormous stereotype.  I'm wondering if you are in fact a human cartoon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're an enormous stereotype .
I 'm wondering if you are in fact a human cartoon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're an enormous stereotype.
I'm wondering if you are in fact a human cartoon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129585</id>
	<title>Re:Speculation...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243502700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they want</i></p><p>How would you like it to work? (Also: I'm pretty sure the trademark holder can regain control of the domain they trademarked-- wasn't there a big case about that a few years ago?)</p><p><i>and let's not forget the insane anti-gabling domain grab recently.</i></p><p>Elaborate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they wantHow would you like it to work ?
( Also : I 'm pretty sure the trademark holder can regain control of the domain they trademarked-- was n't there a big case about that a few years ago ?
) and let 's not forget the insane anti-gabling domain grab recently.Elaborate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they wantHow would you like it to work?
(Also: I'm pretty sure the trademark holder can regain control of the domain they trademarked-- wasn't there a big case about that a few years ago?
)and let's not forget the insane anti-gabling domain grab recently.Elaborate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126511</id>
	<title>How awful!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Referencing isolated examples of Internet-related free-speech limitations somehow constitutes proof that America is the only country that can manage digital freedom?</p><p>We're talking about a country that can't handle a Justin Timberlake exposing an elderly lady's breast on TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Referencing isolated examples of Internet-related free-speech limitations somehow constitutes proof that America is the only country that can manage digital freedom ? We 're talking about a country that ca n't handle a Justin Timberlake exposing an elderly lady 's breast on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Referencing isolated examples of Internet-related free-speech limitations somehow constitutes proof that America is the only country that can manage digital freedom?We're talking about a country that can't handle a Justin Timberlake exposing an elderly lady's breast on TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128985</id>
	<title>Re:Is there some way to decentralize name resoluti</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243543860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Subject says it all; The very concept of name resolution would <em>seem</em> to require centralization, but I'm just praying that there's someone out there who is sufficiently smarter than me to have figured it out or sufficiently well-informed that they know of some potential solution, yet who is bored enough to be here to tell me about an alternative.</p></div><p>Well, BGP seems to work pretty well without a centralized control scheme. Perhaps each country can run its own TLD, and the TLD's of the world could just work in a peer fashion along the same lines as BGP works between ISP's.</p><p>But I do agree, stop wasting time fighting over if, when, and where control should migrate, and figure out a way to simply not rely on such control at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Subject says it all ; The very concept of name resolution would seem to require centralization , but I 'm just praying that there 's someone out there who is sufficiently smarter than me to have figured it out or sufficiently well-informed that they know of some potential solution , yet who is bored enough to be here to tell me about an alternative.Well , BGP seems to work pretty well without a centralized control scheme .
Perhaps each country can run its own TLD , and the TLD 's of the world could just work in a peer fashion along the same lines as BGP works between ISP 's.But I do agree , stop wasting time fighting over if , when , and where control should migrate , and figure out a way to simply not rely on such control at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subject says it all; The very concept of name resolution would seem to require centralization, but I'm just praying that there's someone out there who is sufficiently smarter than me to have figured it out or sufficiently well-informed that they know of some potential solution, yet who is bored enough to be here to tell me about an alternative.Well, BGP seems to work pretty well without a centralized control scheme.
Perhaps each country can run its own TLD, and the TLD's of the world could just work in a peer fashion along the same lines as BGP works between ISP's.But I do agree, stop wasting time fighting over if, when, and where control should migrate, and figure out a way to simply not rely on such control at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128849</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1243543440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also don't see why the USA shouldn't keep control of IANA. Europe just rolls its own DNS root and everything's dandy. That way we can even add our own restrictions and you add yours and we won't interfere with each other because we can't resolve anything not in our respective roots anyway.<br>
<br>
Okay, so it's a bit of a hassle to have to register with US-IANA, EU-root, Asia-root, Africa-root and a number of smaller root networks. And an internationally reachable domain becomes ten times as expensive. But that's really a small price to pay for everyone getting their cake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also do n't see why the USA should n't keep control of IANA .
Europe just rolls its own DNS root and everything 's dandy .
That way we can even add our own restrictions and you add yours and we wo n't interfere with each other because we ca n't resolve anything not in our respective roots anyway .
Okay , so it 's a bit of a hassle to have to register with US-IANA , EU-root , Asia-root , Africa-root and a number of smaller root networks .
And an internationally reachable domain becomes ten times as expensive .
But that 's really a small price to pay for everyone getting their cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also don't see why the USA shouldn't keep control of IANA.
Europe just rolls its own DNS root and everything's dandy.
That way we can even add our own restrictions and you add yours and we won't interfere with each other because we can't resolve anything not in our respective roots anyway.
Okay, so it's a bit of a hassle to have to register with US-IANA, EU-root, Asia-root, Africa-root and a number of smaller root networks.
And an internationally reachable domain becomes ten times as expensive.
But that's really a small price to pay for everyone getting their cake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128317</id>
	<title>Sure</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1243541940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you can never have a totally decentralized, as in each client on the Internet is equal, thing you can have it so there are multiple authorities at each level, each responsible for their own little slice. That's already the case with DNS at the low level. Your DNS servers are the absolute authority for your computers. Whatever they say, goes. If you don't like an answer they get from somewhere else, you can change their configuration to override that. However they are the authority only for those that choose to use them. They aren't the authority for me, I don't use them.</p><p>Now going up the chain you get to the top which is the root zone, which ICANN controls. The reason it is authoritative for most of the Internet is because it is what the root-servers.net roots trust and most DNS servers trust them. What it does is specify who is authoritative for a given domain. So for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ca it points to the CIRA's servers, as an example. What could happen is the root zone could be split. Different organizations would maintain different parts of it, and then the roots would use those to determine who is authoritative for what domain.</p><p>So the proper response to the US's control isn't to whine, it is to make your own. The EU should form EUCANN. Get that running, initially just mirroring the ICANN root zone, get your own root servers up and running that trust EUCANN. Then, contact ICANN about splitting the zone. They take the EU part, ICANN keeps the rest. The US might be amenable to that. Now repeat that process for all sorts of different regions. Have a bunch of top level organizations, each responsible for small parts of DNS space that then give their changes to others and run their own roots.</p><p>You'd end up with a system that no one person/country was in charge of. You'd also end up with a system that if one person flipped out, it wouldn't matter to the rest. Let's say that ICANN goes nuts and decides to get rid of all domains but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.us and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com. Ok fine, well the other organizations would just ignore their changes. The roots that trusted ICANN would do as they wanted, but the other roots would not. ISPs could then use the non-broken root servers. The damage could be routed around.</p><p>The problem is that's not what the international community wants. They want the US to hand over control of infrastructure they built, so that the UN or someone like that can have central control. They don't want to have a system where they have control over their area, they want to be able to control other people too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you can never have a totally decentralized , as in each client on the Internet is equal , thing you can have it so there are multiple authorities at each level , each responsible for their own little slice .
That 's already the case with DNS at the low level .
Your DNS servers are the absolute authority for your computers .
Whatever they say , goes .
If you do n't like an answer they get from somewhere else , you can change their configuration to override that .
However they are the authority only for those that choose to use them .
They are n't the authority for me , I do n't use them.Now going up the chain you get to the top which is the root zone , which ICANN controls .
The reason it is authoritative for most of the Internet is because it is what the root-servers.net roots trust and most DNS servers trust them .
What it does is specify who is authoritative for a given domain .
So for .ca it points to the CIRA 's servers , as an example .
What could happen is the root zone could be split .
Different organizations would maintain different parts of it , and then the roots would use those to determine who is authoritative for what domain.So the proper response to the US 's control is n't to whine , it is to make your own .
The EU should form EUCANN .
Get that running , initially just mirroring the ICANN root zone , get your own root servers up and running that trust EUCANN .
Then , contact ICANN about splitting the zone .
They take the EU part , ICANN keeps the rest .
The US might be amenable to that .
Now repeat that process for all sorts of different regions .
Have a bunch of top level organizations , each responsible for small parts of DNS space that then give their changes to others and run their own roots.You 'd end up with a system that no one person/country was in charge of .
You 'd also end up with a system that if one person flipped out , it would n't matter to the rest .
Let 's say that ICANN goes nuts and decides to get rid of all domains but .us and .com .
Ok fine , well the other organizations would just ignore their changes .
The roots that trusted ICANN would do as they wanted , but the other roots would not .
ISPs could then use the non-broken root servers .
The damage could be routed around.The problem is that 's not what the international community wants .
They want the US to hand over control of infrastructure they built , so that the UN or someone like that can have central control .
They do n't want to have a system where they have control over their area , they want to be able to control other people too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you can never have a totally decentralized, as in each client on the Internet is equal, thing you can have it so there are multiple authorities at each level, each responsible for their own little slice.
That's already the case with DNS at the low level.
Your DNS servers are the absolute authority for your computers.
Whatever they say, goes.
If you don't like an answer they get from somewhere else, you can change their configuration to override that.
However they are the authority only for those that choose to use them.
They aren't the authority for me, I don't use them.Now going up the chain you get to the top which is the root zone, which ICANN controls.
The reason it is authoritative for most of the Internet is because it is what the root-servers.net roots trust and most DNS servers trust them.
What it does is specify who is authoritative for a given domain.
So for .ca it points to the CIRA's servers, as an example.
What could happen is the root zone could be split.
Different organizations would maintain different parts of it, and then the roots would use those to determine who is authoritative for what domain.So the proper response to the US's control isn't to whine, it is to make your own.
The EU should form EUCANN.
Get that running, initially just mirroring the ICANN root zone, get your own root servers up and running that trust EUCANN.
Then, contact ICANN about splitting the zone.
They take the EU part, ICANN keeps the rest.
The US might be amenable to that.
Now repeat that process for all sorts of different regions.
Have a bunch of top level organizations, each responsible for small parts of DNS space that then give their changes to others and run their own roots.You'd end up with a system that no one person/country was in charge of.
You'd also end up with a system that if one person flipped out, it wouldn't matter to the rest.
Let's say that ICANN goes nuts and decides to get rid of all domains but .us and .com.
Ok fine, well the other organizations would just ignore their changes.
The roots that trusted ICANN would do as they wanted, but the other roots would not.
ISPs could then use the non-broken root servers.
The damage could be routed around.The problem is that's not what the international community wants.
They want the US to hand over control of infrastructure they built, so that the UN or someone like that can have central control.
They don't want to have a system where they have control over their area, they want to be able to control other people too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127809</id>
	<title>Drivel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243540620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A self consuming American perspective.<br>The idea that American style freedom of speech is somehow superior to other G20's freedom of speech is laughable in the post Bush era, with the potential exception of the UK.<br>Let's not forget that the Americans invented the internet as a military tool and likely continue to see it that way.  The pentagon has surely already considered what a great power total control of the internet would be during a time of war.  This is why they will keep the status quo.  Besides, we've already seen amero-centric management of the internet -- what with no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.XXX and patriot act-esque snooping of plenty of my otherwise private data.  Also this author's credibility is skeptical -- exactly what censorship has Canada enacted over the net?  Great research indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A self consuming American perspective.The idea that American style freedom of speech is somehow superior to other G20 's freedom of speech is laughable in the post Bush era , with the potential exception of the UK.Let 's not forget that the Americans invented the internet as a military tool and likely continue to see it that way .
The pentagon has surely already considered what a great power total control of the internet would be during a time of war .
This is why they will keep the status quo .
Besides , we 've already seen amero-centric management of the internet -- what with no .XXX and patriot act-esque snooping of plenty of my otherwise private data .
Also this author 's credibility is skeptical -- exactly what censorship has Canada enacted over the net ?
Great research indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A self consuming American perspective.The idea that American style freedom of speech is somehow superior to other G20's freedom of speech is laughable in the post Bush era, with the potential exception of the UK.Let's not forget that the Americans invented the internet as a military tool and likely continue to see it that way.
The pentagon has surely already considered what a great power total control of the internet would be during a time of war.
This is why they will keep the status quo.
Besides, we've already seen amero-centric management of the internet -- what with no .XXX and patriot act-esque snooping of plenty of my otherwise private data.
Also this author's credibility is skeptical -- exactly what censorship has Canada enacted over the net?
Great research indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126795</id>
	<title>So what it boils down to is american selfinterests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243537680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards</p></div><p>So the americans want to keep control of the internet in order to keep rights that are only upheld within their country. Since the americans  don't apply these rights elsewhere - (a small thing called sovereignty) their desires to retain control of the internet are merely selfish.
</p><p>
As it is, <b>every</b> country wants to do exactly this: control the internet for their own purposes - just because the americans got there first is no reason why the situation should continue as it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online , we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standardsSo the americans want to keep control of the internet in order to keep rights that are only upheld within their country .
Since the americans do n't apply these rights elsewhere - ( a small thing called sovereignty ) their desires to retain control of the internet are merely selfish .
As it is , every country wants to do exactly this : control the internet for their own purposes - just because the americans got there first is no reason why the situation should continue as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standardsSo the americans want to keep control of the internet in order to keep rights that are only upheld within their country.
Since the americans  don't apply these rights elsewhere - (a small thing called sovereignty) their desires to retain control of the internet are merely selfish.
As it is, every country wants to do exactly this: control the internet for their own purposes - just because the americans got there first is no reason why the situation should continue as it is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128327</id>
	<title>For Those in Favor of Ceding USA DNS Control:</title>
	<author>director\_mr</author>
	<datestamp>1243542000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To make an argument toward changing a policy that has worked over a long period of time, you need (at least in my opinion) to have a really good case in your favor. <br> <br>First, you need to have a real problem that creates an issue for a large percentage of the users that cannot be addressed in any other way but by changing that policy. <br> <br>Second, your policy has to be able to solve the problem in an effective and efficient way.  <br> <br>Third,  you need to have a new policy that would address this real problem in a way that doesn't create its own real issues that could affect other percentages of users in a problematic way.  I am not convinced ceding US control of DNS to an international body meets any of the 3 criteria (let alone all 3) I have for changing a policy.  If any of you disagree with me, could you address my 3 areas of concern?  Thanks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To make an argument toward changing a policy that has worked over a long period of time , you need ( at least in my opinion ) to have a really good case in your favor .
First , you need to have a real problem that creates an issue for a large percentage of the users that can not be addressed in any other way but by changing that policy .
Second , your policy has to be able to solve the problem in an effective and efficient way .
Third , you need to have a new policy that would address this real problem in a way that does n't create its own real issues that could affect other percentages of users in a problematic way .
I am not convinced ceding US control of DNS to an international body meets any of the 3 criteria ( let alone all 3 ) I have for changing a policy .
If any of you disagree with me , could you address my 3 areas of concern ?
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To make an argument toward changing a policy that has worked over a long period of time, you need (at least in my opinion) to have a really good case in your favor.
First, you need to have a real problem that creates an issue for a large percentage of the users that cannot be addressed in any other way but by changing that policy.
Second, your policy has to be able to solve the problem in an effective and efficient way.
Third,  you need to have a new policy that would address this real problem in a way that doesn't create its own real issues that could affect other percentages of users in a problematic way.
I am not convinced ceding US control of DNS to an international body meets any of the 3 criteria (let alone all 3) I have for changing a policy.
If any of you disagree with me, could you address my 3 areas of concern?
Thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126861</id>
	<title>Leave it! it's not broken, why fix it?</title>
	<author>Frippet</author>
	<datestamp>1243537860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone correct me if I'm wrong, was the internet not designed, developed and 'released' through the US Department of National Defense and Universities?  If it wasn't for them, we probably would not have it.  The US has had control of the internet since it's inception and appears to be working pretty good the way it is being managed now.  Leave it the way it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone correct me if I 'm wrong , was the internet not designed , developed and 'released ' through the US Department of National Defense and Universities ?
If it was n't for them , we probably would not have it .
The US has had control of the internet since it 's inception and appears to be working pretty good the way it is being managed now .
Leave it the way it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone correct me if I'm wrong, was the internet not designed, developed and 'released' through the US Department of National Defense and Universities?
If it wasn't for them, we probably would not have it.
The US has had control of the internet since it's inception and appears to be working pretty good the way it is being managed now.
Leave it the way it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130571</id>
	<title>No good deed goes unpunished</title>
	<author>docbrody</author>
	<datestamp>1243506660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sort of feel like: Wow, the US develops and pays for this cool new thing called the Internet.  They open it up to the world and do at least a pretty good job of not being too political about it.  It catches on, becomes wildly popular, and now it appears that many in the rest of the world resent them for it.  Seems like a classic case of "no good deed goes unpunished"</p><p>Mod me a troll if you disagree, but I am genuinely interested in hearing the counter argument.  I'm not being flip.  I really would like to hear what people have to say.  Even if they were doing a really really awful job and being super political, etc, why should they give up control of their own innovation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of feel like : Wow , the US develops and pays for this cool new thing called the Internet .
They open it up to the world and do at least a pretty good job of not being too political about it .
It catches on , becomes wildly popular , and now it appears that many in the rest of the world resent them for it .
Seems like a classic case of " no good deed goes unpunished " Mod me a troll if you disagree , but I am genuinely interested in hearing the counter argument .
I 'm not being flip .
I really would like to hear what people have to say .
Even if they were doing a really really awful job and being super political , etc , why should they give up control of their own innovation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of feel like: Wow, the US develops and pays for this cool new thing called the Internet.
They open it up to the world and do at least a pretty good job of not being too political about it.
It catches on, becomes wildly popular, and now it appears that many in the rest of the world resent them for it.
Seems like a classic case of "no good deed goes unpunished"Mod me a troll if you disagree, but I am genuinely interested in hearing the counter argument.
I'm not being flip.
I really would like to hear what people have to say.
Even if they were doing a really really awful job and being super political, etc, why should they give up control of their own innovation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127245</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>DigitalPasture</author>
	<datestamp>1243539000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, looked at some of his previous posts... He's like that in most every one.  Good stuff if you need a laugh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , looked at some of his previous posts... He 's like that in most every one .
Good stuff if you need a laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, looked at some of his previous posts... He's like that in most every one.
Good stuff if you need a laugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129207</id>
	<title>Re:Big Assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243501440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironicly you just pointed out the benefit.  Those acts and attempts were found unconstitutional.  So dispite attempts to do massive censoring they have not been allowed to take root.  This is if anything an excellent arguement for the US maintaining control over it.  Would any other governing body or international group have the ability to block some censoring attempt?  That is the hard question, at least with the US its one that has already been answered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironicly you just pointed out the benefit .
Those acts and attempts were found unconstitutional .
So dispite attempts to do massive censoring they have not been allowed to take root .
This is if anything an excellent arguement for the US maintaining control over it .
Would any other governing body or international group have the ability to block some censoring attempt ?
That is the hard question , at least with the US its one that has already been answered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironicly you just pointed out the benefit.
Those acts and attempts were found unconstitutional.
So dispite attempts to do massive censoring they have not been allowed to take root.
This is if anything an excellent arguement for the US maintaining control over it.
Would any other governing body or international group have the ability to block some censoring attempt?
That is the hard question, at least with the US its one that has already been answered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130251</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243505340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OH SWEET JESUS YOU MEAN A COMPANY COMPLIED WITH THE LAW OF THE NATION IN WHICH IT IS DOING BUSINESS?  STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!</p><p>seriously, shut the fuck up about yahoo.  you have a problem with china, take it to china.  if you have a problem with a company doing business in china, yahoo is not the place you would want to start.  there's countries that bring a lot more money in to china, and ultimately it's the money that keeps the nation running.<br>You, sir, are a causehead, and like all causeheads you are completely oblivious to the greater reality of things around you and instead concentrate entirely and solely on headline-grabbing newsbites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OH SWEET JESUS YOU MEAN A COMPANY COMPLIED WITH THE LAW OF THE NATION IN WHICH IT IS DOING BUSINESS ?
STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES ! seriously , shut the fuck up about yahoo .
you have a problem with china , take it to china .
if you have a problem with a company doing business in china , yahoo is not the place you would want to start .
there 's countries that bring a lot more money in to china , and ultimately it 's the money that keeps the nation running.You , sir , are a causehead , and like all causeheads you are completely oblivious to the greater reality of things around you and instead concentrate entirely and solely on headline-grabbing newsbites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OH SWEET JESUS YOU MEAN A COMPANY COMPLIED WITH THE LAW OF THE NATION IN WHICH IT IS DOING BUSINESS?
STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!seriously, shut the fuck up about yahoo.
you have a problem with china, take it to china.
if you have a problem with a company doing business in china, yahoo is not the place you would want to start.
there's countries that bring a lot more money in to china, and ultimately it's the money that keeps the nation running.You, sir, are a causehead, and like all causeheads you are completely oblivious to the greater reality of things around you and instead concentrate entirely and solely on headline-grabbing newsbites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28134997</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1243534380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...It is a common resource, and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world...</p><p>The difference is that the air was not invented by the United States, but the Internet was and it was paid for by the American taxpayers. Just because we let the whole world use it does not mean we no longer own it. The same can be said for the GPS system. It is used by and has become a common resource to the whole world and there have been some who have advocated to turn it over to some international control as well. Google Earth and other Google services are used all over the planet. I would not be surprised to see the same crowd that wants to wrest Internet control from the US also advocate this divestiture to international control for Google and possibly other US originated services from which the whole world benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...It is a common resource , and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world...The difference is that the air was not invented by the United States , but the Internet was and it was paid for by the American taxpayers .
Just because we let the whole world use it does not mean we no longer own it .
The same can be said for the GPS system .
It is used by and has become a common resource to the whole world and there have been some who have advocated to turn it over to some international control as well .
Google Earth and other Google services are used all over the planet .
I would not be surprised to see the same crowd that wants to wrest Internet control from the US also advocate this divestiture to international control for Google and possibly other US originated services from which the whole world benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...It is a common resource, and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world...The difference is that the air was not invented by the United States, but the Internet was and it was paid for by the American taxpayers.
Just because we let the whole world use it does not mean we no longer own it.
The same can be said for the GPS system.
It is used by and has become a common resource to the whole world and there have been some who have advocated to turn it over to some international control as well.
Google Earth and other Google services are used all over the planet.
I would not be surprised to see the same crowd that wants to wrest Internet control from the US also advocate this divestiture to international control for Google and possibly other US originated services from which the whole world benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131137</id>
	<title>Re:DNS Should be in everyones hands</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1243509240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that the US has some magical power over DNS is so silly as to make anyone espousing the idea sound like a complete idiot.</p><p>If you don't want to use our DNS servers then DO NOT USE THEM.  This should be so fucking simple that even a European should understand it.</p><p>There is absolutely nothing at all stopping the UN from creating a DNS committee, setting up DNS servers and asking ISPs to switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that the US has some magical power over DNS is so silly as to make anyone espousing the idea sound like a complete idiot.If you do n't want to use our DNS servers then DO NOT USE THEM .
This should be so fucking simple that even a European should understand it.There is absolutely nothing at all stopping the UN from creating a DNS committee , setting up DNS servers and asking ISPs to switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that the US has some magical power over DNS is so silly as to make anyone espousing the idea sound like a complete idiot.If you don't want to use our DNS servers then DO NOT USE THEM.
This should be so fucking simple that even a European should understand it.There is absolutely nothing at all stopping the UN from creating a DNS committee, setting up DNS servers and asking ISPs to switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126739</id>
	<title>So roll your own....</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1243537560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. If as some of the folks outside of the USA claim, you have built and paid for your own infrastructure, then you're quite capable of creating your own standards and software just like the Americans did with their own money and brains.

    Arent' you?

All you're really saying by asking for international governance is, "It's great. I don't feel like doing the work to get it. Gimme the thing now."

Asking for it to be turned over to a consortium (i.e. and "international" body) without even th suggestion payment of any kind sort of takes gall to a new level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
If as some of the folks outside of the USA claim , you have built and paid for your own infrastructure , then you 're quite capable of creating your own standards and software just like the Americans did with their own money and brains .
Arent ' you ?
All you 're really saying by asking for international governance is , " It 's great .
I do n't feel like doing the work to get it .
Gim me the thing now .
" Asking for it to be turned over to a consortium ( i.e .
and " international " body ) without even th suggestion payment of any kind sort of takes gall to a new level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
If as some of the folks outside of the USA claim, you have built and paid for your own infrastructure, then you're quite capable of creating your own standards and software just like the Americans did with their own money and brains.
Arent' you?
All you're really saying by asking for international governance is, "It's great.
I don't feel like doing the work to get it.
Gimme the thing now.
"

Asking for it to be turned over to a consortium (i.e.
and "international" body) without even th suggestion payment of any kind sort of takes gall to a new level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127715</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>MattXVI</author>
	<datestamp>1243540260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may be too young to remember this, but the internet predates the world wide web. By a considerable amount!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be too young to remember this , but the internet predates the world wide web .
By a considerable amount !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be too young to remember this, but the internet predates the world wide web.
By a considerable amount!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132021</id>
	<title>Re:Speculation...</title>
	<author>ravenshrike</author>
	<datestamp>1243513740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Soo, if whatever governing body violates those terms are the US marines allowed to storm the facilities?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soo , if whatever governing body violates those terms are the US marines allowed to storm the facilities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soo, if whatever governing body violates those terms are the US marines allowed to storm the facilities?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126895</id>
	<title>Re:Speculation...</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1243537980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As far as the "US has never done anything bad with domain names" thing that is bull. The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they want</p></div><p>Please tell me how it should work?  Should we allocate names based on who the govt \_thinks\_ should have them?  You want a name, register it.  Already taken, buy it.  Don't have the cash, get a different one.  Honestly how is this broken?  What moral superiority is going to look at each name and decide who gets it, fairly?  What about nissan.com?  Does the guy with the last name Nissan get the domain because he got it on a first come first served basis (and he has a reason to want to and rightfully own a trademarked name)?  Or should someone step in and give the thing to the big multinational corporation, because that would be "fair"?<br> <br>Please enlighten us to a better system?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as the " US has never done anything bad with domain names " thing that is bull .
The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they wantPlease tell me how it should work ?
Should we allocate names based on who the govt \ _thinks \ _ should have them ?
You want a name , register it .
Already taken , buy it .
Do n't have the cash , get a different one .
Honestly how is this broken ?
What moral superiority is going to look at each name and decide who gets it , fairly ?
What about nissan.com ?
Does the guy with the last name Nissan get the domain because he got it on a first come first served basis ( and he has a reason to want to and rightfully own a trademarked name ) ?
Or should someone step in and give the thing to the big multinational corporation , because that would be " fair " ?
Please enlighten us to a better system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as the "US has never done anything bad with domain names" thing that is bull.
The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they wantPlease tell me how it should work?
Should we allocate names based on who the govt \_thinks\_ should have them?
You want a name, register it.
Already taken, buy it.
Don't have the cash, get a different one.
Honestly how is this broken?
What moral superiority is going to look at each name and decide who gets it, fairly?
What about nissan.com?
Does the guy with the last name Nissan get the domain because he got it on a first come first served basis (and he has a reason to want to and rightfully own a trademarked name)?
Or should someone step in and give the thing to the big multinational corporation, because that would be "fair"?
Please enlighten us to a better system?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551</id>
	<title>Is there some way to decentralize name resolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subject says it all; The very concept of name resolution would <em>seem</em> to require centralization, but I'm just praying that there's someone out there who is sufficiently smarter than me to have figured it out or sufficiently well-informed that they know of some potential solution, yet who is bored enough to be here to tell me about an alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subject says it all ; The very concept of name resolution would seem to require centralization , but I 'm just praying that there 's someone out there who is sufficiently smarter than me to have figured it out or sufficiently well-informed that they know of some potential solution , yet who is bored enough to be here to tell me about an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subject says it all; The very concept of name resolution would seem to require centralization, but I'm just praying that there's someone out there who is sufficiently smarter than me to have figured it out or sufficiently well-informed that they know of some potential solution, yet who is bored enough to be here to tell me about an alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130217</id>
	<title>Mistakes</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1243505280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think Canada has a blacklist for internet sites. Or nobody has written a news article about it. Plus I thought your request was passed from dns server to dns server until one found what you needed and the data moved back up the chain. I don't think it is possible to censor the dns system. People would just point themselves to a different dns server.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Canada has a blacklist for internet sites .
Or nobody has written a news article about it .
Plus I thought your request was passed from dns server to dns server until one found what you needed and the data moved back up the chain .
I do n't think it is possible to censor the dns system .
People would just point themselves to a different dns server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Canada has a blacklist for internet sites.
Or nobody has written a news article about it.
Plus I thought your request was passed from dns server to dns server until one found what you needed and the data moved back up the chain.
I don't think it is possible to censor the dns system.
People would just point themselves to a different dns server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128519</id>
	<title>Re:Big Assumption</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1243542480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an interesting example.  In trying to show how the US wants to censor, you give 3 pieces of legislation that did not succeed because they did not pass constitutional muster.  3 examples of things politicians wanted to see happen, but upon closer examination, before they had a chance to get implemented, cooler, more sane heads prevailed.</p><p>Politicians might want to censor this or that, but that doesn't mean their proposals get put into law.  That's sort of the point we're talking about here, that the US does not go out and immediately censor something, it takes a lot of discussion and convincing to advance something like that.  I'm not saying that won't change in the next few years with our RIAA friends doing the deciding, or with the lovely confidential copyright and trade agreements being worked on, but the past has shown that, with the possible exception of the Patriot Act, the US doesn't have a habit of blindly rushing into legislation that's going to result in censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an interesting example .
In trying to show how the US wants to censor , you give 3 pieces of legislation that did not succeed because they did not pass constitutional muster .
3 examples of things politicians wanted to see happen , but upon closer examination , before they had a chance to get implemented , cooler , more sane heads prevailed.Politicians might want to censor this or that , but that does n't mean their proposals get put into law .
That 's sort of the point we 're talking about here , that the US does not go out and immediately censor something , it takes a lot of discussion and convincing to advance something like that .
I 'm not saying that wo n't change in the next few years with our RIAA friends doing the deciding , or with the lovely confidential copyright and trade agreements being worked on , but the past has shown that , with the possible exception of the Patriot Act , the US does n't have a habit of blindly rushing into legislation that 's going to result in censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an interesting example.
In trying to show how the US wants to censor, you give 3 pieces of legislation that did not succeed because they did not pass constitutional muster.
3 examples of things politicians wanted to see happen, but upon closer examination, before they had a chance to get implemented, cooler, more sane heads prevailed.Politicians might want to censor this or that, but that doesn't mean their proposals get put into law.
That's sort of the point we're talking about here, that the US does not go out and immediately censor something, it takes a lot of discussion and convincing to advance something like that.
I'm not saying that won't change in the next few years with our RIAA friends doing the deciding, or with the lovely confidential copyright and trade agreements being worked on, but the past has shown that, with the possible exception of the Patriot Act, the US doesn't have a habit of blindly rushing into legislation that's going to result in censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130203</id>
	<title>Re:DNS has lost much of its importance</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1243505220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Alexa's top 20 sites have names that have no real connection to the business. They're just rarely used words that lack much meaning in everyday life (Google, Amazon).</p></div><p>What are you talking about?  The name "Google" has everything to do with Google's business: they index about 10^100 pages and serve 10^100 ads per second.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alexa 's top 20 sites have names that have no real connection to the business .
They 're just rarely used words that lack much meaning in everyday life ( Google , Amazon ) .What are you talking about ?
The name " Google " has everything to do with Google 's business : they index about 10 ^ 100 pages and serve 10 ^ 100 ads per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alexa's top 20 sites have names that have no real connection to the business.
They're just rarely used words that lack much meaning in everyday life (Google, Amazon).What are you talking about?
The name "Google" has everything to do with Google's business: they index about 10^100 pages and serve 10^100 ads per second.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28134859</id>
	<title>Not much of an Argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243533180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only argument really there is "other countries tend to censor, if given to an international organisation the chances of this happening will increase"<br>
Not much of an argument really when the PATRIOT Act allows them to tap computer anywhere between A and B, and the fact that Net Neutrality is apparently contentious enough to even be debated...
It's not a very firm argument considering what else the Americans do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only argument really there is " other countries tend to censor , if given to an international organisation the chances of this happening will increase " Not much of an argument really when the PATRIOT Act allows them to tap computer anywhere between A and B , and the fact that Net Neutrality is apparently contentious enough to even be debated.. . It 's not a very firm argument considering what else the Americans do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only argument really there is "other countries tend to censor, if given to an international organisation the chances of this happening will increase"
Not much of an argument really when the PATRIOT Act allows them to tap computer anywhere between A and B, and the fact that Net Neutrality is apparently contentious enough to even be debated...
It's not a very firm argument considering what else the Americans do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128505</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243542420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, there is one thing to be said about US control of DNS. Any and all attempts to change the system will be met with years of suits, counter-suits and legal quagmires of the n^th degree before such changes can even be discussed.</p><p>That is of course, when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.</p></div><p>Horseshit. Read up on the history of DNS. The only major DNS decision that affected a specific country was back in the early 90's when IP's started running a little short due to too many large blocks having previously been given out. To US companies.<br>Those companies were forced to do a full accounting of their IP scopes and most of them ended up giving back large chunks of IP space, and in the process spent a lot of money on network migration and redesign.</p><p>I'd say based on the track record the current system has already proved itself to be impartial, and at the direct expense of American interests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is one thing to be said about US control of DNS .
Any and all attempts to change the system will be met with years of suits , counter-suits and legal quagmires of the n ^ th degree before such changes can even be discussed.That is of course , when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.Horseshit .
Read up on the history of DNS .
The only major DNS decision that affected a specific country was back in the early 90 's when IP 's started running a little short due to too many large blocks having previously been given out .
To US companies.Those companies were forced to do a full accounting of their IP scopes and most of them ended up giving back large chunks of IP space , and in the process spent a lot of money on network migration and redesign.I 'd say based on the track record the current system has already proved itself to be impartial , and at the direct expense of American interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is one thing to be said about US control of DNS.
Any and all attempts to change the system will be met with years of suits, counter-suits and legal quagmires of the n^th degree before such changes can even be discussed.That is of course, when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.Horseshit.
Read up on the history of DNS.
The only major DNS decision that affected a specific country was back in the early 90's when IP's started running a little short due to too many large blocks having previously been given out.
To US companies.Those companies were forced to do a full accounting of their IP scopes and most of them ended up giving back large chunks of IP space, and in the process spent a lot of money on network migration and redesign.I'd say based on the track record the current system has already proved itself to be impartial, and at the direct expense of American interests.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127631</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1243540080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"We would make better owners of your property than you."?</p></div></blockquote><p>The very fact that you think this is about property is why you're unfit to judge it.  It's about community, and shared guardianship.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We would make better owners of your property than you .
" ? The very fact that you think this is about property is why you 're unfit to judge it .
It 's about community , and shared guardianship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We would make better owners of your property than you.
"?The very fact that you think this is about property is why you're unfit to judge it.
It's about community, and shared guardianship.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127039</id>
	<title>Seems easy enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243538400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Political questions like "Who is the rightful government of Pakistan?" are settled by the U.S. Department of State.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nope, I can't see anything wrong here.  Everything is as it should be.  Move along, citizens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Political questions like " Who is the rightful government of Pakistan ?
" are settled by the U.S. Department of State.Nope , I ca n't see anything wrong here .
Everything is as it should be .
Move along , citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Political questions like "Who is the rightful government of Pakistan?
" are settled by the U.S. Department of State.Nope, I can't see anything wrong here.
Everything is as it should be.
Move along, citizens.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28140307</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243619520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I am an American and appreciate our freedom of speech but, who says that freedom of speech is right?  We here have declared it to be a founding cornerstone to our country but look at some of the problems it causes.  In all fairness censorship comes with its own set of problems but it may be right for those countries that practice it.  Maybe that country needs to maintain its populations morality or order at the expense of comparing the leader of the country to Hitler.  Saying the world does not need censorship is a horribly skewed opinion towards the beliefs in the United States and the fact that we can't see that is what other countries hate so much about us.  Letting the world governments have their say in a worldwide forum with procedures previously agreed on would be the proper way to show the world its not all about us instead of us saying no we like it our way yours is stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I am an American and appreciate our freedom of speech but , who says that freedom of speech is right ?
We here have declared it to be a founding cornerstone to our country but look at some of the problems it causes .
In all fairness censorship comes with its own set of problems but it may be right for those countries that practice it .
Maybe that country needs to maintain its populations morality or order at the expense of comparing the leader of the country to Hitler .
Saying the world does not need censorship is a horribly skewed opinion towards the beliefs in the United States and the fact that we ca n't see that is what other countries hate so much about us .
Letting the world governments have their say in a worldwide forum with procedures previously agreed on would be the proper way to show the world its not all about us instead of us saying no we like it our way yours is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I am an American and appreciate our freedom of speech but, who says that freedom of speech is right?
We here have declared it to be a founding cornerstone to our country but look at some of the problems it causes.
In all fairness censorship comes with its own set of problems but it may be right for those countries that practice it.
Maybe that country needs to maintain its populations morality or order at the expense of comparing the leader of the country to Hitler.
Saying the world does not need censorship is a horribly skewed opinion towards the beliefs in the United States and the fact that we can't see that is what other countries hate so much about us.
Letting the world governments have their say in a worldwide forum with procedures previously agreed on would be the proper way to show the world its not all about us instead of us saying no we like it our way yours is stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28138895</id>
	<title>Come on!!!</title>
	<author>Ractive</author>
	<datestamp>1243612200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article is totally chauvinist.
<br> <br>

From the article:<blockquote><div><p>Political questions like "Who is the rightful government of Pakistan, and therefore the rightful owner of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pk domain?" are settled by the U.S. Department of State.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yeah! a departament of state of one nation is the authority  to decide who is the righful government of another nation.
<br>
Contrary to what's stated in the summary, the article is a great reference to actually push the internationalization of the internet.
<br>
Just for starters, remember America is a continent, not a country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is totally chauvinist .
From the article : Political questions like " Who is the rightful government of Pakistan , and therefore the rightful owner of the .pk domain ?
" are settled by the U.S. Department of State .
Yeah ! a departament of state of one nation is the authority to decide who is the righful government of another nation .
Contrary to what 's stated in the summary , the article is a great reference to actually push the internationalization of the internet .
Just for starters , remember America is a continent , not a country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is totally chauvinist.
From the article:Political questions like "Who is the rightful government of Pakistan, and therefore the rightful owner of the .pk domain?
" are settled by the U.S. Department of State.
Yeah! a departament of state of one nation is the authority  to decide who is the righful government of another nation.
Contrary to what's stated in the summary, the article is a great reference to actually push the internationalization of the internet.
Just for starters, remember America is a continent, not a country.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129563</id>
	<title>Re:what about .sex and .xxx???</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1243502640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If USA were truly pro-free speech they would of permitted the implementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sex and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx namespaces.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The US <em>does</em> permit the implementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sex and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx namespaces.  IANA simply <em>hasn't</em> done it, because ICANN has decided they don't want those namespaces within <strong>their</strong> big namespace.  But <em>you</em> can set one up <em>today</em> and you won't be breaking any laws.  Go for it.
</p><p>
After that, negotiate with a root server to make you the authority for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx.  If none of them will do it or you don't happen to like their terms, you can even start your own root server.
</p><p>
After that, then you just have to <em>persuade</em> people to use your service.  Persuade.  Words like "permit" and "prohibit" don't apply here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If USA were truly pro-free speech they would of permitted the implementation of .sex and .xxx namespaces .
The US does permit the implementation of .sex and .xxx namespaces .
IANA simply has n't done it , because ICANN has decided they do n't want those namespaces within their big namespace .
But you can set one up today and you wo n't be breaking any laws .
Go for it .
After that , negotiate with a root server to make you the authority for .xxx .
If none of them will do it or you do n't happen to like their terms , you can even start your own root server .
After that , then you just have to persuade people to use your service .
Persuade. Words like " permit " and " prohibit " do n't apply here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If USA were truly pro-free speech they would of permitted the implementation of .sex and .xxx namespaces.
The US does permit the implementation of .sex and .xxx namespaces.
IANA simply hasn't done it, because ICANN has decided they don't want those namespaces within their big namespace.
But you can set one up today and you won't be breaking any laws.
Go for it.
After that, negotiate with a root server to make you the authority for .xxx.
If none of them will do it or you don't happen to like their terms, you can even start your own root server.
After that, then you just have to persuade people to use your service.
Persuade.  Words like "permit" and "prohibit" don't apply here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</id>
	<title>Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea. It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.</p><p>If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US? No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea .
It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea.
It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US?
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128965</id>
	<title>Re:Big Assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243543800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key word in your statement is "tried". The US is by no means some holy, unblemished paragon of free speech, but the fact is no such thing exists. What the country does have is constitutionally defined tradition of free speech and leaders who are at least somewhat beholden to the people. Contrast that with a speech-restricting international body (e.g. the UN's resolution urging "anti-bigotry" censorship) or a non-accountable NGO.</p><p>When you accept that the best option in this situation really is just the lesser evil, the US comes out on top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word in your statement is " tried " .
The US is by no means some holy , unblemished paragon of free speech , but the fact is no such thing exists .
What the country does have is constitutionally defined tradition of free speech and leaders who are at least somewhat beholden to the people .
Contrast that with a speech-restricting international body ( e.g .
the UN 's resolution urging " anti-bigotry " censorship ) or a non-accountable NGO.When you accept that the best option in this situation really is just the lesser evil , the US comes out on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word in your statement is "tried".
The US is by no means some holy, unblemished paragon of free speech, but the fact is no such thing exists.
What the country does have is constitutionally defined tradition of free speech and leaders who are at least somewhat beholden to the people.
Contrast that with a speech-restricting international body (e.g.
the UN's resolution urging "anti-bigotry" censorship) or a non-accountable NGO.When you accept that the best option in this situation really is just the lesser evil, the US comes out on top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130313</id>
	<title>The way it should be done</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1243505520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.</p><p>The way it should be handled is  each county is in charge of it's own domains, in a higherarchy sort of way.  Let me see if I can explain it clear enough.  Each country is in charge of their own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com/.gov/etc, Each would resolve to their own country specific top level domain, including the US.  TO get to another countries<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com you would add the TLD on after.  In this way, it would disperse the authority to each local government yet US would still control.</p><p>From USA I type in www.microsoft.com, another country would need to type www.microsoft.com.us, or have the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com(or what ever they want to use) registered for their country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before , and I 'll say it again.The way it should be handled is each county is in charge of it 's own domains , in a higherarchy sort of way .
Let me see if I can explain it clear enough .
Each country is in charge of their own .com/.gov/etc , Each would resolve to their own country specific top level domain , including the US .
TO get to another countries .com you would add the TLD on after .
In this way , it would disperse the authority to each local government yet US would still control.From USA I type in www.microsoft.com , another country would need to type www.microsoft.com.us , or have the .com ( or what ever they want to use ) registered for their country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before, and I'll say it again.The way it should be handled is  each county is in charge of it's own domains, in a higherarchy sort of way.
Let me see if I can explain it clear enough.
Each country is in charge of their own .com/.gov/etc, Each would resolve to their own country specific top level domain, including the US.
TO get to another countries .com you would add the TLD on after.
In this way, it would disperse the authority to each local government yet US would still control.From USA I type in www.microsoft.com, another country would need to type www.microsoft.com.us, or have the .com(or what ever they want to use) registered for their country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127895</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>parodyca</author>
	<datestamp>1243540860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, it's not. Censorship is alive and well all over the world, and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.</p></div><p>You mean like the US?
<a href="http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/2940.cfm" title="afterdawn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/2940.cfm</a> [afterdawn.com]
<a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-236255.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-236255.html</a> [cnet.com]
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_censorship\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_censorship\_in\_the\_United\_States</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's a question: if we give the UN control over the DNS system, what happens to Taiwan's TLD? You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan, they weren't allowed to compete as "Taiwan", they were "Chinese Taipei". If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide. They can block access to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tw inside their own country now, but they don't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU. That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS. And that's only the most obvious example. I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD the next time they decide to invade, by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia, or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.</p></div><p>You miss my point. My point is that even if this were true, there are enough countries with TLDs around the world of their own that anyone would be able to get a soap box without any problem using another tld. TLDs are not a free speach issue.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced. The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.</p></div><p>You give the americans far too much credit. I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites, mod chip sites, and sites like IcraveTV. The americans aren't saints by any stretch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not .
Censorship is alive and well all over the world , and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.You mean like the US ?
http : //www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/2940.cfm [ afterdawn.com ] http : //news.cnet.com/2100-1033-236255.html [ cnet.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet \ _censorship \ _in \ _the \ _United \ _States [ wikipedia.org ] Here 's a question : if we give the UN control over the DNS system , what happens to Taiwan 's TLD ?
You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan , they were n't allowed to compete as " Taiwan " , they were " Chinese Taipei " .
If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed , the first thing they 'll do is get rid of the .tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide .
They can block access to .tw inside their own country now , but they do n't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU .
That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS .
And that 's only the most obvious example .
I 'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia 's TLD the next time they decide to invade , by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia , or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.You miss my point .
My point is that even if this were true , there are enough countries with TLDs around the world of their own that anyone would be able to get a soap box without any problem using another tld .
TLDs are not a free speach issue.The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced .
The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.You give the americans far too much credit .
I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites , mod chip sites , and sites like IcraveTV .
The americans are n't saints by any stretch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not.
Censorship is alive and well all over the world, and there are many governments who would love to excercise censorship beyond their own borders.You mean like the US?
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/2940.cfm [afterdawn.com]
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-236255.html [cnet.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_censorship\_in\_the\_United\_States [wikipedia.org] Here's a question: if we give the UN control over the DNS system, what happens to Taiwan's TLD?
You only have to look at the last Olympics to know how China views Taiwan, they weren't allowed to compete as "Taiwan", they were "Chinese Taipei".
If China had a say over which TLDs are allowed, the first thing they'll do is get rid of the .tw domain so that it is effectively censored worldwide.
They can block access to .tw inside their own country now, but they don't have a way to block access to Taiwan websites inside the US or EU.
That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS.
And that's only the most obvious example.
I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD the next time they decide to invade, by claiming that Georgia is part of Russia, or maybe they would set up a new South Ossetia TLD to bolster their claim that South Ossetia is not part of Georgia.You miss my point.
My point is that even if this were true, there are enough countries with TLDs around the world of their own that anyone would be able to get a soap box without any problem using another tld.
TLDs are not a free speach issue.The only reason that it appears that censorship is not an imminent threat is because worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced.
The reason that worldwide internet censorship is not being practiced is because the US controls the DNS system.You give the americans far too much credit.
I worry about their propensity to go after gaming sites, mod chip sites, and sites like IcraveTV.
The americans aren't saints by any stretch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128127</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243541460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're partly right, the US doesn't own the internet.  The US does, however, own the DNS servers which most people on the internet <b>choose</b> to rely on.  Why does the US own them, well it was DARPA who went through the initial trouble to get the whole thing running and then it worked it's way over to the hands of the US Department of Commerce who contracted ICANN to run the whole thing.<br>
<br>
Now, why should the USDOC hand them off?  If other countries are really that worried about the US using them as some sort of club, it's actually pretty easy to setup alternative DNS servers.  As a matter of fact, if you don't like ICANN's handling of DNS, you can always turn to an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative\_DNS\_root" title="wikipedia.org">alt root</a> [wikipedia.org].  To be blunt, if the UN is really that hot to run DNS on the internet, there is nothing stopping them from setting up a set of UN alt roots and offering them to the world as an alternative to ICANN.  The competition between ICANN and the UN would probably be good overall.  But then, there I go with the boorish US, let the free market decide mantra.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're partly right , the US does n't own the internet .
The US does , however , own the DNS servers which most people on the internet choose to rely on .
Why does the US own them , well it was DARPA who went through the initial trouble to get the whole thing running and then it worked it 's way over to the hands of the US Department of Commerce who contracted ICANN to run the whole thing .
Now , why should the USDOC hand them off ?
If other countries are really that worried about the US using them as some sort of club , it 's actually pretty easy to setup alternative DNS servers .
As a matter of fact , if you do n't like ICANN 's handling of DNS , you can always turn to an alt root [ wikipedia.org ] .
To be blunt , if the UN is really that hot to run DNS on the internet , there is nothing stopping them from setting up a set of UN alt roots and offering them to the world as an alternative to ICANN .
The competition between ICANN and the UN would probably be good overall .
But then , there I go with the boorish US , let the free market decide mantra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're partly right, the US doesn't own the internet.
The US does, however, own the DNS servers which most people on the internet choose to rely on.
Why does the US own them, well it was DARPA who went through the initial trouble to get the whole thing running and then it worked it's way over to the hands of the US Department of Commerce who contracted ICANN to run the whole thing.
Now, why should the USDOC hand them off?
If other countries are really that worried about the US using them as some sort of club, it's actually pretty easy to setup alternative DNS servers.
As a matter of fact, if you don't like ICANN's handling of DNS, you can always turn to an alt root [wikipedia.org].
To be blunt, if the UN is really that hot to run DNS on the internet, there is nothing stopping them from setting up a set of UN alt roots and offering them to the world as an alternative to ICANN.
The competition between ICANN and the UN would probably be good overall.
But then, there I go with the boorish US, let the free market decide mantra.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133047</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>lucifuge31337</author>
	<datestamp>1243518960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the fact that the other parties interested in doing this can set up their own NS roots and instruct the ISPs in their country to use them.  As far as I'm concerned, everyone else is using OUR DNS infrastructure, and is free to stop participating whenever they choose.  It requires no action whatsoever by the US for someone to make that choice for their own country/state/city/business/home/individual PC.</p><p>This is one of those things that sounds like a lot bigger deal than it is until you know how it all works (in technial reality).  The whining (from those who want this) is that the system works well because it has critical mass.  People start fragmenting off, and the individual DNS "islands" have little to no value, and would be used only when people were forced to use them.</p><p>Besides, this is nothing.  It's just DNS.  Want real chaos?  Start arguing over ASN coordination and IP address allocation.  That won't happen mostly because its too obscure for most people to understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the fact that the other parties interested in doing this can set up their own NS roots and instruct the ISPs in their country to use them .
As far as I 'm concerned , everyone else is using OUR DNS infrastructure , and is free to stop participating whenever they choose .
It requires no action whatsoever by the US for someone to make that choice for their own country/state/city/business/home/individual PC.This is one of those things that sounds like a lot bigger deal than it is until you know how it all works ( in technial reality ) .
The whining ( from those who want this ) is that the system works well because it has critical mass .
People start fragmenting off , and the individual DNS " islands " have little to no value , and would be used only when people were forced to use them.Besides , this is nothing .
It 's just DNS .
Want real chaos ?
Start arguing over ASN coordination and IP address allocation .
That wo n't happen mostly because its too obscure for most people to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the fact that the other parties interested in doing this can set up their own NS roots and instruct the ISPs in their country to use them.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone else is using OUR DNS infrastructure, and is free to stop participating whenever they choose.
It requires no action whatsoever by the US for someone to make that choice for their own country/state/city/business/home/individual PC.This is one of those things that sounds like a lot bigger deal than it is until you know how it all works (in technial reality).
The whining (from those who want this) is that the system works well because it has critical mass.
People start fragmenting off, and the individual DNS "islands" have little to no value, and would be used only when people were forced to use them.Besides, this is nothing.
It's just DNS.
Want real chaos?
Start arguing over ASN coordination and IP address allocation.
That won't happen mostly because its too obscure for most people to understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127305</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243539180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me know if I've got this right.</p><p>The US shouldn't have control over what they currently do because someone feels OFFENDED by it?</p><p>I'm sorry but the US has done fine with it to this point and handing it over to a international group is very risky in both time to action and having countries with less free speech involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me know if I 've got this right.The US should n't have control over what they currently do because someone feels OFFENDED by it ? I 'm sorry but the US has done fine with it to this point and handing it over to a international group is very risky in both time to action and having countries with less free speech involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me know if I've got this right.The US shouldn't have control over what they currently do because someone feels OFFENDED by it?I'm sorry but the US has done fine with it to this point and handing it over to a international group is very risky in both time to action and having countries with less free speech involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131979</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>Fastolfe</author>
	<datestamp>1243513500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The solution is to devise &amp; implement a fully distributed DNS system where the TLD's server in each country operate in a peering setup.</p></div> </blockquote><p>How would such a thing work?  Who would decide on new gTLDs?  Who would delegate control of gTLDs?  What happens when one country disagrees with who got responsibility for some ccTLD?</p><p>While you could pretty easily come up with some sort of <em>physical</em> distributed root (and that's largely what we have today), you still have to get everyone to agree on what that root should point to, or you end up with fragmentation and different views of what should be the same tree.  IMO, you need to keep politics out of the picture as much as you can, either by making this process owned by one country, or by an international standards organization.  Distributing that authority to many countries directly opens the door for a lot of pain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is to devise &amp; implement a fully distributed DNS system where the TLD 's server in each country operate in a peering setup .
How would such a thing work ?
Who would decide on new gTLDs ?
Who would delegate control of gTLDs ?
What happens when one country disagrees with who got responsibility for some ccTLD ? While you could pretty easily come up with some sort of physical distributed root ( and that 's largely what we have today ) , you still have to get everyone to agree on what that root should point to , or you end up with fragmentation and different views of what should be the same tree .
IMO , you need to keep politics out of the picture as much as you can , either by making this process owned by one country , or by an international standards organization .
Distributing that authority to many countries directly opens the door for a lot of pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is to devise &amp; implement a fully distributed DNS system where the TLD's server in each country operate in a peering setup.
How would such a thing work?
Who would decide on new gTLDs?
Who would delegate control of gTLDs?
What happens when one country disagrees with who got responsibility for some ccTLD?While you could pretty easily come up with some sort of physical distributed root (and that's largely what we have today), you still have to get everyone to agree on what that root should point to, or you end up with fragmentation and different views of what should be the same tree.
IMO, you need to keep politics out of the picture as much as you can, either by making this process owned by one country, or by an international standards organization.
Distributing that authority to many countries directly opens the door for a lot of pain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127619</id>
	<title>You're Ignorant Or Stupid. Which s it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243540020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I checked, the World Wide Web(WWW) was not The Internet. The WWW consists of Hyper Text Markup Language(HTML) running over Hyper Text Transfer Protocol(HTTP) and nothing more. It happens to run on top of The Internet that was already in place before Lee had a clue.</p><p>The Internet is an interconnection of physical networks. These interconnected networks or Internet carry much diverse data over many protocols. Examples include Simple Mail Transfer Protocol(SMTP) without which there would be no email. There are also several Instant Messaging(IM) protocols. Files are transferred using the FTP protocol and Voice over Internet Protocol(VoIP) carries voice and video without relying on anything that Tim Berners Lee ever had anything to do with.</p><p>Simply because you are of limited experience or understanding does not make The Internet what YOU think it is. In other words; TEH INTARWEBS IS NOT THE INTERNET!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , the World Wide Web ( WWW ) was not The Internet .
The WWW consists of Hyper Text Markup Language ( HTML ) running over Hyper Text Transfer Protocol ( HTTP ) and nothing more .
It happens to run on top of The Internet that was already in place before Lee had a clue.The Internet is an interconnection of physical networks .
These interconnected networks or Internet carry much diverse data over many protocols .
Examples include Simple Mail Transfer Protocol ( SMTP ) without which there would be no email .
There are also several Instant Messaging ( IM ) protocols .
Files are transferred using the FTP protocol and Voice over Internet Protocol ( VoIP ) carries voice and video without relying on anything that Tim Berners Lee ever had anything to do with.Simply because you are of limited experience or understanding does not make The Internet what YOU think it is .
In other words ; TEH INTARWEBS IS NOT THE INTERNET !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, the World Wide Web(WWW) was not The Internet.
The WWW consists of Hyper Text Markup Language(HTML) running over Hyper Text Transfer Protocol(HTTP) and nothing more.
It happens to run on top of The Internet that was already in place before Lee had a clue.The Internet is an interconnection of physical networks.
These interconnected networks or Internet carry much diverse data over many protocols.
Examples include Simple Mail Transfer Protocol(SMTP) without which there would be no email.
There are also several Instant Messaging(IM) protocols.
Files are transferred using the FTP protocol and Voice over Internet Protocol(VoIP) carries voice and video without relying on anything that Tim Berners Lee ever had anything to do with.Simply because you are of limited experience or understanding does not make The Internet what YOU think it is.
In other words; TEH INTARWEBS IS NOT THE INTERNET!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28137263</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243604040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS. And that's only the most obvious example. I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD [...]</p></div><p>I was about to say this is bullshit, but wait... The US did the same with Irak in 2003: fuck off UN we're going anyway.</p><p>So ya, best to have the US ban Iran, North Corea and other countries in the DNS, at least we know were we are and what will happen.</p><p>God bless america!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS .
And that 's only the most obvious example .
I 'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia 's TLD [ ... ] I was about to say this is bullshit , but wait... The US did the same with Irak in 2003 : fuck off UN we 're going anyway.So ya , best to have the US ban Iran , North Corea and other countries in the DNS , at least we know were we are and what will happen.God bless america !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would change if the US gave the UN control of DNS.
And that's only the most obvious example.
I'm sure Russia would also appreciate the power if they could revoke Georgia's TLD [...]I was about to say this is bullshit, but wait... The US did the same with Irak in 2003: fuck off UN we're going anyway.So ya, best to have the US ban Iran, North Corea and other countries in the DNS, at least we know were we are and what will happen.God bless america!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128021</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>logjon</author>
	<datestamp>1243541220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>a godwin already?

also, maybe we should hand it over and let britain and australia and maybe even saudi arabia and china censor our internet for us too! great idea!</htmltext>
<tokenext>a godwin already ?
also , maybe we should hand it over and let britain and australia and maybe even saudi arabia and china censor our internet for us too !
great idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a godwin already?
also, maybe we should hand it over and let britain and australia and maybe even saudi arabia and china censor our internet for us too!
great idea!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127841</id>
	<title>Uhmmm... Does ANYONE do this?</title>
	<author>tarlss</author>
	<datestamp>1243540680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does France suddenly start regulating wine according to EU standards?

Does any government just give up valuable research apparatuses and functions for some so called 'public good'?

Even participants in the CERN program don't get a free ride.

DNS servers run on US equipment, were made by US citizens, and was paid for by the US government. What would the UN like next? Would you like control over GPS? Satellites? How about you just regulate our economy too, since much of the world relies on US-based companies.

The international community is asking the US to give up a valuable strategic resource FOR FREE. It's true that giving away things to people that need it is morally right-&#194;but you don't give away your life savings to free, right? The US already contributes billions of dollars to random foreign aid and the UN. Quite frankly, the day I think we should give up DNS is the day the UN starts subsidizing high-speed internet connections for everybody. Until that happens, you can live with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does France suddenly start regulating wine according to EU standards ?
Does any government just give up valuable research apparatuses and functions for some so called 'public good ' ?
Even participants in the CERN program do n't get a free ride .
DNS servers run on US equipment , were made by US citizens , and was paid for by the US government .
What would the UN like next ?
Would you like control over GPS ?
Satellites ? How about you just regulate our economy too , since much of the world relies on US-based companies .
The international community is asking the US to give up a valuable strategic resource FOR FREE .
It 's true that giving away things to people that need it is morally right-   but you do n't give away your life savings to free , right ?
The US already contributes billions of dollars to random foreign aid and the UN .
Quite frankly , the day I think we should give up DNS is the day the UN starts subsidizing high-speed internet connections for everybody .
Until that happens , you can live with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does France suddenly start regulating wine according to EU standards?
Does any government just give up valuable research apparatuses and functions for some so called 'public good'?
Even participants in the CERN program don't get a free ride.
DNS servers run on US equipment, were made by US citizens, and was paid for by the US government.
What would the UN like next?
Would you like control over GPS?
Satellites? How about you just regulate our economy too, since much of the world relies on US-based companies.
The international community is asking the US to give up a valuable strategic resource FOR FREE.
It's true that giving away things to people that need it is morally right-Âbut you don't give away your life savings to free, right?
The US already contributes billions of dollars to random foreign aid and the UN.
Quite frankly, the day I think we should give up DNS is the day the UN starts subsidizing high-speed internet connections for everybody.
Until that happens, you can live with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127067</id>
	<title>Got the basic facts wrong</title>
	<author>Spazmania</author>
	<datestamp>1243538520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Internet domain names (such as www.google.com) are managed hierarchically. At the top of the hierarchy is an entity called IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, operated on behalf of the Commerce Department.</em></p><p>Not correct. ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is under contract to DOC. ICANN has two components: control of the DNS root and control of the IANA. IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority deals only with numbers: IP addresses, protocol numbers, AS numbers, port numbers, etc. IANA is almost completely unrelated to the DNS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet domain names ( such as www.google.com ) are managed hierarchically .
At the top of the hierarchy is an entity called IANA , the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority , operated on behalf of the Commerce Department.Not correct .
ICANN , the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is under contract to DOC .
ICANN has two components : control of the DNS root and control of the IANA .
IANA , the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority deals only with numbers : IP addresses , protocol numbers , AS numbers , port numbers , etc .
IANA is almost completely unrelated to the DNS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet domain names (such as www.google.com) are managed hierarchically.
At the top of the hierarchy is an entity called IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, operated on behalf of the Commerce Department.Not correct.
ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is under contract to DOC.
ICANN has two components: control of the DNS root and control of the IANA.
IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority deals only with numbers: IP addresses, protocol numbers, AS numbers, port numbers, etc.
IANA is almost completely unrelated to the DNS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129421</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1243502160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US? No.</p></div><p> And in saying that you defeat your own argument.</p><p>The argument boils down to "It's currently run well, why change it?". I agree with you. If the international community had ownership and was running it well, there would be no reason to want to move it to America.</p><p>What you don't realize is that you agree with me too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US ?
No. And in saying that you defeat your own argument.The argument boils down to " It 's currently run well , why change it ? " .
I agree with you .
If the international community had ownership and was running it well , there would be no reason to want to move it to America.What you do n't realize is that you agree with me too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US?
No. And in saying that you defeat your own argument.The argument boils down to "It's currently run well, why change it?".
I agree with you.
If the international community had ownership and was running it well, there would be no reason to want to move it to America.What you don't realize is that you agree with me too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130189</id>
	<title>What's the fuss?</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243505160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing at all in the IP protocol that says that the collection of IP addresses in the current root zone are the only options. If someone thinks they can run it better, they should just set one up. It's not as if this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative\_DNS\_root" title="wikipedia.org">hasn't happened before</a> [wikipedia.org]. Yes, the current root is a fairly well entrenched monopoly, but if enough people really considered their practices unacceptable, I'm confident that an alternate root would be able to moot them fairly quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing at all in the IP protocol that says that the collection of IP addresses in the current root zone are the only options .
If someone thinks they can run it better , they should just set one up .
It 's not as if this has n't happened before [ wikipedia.org ] .
Yes , the current root is a fairly well entrenched monopoly , but if enough people really considered their practices unacceptable , I 'm confident that an alternate root would be able to moot them fairly quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing at all in the IP protocol that says that the collection of IP addresses in the current root zone are the only options.
If someone thinks they can run it better, they should just set one up.
It's not as if this hasn't happened before [wikipedia.org].
Yes, the current root is a fairly well entrenched monopoly, but if enough people really considered their practices unacceptable, I'm confident that an alternate root would be able to moot them fairly quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128995</id>
	<title>Re:Give control to Canada</title>
	<author>NevarMore</author>
	<datestamp>1243543920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll back that but only if someone opens up the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.eh TLD and isn't too stingy about making sure its only used for Western Sahara.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll back that but only if someone opens up the .eh TLD and is n't too stingy about making sure its only used for Western Sahara .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll back that but only if someone opens up the .eh TLD and isn't too stingy about making sure its only used for Western Sahara.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28165625</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>pacinpm</author>
	<datestamp>1243853160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the US created the internet...</p></div><p>Well, keep it than but Europe will keep HTTP and HTML since it was invented at CERN (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim\_Berners-Lee/" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim\_Berners-Lee/</a> [wikipedia.org]).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the US created the internet...Well , keep it than but Europe will keep HTTP and HTML since it was invented at CERN ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim \ _Berners-Lee/ [ wikipedia.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the US created the internet...Well, keep it than but Europe will keep HTTP and HTML since it was invented at CERN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim\_Berners-Lee/ [wikipedia.org]).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130163</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>valinor89</author>
	<datestamp>1243505100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"For example, if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet, along several other "undesirable" countries."

There is no need. They actually hate internet and the democracy that represents versus media control. You put unrestricted internet in their hands and the North Koreans, and others from "other "undesirable" countries" will revolt soon or late.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" For example , if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet , along several other " undesirable " countries .
" There is no need .
They actually hate internet and the democracy that represents versus media control .
You put unrestricted internet in their hands and the North Koreans , and others from " other " undesirable " countries " will revolt soon or late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For example, if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet, along several other "undesirable" countries.
"

There is no need.
They actually hate internet and the democracy that represents versus media control.
You put unrestricted internet in their hands and the North Koreans, and others from "other "undesirable" countries" will revolt soon or late.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126543</id>
	<title>Who will police the police?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno... Coast Guard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno... Coast Guard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno... Coast Guard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129521</id>
	<title>Re:what about .sex and .xxx???</title>
	<author>TuballoyThunder</author>
	<datestamp>1243502520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would offer the following argument.  I think the creation of a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sex or a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx namespace will promote censorship rather than free speech.  Once you create such a namespace, there will be strong pressure to migrate such content from the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net, etc namespaces to the new naughty namespaces.  It is the internet equivalent of a "free speech area."

Once you create a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx/.sex namespace, why not create a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.political,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.nepal or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wariniraq etc TLDs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would offer the following argument .
I think the creation of a .sex or a .xxx namespace will promote censorship rather than free speech .
Once you create such a namespace , there will be strong pressure to migrate such content from the .com , .net , etc namespaces to the new naughty namespaces .
It is the internet equivalent of a " free speech area .
" Once you create a .xxx/.sex namespace , why not create a .political , .nepal or .wariniraq etc TLDs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would offer the following argument.
I think the creation of a .sex or a .xxx namespace will promote censorship rather than free speech.
Once you create such a namespace, there will be strong pressure to migrate such content from the .com, .net, etc namespaces to the new naughty namespaces.
It is the internet equivalent of a "free speech area.
"

Once you create a .xxx/.sex namespace, why not create a .political, .nepal or .wariniraq etc TLDs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130117</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243504980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Internet should be administered by an <b>international</b> body.</p><p>I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced, for security or productivity reasons, but the <i>Inter</i>net has been so successful because of the <i>inter</i>national networking it helped achieve.</p><p>Otherwise here in the EU we would have used the French standard and I would have posted a similar silly post to the "La BarreObliqueDot"...</p></div><p>Clarification: "The Internet" and "DNS root servers" are \_not\_ synonymous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet should be administered by an international body.I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced , for security or productivity reasons , but the Internet has been so successful because of the international networking it helped achieve.Otherwise here in the EU we would have used the French standard and I would have posted a similar silly post to the " La BarreObliqueDot " ...Clarification : " The Internet " and " DNS root servers " are \ _not \ _ synonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet should be administered by an international body.I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced, for security or productivity reasons, but the Internet has been so successful because of the international networking it helped achieve.Otherwise here in the EU we would have used the French standard and I would have posted a similar silly post to the "La BarreObliqueDot"...Clarification: "The Internet" and "DNS root servers" are \_not\_ synonymous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129015</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243543980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we built the fucking thing, so what are you people arguing about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we built the fucking thing , so what are you people arguing about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we built the fucking thing, so what are you people arguing about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135869</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243587600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man why do you think that Russia got involved in "cyber war"? May be US got involved in? US's companies distribute most part of software in the world and US government can constrain them to leave some backdors in the software, especially close-source software. Than US don't need to be involved in "syber war" they can just kill all M$ OSes over the world or just in some country and economic and army will die - so for US no "cyber wars" need</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man why do you think that Russia got involved in " cyber war " ?
May be US got involved in ?
US 's companies distribute most part of software in the world and US government can constrain them to leave some backdors in the software , especially close-source software .
Than US do n't need to be involved in " syber war " they can just kill all M $ OSes over the world or just in some country and economic and army will die - so for US no " cyber wars " need</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man why do you think that Russia got involved in "cyber war"?
May be US got involved in?
US's companies distribute most part of software in the world and US government can constrain them to leave some backdors in the software, especially close-source software.
Than US don't need to be involved in "syber war" they can just kill all M$ OSes over the world or just in some country and economic and army will die - so for US no "cyber wars" need</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130865</id>
	<title>Re:Give control to Canada</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1243508100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes....well.....hmmmmm......as Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Dean Seacy said: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes....well.....hmmmmm......as Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Dean Seacy said : " Freedom of speech is an American concept , so I do n't give it any value .
It 's not my job to give value to an American concept .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes....well.....hmmmmm......as Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator Dean Seacy said: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.
It's not my job to give value to an American concept.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130449</id>
	<title>Re:Who used to run it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243506120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice job with the karma whoring.  I am impressed at the way you were modded up for making a response  that has nothing to do with the actual post you're replying to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice job with the karma whoring .
I am impressed at the way you were modded up for making a response that has nothing to do with the actual post you 're replying to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice job with the karma whoring.
I am impressed at the way you were modded up for making a response  that has nothing to do with the actual post you're replying to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128947</id>
	<title>Censorship? Canada? Uhh, no.</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1243543680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Britain, Canada, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites</i></p><p>Umm, while I can't speak for Britain or Australia, Canada most definitely does *NOT* have a mandatory nationwide blacklist of banned sites.</p><p>What we do have is Cybertip.ca, who provide a child porn black list to *PARTICIPATING* ISPs (as in *OPTIONAL*). If you worry that the censorship will expand to other categories, you can always pick a different ISP or DNS provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain , Canada , and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sitesUmm , while I ca n't speak for Britain or Australia , Canada most definitely does * NOT * have a mandatory nationwide blacklist of banned sites.What we do have is Cybertip.ca , who provide a child porn black list to * PARTICIPATING * ISPs ( as in * OPTIONAL * ) .
If you worry that the censorship will expand to other categories , you can always pick a different ISP or DNS provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain, Canada, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sitesUmm, while I can't speak for Britain or Australia, Canada most definitely does *NOT* have a mandatory nationwide blacklist of banned sites.What we do have is Cybertip.ca, who provide a child porn black list to *PARTICIPATING* ISPs (as in *OPTIONAL*).
If you worry that the censorship will expand to other categories, you can always pick a different ISP or DNS provider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243537680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced</p></div><p>Last time I checked the World Wide Web was invented at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee who is British.  Sure many protocols that the Web uses date back to DARPAnet but the Internet as we know it is the way it is due to Berners-Lee.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advancedLast time I checked the World Wide Web was invented at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee who is British .
Sure many protocols that the Web uses date back to DARPAnet but the Internet as we know it is the way it is due to Berners-Lee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advancedLast time I checked the World Wide Web was invented at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee who is British.
Sure many protocols that the Web uses date back to DARPAnet but the Internet as we know it is the way it is due to Berners-Lee.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417</id>
	<title>Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1243536480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there is one thing to be said about US control of DNS. Any and all attempts to change the system will be met with years of suits, counter-suits and legal quagmires of the n^th degree before such changes can even be discussed.</p><p>That is of course, when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is one thing to be said about US control of DNS .
Any and all attempts to change the system will be met with years of suits , counter-suits and legal quagmires of the n ^ th degree before such changes can even be discussed.That is of course , when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is one thing to be said about US control of DNS.
Any and all attempts to change the system will be met with years of suits, counter-suits and legal quagmires of the n^th degree before such changes can even be discussed.That is of course, when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127863</id>
	<title>You can believe everything in that op-ed piece...</title>
	<author>Benfea</author>
	<datestamp>1243540800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because it's fair AND balanced!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because it 's fair AND balanced !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because it's fair AND balanced!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126475</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, a Godwin-First-Post hybrid. The force is strong in this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , a Godwin-First-Post hybrid .
The force is strong in this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, a Godwin-First-Post hybrid.
The force is strong in this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126579</id>
	<title>Actually, after reading that article...</title>
	<author>MsGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1243536960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I think a cogent argument can be made <b>for</b> taking governance of the Internet OUT of the US' hands, and for the establishment of a UN body to maintain DNS and everything else about the Internet. TFA was some of the worst jingoistic garbage this side of RedState.Com. Oh yeah, the Weekly Standard is run by NewsCorp. I understand everything now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I think a cogent argument can be made for taking governance of the Internet OUT of the US ' hands , and for the establishment of a UN body to maintain DNS and everything else about the Internet .
TFA was some of the worst jingoistic garbage this side of RedState.Com .
Oh yeah , the Weekly Standard is run by NewsCorp .
I understand everything now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I think a cogent argument can be made for taking governance of the Internet OUT of the US' hands, and for the establishment of a UN body to maintain DNS and everything else about the Internet.
TFA was some of the worst jingoistic garbage this side of RedState.Com.
Oh yeah, the Weekly Standard is run by NewsCorp.
I understand everything now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129569</id>
	<title>Re:Is there some way to decentralize name resoluti</title>
	<author>pigeon768</author>
	<datestamp>1243502640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate\_DNS\_root" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">already is</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>The issue here is whether ICANN, who owns the most important DNS root, should be given to an international body. (ICANN is currently a non-profit organization in California)</p><p>IMHO, it's utterly ridiculous. The UN, or European Union, or the PRC, or some random scam artist in Nigeria has as much right to ownership of ICANN as they have right to ownership of Microsoft. There are zero technical barriers from preventing them from starting their own ICANN clone (or Microsoft clone) and running it in any fashion they see fit. In fact, several organizations already have - it's just that people generally ignore them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It already is [ wikipedia.org ] .The issue here is whether ICANN , who owns the most important DNS root , should be given to an international body .
( ICANN is currently a non-profit organization in California ) IMHO , it 's utterly ridiculous .
The UN , or European Union , or the PRC , or some random scam artist in Nigeria has as much right to ownership of ICANN as they have right to ownership of Microsoft .
There are zero technical barriers from preventing them from starting their own ICANN clone ( or Microsoft clone ) and running it in any fashion they see fit .
In fact , several organizations already have - it 's just that people generally ignore them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It already is [wikipedia.org].The issue here is whether ICANN, who owns the most important DNS root, should be given to an international body.
(ICANN is currently a non-profit organization in California)IMHO, it's utterly ridiculous.
The UN, or European Union, or the PRC, or some random scam artist in Nigeria has as much right to ownership of ICANN as they have right to ownership of Microsoft.
There are zero technical barriers from preventing them from starting their own ICANN clone (or Microsoft clone) and running it in any fashion they see fit.
In fact, several organizations already have - it's just that people generally ignore them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133947</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1243525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology. What moral reason does the world have to gain control?</p></div><p>"Gain control"?</p><p>Sorry, it's not the 70s anymore. Those servers you're visiting? They're not just belonging to european companies, they are actually located in a european data center, connected to a european fibre network run by a european ISP. The Internet doesn't belong to the US anymore. You guys started it, but it's  since become a joint project. Putting down the first stone does <b>not</b> magically grant you ownership of the whole house. Lots of other people have built on this house as well. Often with the same allowances and sharing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the US created the internet , and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology .
What moral reason does the world have to gain control ?
" Gain control " ? Sorry , it 's not the 70s anymore .
Those servers you 're visiting ?
They 're not just belonging to european companies , they are actually located in a european data center , connected to a european fibre network run by a european ISP .
The Internet does n't belong to the US anymore .
You guys started it , but it 's since become a joint project .
Putting down the first stone does not magically grant you ownership of the whole house .
Lots of other people have built on this house as well .
Often with the same allowances and sharing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology.
What moral reason does the world have to gain control?
"Gain control"?Sorry, it's not the 70s anymore.
Those servers you're visiting?
They're not just belonging to european companies, they are actually located in a european data center, connected to a european fibre network run by a european ISP.
The Internet doesn't belong to the US anymore.
You guys started it, but it's  since become a joint project.
Putting down the first stone does not magically grant you ownership of the whole house.
Lots of other people have built on this house as well.
Often with the same allowances and sharing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136061</id>
	<title>Damn those foreigners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243590120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're not even American!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not even American !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not even American!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126881</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243537920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea. It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.</p></div></blockquote><p>Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.<br> <br>Even us dastardly Americans should know to check the sources and consider their arguments in light of their inclinations.<br> <br>FWIW, there ARE decent arguments for DNS control to remain under the thumb of the US.  But I'd lend those arguments a lot more credence if the weren't coming from Nationalistic sources (I know, I know, that's a logical fallacy... but it's a <i>useful</i> logical fallacy).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea .
It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.Just also please note , it 's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine .
Even us dastardly Americans should know to check the sources and consider their arguments in light of their inclinations .
FWIW , there ARE decent arguments for DNS control to remain under the thumb of the US .
But I 'd lend those arguments a lot more credence if the were n't coming from Nationalistic sources ( I know , I know , that 's a logical fallacy... but it 's a useful logical fallacy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard time seeing how the arguments convince anyone other than Americans that it is a good idea.
It is a self praising article on how good the US is written by an American in an American magazine.Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.
Even us dastardly Americans should know to check the sources and consider their arguments in light of their inclinations.
FWIW, there ARE decent arguments for DNS control to remain under the thumb of the US.
But I'd lend those arguments a lot more credence if the weren't coming from Nationalistic sources (I know, I know, that's a logical fallacy... but it's a useful logical fallacy).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243537020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.</i>
<br>
<br>
Why is that fair and right?  Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint, the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology.  What moral reason does the world have to gain control?  "We would make better owners of your property than you."?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I want it taken away from us ?
Heck no .
We hold all the power in this area right now .
But if we 're talking about fair and right , then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country .
Why is that fair and right ?
Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint , the US created the internet , and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology .
What moral reason does the world have to gain control ?
" We would make better owners of your property than you .
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I want it taken away from us?
Heck no.
We hold all the power in this area right now.
But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.
Why is that fair and right?
Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint, the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology.
What moral reason does the world have to gain control?
"We would make better owners of your property than you.
"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130375</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243505820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Commenting on the original article "An Argument For Leaving DNS Control In US Hands" I agree with line-bundle. It's obviously a partial and poor argument!<br>Further, the nature of the internet is intrinsically worldwide; it makes all the sense to talk about a representation of the world to run it.<br>Who or what is a credible as a representation of the world is a whole other complex issue.<br>From my (Portuguese) perspective btw<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Commenting on the original article " An Argument For Leaving DNS Control In US Hands " I agree with line-bundle .
It 's obviously a partial and poor argument ! Further , the nature of the internet is intrinsically worldwide ; it makes all the sense to talk about a representation of the world to run it.Who or what is a credible as a representation of the world is a whole other complex issue.From my ( Portuguese ) perspective btw ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commenting on the original article "An Argument For Leaving DNS Control In US Hands" I agree with line-bundle.
It's obviously a partial and poor argument!Further, the nature of the internet is intrinsically worldwide; it makes all the sense to talk about a representation of the world to run it.Who or what is a credible as a representation of the world is a whole other complex issue.From my (Portuguese) perspective btw ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28137471</id>
	<title>Are we equal? Stealing from Americans? Not.</title>
	<author>Elixon</author>
	<datestamp>1243605420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article states:<br>"Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards."</p><p>My country is democratic and definitely has the "First Amendment Tradition" no worse then US. Will my country be awarded the same right to "protect the free speech rights of ??????s online"?</p><p>If not, why would US deny the rights to others? We experienced several "protectors" throughout our more then thousand year long history and we've learnt that it takes just a small twist to change "protectors" into "dictators".</p><p>Any democracy can easily slide into dictatorship. Giving a control over Internet to the more people will ensure that if the "bad times" comes to US (aren't you sometimes scared of your own government?) then the Internet will not become the effective tool of control in the hands of few...</p><p>Think about it. We don't want to steal something from US. We want to fully share what was built for sharing... Everybody will benefit from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states : " Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition , and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online , we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards .
" My country is democratic and definitely has the " First Amendment Tradition " no worse then US .
Will my country be awarded the same right to " protect the free speech rights of ? ? ? ? ?
? s online " ? If not , why would US deny the rights to others ?
We experienced several " protectors " throughout our more then thousand year long history and we 've learnt that it takes just a small twist to change " protectors " into " dictators " .Any democracy can easily slide into dictatorship .
Giving a control over Internet to the more people will ensure that if the " bad times " comes to US ( are n't you sometimes scared of your own government ?
) then the Internet will not become the effective tool of control in the hands of few...Think about it .
We do n't want to steal something from US .
We want to fully share what was built for sharing... Everybody will benefit from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states:"Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards.
"My country is democratic and definitely has the "First Amendment Tradition" no worse then US.
Will my country be awarded the same right to "protect the free speech rights of ?????
?s online"?If not, why would US deny the rights to others?
We experienced several "protectors" throughout our more then thousand year long history and we've learnt that it takes just a small twist to change "protectors" into "dictators".Any democracy can easily slide into dictatorship.
Giving a control over Internet to the more people will ensure that if the "bad times" comes to US (aren't you sometimes scared of your own government?
) then the Internet will not become the effective tool of control in the hands of few...Think about it.
We don't want to steal something from US.
We want to fully share what was built for sharing... Everybody will benefit from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28137551</id>
	<title>Resentment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243605900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the US doesn't need more resentment.  But, hey, that's life, and that's what separates the US from Europe.  The US isn't as intimidated by resentment as Europe is - another reason to keep the root servers in the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the US does n't need more resentment .
But , hey , that 's life , and that 's what separates the US from Europe .
The US is n't as intimidated by resentment as Europe is - another reason to keep the root servers in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the US doesn't need more resentment.
But, hey, that's life, and that's what separates the US from Europe.
The US isn't as intimidated by resentment as Europe is - another reason to keep the root servers in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128607</id>
	<title>Re:Speculation...</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1243542660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about nissan.com?  Does the guy with the last name Nissan get the domain because he got it on a first come first served basis (and he has a reason to want to and rightfully own a trademarked name)?  Or should someone step in and give the thing to the big multinational corporation, because that would be "fair"?</p></div><p>apple.com: Apple Computers or Apple Corps?<br>
mikerowesoft.com: MS or Mike Rowe?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about nissan.com ?
Does the guy with the last name Nissan get the domain because he got it on a first come first served basis ( and he has a reason to want to and rightfully own a trademarked name ) ?
Or should someone step in and give the thing to the big multinational corporation , because that would be " fair " ? apple.com : Apple Computers or Apple Corps ?
mikerowesoft.com : MS or Mike Rowe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about nissan.com?
Does the guy with the last name Nissan get the domain because he got it on a first come first served basis (and he has a reason to want to and rightfully own a trademarked name)?
Or should someone step in and give the thing to the big multinational corporation, because that would be "fair"?apple.com: Apple Computers or Apple Corps?
mikerowesoft.com: MS or Mike Rowe?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129735</id>
	<title>Re:Big Assumption</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1243503240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone wants to censor everything. The US happens to have a strong constitutional basis for resisting censorship. Sorry, there really is more freedom in USA than in almost all of the rest of the world. You may enjoy longer vacations and universal health care, but government involvement in your lives means government involvement in your lives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone wants to censor everything .
The US happens to have a strong constitutional basis for resisting censorship .
Sorry , there really is more freedom in USA than in almost all of the rest of the world .
You may enjoy longer vacations and universal health care , but government involvement in your lives means government involvement in your lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone wants to censor everything.
The US happens to have a strong constitutional basis for resisting censorship.
Sorry, there really is more freedom in USA than in almost all of the rest of the world.
You may enjoy longer vacations and universal health care, but government involvement in your lives means government involvement in your lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127205</id>
	<title>White mans burden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243538940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course we Americans will do this for the rest of you brown skinned people.  It is our burden and we know how corrupt you would be if we let you have any say in the matter, considering how inferior you are to we incorruptible shining white beacons of light and hope.</p><p>Yes, it is sarcasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course we Americans will do this for the rest of you brown skinned people .
It is our burden and we know how corrupt you would be if we let you have any say in the matter , considering how inferior you are to we incorruptible shining white beacons of light and hope.Yes , it is sarcasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course we Americans will do this for the rest of you brown skinned people.
It is our burden and we know how corrupt you would be if we let you have any say in the matter, considering how inferior you are to we incorruptible shining white beacons of light and hope.Yes, it is sarcasm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126759</id>
	<title>DNS has lost much of its importance</title>
	<author>bzzfzz</author>
	<datestamp>1243537620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA raises a valid point but overstates the case.
ICANN's work is indeed politicized, and one need look no further than the disparate fates of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sex and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.info TLDs to see that.  On the other hand, it's hard to believe that something run by the U.N. would be any better.</p><p>
In reality, though, DNS has lost much of its original importance.  This becomes clear when you consider that all but a handful of Alexa's <a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites" title="alexa.com">top 20 sites</a> [alexa.com] have names that have no real connection to the business.  They're just rarely used words that lack much meaning in everyday life (Google, Amazon) or entirely made up (wikipedia, ebay).  There are already <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative\_DNS\_root" title="wikipedia.org">alternative public root servers</a> [wikipedia.org], and while these lack popularity, it shows how easy it would be for a distributed naming system to gain a foothold.</p><p>The real outcome of handing the rootservers over to an international committee would be to hasten the day when there is no longer one unified DNS, a day we'll probably see before too long anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA raises a valid point but overstates the case .
ICANN 's work is indeed politicized , and one need look no further than the disparate fates of the .sex and .info TLDs to see that .
On the other hand , it 's hard to believe that something run by the U.N. would be any better .
In reality , though , DNS has lost much of its original importance .
This becomes clear when you consider that all but a handful of Alexa 's top 20 sites [ alexa.com ] have names that have no real connection to the business .
They 're just rarely used words that lack much meaning in everyday life ( Google , Amazon ) or entirely made up ( wikipedia , ebay ) .
There are already alternative public root servers [ wikipedia.org ] , and while these lack popularity , it shows how easy it would be for a distributed naming system to gain a foothold.The real outcome of handing the rootservers over to an international committee would be to hasten the day when there is no longer one unified DNS , a day we 'll probably see before too long anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA raises a valid point but overstates the case.
ICANN's work is indeed politicized, and one need look no further than the disparate fates of the .sex and .info TLDs to see that.
On the other hand, it's hard to believe that something run by the U.N. would be any better.
In reality, though, DNS has lost much of its original importance.
This becomes clear when you consider that all but a handful of Alexa's top 20 sites [alexa.com] have names that have no real connection to the business.
They're just rarely used words that lack much meaning in everyday life (Google, Amazon) or entirely made up (wikipedia, ebay).
There are already alternative public root servers [wikipedia.org], and while these lack popularity, it shows how easy it would be for a distributed naming system to gain a foothold.The real outcome of handing the rootservers over to an international committee would be to hasten the day when there is no longer one unified DNS, a day we'll probably see before too long anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517</id>
	<title>Give control to Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we'll apologize for it.</p><p>Actually, even if the mistake isn't our fault, we'll apologize anyway. That's the Canadian way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we 'll apologize for it.Actually , even if the mistake is n't our fault , we 'll apologize anyway .
That 's the Canadian way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we'll apologize for it.Actually, even if the mistake isn't our fault, we'll apologize anyway.
That's the Canadian way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917</id>
	<title>Who used to run it.</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1243540920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From 1986 to 1999 it was run autonomously. Sure the US paid for it (15K/yr as a part time project) but whatever Jon Postel decided was fine. Jon would measure the consensus of the net and implement it. During this time the DNS went from 0 to 250+ TLDS.</p><p>When the US government assumed oversight in the period 2000 to now 10 new tlds were created at a cost of nearly a billion dollars. And the registration process for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com became the most inept sleezy shit ever seen on the net.</p><p>"The US" or "another country" or group of countries is not the answer.</p><p>The dns should be administered by the poeple that know what they're doing in terms os techical, legal and social policies and governments of the world has zero say in this.</p><p>The internet is not some "thing" that needs to be administered. It is not a public resource!</p><p>There are millions of private networks and we all agree to use TCP/IP and DNS to interoperate. Not one bit of it is a puboic resource. It's all privatly owned. You own your bit, I own my bit. Do we really want some government telling us how we use our computers and what we can do and can't do?</p><p>The USG and ICANN are the worst things that ever happebed to the net. They stagnated it as a single point of failure by having a choke hold on the A-ROOT of the legacy DNS.</p><p>There are better and more appropriate ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From 1986 to 1999 it was run autonomously .
Sure the US paid for it ( 15K/yr as a part time project ) but whatever Jon Postel decided was fine .
Jon would measure the consensus of the net and implement it .
During this time the DNS went from 0 to 250 + TLDS.When the US government assumed oversight in the period 2000 to now 10 new tlds were created at a cost of nearly a billion dollars .
And the registration process for .com became the most inept sleezy shit ever seen on the net .
" The US " or " another country " or group of countries is not the answer.The dns should be administered by the poeple that know what they 're doing in terms os techical , legal and social policies and governments of the world has zero say in this.The internet is not some " thing " that needs to be administered .
It is not a public resource ! There are millions of private networks and we all agree to use TCP/IP and DNS to interoperate .
Not one bit of it is a puboic resource .
It 's all privatly owned .
You own your bit , I own my bit .
Do we really want some government telling us how we use our computers and what we can do and ca n't do ? The USG and ICANN are the worst things that ever happebed to the net .
They stagnated it as a single point of failure by having a choke hold on the A-ROOT of the legacy DNS.There are better and more appropriate ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From 1986 to 1999 it was run autonomously.
Sure the US paid for it (15K/yr as a part time project) but whatever Jon Postel decided was fine.
Jon would measure the consensus of the net and implement it.
During this time the DNS went from 0 to 250+ TLDS.When the US government assumed oversight in the period 2000 to now 10 new tlds were created at a cost of nearly a billion dollars.
And the registration process for .com became the most inept sleezy shit ever seen on the net.
"The US" or "another country" or group of countries is not the answer.The dns should be administered by the poeple that know what they're doing in terms os techical, legal and social policies and governments of the world has zero say in this.The internet is not some "thing" that needs to be administered.
It is not a public resource!There are millions of private networks and we all agree to use TCP/IP and DNS to interoperate.
Not one bit of it is a puboic resource.
It's all privatly owned.
You own your bit, I own my bit.
Do we really want some government telling us how we use our computers and what we can do and can't do?The USG and ICANN are the worst things that ever happebed to the net.
They stagnated it as a single point of failure by having a choke hold on the A-ROOT of the legacy DNS.There are better and more appropriate ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127661</id>
	<title>If it ain't broke - don't fix it.</title>
	<author>garethharris</author>
	<datestamp>1243540140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it ain't broke - don't fix it. --  That's because most system failures occur after PM [preventive maintenance].
</p><p>
FYI, The Internet is the successor to arpanet, beginning with Honeywell IMPs, etc. over 30 years ago, NOT with Tim Berners-Lee and his www app that ran over the net, which he did at CERN  in the 80's. There are also many other protocols besides http using the foundation of the Internet. Most people did not have access to the Internet until it was opened up to the public for domains in addition to university and military in the 90s.
</p><p>
If you don't know what you are talking about, be quiet and listen. You may learn something.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it ai n't broke - do n't fix it .
-- That 's because most system failures occur after PM [ preventive maintenance ] .
FYI , The Internet is the successor to arpanet , beginning with Honeywell IMPs , etc .
over 30 years ago , NOT with Tim Berners-Lee and his www app that ran over the net , which he did at CERN in the 80 's .
There are also many other protocols besides http using the foundation of the Internet .
Most people did not have access to the Internet until it was opened up to the public for domains in addition to university and military in the 90s .
If you do n't know what you are talking about , be quiet and listen .
You may learn something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
--  That's because most system failures occur after PM [preventive maintenance].
FYI, The Internet is the successor to arpanet, beginning with Honeywell IMPs, etc.
over 30 years ago, NOT with Tim Berners-Lee and his www app that ran over the net, which he did at CERN  in the 80's.
There are also many other protocols besides http using the foundation of the Internet.
Most people did not have access to the Internet until it was opened up to the public for domains in addition to university and military in the 90s.
If you don't know what you are talking about, be quiet and listen.
You may learn something.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133563</id>
	<title>Argument for another Internet</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1243522500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's to stop a few people from putting together there own internet and call it, say, Internet3?  With all of the regulation going on and those seeking to control it, I say it's high time a group of hard core computer users got together and started a new internet: one done from the ground up and done correctly.  Make it utilize IPv4 and take all of the politics out of it.  Instead of giving entire Class A blocks away, we smartly manage addresses and take actions to prevent all the nonsense associated with current ISPs, IANA, and ICANN.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's to stop a few people from putting together there own internet and call it , say , Internet3 ?
With all of the regulation going on and those seeking to control it , I say it 's high time a group of hard core computer users got together and started a new internet : one done from the ground up and done correctly .
Make it utilize IPv4 and take all of the politics out of it .
Instead of giving entire Class A blocks away , we smartly manage addresses and take actions to prevent all the nonsense associated with current ISPs , IANA , and ICANN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's to stop a few people from putting together there own internet and call it, say, Internet3?
With all of the regulation going on and those seeking to control it, I say it's high time a group of hard core computer users got together and started a new internet: one done from the ground up and done correctly.
Make it utilize IPv4 and take all of the politics out of it.
Instead of giving entire Class A blocks away, we smartly manage addresses and take actions to prevent all the nonsense associated with current ISPs, IANA, and ICANN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126889</id>
	<title>HE's from UC BERKELEY?!?</title>
	<author>Alzheimers</author>
	<datestamp>1243537980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  That came from someone who attends UC Berkeley?</p><p>He's obviously not taking his daily recommended dose of LSD.  Or, maybe taking too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
That came from someone who attends UC Berkeley ? He 's obviously not taking his daily recommended dose of LSD .
Or , maybe taking too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
That came from someone who attends UC Berkeley?He's obviously not taking his daily recommended dose of LSD.
Or, maybe taking too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129073</id>
	<title>Twinklings of a bygone era...</title>
	<author>Someone Awful</author>
	<datestamp>1243544220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was reading the article, and the phrase "The White Man's burden" suddenly popped into my head... Did this happen to anyone else?

In the context of the US being such a strong force for democracy and peace in the world, I found a number of the following lines from this totally unbias and impartial article quite humorous:

"In order to please our European allies and our Third World critics"

"America's special role in managing the Internet is good for America and good for the world."

"Until now, the management of the Domain Name System has been largely apolitical"  then almost immediately after this factoid "Political questions like "Who is the rightful government of Pakistan, and therefore the rightful owner of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pk domain?" are settled by the U.S. Department"

"There have been no serious complaints about American stewardship of the Internet, no actual abuses perpetrated by American overseers."

"Britain, CANADA, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites, managed by nongovernmental regulators with minimal political oversight."

"If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet"

"Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition"  This one really made me laugh...

I would go on,but, I am practically copying the article verbatim.  Oh and by the way, who needs citations or footnotes?  They are as useless as things like facts, and proof, and research.

Irony is a wonderful thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was reading the article , and the phrase " The White Man 's burden " suddenly popped into my head... Did this happen to anyone else ?
In the context of the US being such a strong force for democracy and peace in the world , I found a number of the following lines from this totally unbias and impartial article quite humorous : " In order to please our European allies and our Third World critics " " America 's special role in managing the Internet is good for America and good for the world .
" " Until now , the management of the Domain Name System has been largely apolitical " then almost immediately after this factoid " Political questions like " Who is the rightful government of Pakistan , and therefore the rightful owner of the .pk domain ?
" are settled by the U.S. Department " " There have been no serious complaints about American stewardship of the Internet , no actual abuses perpetrated by American overseers .
" " Britain , CANADA , and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites , managed by nongovernmental regulators with minimal political oversight .
" " If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization , we must expect attempts to censor the Internet " " Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition " This one really made me laugh.. . I would go on,but , I am practically copying the article verbatim .
Oh and by the way , who needs citations or footnotes ?
They are as useless as things like facts , and proof , and research .
Irony is a wonderful thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was reading the article, and the phrase "The White Man's burden" suddenly popped into my head... Did this happen to anyone else?
In the context of the US being such a strong force for democracy and peace in the world, I found a number of the following lines from this totally unbias and impartial article quite humorous:

"In order to please our European allies and our Third World critics"

"America's special role in managing the Internet is good for America and good for the world.
"

"Until now, the management of the Domain Name System has been largely apolitical"  then almost immediately after this factoid "Political questions like "Who is the rightful government of Pakistan, and therefore the rightful owner of the .pk domain?
" are settled by the U.S. Department"

"There have been no serious complaints about American stewardship of the Internet, no actual abuses perpetrated by American overseers.
"

"Britain, CANADA, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites, managed by nongovernmental regulators with minimal political oversight.
"

"If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet"

"Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition"  This one really made me laugh...

I would go on,but, I am practically copying the article verbatim.
Oh and by the way, who needs citations or footnotes?
They are as useless as things like facts, and proof, and research.
Irony is a wonderful thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136191</id>
	<title>Meaningless biased article</title>
	<author>Permutation Citizen</author>
	<datestamp>1243591800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brief summary of article:<br>
&nbsp; - DNS root means real political power, US wants to keep it.<br>
&nbsp; - We use this power to defend our constitutional right in the entire world, this is good for the world as US constitution is good and universal.<br>
&nbsp; - We have invented the internet, so we have control and should keep it.</p><p>Well, for people who already agree, it may sound very convincing. Actually, you can also argue this is exactly why DNS root control should be removed from the hand of a given government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brief summary of article :   - DNS root means real political power , US wants to keep it .
  - We use this power to defend our constitutional right in the entire world , this is good for the world as US constitution is good and universal .
  - We have invented the internet , so we have control and should keep it.Well , for people who already agree , it may sound very convincing .
Actually , you can also argue this is exactly why DNS root control should be removed from the hand of a given government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brief summary of article:
  - DNS root means real political power, US wants to keep it.
  - We use this power to defend our constitutional right in the entire world, this is good for the world as US constitution is good and universal.
  - We have invented the internet, so we have control and should keep it.Well, for people who already agree, it may sound very convincing.
Actually, you can also argue this is exactly why DNS root control should be removed from the hand of a given government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129947</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243504320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, we got free speech...in free speech zones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , we got free speech...in free speech zones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, we got free speech...in free speech zones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243541760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each country already has control over its own TLD. They don't have to deal with the US-based root DNS servers if they don't want to. For example, if it's such a big deal, then the other countries are more than capable of setting up their own root DNS system and simply ignoring the American-run one.</p><p>This would end up being a pretty bad deal, at least initially. IF other countries really want a non-US controlled DNS system, then the solution is not to move that control to another country or an International body. The solution is to devise &amp; implement a fully distributed DNS system where the TLD's server in each country operate in a peering setup. Something kind of like how BGP currently works.</p><p>Short of that, moving the root control isn't going to change anything. In addition, pretty much all the International bodies out there have a pretty bad habit of punishing other countries over political events. For example, if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet, along several other "undesirable" countries. Notice that despite the political climate, the US has not used DNS to take action against Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, or any other country. Notice that we did not step into the whole "cyber war" that Russia got involved in.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That is of course, when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.</p></div><p>If you changed the word "Americans" to "International Business interests", "Foreign political influence", or "Anyone with enough money" then yes, you would be correct. If you really think that decisions regarding DNS take the American public into account at all, then you are sorely mistaken, &amp; I would suggest you take off the rose-colored glasses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each country already has control over its own TLD .
They do n't have to deal with the US-based root DNS servers if they do n't want to .
For example , if it 's such a big deal , then the other countries are more than capable of setting up their own root DNS system and simply ignoring the American-run one.This would end up being a pretty bad deal , at least initially .
IF other countries really want a non-US controlled DNS system , then the solution is not to move that control to another country or an International body .
The solution is to devise &amp; implement a fully distributed DNS system where the TLD 's server in each country operate in a peering setup .
Something kind of like how BGP currently works.Short of that , moving the root control is n't going to change anything .
In addition , pretty much all the International bodies out there have a pretty bad habit of punishing other countries over political events .
For example , if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet , along several other " undesirable " countries .
Notice that despite the political climate , the US has not used DNS to take action against Iraq , Iran , China , North Korea , or any other country .
Notice that we did not step into the whole " cyber war " that Russia got involved in.That is of course , when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.If you changed the word " Americans " to " International Business interests " , " Foreign political influence " , or " Anyone with enough money " then yes , you would be correct .
If you really think that decisions regarding DNS take the American public into account at all , then you are sorely mistaken , &amp; I would suggest you take off the rose-colored glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each country already has control over its own TLD.
They don't have to deal with the US-based root DNS servers if they don't want to.
For example, if it's such a big deal, then the other countries are more than capable of setting up their own root DNS system and simply ignoring the American-run one.This would end up being a pretty bad deal, at least initially.
IF other countries really want a non-US controlled DNS system, then the solution is not to move that control to another country or an International body.
The solution is to devise &amp; implement a fully distributed DNS system where the TLD's server in each country operate in a peering setup.
Something kind of like how BGP currently works.Short of that, moving the root control isn't going to change anything.
In addition, pretty much all the International bodies out there have a pretty bad habit of punishing other countries over political events.
For example, if the UN had control right now they would probably already have taken North Korea off the internet, along several other "undesirable" countries.
Notice that despite the political climate, the US has not used DNS to take action against Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, or any other country.
Notice that we did not step into the whole "cyber war" that Russia got involved in.That is of course, when it is Americans who are adversely affected by the decisions.If you changed the word "Americans" to "International Business interests", "Foreign political influence", or "Anyone with enough money" then yes, you would be correct.
If you really think that decisions regarding DNS take the American public into account at all, then you are sorely mistaken, &amp; I would suggest you take off the rose-colored glasses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130741</id>
	<title>Re:Who used to run it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243507560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wiki-DNS !!!!!!!!!!!!

If I can convince enough people on the net I am www.google.com then I am !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wiki-DNS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
If I can convince enough people on the net I am www.google.com then I am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wiki-DNS !!!!!!!!!!!!
If I can convince enough people on the net I am www.google.com then I am !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129209</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1243501440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fun fact:  The Internet wasn't originally international.  It was started in 1983 to tie ARPANet and several other networks together (NSFNet, BitNet, etc...) using a common protocol (TCP/IP).</p><p>It's continued growing ever since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fun fact : The Internet was n't originally international .
It was started in 1983 to tie ARPANet and several other networks together ( NSFNet , BitNet , etc... ) using a common protocol ( TCP/IP ) .It 's continued growing ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fun fact:  The Internet wasn't originally international.
It was started in 1983 to tie ARPANet and several other networks together (NSFNet, BitNet, etc...) using a common protocol (TCP/IP).It's continued growing ever since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Analogy time:</p><p>"We don't see any problem without our accountant writing and signing all the checks because we've never had a problem with it before.  They're perfectly trustworthy, and so much better than -unknown entity- probably is!"</p><p>The time to take control away from someone is -before- they abuse the power, not after.  If there's a world-wide organization that can impartially handle this, and handle it well, then it should be done by them.  UN was suggested, and while they are weak, they are the strongest international organization I know of that is supposed to be impartial.</p><p>Do I want it taken away from us?  Heck no.  We hold all the power in this area right now.  But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Analogy time : " We do n't see any problem without our accountant writing and signing all the checks because we 've never had a problem with it before .
They 're perfectly trustworthy , and so much better than -unknown entity- probably is !
" The time to take control away from someone is -before- they abuse the power , not after .
If there 's a world-wide organization that can impartially handle this , and handle it well , then it should be done by them .
UN was suggested , and while they are weak , they are the strongest international organization I know of that is supposed to be impartial.Do I want it taken away from us ?
Heck no .
We hold all the power in this area right now .
But if we 're talking about fair and right , then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Analogy time:"We don't see any problem without our accountant writing and signing all the checks because we've never had a problem with it before.
They're perfectly trustworthy, and so much better than -unknown entity- probably is!
"The time to take control away from someone is -before- they abuse the power, not after.
If there's a world-wide organization that can impartially handle this, and handle it well, then it should be done by them.
UN was suggested, and while they are weak, they are the strongest international organization I know of that is supposed to be impartial.Do I want it taken away from us?
Heck no.
We hold all the power in this area right now.
But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127349</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243539300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Waah!  You should turn it over to us or we'll pout.  You don't want us to pout <i>do you</i>?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Waah !
You should turn it over to us or we 'll pout .
You do n't want us to pout do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waah!
You should turn it over to us or we'll pout.
You don't want us to pout do you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126905</id>
	<title>Re:How awful!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243538040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my humble opinion, and briefest experience observing politics, I've typically noticed that when something changes, its for the worst.  It is in the name of agenda, abuse, and grabs for power.  I'm not saying that the US should run it, but I have a feeling that anyone else who runs it would do a worse job.  United Nations?  I've not heard of them doing anything meaningful in the last 20-30 years.  At any rate, I doubt they'd have the teeth to run it successfully?  Maybe the EU?  <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/28/0149243" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> Probably not.</a> [slashdot.org]  They make draconian laws serving interests other than that of their subjects, and then have problems enforcing them.  (Which is not always a bad thing).  Maybe we should try giving it to another country outright?  Rules out Australia, with their 'decide-to-censor-off-and-on-based-on-the-whims-of-the-day' mentality.  Germany too.  Last I heard they were on the censorship bandwagon.  There are other countries that don't censor that might seem like a good idea, being fairly impartial and not arbitrarily declaring war on abstract concepts, but you can't trust that they wont serve their (lobbyists) best interests at the detriment of the world.  Moral of my story:  When picking between two evils, pick the known one.  You can at least imagine how far they will fall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my humble opinion , and briefest experience observing politics , I 've typically noticed that when something changes , its for the worst .
It is in the name of agenda , abuse , and grabs for power .
I 'm not saying that the US should run it , but I have a feeling that anyone else who runs it would do a worse job .
United Nations ?
I 've not heard of them doing anything meaningful in the last 20-30 years .
At any rate , I doubt they 'd have the teeth to run it successfully ?
Maybe the EU ?
Probably not .
[ slashdot.org ] They make draconian laws serving interests other than that of their subjects , and then have problems enforcing them .
( Which is not always a bad thing ) .
Maybe we should try giving it to another country outright ?
Rules out Australia , with their 'decide-to-censor-off-and-on-based-on-the-whims-of-the-day ' mentality .
Germany too .
Last I heard they were on the censorship bandwagon .
There are other countries that do n't censor that might seem like a good idea , being fairly impartial and not arbitrarily declaring war on abstract concepts , but you ca n't trust that they wont serve their ( lobbyists ) best interests at the detriment of the world .
Moral of my story : When picking between two evils , pick the known one .
You can at least imagine how far they will fall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my humble opinion, and briefest experience observing politics, I've typically noticed that when something changes, its for the worst.
It is in the name of agenda, abuse, and grabs for power.
I'm not saying that the US should run it, but I have a feeling that anyone else who runs it would do a worse job.
United Nations?
I've not heard of them doing anything meaningful in the last 20-30 years.
At any rate, I doubt they'd have the teeth to run it successfully?
Maybe the EU?
Probably not.
[slashdot.org]  They make draconian laws serving interests other than that of their subjects, and then have problems enforcing them.
(Which is not always a bad thing).
Maybe we should try giving it to another country outright?
Rules out Australia, with their 'decide-to-censor-off-and-on-based-on-the-whims-of-the-day' mentality.
Germany too.
Last I heard they were on the censorship bandwagon.
There are other countries that don't censor that might seem like a good idea, being fairly impartial and not arbitrarily declaring war on abstract concepts, but you can't trust that they wont serve their (lobbyists) best interests at the detriment of the world.
Moral of my story:  When picking between two evils, pick the known one.
You can at least imagine how far they will fall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126657</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>mindstormpt</author>
	<datestamp>1243537260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great summary, too bad I have no mod points left.</p><p>As for the original one:</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.</p></div><p>Either the submitter can't read, or he's completely devoid of critical sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great summary , too bad I have no mod points left.As for the original one :   After reading his piece , I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.Either the submitter ca n't read , or he 's completely devoid of critical sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great summary, too bad I have no mod points left.As for the original one:
  After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.Either the submitter can't read, or he's completely devoid of critical sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127359</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243539300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown. The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US. Does the US really need that?</p></div><p>Yes, we're almost done in Iraq and we could use a few new enemies! And since hating Iran is soooo 1980's, we'd rather piss off Europe, China AND Russia in one go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , the US , as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown .
The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US .
Does the US really need that ? Yes , we 're almost done in Iraq and we could use a few new enemies !
And since hating Iran is soooo 1980 's , we 'd rather piss off Europe , China AND Russia in one go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown.
The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.
Does the US really need that?Yes, we're almost done in Iraq and we could use a few new enemies!
And since hating Iran is soooo 1980's, we'd rather piss off Europe, China AND Russia in one go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128087</id>
	<title>well</title>
	<author>eXFeLoN</author>
	<datestamp>1243541340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>we have very large penises so we should maintain control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we have very large penises so we should maintain control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we have very large penises so we should maintain control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128335</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243542000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US. Does the US really need that?</p></div><p>The US has done a pretty decent job managing it until now, maybe if other countries resent our competency that is a problem with those countries?</p><p>Kind of tired of hearing that just because one person/party/country has done extraordinarily well at something and are profiting from that endeavor, then others are right to resent them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US .
Does the US really need that ? The US has done a pretty decent job managing it until now , maybe if other countries resent our competency that is a problem with those countries ? Kind of tired of hearing that just because one person/party/country has done extraordinarily well at something and are profiting from that endeavor , then others are right to resent them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.
Does the US really need that?The US has done a pretty decent job managing it until now, maybe if other countries resent our competency that is a problem with those countries?Kind of tired of hearing that just because one person/party/country has done extraordinarily well at something and are profiting from that endeavor, then others are right to resent them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129299</id>
	<title>It's YOUR decision anyway, not the Obama admin's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243501800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ICANN is not a democracy, but DNS is.  Or to get all pedantic and lame, it's a republic.  You vote for your representative when you edit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/resolv.conf.  The representative that <em>you chose</em> votes for Supreme Leader when he sets up his recursive resolver.
</p><p>Here's the real reason no international body has the "right" to take control of DNS from the US: because they haven't bothered to form and <em>take</em> that right.  Nobody has bothered to assert it.  Nobody ever votes for anything but the status quo.  So what are you complaining about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ICANN is not a democracy , but DNS is .
Or to get all pedantic and lame , it 's a republic .
You vote for your representative when you edit /etc/resolv.conf .
The representative that you chose votes for Supreme Leader when he sets up his recursive resolver .
Here 's the real reason no international body has the " right " to take control of DNS from the US : because they have n't bothered to form and take that right .
Nobody has bothered to assert it .
Nobody ever votes for anything but the status quo .
So what are you complaining about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ICANN is not a democracy, but DNS is.
Or to get all pedantic and lame, it's a republic.
You vote for your representative when you edit /etc/resolv.conf.
The representative that you chose votes for Supreme Leader when he sets up his recursive resolver.
Here's the real reason no international body has the "right" to take control of DNS from the US: because they haven't bothered to form and take that right.
Nobody has bothered to assert it.
Nobody ever votes for anything but the status quo.
So what are you complaining about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128321</id>
	<title>For the people, by the people, but only Americans.</title>
	<author>RomulusNR</author>
	<datestamp>1243542000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.</i></p><p>That's because, like him, you're a nationalist xenophobe.</p><p>I mean, the argument boils down to this: America has the First Amendment, therefore we are the only entity capable of not censoring the internet via withholding access to an arbitrary (though ubiquitously popular) namespace. The insinuation is that other countries do not have the First Amendment and therefore, all of them collectively would present the possibility of such (questionably effective) censorship.</p><p>Well, how does this argument stand up against the real (though non-American and therefore unreliable) world? Let's take the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:</p><p><i>Article 19.</i></p><p><i>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.</i></p><p>Well, that's just a UN Resolution with no binding effect, and only reflects a general sense of the body rather than something they all commit to, right? As Rabkin says, "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition." Well, let's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago:</p><p><i>Article 19</i></p><p><i>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.</i></p><p>But none of these statements ensuring freedom of speech compare to the sheer Holy Writ that is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.</p><p><i>Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here.</i></p><p>Because the United States has <a href="http://www.eff.org/action" title="eff.org">never</a> [eff.org], <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105\_cong\_public\_laws&amp;docid=f:publ304.105.pdf" title="gpo.gov">ever</a> [gpo.gov], <a href="http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/" title="earlyamerica.com">ever</a> [earlyamerica.com], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_court\_cases\_involving\_the\_American\_Civil\_Liberties\_Union" title="wikipedia.org">contemplated restrictions on free speech</a> [wikipedia.org], proving just how trustworthy we are with the world's speech. Of course, Rabkin does not offer any specific examples of un-contemplatable restrictions on speech imposed by other First World nations, nor does he bother to prove the point that the U.S. has never done anything similar (because he can't).</p><p>Nor is he at all concerned with people in other countries who may also enjoy free speech, including speech that isn't legal in the United States -- the compelling need is not to ensure the freedom of the world's people, but as he makes clear: "If we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards." Aha! It's the bogeyman of "foreign standards", which all good Americans rightly fear, because they are all, by virtue of being foreign, simply inferior to our own standards (whatever they may be).</p><p>But what disgusts me most about Rabkin's screed is that someone capable of putting his name on something so baseless, undefensible, xenophobic, fear-mongering, and full of straw-man arguments, was accepted to a doctoral program, and printed in a major magazine. Of course, it's <i>The Standard</i>, what did I expect? Not well-thought out global technology pieces, that's for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading his piece , I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.That 's because , like him , you 're a nationalist xenophobe.I mean , the argument boils down to this : America has the First Amendment , therefore we are the only entity capable of not censoring the internet via withholding access to an arbitrary ( though ubiquitously popular ) namespace .
The insinuation is that other countries do not have the First Amendment and therefore , all of them collectively would present the possibility of such ( questionably effective ) censorship.Well , how does this argument stand up against the real ( though non-American and therefore unreliable ) world ?
Let 's take the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights : Article 19 .
        * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek , receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Well , that 's just a UN Resolution with no binding effect , and only reflects a general sense of the body rather than something they all commit to , right ?
As Rabkin says , " Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition .
" Well , let 's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago : Article 19       1 .
Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference .
      2 .
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression ; this right shall include freedom to seek , receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds , regardless of frontiers , either orally , in writing or in print , in the form of art , or through any other media of his choice.But none of these statements ensuring freedom of speech compare to the sheer Holy Writ that is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here.Because the United States has never [ eff.org ] , ever [ gpo.gov ] , ever [ earlyamerica.com ] , contemplated restrictions on free speech [ wikipedia.org ] , proving just how trustworthy we are with the world 's speech .
Of course , Rabkin does not offer any specific examples of un-contemplatable restrictions on speech imposed by other First World nations , nor does he bother to prove the point that the U.S. has never done anything similar ( because he ca n't ) .Nor is he at all concerned with people in other countries who may also enjoy free speech , including speech that is n't legal in the United States -- the compelling need is not to ensure the freedom of the world 's people , but as he makes clear : " If we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online , we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards .
" Aha !
It 's the bogeyman of " foreign standards " , which all good Americans rightly fear , because they are all , by virtue of being foreign , simply inferior to our own standards ( whatever they may be ) .But what disgusts me most about Rabkin 's screed is that someone capable of putting his name on something so baseless , undefensible , xenophobic , fear-mongering , and full of straw-man arguments , was accepted to a doctoral program , and printed in a major magazine .
Of course , it 's The Standard , what did I expect ?
Not well-thought out global technology pieces , that 's for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.That's because, like him, you're a nationalist xenophobe.I mean, the argument boils down to this: America has the First Amendment, therefore we are the only entity capable of not censoring the internet via withholding access to an arbitrary (though ubiquitously popular) namespace.
The insinuation is that other countries do not have the First Amendment and therefore, all of them collectively would present the possibility of such (questionably effective) censorship.Well, how does this argument stand up against the real (though non-American and therefore unreliable) world?
Let's take the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:Article 19.
        * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Well, that's just a UN Resolution with no binding effect, and only reflects a general sense of the body rather than something they all commit to, right?
As Rabkin says, "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition.
" Well, let's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago:Article 19
      1.
Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
      2.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.But none of these statements ensuring freedom of speech compare to the sheer Holy Writ that is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here.Because the United States has never [eff.org], ever [gpo.gov], ever [earlyamerica.com], contemplated restrictions on free speech [wikipedia.org], proving just how trustworthy we are with the world's speech.
Of course, Rabkin does not offer any specific examples of un-contemplatable restrictions on speech imposed by other First World nations, nor does he bother to prove the point that the U.S. has never done anything similar (because he can't).Nor is he at all concerned with people in other countries who may also enjoy free speech, including speech that isn't legal in the United States -- the compelling need is not to ensure the freedom of the world's people, but as he makes clear: "If we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards.
" Aha!
It's the bogeyman of "foreign standards", which all good Americans rightly fear, because they are all, by virtue of being foreign, simply inferior to our own standards (whatever they may be).But what disgusts me most about Rabkin's screed is that someone capable of putting his name on something so baseless, undefensible, xenophobic, fear-mongering, and full of straw-man arguments, was accepted to a doctoral program, and printed in a major magazine.
Of course, it's The Standard, what did I expect?
Not well-thought out global technology pieces, that's for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129863</id>
	<title>Re:So the US paid for the cables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243503900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>*woosh*

Step 1) RTFA
Step 2) google.com
Step 3) Search "DNS", "ICANN", &amp; "DNS Root Servers"</htmltext>
<tokenext>* woosh * Step 1 ) RTFA Step 2 ) google.com Step 3 ) Search " DNS " , " ICANN " , &amp; " DNS Root Servers "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*woosh*

Step 1) RTFA
Step 2) google.com
Step 3) Search "DNS", "ICANN", &amp; "DNS Root Servers"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129723</id>
	<title>Other countries lack freedoms?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243503240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards. Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here. Even if Internet governance were shared only with First World democracies, they might urge and ultimately demand that domain operators impose restrictions on content.</p></div></blockquote><p>Is there *any* real evidence of this being true?  Thanks to many laws and court rulings it seems like the DNS system would be better off outside of one countries control.</p><p>It's strange how people make this "America is the most free" argument with no real data to back it up.  The reality is most countries have equal or greater freedoms than the US, and have for the past 100 or so years.</p><p>To point to colonial England as evidence against DNS being in international control is just silly.</p><p>That said: who was one of the last "first world" countries on earth to outlaw slavery?  Land of the free?  Yea.  Sure.</p><p>America has as many faults as any other country.</p><p>It's about ensuring that one countries faults and corruption can be balanced out by other countries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition , and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online , we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards .
Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here .
Even if Internet governance were shared only with First World democracies , they might urge and ultimately demand that domain operators impose restrictions on content.Is there * any * real evidence of this being true ?
Thanks to many laws and court rulings it seems like the DNS system would be better off outside of one countries control.It 's strange how people make this " America is the most free " argument with no real data to back it up .
The reality is most countries have equal or greater freedoms than the US , and have for the past 100 or so years.To point to colonial England as evidence against DNS being in international control is just silly.That said : who was one of the last " first world " countries on earth to outlaw slavery ?
Land of the free ?
Yea. Sure.America has as many faults as any other country.It 's about ensuring that one countries faults and corruption can be balanced out by other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards.
Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here.
Even if Internet governance were shared only with First World democracies, they might urge and ultimately demand that domain operators impose restrictions on content.Is there *any* real evidence of this being true?
Thanks to many laws and court rulings it seems like the DNS system would be better off outside of one countries control.It's strange how people make this "America is the most free" argument with no real data to back it up.
The reality is most countries have equal or greater freedoms than the US, and have for the past 100 or so years.To point to colonial England as evidence against DNS being in international control is just silly.That said: who was one of the last "first world" countries on earth to outlaw slavery?
Land of the free?
Yea.  Sure.America has as many faults as any other country.It's about ensuring that one countries faults and corruption can be balanced out by other countries.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135635</id>
	<title>Political reasons, in other words.</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1243628400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article does not have any arguments regarding technology and/or economics. It's just politics. and the kind of politics that America has been disliked for: "we are morally superior to the others, so we have the right to do it".</p><p>And judging from the author's name, he may have a particular interest against another religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does not have any arguments regarding technology and/or economics .
It 's just politics .
and the kind of politics that America has been disliked for : " we are morally superior to the others , so we have the right to do it " .And judging from the author 's name , he may have a particular interest against another religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article does not have any arguments regarding technology and/or economics.
It's just politics.
and the kind of politics that America has been disliked for: "we are morally superior to the others, so we have the right to do it".And judging from the author's name, he may have a particular interest against another religion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128359</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>KahabutDieDrake</author>
	<datestamp>1243542060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting for your counter points.  As of yet, we have a lot of hating and trolling against the US in general, but NOT EVEN ONE decent counter point.<br> <br>So, tell me, why should the root DNS be handed over to anyone else?  AFAIK there hasn't been any serious abuse by the controlling body as of yet.  Nor any particular reason to expect any.  Frankly, this comes down to a very simple principle.  It isn't broken, it doesn't need fixing.<br> <br>I'll be the first to say that I don't have any problem tearing control away from an abusive power. However, that isn't the case at hand (yet/if).  While giving control to any international body will practically promise political games, hypocrisy and abuse.  If you can argue that would be an improvement, I'd be extremely interested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for your counter points .
As of yet , we have a lot of hating and trolling against the US in general , but NOT EVEN ONE decent counter point .
So , tell me , why should the root DNS be handed over to anyone else ?
AFAIK there has n't been any serious abuse by the controlling body as of yet .
Nor any particular reason to expect any .
Frankly , this comes down to a very simple principle .
It is n't broken , it does n't need fixing .
I 'll be the first to say that I do n't have any problem tearing control away from an abusive power .
However , that is n't the case at hand ( yet/if ) .
While giving control to any international body will practically promise political games , hypocrisy and abuse .
If you can argue that would be an improvement , I 'd be extremely interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for your counter points.
As of yet, we have a lot of hating and trolling against the US in general, but NOT EVEN ONE decent counter point.
So, tell me, why should the root DNS be handed over to anyone else?
AFAIK there hasn't been any serious abuse by the controlling body as of yet.
Nor any particular reason to expect any.
Frankly, this comes down to a very simple principle.
It isn't broken, it doesn't need fixing.
I'll be the first to say that I don't have any problem tearing control away from an abusive power.
However, that isn't the case at hand (yet/if).
While giving control to any international body will practically promise political games, hypocrisy and abuse.
If you can argue that would be an improvement, I'd be extremely interested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127669</id>
	<title>All I can say is....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243540200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what a load of crap. I think the world as a whole has learned that the US government cannot be trusted with a damn thing. And on the subject of abuse.... what about the massive data mining of most major internet links by the NSA... have we all forgotten about that? The US is the freaking poster child for corruption, greed, and abuse of power. This jokers arguments are weak at best</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what a load of crap .
I think the world as a whole has learned that the US government can not be trusted with a damn thing .
And on the subject of abuse.... what about the massive data mining of most major internet links by the NSA... have we all forgotten about that ?
The US is the freaking poster child for corruption , greed , and abuse of power .
This jokers arguments are weak at best</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a load of crap.
I think the world as a whole has learned that the US government cannot be trusted with a damn thing.
And on the subject of abuse.... what about the massive data mining of most major internet links by the NSA... have we all forgotten about that?
The US is the freaking poster child for corruption, greed, and abuse of power.
This jokers arguments are weak at best</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126837</id>
	<title>Daniel Hannan Speaks</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1243537800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhMmxXybHbI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">You should listen.</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should listen .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should listen.
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133025</id>
	<title>Re:Big Assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243518840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the other Associations of America? Last time I counted there were four other continents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the other Associations of America ?
Last time I counted there were four other continents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the other Associations of America?
Last time I counted there were four other continents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131457</id>
	<title>It can be alternate NIC time again?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1243510920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember all the alternate TLDs and the alternate NICs that got started when Network Solutions was running (or ruining) everything?</p><p>We can do it again. There's no real reason that DNS needs to be centralized, or managed by any authority. The people who really control DNS are Microsoft and Apple and ISC and the other people who ship DNS servers with the root cache configured in... and every one of us who runs our own server.</p><p>Working code and rough consensus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember all the alternate TLDs and the alternate NICs that got started when Network Solutions was running ( or ruining ) everything ? We can do it again .
There 's no real reason that DNS needs to be centralized , or managed by any authority .
The people who really control DNS are Microsoft and Apple and ISC and the other people who ship DNS servers with the root cache configured in... and every one of us who runs our own server.Working code and rough consensus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember all the alternate TLDs and the alternate NICs that got started when Network Solutions was running (or ruining) everything?We can do it again.
There's no real reason that DNS needs to be centralized, or managed by any authority.
The people who really control DNS are Microsoft and Apple and ISC and the other people who ship DNS servers with the root cache configured in... and every one of us who runs our own server.Working code and rough consensus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411</id>
	<title>Real summary:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only the US (acknowledged torturer, massive human rights abuser) has the legal protections (memos penned by John Yoo) to ensure that free speech (Yahoo releases personal info to Chinese internet police, subject of info executed) remains in full force on the Internet.<br>Rah rah! U! S! A! U! S! A!<br>At this point, we could hand control of the Internet to Hitler, and not have any moral standing to criticize him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only the US ( acknowledged torturer , massive human rights abuser ) has the legal protections ( memos penned by John Yoo ) to ensure that free speech ( Yahoo releases personal info to Chinese internet police , subject of info executed ) remains in full force on the Internet.Rah rah !
U ! S !
A ! U !
S ! A ! At this point , we could hand control of the Internet to Hitler , and not have any moral standing to criticize him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only the US (acknowledged torturer, massive human rights abuser) has the legal protections (memos penned by John Yoo) to ensure that free speech (Yahoo releases personal info to Chinese internet police, subject of info executed) remains in full force on the Internet.Rah rah!
U! S!
A! U!
S! A!At this point, we could hand control of the Internet to Hitler, and not have any moral standing to criticize him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128277</id>
	<title>So the US paid for the cables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243541880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the routers, the machines the power and the support infrastructure of the ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE????</p><p>Shit, you may as well say that you should all give your TV rights to Scotland since it was John Logie Baird who invented the television.</p><p>FFS, you had an idea.</p><p>Others have paid for the infrastructure in their own country.</p><p>And just because the US government came up with the frigging protocol YOU want the US to own it????</p><p>PAY FOR YOUR OWN FRIGGING NETWORK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the routers , the machines the power and the support infrastructure of the ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE ? ? ?
? Shit , you may as well say that you should all give your TV rights to Scotland since it was John Logie Baird who invented the television.FFS , you had an idea.Others have paid for the infrastructure in their own country.And just because the US government came up with the frigging protocol YOU want the US to own it ? ? ?
? PAY FOR YOUR OWN FRIGGING NETWORK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the routers, the machines the power and the support infrastructure of the ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE???
?Shit, you may as well say that you should all give your TV rights to Scotland since it was John Logie Baird who invented the television.FFS, you had an idea.Others have paid for the infrastructure in their own country.And just because the US government came up with the frigging protocol YOU want the US to own it???
?PAY FOR YOUR OWN FRIGGING NETWORK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129837</id>
	<title>Re:Who used to run it.</title>
	<author>fullfactorial</author>
	<datestamp>1243503720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <strong>IANA</strong> exists because to have an <strong>I</strong>nternet, you need an <strong>A</strong>uthority to <strong>A</strong>ssign <strong>N</strong>umbers.  Without that, the meaning of "slashdot.org" or "216.34.181.45" depends on the whim of your friendly neighborhood routing table.</p><p>Feel free to debate <em>who</em> the authority is, but acknowledge that we need <em>some</em> authority.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The internet is not some "thing" that needs to be administered. It is not a public resource! There are millions of private networks and we all agree to use TCP/IP and DNS to interoperate.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IANA exists because to have an Internet , you need an Authority to Assign Numbers .
Without that , the meaning of " slashdot.org " or " 216.34.181.45 " depends on the whim of your friendly neighborhood routing table.Feel free to debate who the authority is , but acknowledge that we need some authority.The internet is not some " thing " that needs to be administered .
It is not a public resource !
There are millions of private networks and we all agree to use TCP/IP and DNS to interoperate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IANA exists because to have an Internet, you need an Authority to Assign Numbers.
Without that, the meaning of "slashdot.org" or "216.34.181.45" depends on the whim of your friendly neighborhood routing table.Feel free to debate who the authority is, but acknowledge that we need some authority.The internet is not some "thing" that needs to be administered.
It is not a public resource!
There are millions of private networks and we all agree to use TCP/IP and DNS to interoperate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127137</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Thiez</author>
	<datestamp>1243538700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.</p><p>It's part of a plan to collect a huge amount of resentment bread, then use that bread to feed the poor and bring about world peace. How can you be against that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.It 's part of a plan to collect a huge amount of resentment bread , then use that bread to feed the poor and bring about world peace .
How can you be against that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.It's part of a plan to collect a huge amount of resentment bread, then use that bread to feed the poor and bring about world peace.
How can you be against that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127845</id>
	<title>Give control to France.</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1243540740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give control to France.</p><p>They'll surrender control to the first party who asks nicely.</p><p>(Sorry.  Just kidding.  I have seen the crosses.  Sadly, I can't remember all the names on them.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give control to France.They 'll surrender control to the first party who asks nicely. ( Sorry .
Just kidding .
I have seen the crosses .
Sadly , I ca n't remember all the names on them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give control to France.They'll surrender control to the first party who asks nicely.(Sorry.
Just kidding.
I have seen the crosses.
Sadly, I can't remember all the names on them.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132721</id>
	<title>Re:Is there some way to decentralize name resoluti</title>
	<author>AnyoneEB</author>
	<datestamp>1243517220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.templetons.com/brad/dns/" title="templetons.com">Yes, DNS <em>can</em> be fixed.</a> [templetons.com] The basic idea is to let ICANN just be one authority among many. Put the entire current DNS under<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.icann (and default to appending<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.icann so you don't break stuff, I guess) and let anyone else run their own DNS hierarchy setting up competition in the area of properly assigning domain names (for however your users define "properly" here). The result would most likely be a Wikipedia-like distributed oversight system for who controls which domain names, hopefully with no cost for "registering" a domain which seems pretty silly.</p><p>The linked essays explain and argue for it much better than I can. In the end, the proposed system makes the root more or less powerless so it would no longer really matter who controlled it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , DNS can be fixed .
[ templetons.com ] The basic idea is to let ICANN just be one authority among many .
Put the entire current DNS under .icann ( and default to appending .icann so you do n't break stuff , I guess ) and let anyone else run their own DNS hierarchy setting up competition in the area of properly assigning domain names ( for however your users define " properly " here ) .
The result would most likely be a Wikipedia-like distributed oversight system for who controls which domain names , hopefully with no cost for " registering " a domain which seems pretty silly.The linked essays explain and argue for it much better than I can .
In the end , the proposed system makes the root more or less powerless so it would no longer really matter who controlled it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Yes, DNS can be fixed.
[templetons.com] The basic idea is to let ICANN just be one authority among many.
Put the entire current DNS under .icann (and default to appending .icann so you don't break stuff, I guess) and let anyone else run their own DNS hierarchy setting up competition in the area of properly assigning domain names (for however your users define "properly" here).
The result would most likely be a Wikipedia-like distributed oversight system for who controls which domain names, hopefully with no cost for "registering" a domain which seems pretty silly.The linked essays explain and argue for it much better than I can.
In the end, the proposed system makes the root more or less powerless so it would no longer really matter who controlled it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130747</id>
	<title>Re:Who used to run it.</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1243507560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask any politician - a hundred million for a TLD is a bargain.  Stop whimpering, will ya?  You should realize by now that your purpose in life is to supply money for politicians to waste.  Just stop whimpering, get with the program, and PRODUCE MORE MONEY!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask any politician - a hundred million for a TLD is a bargain .
Stop whimpering , will ya ?
You should realize by now that your purpose in life is to supply money for politicians to waste .
Just stop whimpering , get with the program , and PRODUCE MORE MONEY !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask any politician - a hundred million for a TLD is a bargain.
Stop whimpering, will ya?
You should realize by now that your purpose in life is to supply money for politicians to waste.
Just stop whimpering, get with the program, and PRODUCE MORE MONEY!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131621</id>
	<title>He is right. it should stay in u.s.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1243511640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and saying that is a lot, when it comes from a turk, like me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and saying that is a lot , when it comes from a turk , like me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and saying that is a lot, when it comes from a turk, like me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126521</id>
	<title>Hand it to the UN? God no.</title>
	<author>GenieGenieGenie</author>
	<datestamp>1243536780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does that massive resource sink have on its list of achievements in, say, the last 30 years? Might as well give it OBL, at least he can do *something*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does that massive resource sink have on its list of achievements in , say , the last 30 years ?
Might as well give it OBL , at least he can do * something * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does that massive resource sink have on its list of achievements in, say, the last 30 years?
Might as well give it OBL, at least he can do *something*.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126683</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243537380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first off "it" wasnt completely invented in America or am I the only one that doesnt remember history<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Switzerland anyone ?</p><p>French Standard ? whats that 3 strikes your out ?</p><p>Seriously ffs let sleeping dogs lie, we dont need any more International Unions trying to regulate shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first off " it " wasnt completely invented in America or am I the only one that doesnt remember history .. Switzerland anyone ? French Standard ?
whats that 3 strikes your out ? Seriously ffs let sleeping dogs lie , we dont need any more International Unions trying to regulate shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first off "it" wasnt completely invented in America or am I the only one that doesnt remember history .. Switzerland anyone ?French Standard ?
whats that 3 strikes your out ?Seriously ffs let sleeping dogs lie, we dont need any more International Unions trying to regulate shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127699</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>IceCreamGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1243540260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the unspoken point of the article you seem to be missing is that, out of the meltdown of the global finanacial infrastructure, maybe this is not the time to screw up something that is actually doing fine the way it is.<p><div class="quote"><p>If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US? No.</p></div><p>Let's continue this conversation in a parallel universe, where the Internet did not arise out of US government and educational institutions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the unspoken point of the article you seem to be missing is that , out of the meltdown of the global finanacial infrastructure , maybe this is not the time to screw up something that is actually doing fine the way it is.If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US ?
No.Let 's continue this conversation in a parallel universe , where the Internet did not arise out of US government and educational institutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the unspoken point of the article you seem to be missing is that, out of the meltdown of the global finanacial infrastructure, maybe this is not the time to screw up something that is actually doing fine the way it is.If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US?
No.Let's continue this conversation in a parallel universe, where the Internet did not arise out of US government and educational institutions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127223</id>
	<title>we need a watchtower</title>
	<author>rev\_sanchez</author>
	<datestamp>1243538940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not talking about the Jehovah's Witness booklet thing but the space station the Justice League uses for a base.  I'm not quite so sure that we should turn an important part of the internet over to aliens, mutants, robots, and magicians but the wealthy, tech-savvy folk of the Justice League seem like a good bunch to run DNS.  They really shouldn't host the actual servers in orbit as it would be expensive on hardware and maintenance, logistically difficult to accomplish, and most importantly response times would suffer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not talking about the Jehovah 's Witness booklet thing but the space station the Justice League uses for a base .
I 'm not quite so sure that we should turn an important part of the internet over to aliens , mutants , robots , and magicians but the wealthy , tech-savvy folk of the Justice League seem like a good bunch to run DNS .
They really should n't host the actual servers in orbit as it would be expensive on hardware and maintenance , logistically difficult to accomplish , and most importantly response times would suffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not talking about the Jehovah's Witness booklet thing but the space station the Justice League uses for a base.
I'm not quite so sure that we should turn an important part of the internet over to aliens, mutants, robots, and magicians but the wealthy, tech-savvy folk of the Justice League seem like a good bunch to run DNS.
They really shouldn't host the actual servers in orbit as it would be expensive on hardware and maintenance, logistically difficult to accomplish, and most importantly response times would suffer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128881</id>
	<title>Aren't we open sourcers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243543500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the best name system that we can come up with DNS?</p><p>Come on, all ya all, think of something better and give it a write.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the best name system that we can come up with DNS ? Come on , all ya all , think of something better and give it a write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the best name system that we can come up with DNS?Come on, all ya all, think of something better and give it a write.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128821</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243543380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, that's not true. Anybody in the world is free to sue a US entity in a US federal court. The US Constitution contemplates this exact scenario in Article III, "Controversies Between a State, or the Citizens Thereof, and Foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects".</p><p>And because, unlike most other countries, US courts are technically (and more-or-less practically) independent from the exigent whims of the administrative and legislative branches, you get a fair hearing (notwithstanding that US courts are partial to safeguarding their own powers).</p><p>Granted, they may give considerable deference to Department of Commerce political decisions; if you feel the department is behaving inequitably viz-a-viz other entities regarding a particular policy, you can have your day in court.</p><p>Anyhow, the US is a very large, very diverse country. Notwithstanding the ability to sue on your own behalf, there'll always be somebody in the US willing and able to sue as a domestic entity with a substantially similar claim. Compare to, say, the UN or ITU, where diversity is nominal. With the UN you either get the least common denominator outcome from the General Assembly; or either LCD or unilateral outcomes from Security Council strong-arming. Regarding the ITU, only powerful, rich first-world countries get a real say, anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , that 's not true .
Anybody in the world is free to sue a US entity in a US federal court .
The US Constitution contemplates this exact scenario in Article III , " Controversies Between a State , or the Citizens Thereof , and Foreign States , Citizens , or Subjects " .And because , unlike most other countries , US courts are technically ( and more-or-less practically ) independent from the exigent whims of the administrative and legislative branches , you get a fair hearing ( notwithstanding that US courts are partial to safeguarding their own powers ) .Granted , they may give considerable deference to Department of Commerce political decisions ; if you feel the department is behaving inequitably viz-a-viz other entities regarding a particular policy , you can have your day in court.Anyhow , the US is a very large , very diverse country .
Notwithstanding the ability to sue on your own behalf , there 'll always be somebody in the US willing and able to sue as a domestic entity with a substantially similar claim .
Compare to , say , the UN or ITU , where diversity is nominal .
With the UN you either get the least common denominator outcome from the General Assembly ; or either LCD or unilateral outcomes from Security Council strong-arming .
Regarding the ITU , only powerful , rich first-world countries get a real say , anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, that's not true.
Anybody in the world is free to sue a US entity in a US federal court.
The US Constitution contemplates this exact scenario in Article III, "Controversies Between a State, or the Citizens Thereof, and Foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects".And because, unlike most other countries, US courts are technically (and more-or-less practically) independent from the exigent whims of the administrative and legislative branches, you get a fair hearing (notwithstanding that US courts are partial to safeguarding their own powers).Granted, they may give considerable deference to Department of Commerce political decisions; if you feel the department is behaving inequitably viz-a-viz other entities regarding a particular policy, you can have your day in court.Anyhow, the US is a very large, very diverse country.
Notwithstanding the ability to sue on your own behalf, there'll always be somebody in the US willing and able to sue as a domestic entity with a substantially similar claim.
Compare to, say, the UN or ITU, where diversity is nominal.
With the UN you either get the least common denominator outcome from the General Assembly; or either LCD or unilateral outcomes from Security Council strong-arming.
Regarding the ITU, only powerful, rich first-world countries get a real say, anyhow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28141221</id>
	<title>Fine!</title>
	<author>thousandinone</author>
	<datestamp>1243623780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll just start my OWN internet! With blackjack, and hook...<a href="http://www.craigslist.com/" title="craigslist.com" rel="nofollow">never mind</a> [craigslist.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just start my OWN internet !
With blackjack , and hook...never mind [ craigslist.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just start my OWN internet!
With blackjack, and hook...never mind [craigslist.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557</id>
	<title>The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>Kensai7</author>
	<datestamp>1243536900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Internet should be administered by an <b>international</b> body.</p><p>I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced, for security or productivity reasons, but the <i>Inter</i>net has been so successful because of the <i>inter</i>national networking it helped achieve.</p><p>Otherwise here in the EU we would have used the French standard and I would have posted a similar silly post to the "La BarreObliqueDot"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet should be administered by an international body.I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced , for security or productivity reasons , but the Internet has been so successful because of the international networking it helped achieve.Otherwise here in the EU we would have used the French standard and I would have posted a similar silly post to the " La BarreObliqueDot " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet should be administered by an international body.I understand that many Americans want to keep their hands on the project their country invented and advanced, for security or productivity reasons, but the Internet has been so successful because of the international networking it helped achieve.Otherwise here in the EU we would have used the French standard and I would have posted a similar silly post to the "La BarreObliqueDot"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126793</id>
	<title>DNS Should be in everyones hands</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1243537680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just google the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx extension and why we don't have it yet. Seriously and I know this will offend some people, but the internet and the DNS is of too much importance to be in the hands of 1 party. What if the USA goes berserk, something that from an European point of view is totally possible, and they pull the plug? They should not have this power in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just google the .xxx extension and why we do n't have it yet .
Seriously and I know this will offend some people , but the internet and the DNS is of too much importance to be in the hands of 1 party .
What if the USA goes berserk , something that from an European point of view is totally possible , and they pull the plug ?
They should not have this power in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just google the .xxx extension and why we don't have it yet.
Seriously and I know this will offend some people, but the internet and the DNS is of too much importance to be in the hands of 1 party.
What if the USA goes berserk, something that from an European point of view is totally possible, and they pull the plug?
They should not have this power in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129001</id>
	<title>new corp bad</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1243543920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rupert Murdoch and his news corp would argue everything and anything should be in US control.
<br> <br>
That being said if someone gave better suggestions then vague ideas about giving it over to the UN, I would support it.   <br> <br>
persnolly I would like a lightweight INDEPENDENT international body to run it as a private entity.  I.E the board of directors would be composed of one member from each joined country.  The countries involved would be those with a lot of internet infrastructure.  Of course it would be western biased, who cares.  Although, china and Russia would likely get seats.  It would still be biased but it would be in enough different hands for one country to not have too much power.  Every few years it could add members as it deemed them worthy.  <br> <br>
There is no reason we need to give every single country a say in it  (sorry), and that's what giving it to the UN would be doing.   It's main propose would to keep the status quo it's in, and not to become moral or political czars. All that kind of stuff can and should be done at the ISP level and the national law level.  YOu have a problem with it, you go through your national courts and legislature.   <br>  On a personal note the more you add layers to government, the more disenfranchised you become.  Giving another censorship power to the UN is scary.  I can sue my state, or defend myself in courts, or have a group like the EFF help me sue them,  It's already pretty impossible to influence the national leaders, but at least I have the courts after the fact if they make weird decisions.  I can't even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lobby/ the UN.  Someone from Florida sitting in DC has no idea whats best for me, and barely has my interests at heart, some one from Thailand, sitting in international territory at the UN in New York is 100 times worse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant<br> <br>

The idea might have lots of problems, but my point is give me a better idea then what we have, not just different one and say it's better just because it's not the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert Murdoch and his news corp would argue everything and anything should be in US control .
That being said if someone gave better suggestions then vague ideas about giving it over to the UN , I would support it .
persnolly I would like a lightweight INDEPENDENT international body to run it as a private entity .
I.E the board of directors would be composed of one member from each joined country .
The countries involved would be those with a lot of internet infrastructure .
Of course it would be western biased , who cares .
Although , china and Russia would likely get seats .
It would still be biased but it would be in enough different hands for one country to not have too much power .
Every few years it could add members as it deemed them worthy .
There is no reason we need to give every single country a say in it ( sorry ) , and that 's what giving it to the UN would be doing .
It 's main propose would to keep the status quo it 's in , and not to become moral or political czars .
All that kind of stuff can and should be done at the ISP level and the national law level .
YOu have a problem with it , you go through your national courts and legislature .
On a personal note the more you add layers to government , the more disenfranchised you become .
Giving another censorship power to the UN is scary .
I can sue my state , or defend myself in courts , or have a group like the EFF help me sue them , It 's already pretty impossible to influence the national leaders , but at least I have the courts after the fact if they make weird decisions .
I ca n't even /lobby/ the UN .
Someone from Florida sitting in DC has no idea whats best for me , and barely has my interests at heart , some one from Thailand , sitting in international territory at the UN in New York is 100 times worse .
/rant The idea might have lots of problems , but my point is give me a better idea then what we have , not just different one and say it 's better just because it 's not the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert Murdoch and his news corp would argue everything and anything should be in US control.
That being said if someone gave better suggestions then vague ideas about giving it over to the UN, I would support it.
persnolly I would like a lightweight INDEPENDENT international body to run it as a private entity.
I.E the board of directors would be composed of one member from each joined country.
The countries involved would be those with a lot of internet infrastructure.
Of course it would be western biased, who cares.
Although, china and Russia would likely get seats.
It would still be biased but it would be in enough different hands for one country to not have too much power.
Every few years it could add members as it deemed them worthy.
There is no reason we need to give every single country a say in it  (sorry), and that's what giving it to the UN would be doing.
It's main propose would to keep the status quo it's in, and not to become moral or political czars.
All that kind of stuff can and should be done at the ISP level and the national law level.
YOu have a problem with it, you go through your national courts and legislature.
On a personal note the more you add layers to government, the more disenfranchised you become.
Giving another censorship power to the UN is scary.
I can sue my state, or defend myself in courts, or have a group like the EFF help me sue them,  It's already pretty impossible to influence the national leaders, but at least I have the courts after the fact if they make weird decisions.
I can't even /lobby/ the UN.
Someone from Florida sitting in DC has no idea whats best for me, and barely has my interests at heart, some one from Thailand, sitting in international territory at the UN in New York is 100 times worse.
/rant 

The idea might have lots of problems, but my point is give me a better idea then what we have, not just different one and say it's better just because it's not the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130583</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243506660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be amusing if it worked that way, though.  ie, whatever a Rightwing Nationalistic American says is automatically 100\% wrong.  If, say, we could get a Rightwing Nationalistic American to say "Linux will never succeed" and then the very next day everyone runs Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be amusing if it worked that way , though .
ie , whatever a Rightwing Nationalistic American says is automatically 100 \ % wrong .
If , say , we could get a Rightwing Nationalistic American to say " Linux will never succeed " and then the very next day everyone runs Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be amusing if it worked that way, though.
ie, whatever a Rightwing Nationalistic American says is automatically 100\% wrong.
If, say, we could get a Rightwing Nationalistic American to say "Linux will never succeed" and then the very next day everyone runs Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127151</id>
	<title>If it works...</title>
	<author>DeltaQH</author>
	<datestamp>1243538760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then don't fix it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do n't fix it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then don't fix it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126815</id>
	<title>Neo-con US comic wants to keep US power</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1243537740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pope still Catholic, bears poo in woods, nothing to see here, move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pope still Catholic , bears poo in woods , nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pope still Catholic, bears poo in woods, nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128167</id>
	<title>Our sandbox</title>
	<author>MrWin2kMan</author>
	<datestamp>1243541580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Internet was developed using "our" (U.S.) tax dollars, from DARPA, then the NSF, and now the Commerce Dept. It's "our" (U.S.) sandbox, people. "We" "allow" you to play here. If you don't like it, tough titties. Make your own.
Handing IANA, ARIN or any part of Internet over to the stuffed, corrupt shirts in the UN opens it up to all kinds of abuse by the various national, religious, and ethnic special interest groups that have taken over the UN and run amok.
At least our stuffed shirts currently running things can tell the stuffed shirts at the Commerce Dept., "Um, no, and here's why...".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet was developed using " our " ( U.S. ) tax dollars , from DARPA , then the NSF , and now the Commerce Dept .
It 's " our " ( U.S. ) sandbox , people .
" We " " allow " you to play here .
If you do n't like it , tough titties .
Make your own .
Handing IANA , ARIN or any part of Internet over to the stuffed , corrupt shirts in the UN opens it up to all kinds of abuse by the various national , religious , and ethnic special interest groups that have taken over the UN and run amok .
At least our stuffed shirts currently running things can tell the stuffed shirts at the Commerce Dept. , " Um , no , and here 's why... " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet was developed using "our" (U.S.) tax dollars, from DARPA, then the NSF, and now the Commerce Dept.
It's "our" (U.S.) sandbox, people.
"We" "allow" you to play here.
If you don't like it, tough titties.
Make your own.
Handing IANA, ARIN or any part of Internet over to the stuffed, corrupt shirts in the UN opens it up to all kinds of abuse by the various national, religious, and ethnic special interest groups that have taken over the UN and run amok.
At least our stuffed shirts currently running things can tell the stuffed shirts at the Commerce Dept., "Um, no, and here's why...".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129713</id>
	<title>An Argument For Leaving DNS Control In US Hands</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1243503180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All your FDQN are belong to US!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All your FDQN are belong to US !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your FDQN are belong to US!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127479</id>
	<title>Department of Defense</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1243539660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Our unusual tradition of private infrastructure development, including the railroad and telephone networks, made America fertile ground for the development of the Internet.</p></div></blockquote><p>Firstly, the department of defense collaborated with educational institutions to create the Internet. The things he's extolling about the Internet are in fact the things that come from excessive U.S. government intervention in the network.</p><p>If private industry controlled the tubes half as much as they want to, we'd all be paying out the ass for  pay-per-view YouTube videos. Thank God for American government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : Our unusual tradition of private infrastructure development , including the railroad and telephone networks , made America fertile ground for the development of the Internet.Firstly , the department of defense collaborated with educational institutions to create the Internet .
The things he 's extolling about the Internet are in fact the things that come from excessive U.S. government intervention in the network.If private industry controlled the tubes half as much as they want to , we 'd all be paying out the ass for pay-per-view YouTube videos .
Thank God for American government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:Our unusual tradition of private infrastructure development, including the railroad and telephone networks, made America fertile ground for the development of the Internet.Firstly, the department of defense collaborated with educational institutions to create the Internet.
The things he's extolling about the Internet are in fact the things that come from excessive U.S. government intervention in the network.If private industry controlled the tubes half as much as they want to, we'd all be paying out the ass for  pay-per-view YouTube videos.
Thank God for American government.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128349</id>
	<title>Re:Big Assumption</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1243542060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key word in your post is that Feinstein <i>tried</i> to ban bomb-making instructions.  Obviously, Feinstein failed - how, then, is the system broken?  What speech has been censored on the Internet by the U.S.?</p><p>Or are you complaining that the U.S. wants to ban child porn?  That complaint, in particular, is a double-edged sword.</p><p>Yes, there are pending bills that want to make stupid laws.  Well guess what?  Nothing amounting to censorship has been passed - or can you point to something (besides child porn) that has been censored?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key word in your post is that Feinstein tried to ban bomb-making instructions .
Obviously , Feinstein failed - how , then , is the system broken ?
What speech has been censored on the Internet by the U.S. ? Or are you complaining that the U.S. wants to ban child porn ?
That complaint , in particular , is a double-edged sword.Yes , there are pending bills that want to make stupid laws .
Well guess what ?
Nothing amounting to censorship has been passed - or can you point to something ( besides child porn ) that has been censored ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key word in your post is that Feinstein tried to ban bomb-making instructions.
Obviously, Feinstein failed - how, then, is the system broken?
What speech has been censored on the Internet by the U.S.?Or are you complaining that the U.S. wants to ban child porn?
That complaint, in particular, is a double-edged sword.Yes, there are pending bills that want to make stupid laws.
Well guess what?
Nothing amounting to censorship has been passed - or can you point to something (besides child porn) that has been censored?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128245</id>
	<title>Re:Not convincing and very lame.</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1243541820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.</p></div><p>I just want to point out that none of that changes the meaning of his words.  It would be pretty disingenuous to immediately discount an argument simply because of the source, without taking the argument into consideration at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just also please note , it 's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.I just want to point out that none of that changes the meaning of his words .
It would be pretty disingenuous to immediately discount an argument simply because of the source , without taking the argument into consideration at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just also please note, it's not just an American writing in an American magazine... it is a Rightwing Nationalistic American writing in a Rightwing Nationalistic Magazine.I just want to point out that none of that changes the meaning of his words.
It would be pretty disingenuous to immediately discount an argument simply because of the source, without taking the argument into consideration at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128485</id>
	<title>Article mistake: ICANN, not IANA</title>
	<author>jgarzik</author>
	<datestamp>1243542360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article refers to <a href="http://www.iana.org/" title="iana.org">IANA</a> [iana.org], but I think it means <a href="http://www.icann.org/" title="icann.org">ICANN</a> [icann.org].</p><p>The article's author apparently did not read <a href="http://www.iana.org/about/" title="iana.org">IANA's About page</a> [iana.org], which states what every Internet geek already knows:</p><p>IANA executes policy; it does not create policy.  Policy-making is left to working groups within ICANN and elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article refers to IANA [ iana.org ] , but I think it means ICANN [ icann.org ] .The article 's author apparently did not read IANA 's About page [ iana.org ] , which states what every Internet geek already knows : IANA executes policy ; it does not create policy .
Policy-making is left to working groups within ICANN and elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article refers to IANA [iana.org], but I think it means ICANN [icann.org].The article's author apparently did not read IANA's About page [iana.org], which states what every Internet geek already knows:IANA executes policy; it does not create policy.
Policy-making is left to working groups within ICANN and elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28238285</id>
	<title>Putting DNS servers on a neutral territory</title>
	<author>OutputLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1244300040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about putting DNS servers on a neutral territory. Mars is a good candidate: there is a growing list of countries that launch their probes there.
There will some web access delay, but it's another issue.
<br> <br> <a href="http://outputlogic.com/" title="outputlogic.com" rel="nofollow">OutputLogic</a> [outputlogic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about putting DNS servers on a neutral territory .
Mars is a good candidate : there is a growing list of countries that launch their probes there .
There will some web access delay , but it 's another issue .
OutputLogic [ outputlogic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about putting DNS servers on a neutral territory.
Mars is a good candidate: there is a growing list of countries that launch their probes there.
There will some web access delay, but it's another issue.
OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136335</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243593780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The distrust is mutual - as much as the U.S. distrusts the UN's or any other country's capability of managing the domains, so does the rest of the world distrust the U.S. in doing it responsibly.<br><br>If the U.S. thinks that somebody else managing the domains could disrupt the system to do harm to the U.S. then the rest of the world thinks that the U.S. could do the same to them. A history of not having done it before is no guarantee that it would not happen in the future.<br><br>In particular, the Weekly Standard is an extreme right-wing magazine run by neoconservatives. To the rest of the world, the Weekly Standard is a notorious mouthpiece for the neoconservative ideology. The editor, William Kristol is the founder of the PNAC (Project for the New American Century), the organization that envisioned the Iraq war even before Bush became president and then implemented it throught its members in Bush's administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc.). Neoconservatives advocate for the U.S. to control the world's resources, as they think it would be best for the U.S. and best for the rest of the world. After the incredible success of the Iraq war, I'm not sure if the rest of the world agrees. How do you think other countries see the neoconservatives' continued pushing of the agenda where the U.S. controls everything in the world? The rest of the world does not want to become another Iraq.<br><br>It might still be a practical issue that right now there is nobody else who would be more capable of managing the domains than the U.S. is. Ideally there should be some world body that would be guaranteed to be as liberal and as much in support of free speech as the U.S. currently is. But there is no such world body, and there might never be one. Still, ideally, in the long term the U.S. should not dominate it. Knowing the neoconservative agenda, there are no guarantees that the U.S. will remain as benevolent in this matter to the rest of the world as it has been until now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The distrust is mutual - as much as the U.S. distrusts the UN 's or any other country 's capability of managing the domains , so does the rest of the world distrust the U.S. in doing it responsibly.If the U.S. thinks that somebody else managing the domains could disrupt the system to do harm to the U.S. then the rest of the world thinks that the U.S. could do the same to them .
A history of not having done it before is no guarantee that it would not happen in the future.In particular , the Weekly Standard is an extreme right-wing magazine run by neoconservatives .
To the rest of the world , the Weekly Standard is a notorious mouthpiece for the neoconservative ideology .
The editor , William Kristol is the founder of the PNAC ( Project for the New American Century ) , the organization that envisioned the Iraq war even before Bush became president and then implemented it throught its members in Bush 's administration ( Cheney , Rumsfeld , Wolfowitz etc. ) .
Neoconservatives advocate for the U.S. to control the world 's resources , as they think it would be best for the U.S. and best for the rest of the world .
After the incredible success of the Iraq war , I 'm not sure if the rest of the world agrees .
How do you think other countries see the neoconservatives ' continued pushing of the agenda where the U.S. controls everything in the world ?
The rest of the world does not want to become another Iraq.It might still be a practical issue that right now there is nobody else who would be more capable of managing the domains than the U.S. is. Ideally there should be some world body that would be guaranteed to be as liberal and as much in support of free speech as the U.S. currently is .
But there is no such world body , and there might never be one .
Still , ideally , in the long term the U.S. should not dominate it .
Knowing the neoconservative agenda , there are no guarantees that the U.S. will remain as benevolent in this matter to the rest of the world as it has been until now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The distrust is mutual - as much as the U.S. distrusts the UN's or any other country's capability of managing the domains, so does the rest of the world distrust the U.S. in doing it responsibly.If the U.S. thinks that somebody else managing the domains could disrupt the system to do harm to the U.S. then the rest of the world thinks that the U.S. could do the same to them.
A history of not having done it before is no guarantee that it would not happen in the future.In particular, the Weekly Standard is an extreme right-wing magazine run by neoconservatives.
To the rest of the world, the Weekly Standard is a notorious mouthpiece for the neoconservative ideology.
The editor, William Kristol is the founder of the PNAC (Project for the New American Century), the organization that envisioned the Iraq war even before Bush became president and then implemented it throught its members in Bush's administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc.).
Neoconservatives advocate for the U.S. to control the world's resources, as they think it would be best for the U.S. and best for the rest of the world.
After the incredible success of the Iraq war, I'm not sure if the rest of the world agrees.
How do you think other countries see the neoconservatives' continued pushing of the agenda where the U.S. controls everything in the world?
The rest of the world does not want to become another Iraq.It might still be a practical issue that right now there is nobody else who would be more capable of managing the domains than the U.S. is. Ideally there should be some world body that would be guaranteed to be as liberal and as much in support of free speech as the U.S. currently is.
But there is no such world body, and there might never be one.
Still, ideally, in the long term the U.S. should not dominate it.
Knowing the neoconservative agenda, there are no guarantees that the U.S. will remain as benevolent in this matter to the rest of the world as it has been until now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136257</id>
	<title>Re:Real summary:</title>
	<author>EMN13</author>
	<datestamp>1243592760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Concerning libel laws, this is untrue: although British libel laws are extreme, generally speaking libel is a far more serious legal threat in the US than in most of the EU.  These laws should be tuned down everywhere; they prevent criticism by those unwilling or unable to afford costly legal battles.</p><p>Particularly in the US the danger to free speech is high due to libel since court cases are more risky in the US than elsewhere, and secondly due to general public intolerance of criticism of the US - witness the reaction of passersby to the protesters calling for the release of the incriminating Abu Ghraib: people felt the need to proclaim their patriotism, rather than to defend the very essence of free speech: transparency with regards to abuses of power.</p><p>American society pays free speech lip service - no more (which is bad), but also no less (and simply awareness of the virtues of transparency is worth a lot).</p><p>So, while I don't believe it's necessary to transfer DNS control to an international body, you're kidding yourself if you believe the US is doing a fine job, and in particular kidding yourself if you believe that freedom of the speech is particularly high in the US: <a href="http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009\_tables.pdf" title="freedomhouse.org">it's not</a> [freedomhouse.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Concerning libel laws , this is untrue : although British libel laws are extreme , generally speaking libel is a far more serious legal threat in the US than in most of the EU .
These laws should be tuned down everywhere ; they prevent criticism by those unwilling or unable to afford costly legal battles.Particularly in the US the danger to free speech is high due to libel since court cases are more risky in the US than elsewhere , and secondly due to general public intolerance of criticism of the US - witness the reaction of passersby to the protesters calling for the release of the incriminating Abu Ghraib : people felt the need to proclaim their patriotism , rather than to defend the very essence of free speech : transparency with regards to abuses of power.American society pays free speech lip service - no more ( which is bad ) , but also no less ( and simply awareness of the virtues of transparency is worth a lot ) .So , while I do n't believe it 's necessary to transfer DNS control to an international body , you 're kidding yourself if you believe the US is doing a fine job , and in particular kidding yourself if you believe that freedom of the speech is particularly high in the US : it 's not [ freedomhouse.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concerning libel laws, this is untrue: although British libel laws are extreme, generally speaking libel is a far more serious legal threat in the US than in most of the EU.
These laws should be tuned down everywhere; they prevent criticism by those unwilling or unable to afford costly legal battles.Particularly in the US the danger to free speech is high due to libel since court cases are more risky in the US than elsewhere, and secondly due to general public intolerance of criticism of the US - witness the reaction of passersby to the protesters calling for the release of the incriminating Abu Ghraib: people felt the need to proclaim their patriotism, rather than to defend the very essence of free speech: transparency with regards to abuses of power.American society pays free speech lip service - no more (which is bad), but also no less (and simply awareness of the virtues of transparency is worth a lot).So, while I don't believe it's necessary to transfer DNS control to an international body, you're kidding yourself if you believe the US is doing a fine job, and in particular kidding yourself if you believe that freedom of the speech is particularly high in the US: it's not [freedomhouse.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127551</id>
	<title>Re:Give control to Canada</title>
	<author>fubar1971</author>
	<datestamp>1243539840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guys over at Columbia Internet...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guys over at Columbia Internet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guys over at Columbia Internet...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127747</id>
	<title>Re:So what it boils down to is american selfintere</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1243540380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you really didn't read it. If the US ever abused it's power then all that an other country would have to do is set up it's own version of ICANN and make their ISPs use it.</p><p>Of course they will not and this is really all a tempest in a tea pot. No country really wants to run it because they don't want the heat. As long as the US runs it they can blame everything on the US.<br>Oh you don't like those websites? Well we can not stop them since the US runs it.<br>In all there is no more reason for the US to give up control of ICANN than there is for France to give up control over the FIA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you really did n't read it .
If the US ever abused it 's power then all that an other country would have to do is set up it 's own version of ICANN and make their ISPs use it.Of course they will not and this is really all a tempest in a tea pot .
No country really wants to run it because they do n't want the heat .
As long as the US runs it they can blame everything on the US.Oh you do n't like those websites ?
Well we can not stop them since the US runs it.In all there is no more reason for the US to give up control of ICANN than there is for France to give up control over the FIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you really didn't read it.
If the US ever abused it's power then all that an other country would have to do is set up it's own version of ICANN and make their ISPs use it.Of course they will not and this is really all a tempest in a tea pot.
No country really wants to run it because they don't want the heat.
As long as the US runs it they can blame everything on the US.Oh you don't like those websites?
Well we can not stop them since the US runs it.In all there is no more reason for the US to give up control of ICANN than there is for France to give up control over the FIA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129281</id>
	<title>Re:Got the basic facts wrong</title>
	<author>dodobh</author>
	<datestamp>1243501740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other than deciding the root server IPs, not much. IANA controls '.'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than deciding the root server IPs , not much .
IANA controls ' .
' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than deciding the root server IPs, not much.
IANA controls '.
'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131697</id>
	<title>Whoa. Someone feels elite..</title>
	<author>DarKlajid</author>
	<datestamp>1243512120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But if we believe in free speech, we ought to keep control of the Internet away from foreign governments that value it far less than we do."</p><p>Oh. Sorry. Yeah, I forgot that for a moment. The last (and the current..) administration of the US of A certainly showed that they value freedom, and personal rights, on a really high level. Now - mod me troll for this all you want. I would always stand up against any single country claiming to be better (Yeah, it's not the country that claims the thing, it's just a lousy CS student). The whole idea is flawed. Who's right or wrong isn't a question that can be answered easily.<br>The current model just "solves" this issue by favoring one country, for historical reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the decisions (from the article) taken are hard and that they are made arbitrary.</p><p>The whole point of the story is: If someone needs to arbitrary decide about the internet, it should be us (We have the First Amendment! Hail us!).</p><p>I argue that an international body would be less biased and more "free". Isn't that what the constitution over there is about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But if we believe in free speech , we ought to keep control of the Internet away from foreign governments that value it far less than we do. " Oh .
Sorry. Yeah , I forgot that for a moment .
The last ( and the current.. ) administration of the US of A certainly showed that they value freedom , and personal rights , on a really high level .
Now - mod me troll for this all you want .
I would always stand up against any single country claiming to be better ( Yeah , it 's not the country that claims the thing , it 's just a lousy CS student ) .
The whole idea is flawed .
Who 's right or wrong is n't a question that can be answered easily.The current model just " solves " this issue by favoring one country , for historical reasons .
That does n't change the fact that the decisions ( from the article ) taken are hard and that they are made arbitrary.The whole point of the story is : If someone needs to arbitrary decide about the internet , it should be us ( We have the First Amendment !
Hail us !
) .I argue that an international body would be less biased and more " free " .
Is n't that what the constitution over there is about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But if we believe in free speech, we ought to keep control of the Internet away from foreign governments that value it far less than we do."Oh.
Sorry. Yeah, I forgot that for a moment.
The last (and the current..) administration of the US of A certainly showed that they value freedom, and personal rights, on a really high level.
Now - mod me troll for this all you want.
I would always stand up against any single country claiming to be better (Yeah, it's not the country that claims the thing, it's just a lousy CS student).
The whole idea is flawed.
Who's right or wrong isn't a question that can be answered easily.The current model just "solves" this issue by favoring one country, for historical reasons.
That doesn't change the fact that the decisions (from the article) taken are hard and that they are made arbitrary.The whole point of the story is: If someone needs to arbitrary decide about the internet, it should be us (We have the First Amendment!
Hail us!
).I argue that an international body would be less biased and more "free".
Isn't that what the constitution over there is about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28140609</id>
	<title>Re:Legal Eagles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243621020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>north korea IS off the internet, the country has two computers connected to the internet - both used exclusively by kim</p><p>okey, they prolly have few others to access information for their industry and science. but the main thing is that public has no access to internet(not that they could afford computers)<br>cutting a country that uses so little internet off the grid would be impossible, already all their outside connections are prolly via sattelite</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>north korea IS off the internet , the country has two computers connected to the internet - both used exclusively by kimokey , they prolly have few others to access information for their industry and science .
but the main thing is that public has no access to internet ( not that they could afford computers ) cutting a country that uses so little internet off the grid would be impossible , already all their outside connections are prolly via sattelite</tokentext>
<sentencetext>north korea IS off the internet, the country has two computers connected to the internet - both used exclusively by kimokey, they prolly have few others to access information for their industry and science.
but the main thing is that public has no access to internet(not that they could afford computers)cutting a country that uses so little internet off the grid would be impossible, already all their outside connections are prolly via sattelite</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129317</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1243501860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The Internet should be administered by an international body</b></p><p>Opinion.  Nothing more.</p><p>The US built the current system.  They invested the money in developing it.  Try going into someone's shop and telling them that they should allow their business to be "nationalized" by an international body.  Prepare for lots of derisive laughter.</p><p>There are ZERO technical reasons for relinquishing control to an international body.</p><p>There are ZERO legal reasons for relinquishing control to an international body.</p><p>The reasons (using the work "reason" in the absolute loosest sense) are social/political.  Most consisting of a vague "I dislike/distrust America" vibe.</p><p>In short.  Tough shit.  Build your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet should be administered by an international bodyOpinion .
Nothing more.The US built the current system .
They invested the money in developing it .
Try going into someone 's shop and telling them that they should allow their business to be " nationalized " by an international body .
Prepare for lots of derisive laughter.There are ZERO technical reasons for relinquishing control to an international body.There are ZERO legal reasons for relinquishing control to an international body.The reasons ( using the work " reason " in the absolute loosest sense ) are social/political .
Most consisting of a vague " I dislike/distrust America " vibe.In short .
Tough shit .
Build your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet should be administered by an international bodyOpinion.
Nothing more.The US built the current system.
They invested the money in developing it.
Try going into someone's shop and telling them that they should allow their business to be "nationalized" by an international body.
Prepare for lots of derisive laughter.There are ZERO technical reasons for relinquishing control to an international body.There are ZERO legal reasons for relinquishing control to an international body.The reasons (using the work "reason" in the absolute loosest sense) are social/political.
Most consisting of a vague "I dislike/distrust America" vibe.In short.
Tough shit.
Build your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126847</id>
	<title>Vague fearmongering...</title>
	<author>endquote</author>
	<datestamp>1243537860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I think that the IANA is really broken but this article does nothing to convince me of anything.  A bunch of "things aren't broken why fix them" arguments combined with some vaugely offensive, jingoistic, BS that the US is the "only country that believes in free speech".  To be honest I think the main reason we haven't seen the US attempting to abuse this is because historically the people in charge simply didn't have any idea what they were doing.</p><p>After all it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series\_of\_tubes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"not a big truck"</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I think that the IANA is really broken but this article does nothing to convince me of anything .
A bunch of " things are n't broken why fix them " arguments combined with some vaugely offensive , jingoistic , BS that the US is the " only country that believes in free speech " .
To be honest I think the main reason we have n't seen the US attempting to abuse this is because historically the people in charge simply did n't have any idea what they were doing.After all it 's " not a big truck " [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I think that the IANA is really broken but this article does nothing to convince me of anything.
A bunch of "things aren't broken why fix them" arguments combined with some vaugely offensive, jingoistic, BS that the US is the "only country that believes in free speech".
To be honest I think the main reason we haven't seen the US attempting to abuse this is because historically the people in charge simply didn't have any idea what they were doing.After all it's "not a big truck" [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>parodyca</author>
	<datestamp>1243537800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Do I want it taken away from us? Heck no. We hold all the power in this area right now. But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.</p></div><p>Why is that fair and right? Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint, the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology. What moral reason does the world have to gain control? <b>"We would make better owners of your property than you."?</b></p> </div><p>That's funny 'cause that is exactly how I read the current state of affairs. Sorry to break it you you sonny, but the US does not own the Internet. No one owns the Internet any more that anyone could own the air we breath. It is a common resource, and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world.

Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown. The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US. Does the US really need that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I want it taken away from us ?
Heck no .
We hold all the power in this area right now .
But if we 're talking about fair and right , then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.Why is that fair and right ?
Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint , the US created the internet , and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology .
What moral reason does the world have to gain control ?
" We would make better owners of your property than you. " ?
That 's funny 'cause that is exactly how I read the current state of affairs .
Sorry to break it you you sonny , but the US does not own the Internet .
No one owns the Internet any more that anyone could own the air we breath .
It is a common resource , and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world .
Look , the US , as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown .
The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US .
Does the US really need that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I want it taken away from us?
Heck no.
We hold all the power in this area right now.
But if we're talking about fair and right, then it really should be handled by the UN rather than any single country.Why is that fair and right?
Looking at it from a moral standpoint rather than a purely policy standpoint, the US created the internet, and has freely and openly allowed the rest of the world access to the technology.
What moral reason does the world have to gain control?
"We would make better owners of your property than you."?
That's funny 'cause that is exactly how I read the current state of affairs.
Sorry to break it you you sonny, but the US does not own the Internet.
No one owns the Internet any more that anyone could own the air we breath.
It is a common resource, and the US insisting on keeping control of it is an afront to the rest of the world.
Look, the US, as every other country would still control their own country TLDs so all this worry about censorship is totally overblown.
The US keeping control however will simply bread more resentment toward the US.
Does the US really need that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131943</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243513320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one seems to have pointed out that this article is in the Weekly Standard which is owned by News Corp.  These are the same clowns who bring us Fox News.  The Weekly Standard is one of the pits which contains the consistently mistaken band of retards known as "neocons."  Iraq anyone?  Hello?  The firewalls on your brains need to be turned back on.  Jesus.  Surely there is a better source of information to guide decisions about Intertrons and DNSes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one seems to have pointed out that this article is in the Weekly Standard which is owned by News Corp. These are the same clowns who bring us Fox News .
The Weekly Standard is one of the pits which contains the consistently mistaken band of retards known as " neocons .
" Iraq anyone ?
Hello ? The firewalls on your brains need to be turned back on .
Jesus. Surely there is a better source of information to guide decisions about Intertrons and DNSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one seems to have pointed out that this article is in the Weekly Standard which is owned by News Corp.  These are the same clowns who bring us Fox News.
The Weekly Standard is one of the pits which contains the consistently mistaken band of retards known as "neocons.
"  Iraq anyone?
Hello?  The firewalls on your brains need to be turned back on.
Jesus.  Surely there is a better source of information to guide decisions about Intertrons and DNSes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126539</id>
	<title>this idea is insane</title>
	<author>superwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1243536840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would give some international body actual enforcement power over something.  Up until now they only have the power of rhetoric and proclamation (even if they are "binding").  This would create a mechanism for them to actually enforce penalties against non-complying (insert blank here).  Given that the international relations are always (by <i>definition</i>) nothing but politics, this would have almost immediate chilling effects on free speech on the Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would give some international body actual enforcement power over something .
Up until now they only have the power of rhetoric and proclamation ( even if they are " binding " ) .
This would create a mechanism for them to actually enforce penalties against non-complying ( insert blank here ) .
Given that the international relations are always ( by definition ) nothing but politics , this would have almost immediate chilling effects on free speech on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would give some international body actual enforcement power over something.
Up until now they only have the power of rhetoric and proclamation (even if they are "binding").
This would create a mechanism for them to actually enforce penalties against non-complying (insert blank here).
Given that the international relations are always (by definition) nothing but politics, this would have almost immediate chilling effects on free speech on the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127449</id>
	<title>Re:Give control to Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243539600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we'll apologize for it.</p><p>Actually, even if the mistake isn't our fault, we'll apologize anyway. That's the Canadian way.</p></div><p>Apologize for the abomination you call the "Human Rights Commission" yet?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we 'll apologize for it.Actually , even if the mistake is n't our fault , we 'll apologize anyway .
That 's the Canadian way.Apologize for the abomination you call the " Human Rights Commission " yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're generally impartial and if we ever make a mistake we'll apologize for it.Actually, even if the mistake isn't our fault, we'll apologize anyway.
That's the Canadian way.Apologize for the abomination you call the "Human Rights Commission" yet?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126549</id>
	<title>Speculation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243536840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article makes vague speculation about what could potentially happen but neglects to consider that it is the US's ball to hand off.</p><p>So if the US wants certain terms (e.g. Freedom of Speech) met when it hands it to an international body they have the leverage to get it.</p><p>As far as the "US has never done anything bad with domain names" thing that is bull. The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they want and let's not forget the insane anti-gabling domain grab recently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article makes vague speculation about what could potentially happen but neglects to consider that it is the US 's ball to hand off.So if the US wants certain terms ( e.g .
Freedom of Speech ) met when it hands it to an international body they have the leverage to get it.As far as the " US has never done anything bad with domain names " thing that is bull .
The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they want and let 's not forget the insane anti-gabling domain grab recently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article makes vague speculation about what could potentially happen but neglects to consider that it is the US's ball to hand off.So if the US wants certain terms (e.g.
Freedom of Speech) met when it hands it to an international body they have the leverage to get it.As far as the "US has never done anything bad with domain names" thing that is bull.
The current system basically gives any company with enough money any domain they want and let's not forget the insane anti-gabling domain grab recently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719</id>
	<title>Big Assumption</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1243537500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The United States could, in theory, set up a renegade, uncensored Internet. But there would likely be significant public distrust, substantial political acrimony, and a great deal of hesitation. We are better off keeping the public Internet free and leaving the social and technical burdens on governments that want to censor. The present system is thus perhaps the best way to prevent the naming system from being used to chill online speech worldwide.</p></div><p>The only problem with his morass of assumptions about freedom is that America <i>does</i> want to censor the internet.<br>A long time ago Feinstein tried to ban bomb making instructions on the internet, then there was the Communications Decency Act (unconstitutional), followed by the Child Online Protection Act (unconstitutional), ending with Children's Internet Protection Act which the Supreme Court eventually declared Constitutional because it was vastly narrower than its predecessors.</p><p>There's other legislation I'm leaving out, but you get the idea.<br>/And God helps us all if the **AA's of the world get their way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States could , in theory , set up a renegade , uncensored Internet .
But there would likely be significant public distrust , substantial political acrimony , and a great deal of hesitation .
We are better off keeping the public Internet free and leaving the social and technical burdens on governments that want to censor .
The present system is thus perhaps the best way to prevent the naming system from being used to chill online speech worldwide.The only problem with his morass of assumptions about freedom is that America does want to censor the internet.A long time ago Feinstein tried to ban bomb making instructions on the internet , then there was the Communications Decency Act ( unconstitutional ) , followed by the Child Online Protection Act ( unconstitutional ) , ending with Children 's Internet Protection Act which the Supreme Court eventually declared Constitutional because it was vastly narrower than its predecessors.There 's other legislation I 'm leaving out , but you get the idea./And God helps us all if the * * AA 's of the world get their way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States could, in theory, set up a renegade, uncensored Internet.
But there would likely be significant public distrust, substantial political acrimony, and a great deal of hesitation.
We are better off keeping the public Internet free and leaving the social and technical burdens on governments that want to censor.
The present system is thus perhaps the best way to prevent the naming system from being used to chill online speech worldwide.The only problem with his morass of assumptions about freedom is that America does want to censor the internet.A long time ago Feinstein tried to ban bomb making instructions on the internet, then there was the Communications Decency Act (unconstitutional), followed by the Child Online Protection Act (unconstitutional), ending with Children's Internet Protection Act which the Supreme Court eventually declared Constitutional because it was vastly narrower than its predecessors.There's other legislation I'm leaving out, but you get the idea./And God helps us all if the **AA's of the world get their way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129099</id>
	<title>Site Finder</title>
	<author>damonlab</author>
	<datestamp>1243544280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any discussion over DNS control should include a discussion about Site Finder as that happened under control of the US.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site\_Finder" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site\_Finder</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any discussion over DNS control should include a discussion about Site Finder as that happened under control of the US .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site \ _Finder [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any discussion over DNS control should include a discussion about Site Finder as that happened under control of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site\_Finder [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127537</id>
	<title>Re:The Internet belongs to those who use it.</title>
	<author>harryandthehenderson</author>
	<datestamp>1243539840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many times do we have to keep saying this! The World Wide Web is NOT the Internet!<br>Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is port 80 of TCP/IP (Transport Control Protocol over Internet Protocol) which carriers HTML and other content, it doesn't make it "The Internet".</p></div><p>Thanks for stating the obvious, Sherlock. I'm glad you rebutted something that wasn't contained in my post.  You definitely win that argument since it wasn't one that I ever put forth.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You're the typical fucking moron who just registers a slashdot account and immediately starts spewing bullshit!</p></div><p>No, I was just rebutting the claims that only Americans had anything to do with the creation of the Internet.  Yes, the World Wide Web is not the Internet itself but it is an important part of it that has shaped the very foundation of the way the Internet is and is used today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times do we have to keep saying this !
The World Wide Web is NOT the Internet ! Hypertext Transfer Protocol ( HTTP ) is port 80 of TCP/IP ( Transport Control Protocol over Internet Protocol ) which carriers HTML and other content , it does n't make it " The Internet " .Thanks for stating the obvious , Sherlock .
I 'm glad you rebutted something that was n't contained in my post .
You definitely win that argument since it was n't one that I ever put forth.You 're the typical fucking moron who just registers a slashdot account and immediately starts spewing bullshit ! No , I was just rebutting the claims that only Americans had anything to do with the creation of the Internet .
Yes , the World Wide Web is not the Internet itself but it is an important part of it that has shaped the very foundation of the way the Internet is and is used today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times do we have to keep saying this!
The World Wide Web is NOT the Internet!Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is port 80 of TCP/IP (Transport Control Protocol over Internet Protocol) which carriers HTML and other content, it doesn't make it "The Internet".Thanks for stating the obvious, Sherlock.
I'm glad you rebutted something that wasn't contained in my post.
You definitely win that argument since it wasn't one that I ever put forth.You're the typical fucking moron who just registers a slashdot account and immediately starts spewing bullshit!No, I was just rebutting the claims that only Americans had anything to do with the creation of the Internet.
Yes, the World Wide Web is not the Internet itself but it is an important part of it that has shaped the very foundation of the way the Internet is and is used today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126963</id>
	<title>what about .sex and .xxx???</title>
	<author>nighty5</author>
	<datestamp>1243538220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a load of hogwash.<p>

If USA were truly pro-free speech they would of permitted the implementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sex and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx namespaces.</p><p>

Its nothing to do with what I think about porn, it has a practical use that allows people to quickly identify with the subject matter and to allow software to classify it as so.</p><p>

The conservative government simply did not want this to happen, and they have successfully lobbied hard to stop these practical namespaces to be implemented.</p><p>

Creating an Internet wasteland of "filth" may have some merit, but I highly doubt it will lead to an increase in people watching it. Most large, modern cities have "saucy" areas, but just because they are there doesn't mean every citizen visits everyday.</p><p>

I still believe this process needs to be apolitical as noted, without government intervention - its the only way. I do not accept that the US has a higher ground than other forward thinking countries in this matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of hogwash .
If USA were truly pro-free speech they would of permitted the implementation of .sex and .xxx namespaces .
Its nothing to do with what I think about porn , it has a practical use that allows people to quickly identify with the subject matter and to allow software to classify it as so .
The conservative government simply did not want this to happen , and they have successfully lobbied hard to stop these practical namespaces to be implemented .
Creating an Internet wasteland of " filth " may have some merit , but I highly doubt it will lead to an increase in people watching it .
Most large , modern cities have " saucy " areas , but just because they are there does n't mean every citizen visits everyday .
I still believe this process needs to be apolitical as noted , without government intervention - its the only way .
I do not accept that the US has a higher ground than other forward thinking countries in this matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of hogwash.
If USA were truly pro-free speech they would of permitted the implementation of .sex and .xxx namespaces.
Its nothing to do with what I think about porn, it has a practical use that allows people to quickly identify with the subject matter and to allow software to classify it as so.
The conservative government simply did not want this to happen, and they have successfully lobbied hard to stop these practical namespaces to be implemented.
Creating an Internet wasteland of "filth" may have some merit, but I highly doubt it will lead to an increase in people watching it.
Most large, modern cities have "saucy" areas, but just because they are there doesn't mean every citizen visits everyday.
I still believe this process needs to be apolitical as noted, without government intervention - its the only way.
I do not accept that the US has a higher ground than other forward thinking countries in this matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28142839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28137263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28137551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28134997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28165625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28158247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28140609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_1734243_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28140307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28165625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126833
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127137
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28134997
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127359
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128335
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127305
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127637
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28140307
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127895
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28137263
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127349
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28137551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128277
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128245
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130583
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28158247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28133025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28131979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28140609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28135307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28132021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28136191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28126517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28130865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28129645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28128995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28142839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28137471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_1734243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_1734243.28127039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
