<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
In a message dated 10/23/11 6:33:12 PM, pouzin@well.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions on the management of a common good ?<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
†he </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">US didn't arrogate such a right to itself. It invented the Internet and gave it to the international community. <BR>
<BR>
Most of the alternatives proposed to the present system involve giving control to intergovernmental bodies in which authoritarian governments have heavy influence. The present system is admittedly unsatisfactory from a theoretical standpoint, but the US has in practice refrained from exercising control, with only a couple relatively minor exceptions. It seems unlikely that China or Russia, or even France, amongst the UN Security Council permanent members, would have exercised that much self-restraint.<BR>
<BR>
Pending invention of a system that is both theoretically equitable and free in practice, the present setup seems to be a matter of leaving well enough alone.<BR>
<BR>
Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"></FONT></HTML>