WSIS to Consider Internet Governance Under U.N.

penciling_in writes "The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) starting next week in Geneva is expected to attract more than 50 heads of state and 6,000 delegates who will address issues from the digital divide to Internet governance. It will be addressing the broad range of themes concerning the Information Society and adoption of a Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, which reportedly includes a recommendation to place the governance of the Internet under the United Nations. In response to issues leading up to this event, CircleID has been running a number of articles including Karl Auerbach's piece, 'Will ICANN Reveal Its True Self To WSIS?' and an extensive Interview (Part I | Part II) by Geert Lovink with Milton Mueller, author of 'Ruling the Root', one of the first detailed investigations into the Internet domain name policies." There's a Reuters story on this conference.

Re:Bad idea

[mgs1000]

So would every computer in the .tw domain be kicked off the internet? Because, according to the UN, those people are not important and don't belong.

What crap.

[l-ascorbic]

This is about taking control of the internet (which transcends borders) away from the control of one country (the US, if you hadn't guessed) and putting it into the hands of a supranational organisation (the UN).

Sure, the UN makes mistakes, and there are some bloopers in its treaties and resolutions, but I'd venture that none would really come close to the legal absurdities that have been coming out of the US in recent years. That said, the more important point is that the internet shouldn't be in the hands of any one government. It's too important for that. You can counter by saying that it was created by DARPA, etc. But then the brits could equally counter by claiming HTTP and HTML. Or maybe the Swiss would like to claim that.

Some are saying that we should leave it to the governemtns to regulate. Does this mean that each country should have its own root servers? There are some things that do need to be agreed between everyone, and there needs to be an authority to make the final call. ICANN and Verisign has shown how lousy the US govt has been at delegating that power itself.

This isn't about having the big scary new world order coming in and making you speak french and accept universal healthcare, it's about accepting that there are some things that affect all of us that use the internet, so they should be in the hands of all of us, not of one country.

Re:What crap.

[drinkypoo]

But in terms of the UN, not all nations are created (or in this case, represented) equally. It makes no particular sense to give control of the internet to the UN.

The US has the lion's share of control over the internet because it was invented here and momentum's a bitch. But, even the "enemies" of the USA have IP addresses, their own TLDs, et cetera. It really doesn't look like we're abusing our position as a nation. Oh sure ICANN and Verisign have been falling down on the job of providing a resource but that's just related to being private companies - do you really think it would be better if they were part of some government, even a supposed world government?

You're right, they should be in the hands of all of us. But I'm not convinced the UN should be in charge - of anything. To me, the UN is a forum.

The current system may be broken, but I don't see any reason the UN would fix it. I think they'd likely break it worse. If you want to broker change in the way we network, I suggest you start working on a replacement for the internet which is completely decentralized. That way, we don't need anyone to manage it for us. You will need some good strong cryptography so that we can verify identities, rather than depending on IP address allocation which can change overnight. Then of course we will get into web-of-trust issues, but that's still a more robust way to handle identity verification than in current models. Giving the UN control of the internet does not solve the root problem which no revision of IP can resolve - the requirement for central management. THAT is the real problem. The internet cannot be free no matter who is in charge, if anyone is in charge.

Re:How About This Plan

[symbolic]

I know, they would like to act as if they're doing something.

It's not that...it's that people in government, especially those who are in a position to create new points of control and influence, are likely to do pricisely that. The internet is the next frontier that someone needs to control. It's just human nature. Laws, or legal constructs like the U.S. Constitution protect us from ourselves in that regard.

I think it will be most interesting to see: a) just how far they take this "world cooperation" stuff, since to a degree, it tends fly in the face of the notion of sovreign nations, and b) what happens when things go really wrong - when nations start either pulling away from consensus, or simply ignoring it.

This is a relief

[Illserve]

I'm glad to see that Information Society is finally getting the recognition they deserve for doing such cutting edge stuff. Their music was absolutely transcendental.

I'm not all that pleased to see the UN having a hand in this however. Their history of intervention in the techno scene is hardly something to be proud of.

What's wrong with the Internet?

[WildBeast]

Almost 10 years now and I've never had problems with the Internet. So why do governments feel the need to control it? Just leave us the hell alone damn it. It's none of your damn business.

People in the US go to prison for selling hardcore porn on the internet, people in Saudi Arabia go to prison for praising Ben Laden, people in Egypt go to prison for being gay. If the UN takes all those laws and make them international laws, nobody would be able to do shit.

Re:Sad

[meta-monkey]

I do not believe the United Nations is a force for good in the world, and I could argue this at length. I have held this opinion for a long time before the current administration came to power. However, the expression of my opinion that the U.N. is not a force for good is contrary to the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations [unhchr.ch], article 1 section 4

To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Therefore, if I were to make a website, in which I disagreed with the United Nation's belief that it is a force for good, I would be excercising my right to free space in opposition to the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations (as Article 29 section 3, quoted in my original post) stated. Therefore, my website (or, this post!) would be censored by the United Nations, should they become aware of it.

Therefore, I do not wish for the United Nations to be in control of the Internet. Thank you.

Bugs me

[DaLiNKz]

What bugs me is that it seems everything always wants to begin controlling something once it gets large. The internet exists because people decide on their own to support it. Now some want the UN to control it. The great thing about the internet is its lack of control by really anything. As much as I may disagree with Hate sites, places with sick behaviour and such I wouldn't give up my own ability to do what I want just so a group of people who know nothing of the Internet can try to control it. I think this is about time when we all should start looking into other ways into building an internet of our own.