WSIS to Consider Internet Governance Under U.N. 308
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.
Why not go totally p2p? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not go totally p2p? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not go totally p2p? (Score:2)
If users know exactly what they have in their cache, there is a risk that users start editing or erasing content.
So? The point is that no single entity is in charge. If no one wants to help you deliver your crap, that's their right. As for your content being edited, if you want to protect against this you can sign it. But that isn't necessary for all content, and it certainly isn't necessary to encrypt and reencrypt at every single stage.
Re:Why not go totally p2p? (Score:2)
Re:Why not go totally p2p? (Score:2)
Wireless connections can't reach from here to Google's servers. It's still not really P2P.
Then content may migrate on the people's net.
I guess it's possible. You'd have to design a new routing mechanism which could handle such a transient decentralized network (presumably GPS based). And then you'd have to come up with a trust system to ensure that people are routing fairly. Also a trust system to protect against MITM attacks. And the whole thing would require new wireless devices, which were able
Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I am completely against U.N. control of the Internet, because I believe it would lead to censorship. I believe the U.N. would use its power to deny domains to those critical of the U.N., or those who hold unpopular opinions in opposition to the U.N.
Exhibit A is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org]. It all sounds pretty good. I think the particularly applicable Article to this case is #19:
That sounds to me like one should be able to say whatever one wants over the Internet. i.e., to impart information and ideas through any media.
Now kindly review Article 29, section 3:
What exactly are the purposes and principles of the United Nations? If I were to try to register 'theUNsucks.com' would they stop me? My right to free speech ends when I exercise that right contrary to the purposes of the U.N. The U.N. holds all kinds of conferences where they condemn racism and sexism. What if I wanted to create a website about the inferiority of a certain race or sex? Would they stop me? Sure, the opinions I express may be wrong, stupid, and unpopular, but popular opinions are those that don't need protecting.
The U.N. will pry control of the Internet from my cold, dead DNS server.
Lowest Common Denominator (Score:5, Insightful)
If country A, doesnt belive in, lets say nazi relics, and forbids them to be on their network, then the rest of the countries must also abide by that ruling, as it would be a ban 'net-wide..
That is, if one controlling mulitnational entity was in control...
Re:Lowest Common Denominator (Score:2)
Of course, now that I've said that, I must be a TERRORIST!
Re:Lowest Common Denominator (Score:2)
Re:Lowest Common Denominator (Score:4, Informative)
Think about this. The way the UN is designed PREVENTS it from being able to do ANYTHING without unanimity. This was a problem for the US post revolution/pre constitution. The problem is if they hold a UN equivalent of a constitutional convention, any ability for this "multinational entity" to "control" would result in no nations signing the new charter.
People need to realize what the UN is -- a failed pipe-dream of Roosevelt. It's nothing but a place for countries to "vent". Any effort to do ANYTHING can take decades if it happens at all. Especially with immediate threats (re Angola, Somalia, Congo, etc).
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
Lots of countries have constituions and bills or rights.
There are lots of reasons not to just leave it here. For one thing, a system of rules effecting a group of people should come from that entire group of people, not one single subgroup. Secondly, the United States Constitution isn't geared toward the internet.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
-Chris
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
Technologically literate people are going to be the ones implementing the system, so that's not going to be a problem. I don't suggest that the UN should have any powers to jail people or anything like that. They'd be like the Supreme Court in the United States. All they can do is make their ruling, and rely on others to implement it.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
I wouldn't be any more or less comfortable, but I'm sure it would happen that way.
<SARCASM>
Yeah, just like it currently happens in the US, UK, Australia, etc...
</SARCASM>
Not a fscking chance, dude.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
CDA
DMCA
NET Act
SSSCA/CBDTPA
I don't think so.
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
What crap. (Score:2, Interesting)
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 hand
HTTP/HTML is not the internet. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:HTTP/HTML is not the internet. (Score:2)
Re:What crap. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:What crap. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. That's why it shouldn't be in the hands of the UN. Control of the Internet belongs to those who own/run the networks that comprise it. Any authority that they follow exists and has its authority solely because they voluntarily follow it. Should those in charge of the root servers and those in charge of address allocation become intolerable dictators or ineffective leaders, they will find themselves ignored by the individuals who run the 'Net.
And that is the true beauty of the Internet; there is no governance. Things only work because people agree to make them work. Standards only exist because people agree to those standards. If some company decided they wanted to write a new protocol to replace TCP/IP that only their company's software could make use of, for instance, they would find their packets dropped at the first router they didn't own. Non-compliance of voluntary standards is seen by the Internet as damage and routed around. (See: Usenet Death Penalty [catb.org])
This is how the Internet has been run in the past and should be run in the future: Those responsible for running and maintaining the networks should be the ones in charge of deciding how they are run.
Re:What crap. (Score:2)
Re:What crap. (Score:2)
Re:What crap. (Score:2)
And the point of the parent was that, if ICANN and Verisign were doing such a horrible job of administering the namespace, ICANN and Verisign would be ignored by those administering the cooperating networks. You don't HAVE to listen to ICANN, and neither does anyone else (except Verisign). Administrators CHOOSE to listen to ICANN because it is convenient for the interoperability of their networks to do so. The day that ceases to be the case, ICANN will be ignored like day old bagels....
Fart in the wind... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
a) making the logical fallacy of the false choice, or
b) putting words in my mouth.
I never said the U.S. should be in control of the Internet. I said the U.N. should not be in control of the Internet. Just because the U.N. should not be in control, does not mean that the U.S. should, I made no statement as to whether or not the U.S. should control the Internet.
While you obviously have reading comprehension problems, this statement of yours is truly laughable:
Great. So who's your elected representative in the United Nations, to whom you can complain if you don't like the way they run the Internet? Who is it? Oh...wait, you don't have elected representation in the U.N., do you? Right. None of us do, I keep forgetting. However, every petty dictatorship does have a seat in the U.N., so, essentially, Fidel Castro himself gets a vote equal to the entire democratic state of, say, Sweden. That's a great place to put control of the Internet. Then it'll truly be "in the hands of all of us," won't it?
Re:What crap. (Score:2)
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Funny)
Sad (Score:2)
It's a real shame that it has become so popular to bash the UN in the USA these days. The UN is a force for good in the world. Yes, it's got it's faults, and it is always going to be less efficient than acting unilaterally, but overall it is a very good thing.
The frightening thing for me is to see how easily and quickly the thoughts and opinions of many in the public in the USA can be changed and manipulated so quickly and easily these days. It wasn't so long ago that the UN was seen as a good thing by mos
Re:Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
Therefore, if I were to make a website, in which I disagreed
Re:Sad (Score:2)
It seems to me, therefore, that Article 29, section 3, is intended to remove the free-speech protection from things like incitement to racial hatred - not from legitimate dissent
Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it all depends on your definition of "racial hatred." People's opinions on what consitutes "racial hatred" are very different. For example, what if I believe that programs such as Affirmative Action are wrong? I have heard "civil rights leaders" claim that opposition to programs which provide special benefits to minorities are "hateful." So if I create a web site in which I argue that Affirmative Action is immoral, because I don't think, say, who gets a job should be decided on the basis of the color of one's skin, and that is determined to be "hate speech," then I'm screwed.
Would the U.N. actually shut down my web site? Maybe, maybe not. But why give them that power in the first place?
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
I don't think any political body should manage the infrastructure of the internet, not even an international political body like the UN.
I don't think any commercial organization should manage the internet unregulated, either.
I think the current system works fine, it just requires better regulation.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
The UN's role should be very narrowly defined, such as delegating TLD's and supporting what was IANA's work. That's the only international part. We (soverign nations) can handle all the rest.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
Don't believe me, well here it is.
Article 29, section 3:
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
That is why membership of the security council is limited and the permanent members have veto power.
The story has the purpose of the summit completely wrong. There is nothing about Internet governance, it is high level touchy feely bullshit about the information society.
To find out the substance of the agenda is near impossible but the fact there are 50 heads of government there shows what is up. A meeting on controlling the Internet would be attended by ministers who do the actual dirty work, heads of government don't talk about who runs the A-Root.
The sort of thing they will be discussing is how to keep lots of languages alive in the Internet age. Popular with the International community at large but ultimately futile and we will be better off without them. Anything worth keeping will be translated into English.
People go on so about international heritage, since when has anyone mourned the fact that we no longer have a community speaking ancient Mayan or Pharonic Egyptian? What national languages are in actuality are occasion for bigottry and violence. Get rid of Basque and you get rid of Basque language nutters killing people who object to being rulled by basque language nutters.
Same goes for Welsh, one minute you have people whining about the loss of a national identity that was never really theirs in the first place, then they start imposing it on schoolkids (always a good ploy, they can't refuse and few people have the guts to stand up and object that learning Spanish or German would be a better career move), next thing welsh language loonies are burning down holiday cottages and planning lists of foreigners for 'ethinc cleansing' come the revolution. And don't get me started on the French.
Get rid of languages and you get rid of language bigotry. The Web is doing a great job in this respect. Within a couple of generations it will be impossible to hold a middle class job in any country unless you are fluent in English.
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, they lock people up without trial and deny access to a lawyer while their investigators 'interrogate' them.
Internet 'governance' comes down in the end to only two issues, who allocates IP address blocks and who allocates DNS names and under what circumstances. The issues there are simply does everyone have a right to gain access, or do some countries get to make the rules that others must follow?
The only practical issue of consequence here is does the US get to allocate an unfair proportion of IPv4 addresses now that shortages are starting to hurt? Answer - no. The second issue is does the US get to kick the Cuba domain or the Palestine domain off the net because some US politician wants to pander to a particular part of the electorate.
The answer to the last one is unfortunately a 'maybe'. If it ever happens that would be the end of US control, the root would fracture instantly and there would be a rival root run by the UN, in point of fact several of the existing roots are outside US control and could unilaterally fork. The net would behave somewhat unreliably for a while after which the UN root would be established as canonical and US influence at an end.
And of course the fact this would be the inevitable result is the reason that idiots in Congress who suggest this sort of thing get slapped down really hard. It is also the real purpose of ICANN, keep idiots in Congress out of the loop in case they push something idiotic through.
As for the Sinophobia that sweeps the US from time to time. China has a population four to five times that of the US and it is rapidly increasing industrial output. Within twenty years China and India will be the world economic superpowers. It would be better for the US to spend time thinking of how it is going to wield influence in that world than trying to isolate and daemonize.
The US has supported plenty of regimes that are considerably worse, in many cases imposing dictatorships on democracies. Ever wonder why the Iranians are so pissed with the US? Its because the US organized a coup to overthrow the democratic government and install the Shah as dictator rather than support the Iranian people as a fellow nation oppressed by a colonial tyrant.
Perhaps if the US would start by counting the votes in its own elections and keeping to the international treaties it signed it will be in a better position to lecture other countries about freedom and democracy. At the moment the stench of hypocrisy each time George Bush opens his mouth is nauseating.
You want people EXECUTED for non-PC postings? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like not serving as a platform for nazis and war criminals [washingtontimes.com] ?
Note that the decision in question convicts three broadcasters of genocide for talking about it on the air. Advocating = committing. Oops!
Scenario:
- You flame about some political A-hole, spammer, or annoying whatever on the net and mention that you wish he were dead.
- Somebody kills him.
- You get fried.
Scenario 2:
- You flame about some regime somewhere in the world
Re:That can go both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
poop (Score:3, Funny)
What is the purpose of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Over 6000 people will agree on a large range of issues to submit on a recommendation to a group that may or may not do something about it because it may or may not have the power to act on it.
Will anything actually come out of this?
Re:What is the purpose of this? (Score:2)
Just the event itself, a debate with approx. 6,000 delegates from around the world, is a worthwhile thing. I know that of late we've been bombarded by a lot of numbskulls trying to suggest that debate is pointless, and that we must act, but we must realise that it is worthless acting if the actors do not yet know why they are acting, what for, how, nor even if their actions are correct.
Basically, this meeting will being a good opportunity for states to share ideas,
How About This Plan (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, they would like to act as if they're doing something. But, I personally don't want some world governing body controlling what goes down on the internet. If that doesn't scare you I don't know what does. Can't governments of any type just keep their hands off?
Re:How About This Plan (Score:3, Interesting)
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" stu
Re:How About This Plan (Score:2)
FDR understood the potentials of judicial dictatorship, which is why he tried to stack the supreme court by upping its number to 15 judges.
The current rabid fight against Constitutionalists as Judicial nominees (if you think it's for any other reas
Re:How About This Plan (Score:2)
They could just allow each country's existing laws to take care of things that might be illegal rather than create new ones that just muddy up the legal system.
That's not working, and it never will. The internet is international, and one country's laws are rarely able to reach into another country.
But, I personally don't want some world governing body controlling what goes down on the internet.
I don't want anyone controlling what goes down on the internet. Unfortunately, that's impossible. Someon
Re:How About This Plan (Score:2)
A country's laws should not reach into another country.
So the United States shouldn't be able to charge Osama bin Laden with murder?
The problem with a world governing body is that their power limits reach much further than ICANN's ever could. After all, it is government.
You're thinking of a specific implementation. As I said, the powers would have to be extremely limited and enumerated.
Re:How About This Plan (Score:2)
No, the US is completely free to charge anyone of anything in the sense you are referring to. It just shouldn't be able to force another country to give said person up, unless by agreement that country is willing to do so.
So we shouldn't have been able to try to capture bin Laden?
But the country that does not agree that he is a murderer is under no obligation to arrest him for the charge of another country.
Sorry, I disagree. If your country doesn't agree that bin Laden is a murderer, and it tries to
Re:How About This Plan (Score:2)
If your country doesn't agree that bin Laden is a murderer, and it tries to protect him from us, then my country has every right to come in there and capture him anyway, and we have every right to use force against anyone trying to stop us.
That sounds all well and good when you only apply it to yourself forcing your way into someone else's country and in this circumstance.
Consider people who have been accused of practicing and/or preaching Christianity in a Fundamentalist Muslim country. They flee bac
Re:How About This Plan (Score:2)
No. No country should ever be allowed to force its way into another country like that.
To follow such advice would lead to self-destruction.
I have a friend whose father would be put to death if he set foot back in his own country. The USA gladly accepted. This man obviously broke a law in his native country (Iran, if you care), so does that mean you're perfectly OK with Iran attacking the USA to get this man?
Whether or not I'm OK with it depends on the specific details, but I'm sure they're not going
Re:How About This Plan (Score:2)
I didn't say the US shouldn't be able to try and capture bin Laden. I said they shouldn't be able to force another country to give him up.
By capturing him, we force the other country to give him up, don't we?
They also shouldn't be able to invade another country to find him, without an agreement from the foreign government.
That's where I disagree. When a foreign government protects someone like Osama bin Laden, we have no responsibility to respect the wishes of that government.
You disagree becaus
Re:How About This Plan (Score:2)
It's funny how people bring up completely unrelated issues that would seem unarguable when trying to corner somebody.
I don't think you were following the thread closely enough. What I said was completely related. First, I said:
Don't see this happening... (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect this initiative to languish in various committees until the end of time...
Re:Don't see this happening... (Score:2)
New World Order? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/
Coincidence?
Short Answer (Score:5, Funny)
Yes.
Authority? (Score:2)
Re:Authority? (Score:2)
so yes.. if they should so decide for some reason in unity(and that is the tricky part) then they damn well have the authority over anything they wish.
Re:Authority? (Score:2)
if they should so decide for some reason in unity then they damn well have the authority over anything they wish.
Actually, no they don't. The authority of the UN, which is not a sovereign organization, is provided for by the agreement of sovereign nations through accession to the UN charter and various later multinational treaties and multilateral agreements. The UN has NO authority beyond what is granted to it by those agreements, regardless of how many countries think it would be a swell idea to do
Oh Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh Great! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh Great! (Score:2)
I wouldn't want the UN controlling the Internet though, I don't think anyone should control it.
Re:Oh Great! (Score:2)
Please learn more at
http://members.tripod.com/~sijill/
or http://www.hrw.org/mideast/libya.php
But I have the felling that you are one of those leftist that as long as some one says they feel for or they are trying to do their gosh darn best to stop hurting people, you belive them because you valu
Of course, the beautiful thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't see the UN taking control. Developed nations won't allow it. The Internet should remain a private entity without direct government control. Especially not the UN's control... Considering how ineffective they are in running everything else, I shudder to think about how poorly they will manage something like the Internet.
Re:The internet should "REMAIN private"???? (Score:2)
I even had the impression that most of the key technical and governance decisions resulting in the success of the Internet evolved under those conditions.
Or am I remembering incorrectly, and the Internet is a actually a direct descendant of CompuServe and The Source? (If you're old enough to remember CompuServe and The Source, you're old enough for your memory to be flaky!)
Re:The internet should "REMAIN private"???? (Score:2)
The network you are thinking of is actually ARPANET, which was only a small part of the 'Internet' and one of the last sections of it to embrace TCP/IP. But even ARPANET's standards were designed in the same manner: Those who would actually run the network (ARPA, Universities) got together and agreed on standard ways of doing things. That's wher
Re:Of course, the beautiful thing is... (Score:2)
bureaucracy at its finest (Score:5, Funny)
Re:bureaucracy at its finest (Score:2)
Re:bureaucracy at its finest (Score:2)
Not even Saddam deserves to be compared to spammers.
The days of self-regulation are ending (Score:3, Insightful)
The questions the user-base of the Internet is who and how. I find it surprising that two of the biggest backer of the UN's idea of giving more control of the Internet are China and Cuba, both try to control what people can read and what sites their people can visit on the internet.
The days of the internet being a true medium for free-speach I think is alomst over. The problem now is if governments, that freedom will be gone for many people.
Re:The days of self-regulation are ending (Score:2)
I prefer he internet pretty much the way it is: pseudo-feudal. You have lots of open space, with the farmers and other country folk. They may or may not be under the protection of a knight (ISP). You also have heavily fortified castles (corporate and other private networks) firewalled from the larger net.
As time goes on, and collections of poorly protected folk get repeatedly attacked by marauders, they either fortify their demsne's (fortified homes of clans/families aka ancient Ireland and Scotland) o
non-issue (Score:3, Insightful)
its like North Korea discussing what they are going to do with Houston, TX.
wtf ? total non-issue
Incidentally, htf COULD they censor or control it?
Dig up the ocean going cables and route them through their offices ?
the cpu horsepower they would need to monitor it all is way above the UN's budget.
Re:non-issue (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Us Geeks Must Suck (Score:5, Funny)
So the Internet didn't take off until Big Business wrested control of it from the Geeky Nerds? Let's hear it for Corporate America! Woo-hoo! Slap another software patent on the barbeque and pass me a Coca-Cola (and please, no free beer).
Re:Us Geeks Must Suck (Score:2)
So the Internet didn't take off until Big Business wrested control of it from the Geeky Nerds? Let's hear it for Corporate America! Woo-hoo! Slap another software patent on the barbeque and pass me a Coca-Cola (and please, no free beer).
Instead of the revised history, this may be more accurate:
T
If you read the proposal.... (Score:5, Informative)
Sanctions (Score:2)
I don't like it (Score:5, Insightful)
With businesses running things (as is mostly the case today), we have a system in which the "technological elite" exercise the greatest control over the Internet. You and I are the driving force between the everything-routes-everywhere phenomena seen today in the Free World. We won't subscribe to an ISP that only gives us their 37% of the Internet. We don't do business with ISP's that openly censor controversial content (though there are a few stupid exceptions).
Any sort of Government control threatens this. I don't want an Internet where the U.S. is "protected" from visiting "terrorist" nations. I don't want an Internet where this week's dissenting European ally doesn't route our data. I don't want the largest parties in democracies using mob-rule to determine what is and is not appropriate.
What I want is decentralized chaos. The less control exerted by any one agency, the better off we all are. Given the difficult choice between the Governments and private sectors, I'll take the private sectors. At least their motives are clear and susceptible to genuine democratic influence (money)--not to gov't propaganda and international politicking.
Re:I don't like it (Score:2)
Re:I don't like it (Score:2)
"we have a system in which the "technological elite" exercise the greatest control over the Internet.
A-umh. You mean verisign ? (was it namefinder or sitesearch)
"We won't subscribe to an ISP that only gives us their 37% of the Internet. "
And 95% of internet users think the only routes are the one with cars on it.
democratic influence != money influence. If it was the case for software, than a given Bill G. could destroy (e.g.) Linux and BSD because he has more money than the rest of us.
What Authority? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they own a significant portion of the "net"?
Where they involved in the risk taking that made the net successful?
No. No. No.
Quite frankly if the western world wants to run the internet by their own (fair or unfair) rules, they are allowed to. The internet isn't some gift to the world. It was designed by certain groups (okay, lots of groups, working together) and they should be able to maintain control.
If third-world dictators want an internet to control, why don't they invest in the infrastructure, setup their own governing body, and create their own network. It isn't like anything would stop them from doing so.
Other than lack of money and technologically skilled workers.
Ryan
Can't control something that doesn't exist... (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reality is that there are lots of computer networks variously located in many sovereign nations that happen to be cooperating at this time (the networks, not necessarily the nations). Just like everything else in the world, it
This is a relief (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Give me a break.. (Score:2, Troll)
Bugs me (Score:2, Interesting)
Something is amiss here... (Score:2)
So the UN is not capable of managing the Internet but when it comes to the "managing" human lives they are fully competent.
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:2)
Wrong. NO ONE is up to, or must be allowed to, regulate the internet. The internet is for everyone and must not be "regulated" beyond ensuring fair distribution of IP addresses and names (web). It is not for the US, or the UK, or even the UN to say, "Such and such communication is NOT allowed", or "Such and such information is not to be diseminated", and the like.
No one country owns the internet and we must not allow the UN to control it (anymore than allowing the US to control it). The US would try t
The forkable internet (Score:2)
I don't want anyone controlling the internet. The individual pieces, to be sure, need to be controlled. For instance, I demand complete controll over my tiny section of it known as my workstation. And I'm not going to dispute an ISP's right to control their servers, or another company's right to control their landlines. But I don't want any group in control over the whole of the internet.
What happens if a government gets control of the internet? We
UN isn't only the General Assembly you know... (Score:3, Informative)
So all the arguments on this thread citing problems with the Security Council or the General Assembly or the Secretariat as reasons not to put internet governance under the UN aren't particularly relevant. For example: "UN shouldn't govern the internet because China has a veto on the Security Council", doesn't make much sense.
What's being suggested is to create a new Special Agency (see the org chart on the site UN System of Organizations I gave above) or to assign internet goverance to an existing Special Agency (the ITU). And the Special Agencies are the most autonomous parts of the UN.
No Accountability (Score:2)
The UN and its branches cannot be sued, which gives it protection from litigation but also frees it from any kind of accountability. This is why the UN has done so little since it was founded 50 years ago.
Part of Kofi Annan's plan for updating the way the UN works (in terms of peacekeeping issues) is to hand off military authority to a selected 'sponsor state' (eg Australia during the East Timor war with Indonesia).
If this same method is used for Inter
Re:Geneva (Score:5, Funny)
As part Swiss, I can say it ain't for the yodeling.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)