Slashdot Mirror
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.
It'd be better to create an internet which is totally a p2p system and hence doesn't need anyone to be in charge of it.
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. 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.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
ok people, nothing to see here, go back to ranting about SCO...
litigious bastards
suck it sco!
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?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
How about if those controlling the root servers shut down the machines simultaneously for 1 day, and lets see what happens. I think then we will have the truest picture of who "governs" the internet.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I know, this is pretty unheard of to most politician types, but why don't they just leave the internet alone? 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.
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?
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
Expect this initiative to languish in various committees until the end of time...
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
Its officially neutral.
Unlike you're mind.
The New World Order conspiracy theory states the UN is an evil organization who's soul purpose is total world domination and eradication of freedom.
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/
Coincidence?
If the UN decided to take control of ICANN, do they really have the authority to do it? How can they do it?
With the U.N. in charge they will put China or Saudi Arabia in charge of "Internet Freedoms of Expression" much like Lyba and others have headed up the "Human Rights" group.
Even if the UN decides they want control of the Internet, how can they enforce it? The only reason any authority exists on the Internet is because owners of the individual networks voluntarily agree to follow their direction. If the people in charge of domain registration or IP allocation suddenly became completely intolerable, the network operators could easily switch to some new system for handling it and once again 'the Internet routes around what it percieves to be damage'.
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.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Would it take 13 years and 12 resolutions to kick a spammer of the internet?
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.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It would also force other nations to abide by the rest of the 'groups' concepts of morality.
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...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This concerns me deeply. The Internet is supposed to be completely free and without a government. To me, this is most disturbing, I hope that this doesn't happen.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
They can put a Nigerian in charge.
neither the WSIS or UN have any AUTHORITY over the internet.
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.
me and the boys here at the office had a meeting, and desided i should be the one controlling the office
a vote for me is a vote for pr0n!
so i guess that mean its just a matter of time before the icann (ican't) just hand the keys over to me.
I'm for it. It's one way to ensure that censorship/filtering, access restrictions, and other bunk legislation are idealistically framed and never enforced.
Go U.N.
---
All your old jokes are belong to sigs.
Traditional Swiss neutrality, the chocolate, and Martina Hingis (nsfw).
;P
As part Swiss, I can say it ain't for the yodeling.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
The Swiss have historically held the official position of being neutral. If it was held in the US for example, I seriously doubt that delegates from Lybia or Iran would be allowed in the country to attend although I may be wrong. Anyway, it's held tehre to eliminate the host country's bias like that. Besides I think the UN hq is in Geneva.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Guess we'll just have to take the long way around any pastel blue routers we find.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
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.
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).
The way I figure it... if anyone has rights to be the supreme commander in chief of the internet, it's Al Gore, he invented it.
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
...Funny, I thought it BEGAN under "direct government control." Specifically, the U. S. military. Specifically, DARPA.
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!)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Yeah. Geneva is one of the most boring places on this planet, so people meet there and 1) are not distracted by the happening life, 2) get things done quickly as to get out quickly.
When life hands you lemons, grab the salt and pass the tequilla...
At its core, the internet will only accept a certain level of governance. Governments and businesses are not going to stop trying to control the internet until someone has reached that maximum point of control.
If the internet does not end up regulated by a govenmental organization, it continue the trend of becoming completely controlled by a small number of powerful corporations. If someone is going to exert a high level of influence over the basic infrastructure of the internet, I for one would prefer that it be an organization like the UN, which is at least nominally concerned with the public good, instead of some random, profit maximizing firm two or five or ten years down the line. This would be analagous to what happened to the power infrastructure after deregulation a few years back - right now, companies like NetSol and other infrastructure owners are staying in line, and have barely begun to flex their muscles (as with sitefinder). If governments ignore internet regulation, then we run the very real risk of waking up one day in a decade or two and realizing that someone owns the internet.
Or maybe I'm just bitter over site finder...
...it's basically just changing the name of ICANN and perhaps the members. I actually think that something like this is a good idea. After all, ICANN is right now subject to the American courts, what if the RIAA says decides that it can sue ICANN for assigning IPs to music swapers? If ICANN where to become a UN agency (and never change staff, never leave Cailiforina, etc.) it would be beyond domestic courts. I think it would look a lot like UNESCO. Though I do stress that something like this is the best idea, because suggestions like 'Will Iran be put in charge of online free speech?' are valid. One thing the UN is is charter bound - if this where to be set up like ICANN then unsucks.org could be registered, but things like IPv6 would be promoted so US companies can't hoard IPs and legal action would need the backing of a member state.
.\.\att Clare
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 most people in the USA. Now the administration has decided it doesn't like it and has started to bash it, and we see all this vindicive criticism of the UN in the USA media. And suddenly man in the street thinks the UN is evil. Shame.
I don't want any government oversight of the Internet. I'll take the money-hungry private interests over the politicians, thank you. I know it's not a popular idea, but businesses represent a more democratic (albeit indirect) control of the Internet.
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.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
It seems to me that all the real work was done in the US. I don't think the UN has a leg to stand on.
Blar.
your
(if you can be critical, so can I)
litigious bastards
suck it sco!
what happen?
somebody set up us the bomb!
I'm half-Swiss myself - I agree with Lothar wholeheartedly. :-)
" The New World Order conspiracy theory states the UN is an evil organization who's soul purpose is total world domination and eradication of freedom... Coincidence?"
Yes.
GL
Did they pay for the basic infrastructure?
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
Who cares what this group has to say anyway? I could say that I govern all free trade between Guatamalan midgets but what weight does that pull?
F 'em. That's what I say.
I feel that no entity should have full control over the internet. Censorship is the most important reason the UN wants to control the internet.
got sig?
I would have thought that if you value individual freedoms you would want the government to be ineffective....
That's my point of view. Drop the border control and demolish nation states. Create a world government that's just too fucking big and ineffective to mess around with the individuals.
The owls are not what they seem
I think the parent post brings up a great point about irrational decisions the UN has made in the past, but it was given a negative moderation (not to mention one that cannot be metamoderated) because the moderator found something offensive about the truth.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
So if the Internet falls under the control of the UN, does that mean they will send in Cyber Peacekeepers to stop spammers, virus makers, music downloaders, and those that refuse to follow the Slashdot way of life?
You're kidding about it being held in geneva right. I hope so because everyone knows the UN's headquaters are in New York City.
A Bugg
The reason no one can control the Internet is because there is no "Internet," lest we forget the early 1990's when newbies would ask us about the "Internet Company" and you would explain that there is no one company, just a bunch of network providers that are interconnected.
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 all comes down to where the wires and the servers sit. If I say "fark the UN" on my website hosted out of Texas, I am protected by the US Constitution...which is the law of my land.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
What will likely happen is there will be a lot of noise about this issue at this conference, but it won't make the final communique. Later on at a different conference, or within UNSECO more nations will like the idea - then Europe will unite behind.
This will all really bug any US government. The US Gov may not control ICANN, but they can start controlling it whenever they want, and they like that.
Ultimately Canada will propose a watered-down compromise and an ineffectual motion will be passed with a provision for a standing army of hackers - no country will be willing to commit troops - And the proud tradition of the UN will go on!
.\.\att Clare
Yikes - that certainly sounds like fun...
I'll be the first to admit that I really haven't got the first clue about what's going on between SCO and everyone else, only that SCO is doing a lot of stuff that's pissing off the Geek community that I like to think I'm part of. It does sound, however, like you're getting shafted.
Just out of curiousity, why was this posted here instead of under the latest SCO thread?
Best of luck!
I'd be concerned about sacntions, to be honest. Could they take North Korea offline to force compliance with nuclear treaties? What if they UN makes a rule that if they send "peace-keeping forces" (or whatever nice name they choose to give their people with big guns) to an area, they will also impose "digital sanctions" and block the nation from accessing the internet, etc.?
GL
Looks like the terrorists have already won. ;)
Finally! This will allow you to have a bit more privacy from NSA bugs and traffic analysers. At least for people outside US, that is. Speaking of human rights, I have just one thing to say to fellow americans: Guantanamo bay!
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.
Well I explained it better in another comment... But what I mean is control of the Internet should remain in the hands of those responsible for running the Internet.
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 where we get the RFC system (Read RFC 1 sometime, it's an awesome historical perspective for Comp Sci students) amongst other things. Ever since then, Internet standards have been decided on by consensus of the people in charge of running the networks.
A real good history of the Internet can be found at: this site. All in all, it's good to know your computer history... More Comp Sci undergrads really should understand how they truly are standing on the shoulders of giants (such as: Vint Serf, Dennis Ritchie, etc) as they do simple things on the 'Net everyday that they take for granted. But unfortunately most people I see at the Uni everyday know less and less of where that they do has come from.
And yes, I do remember CompuServe (though I was a wee lad when I last used it) though 'The Source' only evokes a very fuzzy memory. Scary to think I'm getting old already...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
All your base are belong to us.
.\.\att Clare
Do internet users want to be governed by the UN? Do business users want the participation of the UN, undo regulation which is bound to follow?
I tend to think any singular influential body involved it's development will act in a negative manner. UN participation would by it's nature and sometimes intent acts against free speech. The United Nations lacks the save guards of due process inherent to democratic goverments and is positively lacking the consent of the governed.
Why do people always have to be governed, why the hell can't free people be alone? The UN is another platform of exclusion, half truths and pure myths.
No custody, no money.
No consent, no abortion.
The funny thing about all of this is there IS NO "internet", at least nothing that can be controlled centrally. All the US (well, ICANN) does is (AFAIK) doll out IP numbers, set country domain letters and resolve domain disputes. It can't tell the Frogs not to block NAZI crap, and it can't tell the Chineese to give its citizens unfiltered net access. For all intents and purposes it just maintains the root DNS server. If the UN want to "run" the internet there's nothing to stop them setting up their own competing DNS scheme. Fat chance anyone will use it, but that's for the market to decide, not some UN asshats.
Very insightful comment.
LOL. Can you imagine some turd world country boasting about Serena Williams the monkey-woman? Those Williams sisters look like the debris on my toilet brush after scrubbing out the bowl.
Here
The UN running the internet? Thoes lazy motherfuckers can't even get countries to quit waring with each other. Not to mention that ALL of them are technically inept and would just pass a shit load of unenforceable internet laws that would criminalize everyone, but them...
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
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.
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
Well apparently, not everyone does know that. Thankfully not everyone is as arrogant as you.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
You can only come to an agreement as to reasonable standards to follow, and ways of doing things.
ipv6 would help a LOT.. we need to get towards address space that is for practical purposes unlimited (or else it becomes a resource to be controlled, as opposed to a utilitarian thing to simply be managed in a sane manner.). In the days of yore, having IP address space had no VALUE.. if you needed ips, you could get them with no effort.. you could even have a block allocated on the premise that SOME DAY YOU MIGHT connect up to other networks.
"let's assign globally unique, routable blocks to people so if they ever decide to hook together, it will work"
That's all the internet is, a network of networks... so as to who can "govern" it.. the only way it can be governed is by standards and conventions.. not by rule of force. The only reason it works at all is becaues of cooperation, and without it's parts, it's nothing.
How long would it take before a charter was passed making it illegal to remove ones network from the "Internet whole" or to create a competing standard?
Let's have a little fun. Right now if AT&T decides that they no longer want their lines and data networks to function in conjunction with the Internet, they can "pull the plug". (lets pretend for a moment that they aren't bound by various contracts to other businesses).
The key being, they are TOTALY FREE to do whatever they want with the data that flows on their networks. Why would AT&T ever want to pull their networks off the internet? Well, right now they wouldn't want to. I mean, why would they? AT&T makes a lot of money from selling access to their network infrastructure. It can be safely stated that AT&T (at least their investors) are motivated by two things: One- Money. Two- The continued ability to make money!
Giving the UN "control" of the Internet means that suddenly an entity, who operates outside of this country, and does not conform to the laws, rights and standards set forth by this country, has sovereign control over what corporations do within their property within our borders! What part of this sounds like a good idea?! What happens if a new UN version of "Free Speech" doesn't jive with our tried and true American right? Oh well, too bad, censor your networks or else?! Better luck next time?
I for one do not believe that this is good for the future of a "free" Internet or AT&T's investor's. =)
Maybe they can move it to Geneva? I will help them pack.
What exactly are the purposes and principles of the United Nations?
Like not serving as a platform for nazis and war criminals ?
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 and mention that it would be good if it were overthrown.
- You get hauled into international court and then handed over to the regime for the "crime" of criticizing it and advocating violence against it.
As to handing such power over to the UN, the US government is empowerd only by the Constitution. This means it cannot hand its citizens over to an international tribunal that considers speech to be the equivalent of action, in violation of their First Amendment rights.
Further, any action by US officials that PURPORTS to do so is (according to the Supreme Court) not an official action, but a personal action by the individuals in question - suitable for being disobeyed by any other government official (such as the police and military personnel charged with executing the order - who have sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC) and opening them up to both impeachment and personal responsibility under such laws as the Civil Rights act.
Freedom of speech can never be absolute.
That reminds me of an Abbie Hoffman incident (which I'll paraphrase since I don't have the exact text handy).
Abbie on interview show in front of a studio audience:
Q: So you think freedom of speech is absolute?
A: Absolutely!
Q: But surely you don't believe it's all right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?
A: FIRE!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What happend to all you liberal Dean supporters willing to submit US sovereignty to the UN?
So the UN is not capable of managing the Internet but when it comes to the "managing" human lives they are fully competent.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Contact info here..
http://www.itu.int/wsis/contact/index.html
Let them know how unacceptable this is..
...they're going to take so long arguing about it, we'll have an unregulatable, distributed, practically unblockable, secure and anonymous internet layer working perfectly over the top of it before they actually do anything.
P2P will save the true freedom of the internet. Who'd have thought it?
well that is an excellent point. i've no mods myself right now.
Who should control the internet? Government or businesses?
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 would have no choice but to suck it in and live with it. They'll have police forces and armies to ensure that you smile and pretend you're happy with the situation.
But what happens if businesses gain control of the internet? (that's assuming it's even possible). The answer is simple. We can do something that would be illegal if the government were in charge. We can fork the internet.
One of the design principles of TCP/IP is decentralization. Not only can we route around onerous nodes, we can fork off the entire thing if an attempt is made to centrally control it. It would take the will to do it, but the knowledge and means to do it are widely available.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
There's a bit of confusion here about the UN. Now I'm not an expert, but my impression is that the UN is a whole bunch of agencies that have only vague connections between each other. In fact, they call them the UN System of Organizations. For example, the Security Council doesn't give orders to UNICEF.
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.
Having worked there as a programmer for a few years: .org.
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 Internet issues, then one country, probably the US, would be in charge and have pretty much the same role it has now. If this method is not used, then absolutely nothing will ever happen.
The UN is too bureaucratic and slow to manage anything that is evolving as rapidly as the Internet. Just look at their site, they haven't even done the work to demand their own domain suffix, they still use
When I was there, many of the server apps were 5 or 6 years out of date.
Also they are 100% pro-Microsoft. All their servers and desktops are Windows and they are reluctant to change or upgrade. I would rather see an Internet authority that is able to embrace other standards, Mac, Unix or whatever.
every stain tells a story
But seriously, Just becuase people are starting to relize the the UN 1) is not represenitive in a democratic or republican way 2) is corrupt 3) Leeches funding off the US (and other counties, but that doesn't concern me as much) 4) is trying to take away YOUR freedom 5) is ineffective. The last argument takes a little away from #4, but its still damn annoying.
No. They must not have control over the UN.
Who is your elected representative in the Pentagon (assuming you are American - if you are not, substitute for the closest matching geometric shape)? Who can you complain if war is not carried the way you want it to? Oh, wait, you don't have elected representation in the Pentagon, have you?
Now, slowly: who do the Generals in those hidden basements answer to? Guess, the same person the US ambassador to the UN answers to: an elected head of state.
And then you confuse matters of representation with the internal affairs of the represented. You may or may not like it, but the Chinese don't give a shit about representative democracy. The Russians are not far behind, the last decade or so being a rare exception in their history. I am not arguing which system is best, I just pointing that other nations may have different views and priorities about these matters. Anyone is free to found the United Friendly to Me Nations Organization (and many exist), but this disrupts one of UN's main objectives, being a neutral forum where all nations can discuss theirs and the world's problems.
Tell China, Cuba, and the rest of those communist MF's et. al. to go piss themselves.
> my cold dead (whatever)
Automated world-government-bashing deflects attention from the real worst. Yes, it does get worse. Example: right now, Lybia presides over the UN Human Rights Commission.
This is what happens when the US avoids serious issues like letting corrupt and dictatorial governments rule parts of the world just because they dubiously assert their friendship, refrains from paying its UN dues for years, and invades some richly deserving country but leaves the impression it's all 'bout oil, without first sqeezing the balls of that arrogant thief and crook who runs France... which is all fine with me, but not with the drooling millions.
As the US cannot govern the world all by itself, it should at least try to front run the UN.
Just out of curiousity, why was this posted here instead of under the latest SCO thread?
Possibly because he's a troll? And if he posted it on the SCO thread, he'd get laughed out of the building?
If I had time, I'd go prowling around the dark, wet, "-1" basement of Slashdot to see if there are other similar (or identical) off-topic posts.
Of course, if it were true, it would be way cool, wouldn't it?!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Yep - I'll help 'em pack too. Ship the whole lot of 'em over there. It will free up lots of parking in NYC (where diplomatic scoflaws are constantly parking illegally and can't be touched). :-b
ah. teach me to be trusting. ....no, no it won't. oh well. thanks for trying :)
In fact the battle is not between the United Nations and ICANN, it is between the International Telecommunications Union and ICANN. Please bash the correct international institutions!
For those who wish to see the actual text that governments are considering, it can be found on the official website of the WSIS here. Note that the paragraph in question is 14h, which has basically two options, one that gives more of a role of the International Telecommunications Union, and another that basically affirms the role of ICANN.
If the government dosent accept criticisim of the itself, but allows all other speech, then they dont have free speech. Not to get into arguments about yelling 'fire' in a theater, or dissemenating tatical secrets to the enemy, but free speech is an all or nothing thing. You cant have it part way. The only way for a government to demonstrate that they have free speech is to not only allow, but to encourage (discussion of) descent.
There are several legal issues to a UN influenced or controlled Internet.
Set aside the technical impossibility of a single political or corporate entity controlling a global free-form connection of disparate internets and considering simply the legal side of what is carried on the internet for a moment.
There are laws in the US governing the foreign control and ownership of telecommunications and broadcast entities.
Many of the larger Telcos are starting to move towards VOIP communications, in effect, putting their phone traffic on the internet.
It would then be impossible for a foreign entity, either political or corporate, under US law, to have authority or ownership of those networks.
Result: The whole thing is about as likely to happen or be enforcable as the Kyoto Treaty was to help the environment.
Getting back to the technical side now.
The 'root' servers I see mentioned here are the DNS root servers. They are in the hands of private organizations, public educational instutions and governmental agencies. There are more than one of them. More can be added if needed.
The only thing that trying to control them will do is fork DNS and force everyone to do the unthinkable; add a second dns server to their tcp/ip configuration. One that's still in private hands and not in UN control. Possibly one hosted in a country that does not sign the UN treaty giving it this authority.
Beyond that, there is no physical or political way to 'take over the internet'. It would mean nationalizing the entire telecommunications industry. Not even if we had a House, Senat and Oval office given over to the Green party would that be possible.
The sky is not falling. If the UN attempts to do this, especially with the current political climate in the US, it will cement the already obvious powerlessness of the UN in governing what the US does with it's own.
If that happens, the US will quickly become the chosen host country to anyone who chooses to not live under the thumb of an unaccountable political body.
In short, the sky is not falling, except in Geneva.
are you all so in love with ICANN that you just can't conceive of giving it's authority to the UN? how much worse could it be to take power from a small trade body and give it to the global community?
ICANNwatch.org
but maybe someone will see this and get a laugh...
My physics teacher in high school told of the graffiti in the bathroom in the physics building at his alma mater. While the other bathrooms around the campus had the usual bathroom scrawlings, the physics bathrooms were clean, except for a single limeric:
The once was a lady named Bright,
Who could travel faster than light.
She went out one day,
In her usual way,
And returned the previous night!
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Oops... this was supposed to be in this story about physics jokes. Sorry for the confusion.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Does anyone have info on which NGOs will be attending this?
Nothing like reading some bigotry coming from a chauvinistic anglo-saxon.
Who's tax dollars paid for it?
How can a comment on the lines of "ban all languages apart from English" be anything but a troll or flamebait? The poster complains in terms of sheer racism.
I suggest reading "Atlas Shrugged". Though I do have some issues with parts of the book, there is one theme that really strikes true and relates to the UN in situation. More specifically, it's the situation where some entity creates something amazing, perhaps revolutionizing society, and then those who do nothing to actually create progress demand a piece of it. In "Atlas Shrugged", it was an industrialist creating a new steel alloy that was vastly superior to existing steel, and all of society demanded a supposed "right" to control his creation. In this case, the US government and various US-based organizations (for the most part; I know it's not 100% US) revolutionized the world. Now the UN is trying to make claim to some sort of right over that. I suggest that if the UN wants it then they should create something better. Creation, not leeching, is what causes progress in the world.
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.