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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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 ----
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.
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.
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
That said, the more important point is that the internet shouldn't be in the hands of any one government.
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)
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.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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!!!
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.
You're either
...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.
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?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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
Fine then. Let's say I want to run a website that promotes racial hatred. That shouldn't be censored. It's a stupid opinion, and an unpopular one, but popular opinions don't need protection.
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?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Yes, it's a very academic argument. You have to play semantic games, and win them, in order to claim a right to criticise the U.N. That's unacceptable. In the U.S., the right to free speech or freedom of the press shall not be infringed upon. It's that simple, and it's quite evident that the right exists and is vigorously defended. Take a look around the web. There are hundreds of web sites, hosted in the U.S., that are not only critical of the U.S. government or the current administration, but express outright hatred for the same. The government isn't trying to shut them down, and it couldn't if it did. The U.N., however, is a different animal altogether. Right now, they don't really have the power to enforce much of anything. However, again, you have to play semantic games in order to claim the freedom to put up a "Kofi Anon sucks" site under a U.N. ruled internet, where it's simply accepted as obvious that you can publish all the "George Bush sucks" material, in print, the web, bilboards, whatever, that you want in the U.S. Thanks, but I'll take the U.S. over a U.N. run establishment any day.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.