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.

Comments

Why not go totally p2p?

[bizcoach]

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.

Bad idea

[meta-monkey]

Bad news.

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:

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

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:

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

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.

Re:Bad idea

[Zeinfeld]

the problem with the U.N., as contrasted to the U.S., is that the U.N. is entirely composed of states that have no equality, it is a body of unequals. No one could possibly claim that India, Russia, China and the U.S. are on par with Liberia, Syria, the Seychelles?

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

[Zeinfeld]

US, UK, France, Russia, and China have security veto power. China! HAve you considered their opinion of free speech rights?

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.

poop

[webtre]

ok people, nothing to see here, go back to ranting about SCO...

How About This Plan

[illuminata]

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?

Don't see this happening...

[Hayzeus]

I think the kinds of consensus required to get this thing off the ground will almost certaily elude the UN. Too many major players (the US especially, but others as well ) will be unwilling to cede even the tiny amount of sovereignty required to make this work.

Expect this initiative to languish in various committees until the end of time...

New World Order?

[rveety]

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?

Oh Great!

[Ken@WearableTech]

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.

Of course, the beautiful thing is...

[Chibi Merrow]

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.

bureaucracy at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it take 13 years and 12 resolutions to kick a spammer of the internet?

Lowest Common Denominator

[nurb432]

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...

Re:Lowest Common Denominator

[Jhon]

Funny how people get so indignant when it's a "controlling multinational entity"

Funny how people consider the UN a "controlling multinational entity". It sure has a history of being able to govern and "control", huh? It sure follows through with all it's security council resolutions, huh?

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).

non-issue

[kayen_telva]

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.

Re:Geneva

[Lothar 0]

Traditional Swiss neutrality, the chocolate, and Martina Hingis (nsfw).

As part Swiss, I can say it ain't for the yodeling. ;P

Us Geeks Must Suck

[tds67]

From the Reuters article:

Incubated in a geeky part of the U.S. Department of Defense decades ago, the Internet has become a thriving global marketplace since being fully turned over to the private business community in the early 1990s.

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).

If you read the proposal....

[Matt Clare]

...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.

I don't like it

[sevensharpnine]

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.

Re:What crap.

[drinkypoo]

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

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

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

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

Short Answer

[Angram]

" 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.

What Authority?

[rstultz]

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

Re:What crap.

[Chibi Merrow]

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.

What's wrong with the Internet?

[WildBeast]

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

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

Re:What crap.

[meta-monkey]

You're either

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: ...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.

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:Sad

[meta-monkey]

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?