World Summit On The Internet And IT

eegad writes "The Seattle PI reports on the upcoming first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society to be held in Geneva on December 10-12. 192 nations are involved in the effort to set some ground rules for the Internet (a little late, eh?) including ways to deal with spam, a possible "digital solidarity fund" to help developing nations, and discussion of UN regulation. The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action". Some countries plan on asking for a UN commission to study new ways of running the Internet aimed at the 2005 phase. The official website will provide coverage of the event. How come I wasn't invited?" The Washington Times also has a piece on it, as well. We had covered this a bit before.

Comments

cross your fingers..

[grub]

192 nations are involved in the effort to set some ground rules for the Internet ... including ways to deal with spam

I hope Nigeria doesn't have any sort of veto power at this summit.

Re:cross your fingers..

[Zocalo]

Actually, given the probable means of applying the death penalty in Nigeria (stoning), combined with the Nigerian government's efforts to crack down on 419 scams, I rather hope Nigeria *does* have a big say at the conference... I'll be right at the front of the queue for a bag of gravel, and some nice pointy rocks when the first spammers get marched out.

Best thing they can do

[corebreech]

Stay the fuck away from my Internet.

That said...

It might be nice to encourage people to use bittorrent to download porn. The bandwidth savings would be akin to quadrupling router capacity across the Net.

Or, maybe fix email by requiring everybody to send ciphered messages only. Require/encourage mail servers to permit a user to provide it a gateway public/private key through which all incoming email must satisfy (not the same as your personal public/private key.) Solve spam and nine-tenths of Echelon with one single kick in the balls.

Then, get over this self-inflicted trauma over raw sockets. Raw sockets are cool. Raw sockets + UDP can all but eliminate the nastier p2p problems, like how to work through firewalls, as well as how to send data anonymously. These are good things. Let good people do good things with good technology.

But we can do all of these things through education. We don't need the UN/Geneva/Britney Spears to tell us how this whole thing should work.

Re:Best thing they can do

[Hubert Q. Gruntley]

Agreed on most points.

I'm not sure PKI needs to be part of the SPAM solution. Three reasons:
1) The same clueless ficktwizzles that set up their mail servers as open relays (224K of them? according to ORDB.org) will also be setting up their mail server certificates. No, this isn't fraught with peril.

2) There isn't a black market (that I'm aware of, doh) of private keys. Client certificates are useless, server certificates are useless unless you also own the domain name, code signing certificates, well, um, yeah I guess those are dangerous. But we've seen the lengths spammers will go, and I can easily foresee a huge market for stolen certificates, if now every domain has one to send mail.

3) The _last_ thing we need to do is get Verisign slobbering over using certificates for email. Over in the SPF discussion mailing list there are Verisign people who want certificates in the DNS records published by SPF.

NYTimes has an article too...

[astroview]

Check out the NYTimes article, it points out a bit of the criticism of the whole process.

Link (reigstration req'd, blah blah)

Re:NYTimes has an article too...

[Hobbex]

Who needs the NYT when we have the esteemed publication of the Reverend Sun Moon!

Of course, how many of you knew this.

Bad idea?

[stry_cat]

The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action".

Seems like we're doing ok without this stuff.

Some countries plan on asking for a UN commission to study new ways of running the Internet aimed at the 2005 phase.

Am I the only one who thinks this is going to be a bad idea? It's like getting the government involved only there is no way for citizens to influence the policy.

Re:Bad idea?

[Marxist Commentary]

Well, a centralized authority in control of the internet, while possibly restricting some current freedoms could make tremendous positive impacts in others. For example:

Spam could be outlawed once and for all worldwide, with harsh penalties for violation.

An international agreement of standards for content could bring freedom of information to places where there is a lack of information.

Centralized taxation - an agreed upon method for providing revenue streams to the UN which would allow taxes to be paid across various countries.

Elimination of various objectively hateful websites from the internet, e.g., holocaust denial, neo-nazis, gun merchants.

This doesn't sound all bad to me, though admittedly there are some drawbacks. For example, the administrative costs might be fairly high, but these could be worked out I think. Perhaps an email tax on corporations?

Re:Bad idea?

[pla]

Well, a centralized authority in control of the internet, while possibly restricting some current freedoms could make tremendous positive impacts in others. For example:
<snip>
This doesn't sound all bad to me

Or for a few more examples that appeal to various major world governments:

• Outlaw the use of all "hard" cryptography.
• Centralized taxation (Did you forget your meds this morning?????)
• No more porn, or at least nothing hard-core
• "Perfect" monitoring of all traffic, shared with all member governments
• Extradition to, say, Syria, for exercising my American freedom of speech and religion

Sorry, but this has a LOT more potential for a bad outcome than for improvement on the few flaws the internet currently has. Keep the governments (any or all, doesn't matter to me) the hell away from the net!

Re:Bad idea?

[mrkurt]

1. Define "spam". What is "free speech" to some people might be defined by some despots as "spam".
2. Define "hateful websites". See point #1, above.

While your goals are laudable, the devil is in the details of their implementation on a global scale when many of the world's people live under governments that are not truly democratic and transparent. Centralized authority leads to great power vested in that authority, which leads to great potential for abuse. See my top-level comment about how the West could already do this

We who live in democratic nations have the responsibility to reject spam and hate speech-- we already have the tools to do so.

"a little late, eh?"

[musikit]

not really. considering it takes OUR government 10-20 years to recognize technology. i would say this is a rather fast turn around for a body of government set up by bodies of government.

Al Gore

[pdjohe]

I heard they are going to make Al Gore in charge of the whole meeting.

After all, he did create the thing, right? ;)

hunt down spammers

[m0rphin3]

The best thing they can do is make it illegal for spammers to get safe harbor anywhere.
Or, failing that, to make sure that spam only gets sent to the country of origin somehow. That would eliminate 90% of my spam, which is from the US.

Probably it will only end up in another treaty the US will refuse to ratify, like Kyoto and the International Court of Justice.

Re:hunt down spammers

[sulli]

Yes. But the best thing they can do is have a talkfest accomplishing nothing, like all the other UN world summits. As long as they issue some bland communique talking about how we need to make technology better for the children, that is fine. If the ITU tries to take over the internet, the US needs to shitcan that treaty faster than Kyoto.

(If they don't like the internet, they can always build their own. I hear Minitel is a nice technology built by an ITU member.)

Re:hunt down spammers

[thrillseeker]

it will only end up in another treaty the US will refuse to ratify, like Kyoto and the International Court of Justice.

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.

Re:hunt down spammers

[spectrokid]

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S

Wait until NY comes below sea level. Then we'll see what is best for US citizens.

Re:hunt down spammers

[Telex4]

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.

Of course if you are so uneducated as to not know that treaties like Kyoto and the ICC, whilst not obviously in America's short term interests, are in fact in America's long term interests, you might say something so daft in the context of Kyoto and the ICC.

Have a read about the prisoners' dilemma and you might see what I mean.

Re:hunt down spammers

[thrillseeker]

Of course if you are so uneducated as to not know that treaties like Kyoto and the ICC, whilst not obviously in America's short term interests, are in fact in America's long term interests, you might say something so daft in the context of Kyoto and the ICC.

Sigh.

Why does your disagreement start with an insult? You have no idea of my educational level or experiences, and your instant reversion to an ad hominem attack doesn't do much to endear me to listen to any argument you might present. Isn't part of a good education learning how to argue a point like an adult, or should I just insult you back?

The treaties that you are so enamored with may be viewed as of benefit to you or yours - but they have not been viewed as sufficiently beneficial to the citizens of the U.S. - or they would have been agreed to. Instead, they place the burden of cost on the U.S. with few perceived benefits.

Kyoto would exempt "developing" nations - so in effect dirty manufacturing would end up moving to those places even faster because it would be cheaper - it would basically make such places (which I have visited in my professional, albiet uneducated life) even more unpleasant to live in - is that what you want to do to those poor countries to make yourself feel like you've "done something"?

The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense? Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it.

If the world scientific and political body can convince the administration of the U.S. that Kyoto or something like it will benefit the people of the U.S. above what it will cost, then the people of the U.S. will call for its adoption.

Till then, piss off.

Re:hunt down spammers

[randyest]

Of course if you are so uneducated as to not know that treaties like Kyoto and the ICC, whilst not obviously in America's short term interests, are in fact in America's long term interests, you might say something so daft in the context of Kyoto and the ICC.

You say that with such confidence that, if I didn't know better, I might actually buy it. Care to back up your claim that Kyoto and ICC "are in America's long term interests"? Or are you just trying to convince via confidence and namecalling?

I, for one, don't buy it, especially regarding Kyoto -- that POS was exactly counter to America's short- and long-term interests, IMHO. Of course, that's my opinion, and I stated it as such. But since you're so sure that I'm wrong, I'm excited to learn of the basis for your matter-of-fact assertion.

Re:hunt down spammers

[sheldon]

"The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense? Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it. "

Absolutely.

Now if only the invasion of Iraq had had something to do with America's defense.

Re:hunt down spammers

[Doug Neal]

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.

Well it is in the interests of the rest of the world.

But the USA don't give a fuck about anyone but the USA, do they? And why should they? They're doing just fine. To hell with everyone else. And that's your answer to the "why do you hate America" quip right here.

UN/ITU Power Grab?

[fuzzybunny]

There's an interesting article about this at El Reg. I'm pretty worried about what's going on there; for all the failing of ICANN, it's always been sort of emblematic of the prevailing idea in western countries to keep bureaucracy from throttling the Internet. Think what you will about various nations bad handling of Internet traffic and user rights, the over-corporatization of the net, and ICANN's distasteful tactics over domain handling; the Internet as we know it is a far cry from what it might have been had the ITU been allowed to be the driving force behind it.

I don't relish the idea of the type of bureaucrat who brought us WIPO deciding by fiat where the greatest communications revolution in human history is going to go.

Re:UN/ITU Power Grab?

[OldeTimeGeek]

Sorry to burst your hyperbole, but the greatest communication revolution in human history was moveable type.

A little late?

[Shaper of Myths]

Isn't this the technological equivolent (time-wise) of the U.N. right now in 2003 trying to decide what to do about this 'Hitler' guy? To quote my favorite Vorlon: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

But maybe I'm just pessimistic and jaded...=)

So long Internet, it was nice knowing you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Organizations like the UN, unaccountable by most means in their actions, will only try to leverage further control by government authorities to make sure we're all trackable and monitored for "appropriate behavior". Nothing good will come from this. Kiss the "free" anarchy-style of the Internet goodbye.

Such a bad idea.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I know others ahve already commented about this, but honestly what good can come from this? I don't want any part of the internet under UN control. Right now the internet is mostly apolitical and thats the way it should stay. I cannot believe this could lead to anything good.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[jxs2151]

I don't want any part of the internet under UN control.

I find it hilarious that the same Slashdot crew that was screaming for UN control of the Iraq situation now wants nothing to do with the UN when it comes to the Internet. Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda.

Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position.

The UN has no business in anything. Intelligent people can look at their track record and come to the conclusion that they are more fucked up than a football bat.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[bjhonermann]

"Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda."

The desire to have the UN involved in Iraq is to make the invasion have some resemblance of legitimacy. To make it clear that this occupation isn't about the United States' ego and that it really is about helping Iraqi citizens. The inclusion of the UN could go a long way towards repairing the damage already done to the US's image and towards stopping the attacks on US soldiers happening every day. What do we stand to lose?

Added to this, US tax payers are currently funding almost the entirety of the occupation (which in my opinion is only right since we decided to go at it unilaterally). Getting the UN involved could lessen the burden on the already weak US economy.

As to your perception that it's the same people who oppose Bush's occupation plans that are against UN regulation of the Internet, three things.

First, Slashdot is a big place with lots of different people and viewpoints.

Second, the Internet isn't broken, it doesn't need guidance from a slow-moving organization like the UN, and there is little to be gained from having a global governing council in charge of Internet issues. One of the beauties of the Internet is that there is no single regulating agency that can control and monitor all content. Once that entity is formed the free form Internet that we all know and love will begin to break down.

Lastly, the UN isn't something to be considered universally good or universally bad. The UN does some good things and some bad things. The same person can both praise it what it does right and critique it for what it does wrong. You're "Us vs. Them" mentality is outdated for the modern world, there is no singular them to scream about.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[jxs2151]

...to make the invasion have some resemblance of legitimacy.

Please explain to me how an unelected body composed of a majority of countries governed by dictators can grant anything legitimacy?

Good try though....

...the damage already done to the US's image

If the US made decisions based on how it "affected our image" the world would have long ago descended into brutal dictatorial chaos, while we sat on the sidelines wringing our hands worries about "our image"

Tut, tut

Re:Such a bad idea.

[HawkingMattress]

Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position.

Nah, what you talk about is not "changing position when it suits you", it's called having the intelligence to judge a situation, and not blindly say "I'm ok with UN, whatever they say, because that's my camp". That's what all those pesky politicians do all the time you know, they'd never agree that the other camp has a point. That's childish.

I was for UN control of the Iraq situation, and I think it ws a very very bad move for the US to do what they did. But this time it was about a war you know with real people that dies and all that. Whatever the final move would have been for the US, it could have been wise to listen to what the rest of the world thought about it.

Here, we're speaking about the frigging internet ! Nobody will die from receiving one more spam or whatever, and we all know that UN (or whatever) control could only make the internet more restrictive.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[Lost Race]

I find it hilarious that the same Slashdot crew that was screaming

"The same Slashdot crew"? You mean that monolithic, lock-step hive mind that posts millions of messages under hundreds of thousands of different names -- including, for example, yours? You find it hilarious that you (The Slahdot Crew) screamed about one thing then later screamed about something contrary? OK, I guess we agree that is pretty funny. That is, if "we" can really be considered to "agree" on anything, since you and I aren't really separate individuals, just two inseparable and indistinguishable components of The Slashdot Crew.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[sheldon]

Where were the Republicans when Al Gore and Jesse Helms pushed for the End Genocide Act of 1988?

President Reagan threatened to veto it, so it didn't pass in the House.

I find this hypocrisy rather disgusting.

Heh, gotta love the U.N.

[mikesab]

Since the U.N. is inherently a governing entity, it will invariably feel the need to regulate everything it can. It is in its very nature to regulate. They even managed to throw in the word "solidarity". Every time I hear that word, my ears perk up.

Re:Heh, gotta love the U.N.

[jxs2151]

The UN is most assuredly not a governing entity. Government is a right granted by the people. I granted them nothing, not even indirectly, therefore they are not a governing body- a debating society perhaps but certainly not a governing body.

First Election

[tds67]

I can't wait until the first Information Minister is elected.

And it will probably be Darl McBribe.

Re:First Election

[Mohammed Al-Sahaf]

Do not believe the lies my friend. There is only one man for this job. Make no mistake, when I am made Minister of the Information Society the blood of the spammers will flow like wine. Our low price septic tanks will be full of the corpses of the armies of slaughtered spammers. We shall strike them down like the dogs they are. They are superpower of villains. They are superpower of Al Capone. And we shall destroy them.

analysis

[theMerovingian]

The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action".

Person 1: Sounds like it was created by an MBA.

Person 2: Actually, it was a committee.

Person 1: OK, a committee of MBA's.

Person 2: A committee of MBA's who work for the government!

Both: (run away and hide under cubicles)

just say NO to the UN

[Shivetya]

Sorry, but they can't manage anything. The United Nations is a failed idea looking for relevance. Unfortunately anything they take over becomes a mockery of what it is supposed to.

Worse, the UN routinely caves into member states that are notorious violators of human rights. What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships? Of disarnament committees run by the same?

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

No thank you. ICANN might be annoying but at least we can lay hands on them

Re:just say NO to the UN

[Telex4]

Sorry, but they can't manage anything. The United Nations is a failed idea looking for relevance.

Right, so you've nothing to say on UNESCO, UNHCR, IPCC and goodness knows how many other good things the UN does that are fantastic and absolutely necessary. You just don't mention them because many media outlets, out of ignorance and a desire to criticise, have got an obsession with claiming the UN is worthless.

Worse, the UN routinely caves into member states that are notorious violators of human rights. What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships? Of disarnament committees run by the same?

Do you know why? Think for the moment of what the UN is: a forum for governments. Maybe the failure of the UN to really tackle human rights issues is because the governments in the UN, and in particular in the security council, deliberately skirt around human rights and try not to get too many legally binding documents through that would kill off their own industries. Hello UK, USA, France, Germany, Russia, etc. The problem with the UN in this regard is that its member states can be so damn hypocritical.

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Wow. Evidence? Does the UN routinely "bash" Israel? It passes motions condemning its human rights abuses, just as it does for all human rights abusers, but it is hardly anti-semitic. The only people who claim that are those who simply cannot discern the difference between anti-Semitism and 'anti-Israeli-Governments'-policy-ism'. It's like all the 'anti-American' nonsense.

I'm worried about what the WSIS will come up with too, but let's at least be rational about this, rather than sensationalising ignorant nosense!

Re:just say NO to the UN

[Tom]

What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships?

How serious would they take an organization that only allows the nice-and-dandy in? This is a planet-wide organization, they have to give everyone a say, and that especially includes the ones that everyone else would rather see silenced.

would simply give certain [countries] a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries.

So far, every time I read the actual protocols, it more looked like these "certain countries" wanted something like a share of the prospering, and not a restriction. Now if you think for a second, if you take a share of something, it is in your best interest for that something to be large.

Of course, newspapers, politicians and other 2nd hand sources with an agenda usually have no trouble turning things their way.

Which is why you should check original sources if you can, instead of buying your opinions wholesale from the paper boy.

Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Sure, but this is the UN. If there is one trait that has been very constant over its existence then it is that of unbelievable levels of compromise. Everything at the UN level gets washed down to the lowest common denominator, and a bit lower just to be sure.
If we need a definition for spam, then a UN-created definition is sure to be the most restrictive. In fact, I'm sure most of us here would whine how much of the spam it doesn't include.

ICANN might be annoying but at least we can lay hands on them

We can? Who exactly is "we"? Sure doesn't include me, or anyone else outside the US. Which just happens to be about 95% of mankind.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[Permission Denied]

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Sorry, but am I the only one who identifies this as flaimbait?

What gives occidental countries a greater right to speech over other cultures? The West may have the power to impose their views upon others, but does this power legitimize imposing their views?

Consider the example of the WIPO, which is controlled by western countries. Western ideas of "intellectual property" are forced upon African and Asian countries, meaning they cannot produce medications for their own people, but have to buy medication from Western corporations at artificially-inflated prices. Had these smaller nations not been strong-armed into signing agreements on intellectual property, they would have been able to afford medication for their people.

This phrase strikes me as particularly frightening:

It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel!

Have you not considered that perhaps Israel should be restricted, as with all other governments of the world? Israel (one of the world's worst human-rights violators), is subject to the same international laws as other countries. These laws are agreed upon at international conferences such as the one proposed, and these conferences should receive participants from all manner of nations, even those that believe Israel illegitimate.

It is, of course, easier to sign an agreement than to enforce it, so these agreements are regularly disregarded by the most powerful nations (Israel declaring that the Geneva convention does not apply to suspected terrorists, the US inventing the term "illegal combattant" to circumvent international law regarding prisoners of war), but the first step to ensuring that all nations are held responsible for their actions is unilateraly agreeing upon standards to uphold.

At first, I agreed that no useful regulation can come of this summit and that the Internet should remain absolutely unregulated. However, while formulating this post, I begin to see what "restrictions" against Israel you may fear. Whereas in the US computer crime is performed mostly by harmless vandals and warez groups, in the Middle East network attacks are often motivated by politics. What international law stops the Mossad from attacking the network infrastructure of an opposing political group or funding vandals to deface opposition websites? At the moment, no such agreement exists.

If this conference forces powerful nations to listen to the viewpoints of the rest of the world, some good may come of it.

Workshop on Free Software, Free Society

[Anonymous Coward]

The most promising and interesting for us is the thematic Working Group (WG) dealing with Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks (P.C.T) and related issues, within the framework of the Civil Society.

See the website of this group at http://www.wsis-pct.org/

The Working Group is holding a workshop "Free Software, Free Society" with a group of top speakers, including Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU Project, and Lawrence Lessig.

Lesseg and RMS will be there, and so will I

[Hesperus]

I'm a programmer working at the W.H.O., which is just down the road from the exibition hall, so I've been looking at the schedule to see what events might be interesting or useful to attend.

Looks like a lot of local linux users (see G.U.L.L) are planning to attend at least the panel with Larry Lessig and RMS on Wednesday. RMS is also speaking on Thursday.

Re:1998 called...

[syrinx]

...and while they were on the phone, they wanted your joke back, too.

Digital solidarity fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do developing nations need the Internet?

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse...

By definition maybe what they really need is heavy infrastructure development?

Giving bushmen WWW access isn't going to help any nation develop.

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[cranos]

The bushmen are in Australia, which last I looked has pretty good net access. Most bushmen with net access use wireless, of course, so that it doesn't compromise their nomadic lifestyle. There's not much point in talking about "giving" them access, as, as a group, they have their own funds, which the Australian government is pretty much constrained to use as the bushmen decide.

Ummm no, the Bushmen live in South Africa and neighbouring countries. The natives of australia are referred to collectively as Aboriginals while individual tribal groups retain their own names such as the Koori. As for Internet access, most of the Aboriginal groups who live in the deep bush are more worried about health and employment.

The Marxist Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

"Spam could be outlawed once and for all worldwide, with harsh penalties for violation."

Should we apply Marxist solutions: gulags (Stalin), death farms (Cambodia) or rape camps (Serbia)?

"An international agreement of standards for content could bring freedom of information to places where there is a lack of information"

Yes. We know that government control always makes things more free!

"Centralized taxation..."

Yes. The greedy ruling class must get a cut!

"Elimination of various objectively hateful websites from the internet, e.g., holocaust denial, neo-nazis, gun merchants"

And, of course, left-wing hate sites (MLM, neo-soviets) all remain uncensored.

Re:The Marxist Solution

[cfuse]

And, of course, left-wing hate sites (MLM, neo-soviets) all remain uncensored.

Since when is Amway a hate site?

Fighting spam cleverly.

[Savage-Rabbit]

This guy has had a deliciously evil series of inspriations. My favorite is the generator that traps a spambot in an (almost) infinite loop and feeds it upto 26^49 totally bogus E-Mail addresses. An even more evil thing to do would be to bounce the spambots through a large network of pages on many different sites carrying only a relatively small number of bogus addresses each. That would make this stunt alot harder for the spammer to detect. This writing more of these traps would make a cool hobby....

WSIS has nothing to do with society.

[Wolfbone]

I notice that none of the articles mentioned the opposition to the corrupt way the WSIS has banned various interest groups and fudged their Declaration of Principles and Action Plan so as not to offend the mighty corporate interests who don't like the ideas of freedom of information and basic human rights.

This summit is a betrayal of it's original ideals, and especially of the World's poor. Various groups are intending to strongly oppose this travesty; there is more information and here.

Where is freedom of expression?

[rumblin'rabbit]

Under "What values should underlie the foundations of the information society", WSIS says this: "The universal human values of equality, and justice, democracy, solidarity, mutual tolerance, human dignity, economic progress, protection of the environment, and respect for diversity are the foundations for a truly inclusive global information society."

Where oh where is freedom of expression in all this? Or is that too much of a threat to the organizations sponsering this summit?

Fight for your freedom

[jdfox]

WSIS might sound like a boring bureaucratic exercise, but there's a strong chance that governments are going to walk away from it with new international agreements in their pockets to pass laws in their own countries restricting the free flow of information.

Quoting the "WSIS? We Seize!" press release:

'While the official agenda of this UN/ITU Summit talks about "free access to information", "the digital divide" and "equality of opportunities", in reality its doors are closed, its discussions exclusive and the agendas of those who attend it concealed. What's more, the right to demonstrate and protest has been suspended in Geneva at this time, as the usual parade of despots and tyrants fly in to Switzerland to define policy for their own citizens, and the rest of the world, based on the agendas of corporate multinationals, media conglomerates and infrastructure owners.

Geneva03 is a temporary network of groups and individuals set up to carry out agitational, educational and communications work during both the G8 and the WSIS. Geneva03 considers it critical to show, during such a display of media power and control, that independent groups and people have the ability to create their own media, to share media, self publish, build networks and communicate freely and autonomously. That's why we've titled our events during this time WSIS? WE SEIZE! We do not consider that negotiation and supplication before the altar of the UN will produce information autonomy for all. Instead, we are taking our autonomy now, using the means and technologies at our disposal: the Internet, peer to peer networks, Free and Open Source Software, community wireless infrastructures, pirate television and radio and streamed media. Beyond questions of communications technology, We Seize! seeks to open a wide-ranging discussion on the new social conditions that constitute today's world about which the WSIS has little or nothing to say: media concentration, expansive intellectual property regimes, casualised and immaterial labour and migration.

We insist that this urge to speak, to hear and be heard, is irrepressible. The Geneva03 group returns to Geneva following major attempts at repression during the G8 this year, in which the group were targetted by police whilst running an independent media centre. No charges were brought against the group, because - whatever the establishment would like us to believe - it is still lawful to freely express ourselves. We must, however, continue to exercise this ability, to expand and test it in diverse situations, if we are not to lose the freedom and potential that defines us as people.

Communication, language and information are essential to understanding both control and liberation in this new millenium. They are simultaneously the site of the most repressive and totalitarian suppression and disciplining we have seen since the 1950s and, we believe, the basis of a powerful, growing autonomous movement. Ultimately this movement must cut to the very heart of communication: for what we are able to articulate, we are able to create. We must speak of a new world without fear, and with all the creativity, energy and commitment we can find.'
(end quote)

If you want to know more, here are some useful links:

Good background article on Indymedia Global

WSIS? We Seize!

The World Forum on Communication Rights

Polimedia Lab

Civil Society news centre for the WSIS

Indymedia UK WSIS 2003 section

This worries me

[Bendebecker]

Let's face it, if we had a cent for every IQ point our leaders have, the sum total of our entire government wouldn't be enough to buy a happy meal at McDonald's. That being said, do we really want to trust these people with determining the best policies for the system???

Ground Rules. such as :

[nurb432]

New rules:

1 - No individual anonymity
2 - No free speech for individuals
3 - No national information sovereignty.
4 - Taxation to pay for enforcement of the new rules
5 - Jails to house all the new criminals.

Re:Ground Rules. such as :

[globalar]

"1 - No individual anonymity"
"2 - No free speech for individuals"

I am no political theorist, but I think that individual rights found a free society, physical or virtual. The very fact that there are no distinct laws on the Internet as a whole, anonymity is possible to an extent, free speech is rampant, etc. are all positive things (ultimately). I feel we have all benefited from this kind of freedom that really is not possible (currently) in the physical world.

Maybe we cannot have everything we want in a government or the UN, but the Internet seems a lot more ideal to myself as it is. Sure there are spammers, crackers, con-artists, and all sorts of bad things. But is regular society free of these? No, but on the Internet we can band together, share information, and fight these elements as a community. In our physical society, every one of our freedom's requires overhead to protect and is constantly threatened by the system itself. On the Internet, the system may not promote our freedom (I guess you could argue either way there), but it has few controls. What seems remarkable to me is that the Internet can still be friendly and even great - all without conventional government control.

I think the majority of people (anywhere in the world) have already made a lot compromises about their physical society and freedoms. I hate to think we ever really have to make similar ones in our virtual society. Its far from ideal, but its there and I think it has a lot to do with our future.

After RTFA, Some insights

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I read the Draft "Plan of Action" availible. It reads a lot like a polictical document. The scary part is the one about the un taking over control of the internet, but it mostly says that everyone should have access to the internet and it should be geared towards all languages and cultures.

Thats great, but I think the UN should be focused on oh I don't know .. giving starving people food and water. That seems like a higher priority than internet access. Furthermore, one of the questions in the Faq is "Will one language or culture takeover the information society?" The answer says that we should encourage people to provide content in all languages. First of all, I think Internet is already heavily US centric perhaps because it was originally its network. Secondly, that is a pipe dream just like everything else in the summit.

Are you sure?

[Raven42rac]

Are you sure there are 192 nations participating, and not 192.168 nations? What about the 10.x or the 169.254 nations you insensitive clods?

Re:Are you sure?

[Tackhead]

> Are you sure there are 192 nations participating, and not 192.168 nations? What about the 10.x or the 169.254 nations you insensitive clods?

Someone call the WTO! I'm a 192.168 nation! And those bastards in the rest of the world have embargoed me from trading with anyone but 10.x and 169.254 nations! End the blockade now! To the firewalls, mes amis!

html

[loconet]

They should start by banning frontpage as a tool to create webpages. Yes that would mean they'll have to recode their official website as well

no credibility...

[hakalugi]

"...Carlos Achiary, national director of Information Technology Argentina, said many governments are frustrated because the Internet is having a tremendous effect in their countries, but they have no place to submit their requests, complaints or suggestions...." /dev/null anyone?

I have family living in B.A. - I visited Arg. for a few weeks last November. After looking at miles of black and white marble columns and hand-worked wrought-iron that enclosed their WATER PROCESSING PLANT in B.A. - I felt no pity for the bureaucrats at this service arm who now cry poor. The unabashed "we are Euro, ergo better than the rest of [south] America, so let's have palacial water plants..." The whole place was shocking. (parts beautiful, yes) But the officials I met.... inept, corrupt, nepitistic, backwards - maybe they should get their house in order before looking to "suggest" some of their 'winning insight' to the rest of us.

(did you hear about the folks of B.A. suing a new (chilean owned) utility that, after months of written warnings removed the power-leacher-wires from the poles? Yep, they had the audacity to sue the company for cutting them off b/c they'd tapped in illegally. It's still in the courts, the folks there think "it is our right to have electricity" - just as it is this guys' "right" to have a say on riding coat-tails.)

build something, contribute, dont' back-street drive.

Internetacces at the conference

[NilsK]

Heise.de has an article about the interetaccess on this conference: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-08.12.03-00 6/ (in german). The main info: Internetaccess for participants on this conference will cost about 128Euro. Participants from the third world, already having problems to bring up the money to attend, might not be able to afford the Internetaccess on the "World Summit on the Information Society". An attendee from Bulgaria mentioned that in Bulgaria this is about the amount of money you have to live from ... for two months.

Nils

Who grants authority to world bodies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I hear about another organization taking it upon themselves to do some global rule-making, I can't help wondering: from whence do these organizations derive their authority? I didn't vote for these people. I don't even know who they are.

Yes, I know. Sovereign nations have engaged in international diplomacy, treaty signing and the like since time immemorial. I still question the authority of those who would make rules without being elected.

Re:Let me respond

[cayenne8]

"Kyoto would not exempt developing nations for the purpose of moving the polluting industries to these developing countries; Kyoto specifically states that pollution is a global problem that needs dealing with on a global scale. The exemption is made because of a) the costs of reducing pollution; developing nations simply can't afford it as long as they're in their developing stages;"

And if this passes, what is to keep larger nations from setting up polluting factories in these developing nations? I think the point is...if they are exempted....then existing polluters will move there...and save the cost of running these businesses in the countries where they'd have to pay to clean up....I've heard nothing in Kyoto that prevents this.

"So since when is (offensively) invading a sovereign nation defence? Invasions are not defensive, what ever weaselwording ("pre-emptive strikes") they're wrapped in. If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor. "

I'm not all that comfy with the supposed reasoning for the new aggression against Iraq. I feel that pre-emptive strikes weren't needed as a reason. The significant reason was that Iraq had NEVER fully complied with the treaties signed at the end of the first Gulf War. Period. They were given more than enough time and more than enough chances. If they had fully complied upfront with all inspections, and hadn't tried playing politics and cat and mouse with the world....that asshole saddam would still be in power. However, he did not comply with a treaty of surrender...in which case...the war was never over. If Germany had reneged on their surrender back in WWII...I can guarantee that the Allies would not have been so patient for years upon years....they'd have started the bombing virtually immediately. So, we didn't need any further reason since because he had not complied with the terms of surrender of Gulf War 1....the war was technically never over...

Re:Let me respond

[randyest]

Kyoto would not exempt developing nations for the purpose of moving the polluting industries to these developing countries;

....yet...

The exemption is made because of a) the costs of reducing pollution; developing nations simply can't afford it as long as they're in their developing stages; and b) fairness; the polluters should pay to get their mess cleaned up.

It doesn't matter why the exemptions were made, the fact remains that they were, and some people think that makes it stupid and decidedly unfair, despite your claim that it is in the interest of fairness.

So since when is (offensively) invading a sovereign nation defence?

Since September 11, 2001. Welcome to the next phase. The sleeping giant was awakened again, and as the former emperor of Japan said (I'm paraphrasing): "Are you nuts!? Boy are you in biiiig trouble now ..."

Re:Let me respond

[Matrix272]

If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor.

Without taking one side or another, may I suggest that if I wanted to harm a sovereign nation without me being held accountable in a "war-crime court", I'd just hire some mercenaries to do the damage over and over again, then deny any knowledge of it. However, I'm also curious when Saddam Hussein will be brought to trial for his decades of torture and warcrimes against Kuwait in 1991.

The problem with some nations is they can't accept authority that might judge their actions as wrong, just like some offenders can't.

And why, exactly, does the UN get to state what the USA should and should not do? There are 10 members in the Security Counsel, right? Why should 7 of them dictate what the other 3 do (for instance)? Because it's a "consensus"? What if a group of 6 countries get together and decide that the world would be better off without the other 4? Are the other 4 supposed to roll over and die, just because it's a "consensus"? Or would you permit them to fight for their survival?

The United Nations is worthless, and has been for years. Their resolutions aren't followed, which makes them ineffective in enacting any global changes, and if they can't enact any global changes, the debating is just wasting time. It's already been proven that if someone defies the UN, nothing will happen.

If you're trying render global consensus meaningless, there will be global consensus in condemning you.

Exactly. The UN has tried to render global consensus meaningful, but lacked the ability to follow through with any of its decisions. Thus, there is now a growing consensus of the belief that the UN is meaningless.

There is just to many nukes and other dangerous stuff in the world to throw these moderating diplomatic structures overboard and fight it out.

If there are so many nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and if they're so easy to use (as you're implying... apparently you think that without the UN, everyone would just light the fuse and have it out), why let people like Saddam Hussein stay in power? The man murdered over a million people in his own country, using chemical weapons. What possible GOOD could come from him staying in power? What possible BAD could come from him staying in power? The worst-case scenario is that he has a bad day sometime, and uses all his weapons and kills over a billion people by feeding some of his biological weaponry into the water supply, or using his chemical weapons in India or China or something. The worst-case scenario if he is expelled from power is he hides his weapons and waits for a time to use them, hoping that the "good" guys won't get him first, with the possibility that the "good" guys find the weapons first, and he never gets the chance. I'd rather take option #2.

leaving out the important part of the story

[neowintermute]

http://hubproject.org/en/?l=en

http://geneva03.net

Re:The UN is awash in money.

[m0rphin3]

Just for the sake of clearing this up, do you have any links to substantiate your claim?

Re:thanks for not getting it..

[m0rphin3]

Actually, 90% of the spam that bounces from me is from the US, from US servers, and advertise US products.

And no-one is talking about 'subservience' here. You make the UN sound like some unaccountable shadowy organization hell-bent on bringing the US to its knees.