Slashdot Mirror


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.

38 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. cross your fingers.. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    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.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:cross your fingers.. by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  2. Best thing they can do by corebreech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Best thing they can do by Hubert+Q.+Gruntley · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Laugh at my Lisp and I keeell you.
  3. NYTimes has an article too... by astroview · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    Link (reigstration req'd, blah blah)

  4. Bad idea? by stry_cat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    1. Re:Bad idea? by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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!
  5. "a little late, eh?" by musikit · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  6. Al Gore by pdjohe · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

  7. hunt down spammers by m0rphin3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    for great justice
    1. Re:hunt down spammers by sulli · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.)

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    2. Re:hunt down spammers by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:hunt down spammers by thrillseeker · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

  8. UN/ITU Power Grab? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  9. A little late? by Shaper+of+Myths · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...=)

  10. So long Internet, it was nice knowing you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Such a bad idea. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Such a bad idea. by jxs2151 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:Such a bad idea. by bjhonermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

  12. Heh, gotta love the U.N. by mikesab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. analysis by theMerovingian · · Score: 5, Funny


    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)

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
  14. just say NO to the UN by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:just say NO to the UN by Telex4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!

  15. Re:First Election by Mohammed+Al-Sahaf · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
  16. Workshop on Free Software, Free Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    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.

  17. Lesseg and RMS will be there, and so will I by Hesperus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    ____________________________________

    -- I beleve you'll like this -->
  18. Digital solidarity fund? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  19. The Marxist Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  20. WSIS has nothing to do with society. by Wolfbone · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  21. Where is freedom of expression? by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

  22. Fight for your freedom by jdfox · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  23. Ground Rules. such as : by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Ground Rules. such as : by globalar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

  24. After RTFA, Some insights by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  25. Are you sure? by Raven42rac · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    --
    I hate sigs.
  26. html by loconet · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --
    [alk]
  27. no credibility... by hakalugi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "...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.

    --
    If she floats, she's a witch.
  28. Internetacces at the conference by NilsK · · Score: 4, Informative

    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