U.N. To Govern Internet?

Falmarian writes "Apparently the rest of the world isn't happy about the US franchise on internet governance. A news.com article discusses the possibility that the U.N. will make a bid for control of such governing functions as assigning TLDs and IPs." From the article: "At issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming. Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, 'consumer protection,' and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for 'universal access.'"

Comments

Re:What a Great Idea!

[FrankDrebin]

nobody elected the UN, it's a treaty organization

... and treaty-based bodies administer the international communications issues like radio spectrum and satellite slots. So what's the difference?

Re:Yuk

[kernelfoobar]

WWW: later addon from MIT

Sorry to burst your bubble but WWW is a CERN invention (international organization part in Switzerland, and part in France). Check here and here.

Re:Yuk

[Rei]

No, that's what Ritter had to say long ago. Here's what Ritter had to say before the invasion:

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. ... Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

Here's an article with tons of links, for those who would like to distort his views by giving decade-old quotes that were overcome by events. I suggest you start reading the *recent* quotes from each of the heads of UNSCOM/UNMOVIC as well, plus the comments of the IAEA.

Re:Yuk

[mi]

* Weapons of mass destruction inspections? What do you know, they were right!

No, they weren't... This is such a recent history, that I suspect you are not simply mistaken/forgetful, but are lying. Here is the reminder, in particular:

Jan. 27, 2003 The UN's formal report on Iraqi inspections is highly critical, though not damning, with chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix stating that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

Do not revise history.

Re:Yuk

[Carewolf]

This was during the period when the U.S. was seeking support for invading Iraq. The inspectors had not found _any_ evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but any sign of reluctance from Saddam to let them examine facilities was blown out.

In order to create a conflict the US had the weapons inspectors search Saddams palaces and harem for weapons of mass destruction, knowing that Saddam would refuse at first.

Re:Yuk

[letxa2000]

Of over 10,000 troops, everyone even remotely involved in the allegations was sent home; grand total, 77. And this is one of 16 current UN operations worldwide

"Similar charges have been made about U.N. missions in Sierra Leone and Liberia, as well as Kosovo and Bosnia in Europe."