Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
No thanks, I prefer having the internets run by a group with at least a partial background of competency.
Whenever a new area of freedom opens up, eventually government seeks to control it. We are never really free, just constantly staying one step ahead of the beaurocracy.
12:50 - press return.
I think the U.N. should get involved in all aspects of the internet. After all, aren't these the same guys who want more regulation of cell phones?
After all, that's what we elected these people to do, right? Oh wait a minute. nobody elected the UN, it's a treaty organization.
I'm not trying to sound reactionary, but this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. The internet is fine the way it is. If the U.S. Congress has managed to keep its hands off it so far, the U.N. should follow suit, imo. The more politicians we get involved in managing the net, the worse it will perform for everybody.
Being Your Own Customer
Or not. Whatever hardware they own, they can govern themselves. While US companies owns 70-80% of the hardware that makes the internet run, the US will govern our own, thanks very much.
My initial knee-jerk reaction to this was "Why not the US, after all, we invented it?". But after thinking about it for a few seconds it occured to me that since the internet is global you really need a global entity to be ultimately responsible for it. If there was a single global government then it'd be a no-brainer, but since the closest thing we have is the UN then why not? Yeah, I realize that there are all sorts of arguments like the UN is incompetent, etc. but when you're talking about something that impacts the entire world what better and more universally recognized body do we currently have?
Let me get this straight. I agree it's a good idea to remove tld's from US controll to avoid being controlled and manpiulated by such a large and powerfull political entity that coulnd't care less about my rights online. Anyone else see the irony here?
...then maybe. Not before.
I'm thinking this was meant as sarcsm, but I'll bite. The internet as we know it, is running along just fine. Why we should let it out of our hands and into the hands of a multinational organization is beyond my scope of reasoning. I'm a bit hungover this morning, but aren't oppressive countries (i.e. against freedom of speech and though in this case) part of the UN? China anyone? So, say we hand over root to Kofi. Then what? My freedoms to publish and say what I want on the internet could possibly make me an international criminal or worse yet A TERRORIST!!!! Not having lived in other countries, all I can say is that I enjoy my freedom of speech, and keeping the internet in the united states control really dosen't seem like such a bad thing.
Seriously this is one Bad Idea. I'll keep my intarweb like I like my slaves. FREE.
I think we need to remember that the internet, although global, has many freedom based goals inherent to it. Just remember, /.s favorite internet blocking country China would now have a say in the final product. If that idea fails to scare you, then I can't reach you.
Call us cowboys, but a lot of the world doesn't want our freedoms, and would be more than happy to stop them for all of us. I don't think the spirit of the internet could survive a bunch of unelected corrupt dictators setting the rules.
Rule of the open mind
People who are resistant to change cannot resist change for the worst.
You've pretty succinctly explained why this shouldn't be done.
This kind of turf war is likely to happen with a UN controlled internet.
For example, what happens when countries like China, North Korea, and many more. Demand that the UN aid them in "filtering" the internet for their citizens.
The root servers are pretty stable and things are working fine right now. Theres no need for a change to a venue where politics will rule the technology (I know there are politics already, but were talking orders of magnitude difference here).
God help us all.
Which one?
-b
myselfmusic
How about the "entitlement" non-Americans that think that because they can use the internet they are somehow entitled to owning a portion of it, despite the fact that the basic research and developement of it was done in the US, and most of the hardware is owned by the US?
I don't think they have any room to point fingers.
Oh and lets not forget that the solution is to take a system that has been working perfectly fine and give it to an unelected group of people with a incredibly bad track record. A group of people that have members who don't believe in little things such as freedom of speech, which is pretty darn fundamental to the internet.
As another person stated, do you really want China, responsible for massive censorship of the internet, to have a say in how its run?
This is a solution in search of a problem. The only real problem is political, and politics is something that the internet can do without.
Let's play this out. The U.N. takes over assigning TLDs, etc. How long would it be before someone at the U.N. (Kofi Annan) is accepting bribes, or he hires his son, or daugther, or the son of the guy who cuts the grass at the U.N. to oversee this. And then $$$ or euro's if you prefer start getting redirected to someone's personal account.
As a forum for international discussion, dialog and negotiation, the U.N. is a fine organization. The U.N. as a body is, though, not actually accountable to anyone. This is why the U.N. should not be thought of as a government, or even a meta-government (a government of governments). Any body that is not accountable to (as in, risks being voted out of office or power), eventually becomes corrupt.
How much money went to Sadaam Hussein in the oil for food program? How much was actually used for food? Little if any. How much money was skimmed off the top by people at the U.N.? A lot, but we can never know how much because these people neither represent my (or your) interests, nor are they accountable to me (or you)!
They wouldn't. The rest of the world would just point at a different set of root servers. It's an open protocol, remember?
I think a lot of people need some slight perspective with regards to the recent problems that the UN has faced.
It's not overly effective in some respects (stopping invasions, oppression) but that's a fault of the countries involved not the organisation itself.
Without the UN, there might still be apartheid in South Africa. There would be lots more people starving to death. There would likely still be smallpox. Free and fair elections would be unavailable in many countries. AIDS (and tuberculosis and malaria) would be far greater problems. Those accused of warcrimes might not be tried.
While it's easy to knock the UN following recent scandals, get a sense of perspective. It's extremely difficult to coordinate things on a world scale without any real authority but the UN does do an extremely admirable job.
Whether it would handle the root servers well or not is a separate issue but don't critise out of a hand an organisation that has saved millions of lives.
Manta
If the rest of the world doesn't want to be a part of our DNS, they can set up their own. But we already have ccTLDs that expressly give such authority to governments. What do you want for nothing, a rubber biscuit?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I heard a great quote along the lines of "The UN is the place where governments that suppress free speech demand to be heard." It's quite true, the UN isn't composed of a group of free and democratic countries, it's composed of some of those, and some that are rather less free, and some like Syria, which is a military dictatorship. These aren't the kind of nations I want having a say in what is the greatest source of free information, given that a free flow of information is very threatening to them.
Another problem is that the UN isn't an elected body. It's diplomats that are appointed and are not answerable to the public they supposedly represent. Politicians do enough shady shit when they ARE directly answerable, it gets far, far worse when there's no accountability.
I mean for a good example, see the receant Tsunami crisis. When the Tsunami hit, the important thing initally was getting basic aid there immediatly, food, water, and medical attention. A number of nations did just that. Both their military and civilian volunteers went over and worked their asses off to save lives. The UN, sent a group over to survey the damage and fact find, they gave some soundbites to the media, and whined that the troops over there should be wearing UN blue, rather than the uniforms of their countries. All the while people were in desperate need of immediate help.
That's just a good example of the general problem. Look at the UN office in New York. The oppulance is simply unbelievable for an orginization that is supposed to be a representitive of so many poor nations. Then realise they have offices like this all over the place.
Now for the US there's an additonal consideration in that the UN may decide they want regulations on the Internet that are unconstutional. The constution can't be overriden just by some treaty orginization, it overrides all other law in America (well, it's supposed to at any rate, politicans seem to forget that sometimes). So for example China might want to push a regulation that says no subversive political speech is allowed, and they'd have plenty of backers on that. Well, sorry, but that's unconstutional.
While I think we can work out a more equitable solution than the US running the Internet, having the UN run it isn't the right answer.
The thing is look at the list of countries that want control of it. China ok they would want to censor everything. Brazil they don't want any porn on the net cause they are over 90% catholic so more censorship. Syria......hot bed for terrorists, the list goes on. None of these countries are say Britain or France or Germany. Why is that. Well it would cost billions of dollars to make a totally separate internet and so far the US has yet to restrict what can be put on the web. So as long as us 280 million people in the US want to foot the bill for maintaining the nets root why should other countries care.
I've said this before, on Slashdot, even: There is no Internet. Not the way we like to think of it. It doesn't exist as a cohesive whole. You can't connect to "the Internet". The most you can do is connect your network to somebody else's network. Maybe multiple somebodies. But still, you're just connecting to their networks. Then they do the same with some others. And so on. That's what we're talking about here. An inter-network. A bunch of individual networks. They are operated by businesses, organizations, governments, and individuals.
Right now, almost everybody agrees that US-centric organization like ICANN get to govern top-level things like the root domain. But there is absolutely nothing keeping people following their own set of standards. Indeed, some already do.
I don't even worry that much about "fragmentation". The Internet is already horribly fragmented. It's no longer safe or consistent or well-organized, which you used to be able to count on. If, say, we end up with multiple conflicting namespaces, someone will create some meta-directory protocols or search engines or something.
Of course, it would be nicer if that didn't happen. No sense making things worse then they are.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The UN is more democratic? The first question is what part of the UN would run it?
I could just imagine the UN Security council trying to run it.... Wait, nothing would ever happen because you need unanimous consent of all nations involved to do anything. Getting some of these to agree is a far fetched notion.
Of course we could always let the general assembly run it. There's a brilliant idea. Give the United States as much say over the internet as every other tiny country in the world. Thats fair and democratic?
They could also do it by population. In that case China has a huge advantage. That would be great.
Under any system we'd allow the wrong people to get our hands on it. Is letting china, libya, cuba, north korea etc telling the rest of the wold what to do with the internet really the definition of DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?
A big part of the problem is the UN has no accountability. When the UN starts using it to push their viewpoint (as the topic said universal net access) what then. What do we do when the internet becomes a vehicle for corruption? Who do we call and say change this? Someone will be getting rich while the internet collapses. Currently ICANN doesn't have the power to tax the net like this, or to create filters etc. In the hands of the UN. . . who knows what power it'll have. The UN has zero accountability. If ICANN tryied this now they'd be stopped in a second.
What I find the most amusing about all of this is how so many Europeans are all about this idea. As if they'd actually have a say over it? It wouldn't be the EU's internet, it would be the world. Under the UN that means security council or general assembly. Tell France or Germany that Uganda has as much say over the nets infrastructure as they do. Or that China has more say (due to bribing other countries) or whatever. The EU would lose out on the deal, but the only possible thing that would make them like it is the fact that it hurts the US more than it hurts them (kind of like Kyoto). Stabbing yourself to hurt the US is not a good idea.
While maybe some more international control could be used for the internet, I would say that there is no reason for the UN to have any say over it. The UN is corrupt and getting worse. There's zero accountability. Whats the best option then? Well tell us legitimate problems with the internet as its being run and maybe we'll examine them on that basis.
Phil
I'd rather rely on the world as a whole retaining freedom of speech (Enough countries can vote down China or anywhere else) than be entirely dependent on the US retaining freedom of speech, especially the way things have been going over there recently. But maybe that's just me.
I am trolling
aren't oppressive countries (i.e. against freedom of speech and though in this case) part of the UN? China anyone?
aren't oppressive countries (i.e. against freedom of speech and though in this case) part of the UN? The USA anyone?
Living outside the US, all I can say is that having the US control the Internet is a bad thing.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Africa's real problem is that they ate the milk producing cows and goats. That's after they slaughtered the rest of the herd that was going to breed the next generation. This is because they got desperate and ate next year's seed instead of planting it. Everytime the rest of the world trys to kickstart their food production with breeding stock or seeds, they just eat it.
I thought I'd seen it all on slashdot, but your summation of hundreds of years of colonial exploitation and invasions, arbitrarily defined states (often encompassing many ethnic groups) which war with each other over resources, corrupt government, civil war and finally skewed trade laws which make it impossible to climb out of poverty as
'they ate their milk producing animals'
really does take my breath away.
If the UN know what they're doing, they'll surely be rushing lots of well informed teenage geniuses like yourself over to sort it out right now.