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.'"

21 of 1,197 comments (clear)

  1. Yuk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No thanks, I prefer having the internets run by a group with at least a partial background of competency.

    1. Re:Yuk by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ask the starving people in Africa

      They'll usually tell you that they in general blame unfair trade practices. For example, even with their low labor costs, African farms often have a hard time competing with subsidized US and European ag exports. First world nations do a lot of pretty nasty stuff as far as import regulations go (for example, declaring the Vietnamese catfish as not being a catfish, to subsidize the US catfish industry)

      Not that many of their problems aren't their own fault, mind you.

      Ask the people of Darfur how the UN has failed to even try to protect them

      Because they *weren't authorized to intervene by the Security Council*. What, are you picturing some huge security council debate over whether cmm.com is typosquatting on cnn.com? We're not talking about troop deployments, we're talking about the internet.

      --
      "/etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit is a gimp plugin and must be run by the gimp in order to be used."
    2. Re:Yuk by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ask the starving people in Africa how well the UN has managed things. Ask the people of Darfur how the UN has failed to even try to protect them from genocide. But given that the UN lacks any real enforcement powers, I for one am not too worried about them trying to tax the internet.

      My dad worked in Africa "de-mining". Why not ask Africans whether they'd prefer life without the UN. My experience was many Africans (and this wasn't your Cairo/Jo'burg Africans, this was twenty-years-of-post-colonial-conflict-sponsored-b y Washington-Moscow-London-Paris-Havana-Beijing Africa, by the way) respected the limited work the UN was able to do in extremely difficult circumstances.

      The UN may be shite, but it's better than nothing. And it's a lot better than the League of Nations, which in turn was a lot better than... bugger all international cooperation.

      And regarding Darfur, I've been following this since long before it hit the mainstream media. The UN's been there a long time, dealing with entrenched resistence from the (sovereign) government of Sudan, and from neighbouring states. It's not always possible - or even desirable - to just move into and occupy a country to effect change.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    3. Re:Yuk by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many mass murderers has the UN stopped?

      The UN isn't in the business of overthrowing governments.


      I think you might want to read up a bit on why, exactly, the United Nations was founded. This article may or may not be believed in its entirety, but the fact of the matter is one way or another, the UN was conceived during WWII and was officially founded directly afterwards specifically to prevent dictators running roughshod over their neighbors all over the world. That was the original mandate, and that's why the five permanent members of the security council are who they are.

      Even the UN's official history is perfectly up front about its origins as a tool of the Allies in fighting Germany and Japan during WWII.

      Now you see why many people in the US (and other countries) think the UN has gotten so far off track from its original mandate that it is no longer relevant. It was intended to at least contain, occasionally fight and if necessary overthrow dangerous governments like those of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Whether you want to believe it or not, and whether you agree with that cause, that is the truth.

      I am no neo-con (or even a traditional-con); I voted against Bush both times. But I get just as annoyed as anyone when people speak of the UN as if its purpose is to keep anyone from fighting, ever. That was not why it was created. It was created to keep rogue states in check - that is the entire reason it exists. It was created during wartime, with a mandate that specifically told member nations to keep fighting. Yet nowadays, it is only ever used as an excuse to do nothing because of competing political interests from those who have something to gain by standing on the sidelines.

      As for the UN taking over the internet... read any of what I just posted (either the two links or my commentary, whether you subscribe to the same view or not) and tell me how this would make a lick of sense.

  2. Cycle of the ages by kalpol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Cycle of the ages by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a different take on this. My experience has shown that whenever a new area of freedom opens up, some group abuses it, requiring regulation/oversight.

  3. What a Great Idea! by DanielMarkham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:What a Great Idea! by Marnhinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problem is, other nations do not want the US to be in charge of the internet. They see it as a potential way for the US to impose the US's views on them.

      However, on the same hand, the US has no real reason to give up control.

      Hence the suggestion to use the UN - it seems like a middle ground somewhat. The people that suggested it are simply trying to create a compromise so the *net doesn't fragment.

      --
      There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
    2. Re:What a Great Idea! by Joey7F · · Score: 4, Insightful
      U.N. is not just a bunch of incompetent politicians, although i'm sure a lot of americans like to think that.


      That is what everyone with half a brain thinks. It is a joke of an organization. Libya was head of the human rights council! Other nations included Cuba (HA!) and Syria (HAHA!)

      It is composed of European socialists and third-world zeros. If you want it to have any moral authority create the UDN (United Democratic Nations) and invite nations that respect the sanctity of human life.

      --Joey
  4. Hmmm.... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Hmmm.... by aggieben · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You really want to hand control of something so economically vital to the U.N.? You really want to allow the U.N. to impose taxes? Talk about taxation without representation...

      I tend to agree with most everyone else here: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

      I don't agree with the idea that "the US invented it, therefore we should control it". I don't think that's a good approach or attitude, but I also think that the internet has been humming along just fine without any real government control.

      Really...what would *anyone* have to gain from allowing the UN to control the internet from a practical standpoint (no, "sticking it to the US" doesn't count)? I think it's pretty obvious that the cost/benefit ratio is really, really bad in that scenario.

      --
      Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
    2. Re:Hmmm.... by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      The UN doesn't even vaguely resemble a world government. It's more like a country club for national governments. There's no real money in helping refugees, feeding starving children, or vaccinations; the UNHCR, UNICEF, and the WHO are decent branches of the UN. There is staggering amounts of money in "overseeing" oil and other commodity sales and there's probably also staggering amounts of money and power involved in domain name control. Do you really want an organization made up of unelected and unaccountable politicos running another program with money involved given the UN's track record in that regard?

  5. That's worse than the US by argoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  6. When the UN adopts the first amendment... by Len+Budney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...then maybe. Not before.

    1. Re:When the UN adopts the first amendment... by Len+Budney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. The UN pays lip service to the freedom of speech, but clearly states in the charter (have you read it?) that these "rights" are subject to abridgement or revocation by the UN itself. A right isn't a right if it can be taken away. That's why the US founding documents speak of inalienable rights, endowed by the creator. In other words, rights that transcend the power of government.

  7. Re:get over it... by JWW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  8. TLD for food program by brian6string · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)!

  9. Re:Huh? by rich_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They wouldn't. The rest of the world would just point at a different set of root servers. It's an open protocol, remember?

  10. Why the UN bashing? by Munra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  11. Re:Internet Comes of Age by Alcilbiades · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. they ate their milk producing animals by guet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.