Slashdot Mirror
Internet Power Struggle Reaching Climax
Fredden wrote to mention a BBC piece discussing the U.S.'s poor image when it comes to Internet management. From the article: "It has even lost the support of the European Union. It stands alone as the divisive battle over who runs the internet heads for a showdown at a key UN summit in Tunisia next month. The stakes are high, with the European Commissioner responsible for the net, Viviane Reding, warning of a potential web meltdown. " We've previously covered this story.
Kofi Annan, Coming to a Computer Near You! The Internet's long run as a global cyberzone of freedom--where governments take a "hands off" approach--is in jeopardy. Preparing for next month's U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (or WSIS) in Tunisia, the European Union and others are moving aggressively to set the stage for an as-yet unspecified U.N. body to assert control over Internet operations and policies now largely under the purview of the U.S. In recent meetings, for an example, an EU spokesman asserted that no single country should have final authority over this "global resource."
To his credit, the U.S. State Department's David Gross bristled back: "We will not agree to the U.N. taking over management of the Internet." That stands to reason. The Internet was developed in the U.S. (as are upgrades like Internet 2) and is not a collective "global resource." It is an evolving technology, largely privately owned and operated, and it should stay that way.
Nevertheless the "U.N. for the Internet" crowd say they want to "resolve" who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global "digital divide"; and how to "harness the potential of information" for the world's impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online.
While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we've comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N.--such as China and Iran--are among the most egregious violators of human rights.
Meanwhile, regulators across the globe have long lobbied for greater control over Internet commerce and content. A French court has attempted to force Yahoo! to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens. An Australian court has ruled that the online edition of Barron's (published by Dow Jones, parent company of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws--which, following the British example, is much more intolerant of free speech than our own law. Chinese officials--with examples too numerous for this space--continue to seek to censor Internet search engines.
The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.
A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically impossible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.
The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies.
We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve
All these years, the USA have never -- never -- abused its position of the Internet governor.
Then how can you explain ICANN's rejection of its supposed open and democratic process? Or what about the USA turning around and point blank doing exactly what it said it wouldn't by saying ICANN can run .net etc for even longer? Or ICANN's ridiculous sitefinder mayhem?
I think CmdrTaco is having trouble reching climax. :(
They want us out of the picture because we invented Windows.
-PMP-
This is what this looks like to me. A bunch of inept, european bureaucrats trying to figure out who gets to live in which room of your house even though you built it, you painted it, you furnished it, you paid for it and you own the deed free and clear. You aren't selling, have no intention of selling and are becoming a bit annoyed by these low rent types who you've let in your house and who somehow think that because you've let them use your house it now belongs to them. It's an amazing amount of gall and lack of class. If you don't like the conditions in this house go build your own. How many European Union bureaucrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb? - No idea, they haven't even agreed on the fact that the previous lightbulb was a lightbulb and that it possibly might need changing and it will require a long study by the department of lightbulbs to determine if in fact there are any lightbulbs and whether or not those lightbulbs meet EU standards as laid out in the Treaty of blah.............
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
The UN also wants to be the sole armed body on the planet. Do you trust them to carry that burden responsibly? Do you really trust them to not use their control of the internet to further this end?
It's really frightening how many nationalist posts there are here.
So many arguments about how other nations will control things and how there's censorship, etc., etc.
Well, I hate to mention it, but the MPAA and RIAA are American organizations that persist in changing US legislation to crack down on anything that even remotely impacts their business model.
Without considering human rights or agressive military aid and intervention by the US government, just consider that we have a government in which fair use is being bought and sold away from the American people. With ICANN under the oversight of the Department of Commerce, who's to say that such power would not extend further?
International agencies are often slow to response to crises, but they also make it a lot harder for a single entity with those agencies to take control. Ceding control of the root servers to such an agency would be more likely to prevent Americans losing control to their own corporations.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of nationalists who can't see what's wrong in America, having been fooled into believing that patriotism and blind faith in the nation are the same thing. They are most certainly not.
Remember the Ike didn't trust the military-industrial complex during the Cold War. Why should I trust Hollywood/Mass-Media backed legislators now?
(There's no such thing as liberal mass-media. When was the last time you saw a liberal corporation on Wall Street?)
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Was it just me or do those two words together in a headline conjur up something else ;)
IMHO - As far as the disgruntled Europeans go - I say fuck em! Let them start their own internet!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
The only real player against the USA is the EU. Without the EU (and I can't comprehend why Barroso is playing this game, I think he wants to please some European America-haters to keep them from doing more damage), such countries as Brasil, Iran or even China mean NOTHING in the UN.
Ladies and gentleman, and this, in a nutshell, is why the rest of the world likes americans so much. I mean other than Europe, all other countries "mean NOTHING"! Yep, that's the attitude of a true Leader of the Free World (TM).
I suspect many Americans are unaware of quite how much damage the current US administration has done to the reputation of their country.
Thats not acurate at all. The world has just become a little more vocal in there dislike of the US. Even if it was true though, most of us in the US don't realy care much about what the rest of the world thinks, we do what we believe to be right, diplomacy is good and all, but not when it lets brutal dictators continue to terrorize there country, the rest of the world can either join us or go screw themselves, we aren't the weak spineless pushovers most countries in Europe have become.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd