Slashdot Mirror
Meet the Man Who Will Save the Internet
UltimaGuy writes to tell us The Register is running an interesting piece about Masood Khan, chairman of the sub-committee that is takling many of the difficult questions about internet governance. Mr. Khan has been able to draw enormous respect for many of the participatory nations and seems to have a very direct style of management. From the article: "I would encourage you all not to focus on general themes of internet governance but instead go to the heart of the matter," were Khan's opening words. And then he listed them. "The question of a future mechanism, the question of oversight, and the paradigm of co-operation amongst all stakeholders."
Khaaaan!
There, now that I got that out of the way we can have a decent discussion here!
And yet despite hundreds of hours of talks, three preparatory meetings and a world summit, there is only one thing that the world's governments can agree on:
That the governments of the world have the least knowledge in how to save anything, and the World Government is even worse.
the internet is five days away from total collapse as governments are finally forced into a corner and told to agree on a framework for future Internet governance.
Bull. Shit.
The Internet is not one procedure to distribute information. It is HTML, DNS, BitTorrent, even Real Audio. None of these standards are government regulated, they're free market regulated. The users, en masse, decide what format will succeed. The only change government entices is when a popular company gets sued out of sight (Grokster, etc).
Standards will rise and fall faster than any government can rule on changes. Old standards literally DIE. Old laws come back to be unearthed by future tyrants
there is a very real risk that an enormous political argument resulting in lifelong ill-will centred around the internet could developed unchecked at the WSIS Summit.
Good. Nothing makes me happier than multiple governments grabbing the rulers, dropping their pants, and realizing none have anything to measure.
how the world will deal with issues such as spam and cybercrime.
Let every ISP decide. The competition will allow the creation of new ways to excel.
Masood Khan has turned what could easily have become a bar-room brawl into a gradual formation of agreement.
One politician breathing hot air to others, putting all into a head nodding "we can all control our citizens equally" concert.
Having chaired dozens of meetings as a careful and unthreatening facilitator, Mr Khan saw his chance and went for it.
"We are from the government and we're here to help you."
"The question of a future mechanism, the question of oversight, and the paradigm of co-operation amongst all stakeholders."
"We will share in the control of deviants. The word 'deviant' can be redefined at any member's whim."
If there is a split, it will not make the final agreement. Where there is no agreement, the effort will have to be to convince each other."
Meaning that they will generalize everything in vague definitions easily adjusted to their situation.
Four hours later they came back to the official meetings with nothing. Khan suspended the meeting and told them to go back and do it again.
True of any governing body. They have no clue what to control next, but surely there must be more taxes, regulations and restrictions added to the lawbooks. None to help their crony friends either, I'm sure.
Twice, governments tried to stall the whole approach by asking what official standing the document they were creating would have - an age-old diplomatic trick. Mr Khan brushed it aside: "Just wait."
"Why do you have to probe my ass, officer?"
"Just wait."
It is far from over but when the agreed text on how the internet should be run and by whom appears in front of the World Summit and is approved on Friday, it most certainly won't be perfect
And this is what we need? Imperfection in an international law? I'd rather see imperfection in thousands of ISPs and be able to choose what is least perfect to me.
The U.N. is the worst government in the world, so large that no one is safe, so large that no one has a voice and so large that revolt and rebuilding is impossible.
I thought Steve Jobs was going to save the Internet. :P
Masood Khan - Yeah, the United States is going to like this guy...
Let's get this of the way: It's Al Gore.
What hell is 'takling'? Perhaps 'tackling' is what you had in mind?
"the sub-committee that is takling many of the difficult questions about internet governance"
(And, yes, I'm amazingly clever to have noticed this).
Who said it was in danger? Oh, right - the people who have no say over it anyway. As has been said many times here, very few people in the US are going to blink if Europe or Asia yank the connection to the US network. And Mr. Khan may be the greatest negotiator to ever walk this earth, but that won't be enough to make any US diplomat agree to give up control. Of course he's being hailed as masterful by the people who already agree with him anyway. That's not exactly shocking.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
This is just about DNS root files. This is not complicated, folks, it's just a simple administrative matter. There is no good reason for the media (and slashdot) to turn this into a fucking livejournal drama soap opera like it has.
Strangely, this Google search generates hits.
Why dont we just call the man who created it. Al Gore. I hear he lives in the woods somewhere with a scruffy beard and a heart of gold, just waiting for the world to call on him to save the day!
I don't even understand why we're still debating about this. I'm not trying to be pro-american here, but we did technically make it, so why can't we govern it? There's no problems with the way everything is set up now, so why even screw it up? I see this as every country just wanting a piece of their small pie, slowly trying to take away the U.S. control of the DNS or whatnots. It seems like it's all a game to all the other countries as to see who can 'win' the biggest control of this.
What about the internet needs saving? It seems to be working fine for me thank you very much. Why do we need the UN to come in and "save the internet". Giving their track record with the Oil for food program and peace keepers raping innocent Africans, I don't want the UN anywhere near the net.
No Sigs!
"Internet Governance" is what will kill the internet.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
too late, you loose.
/. requires you to wait two minutes between postings...
[simpsons bully voice*]ha ha
-nB
*turning in geek badge, forgot the kids name.
in other news
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
1. The word "stakeholder" is a euphemism for "special interests". If one looks carefully how it is used both in the WSIS and ICANN, the word "stakeholder" tends to encompass selected groups, most often groups who make money from the internet, and never includes individual users of the net.
In other words, under both the WSIS and ICANN rubric, individual users of the internet are not "stakeholders" and thus have neither right nor ability under WSIS or ICANN to express their interests, much less have an ability to vote on how those interests and concerns are handled.
2. Much of the discussion in WSIS (and ICANN) is like a fight over a toy steering wheel in an automobile. ICANN and WSIS wrongly equate regulation of the business of selling domain names with control of the internet.
In other words, they are arguing over something that is so divorced from technical reality of the net that the outcome, whatever it may be, will provide no assurance that the internet retains its ability to move packets from source IP address to destination IP address with dispatch and reasonable (but neither perfect nor guaranteed) reliability. The outcome will almost certainly be only about the handling of business practices in the business of selling domain names.
Do not expect WSIS or ICANN to comprehend that the real goal of internet governance is the preservation of the end-to-end principle for the benefit of internet users.
Nelson Muntz!
Listening to the tone of this article you'd think the USA had installed Pat Robertson as ICANN chief or something and now a politcian who has no qualms about drawing a filthy lucre from a Us-sponsored military dictatorship named Pakistan is going to save it from nothing. I can see the need for the internet to be saved if root entries were being removed for political reasons or what not but there's no problems with the current situation. I don't really see the imminent collapse the article mentions, the current system is here to stay, if people don't like it they can form their own and whatever happens will happen. Nothings broken and the internet is running fine under USA with no government interference of ICANN so there's nothing that needs to be changed.
In only the broadest sense of the term does the U.S. control the internet. They are certainly the country with the most influence, but they have little control over the inner workings. The U.N. might as well be asking the U.S. to relinquish control over the Coca Cola Corporation*.
Also as the recent spats between Tier 1s have shown us, the internet is vulnerable but highly adaptive. Connections were impacted for only a brief time and no long term damage was done. It's not perfect by any means but the U.N. isn't providing any solutions besides "Once we run things it will be better".
*Side note* reading up a little on the relationship between then government and Coca Cola Inc is loads of fun, political intrique, espionage, and killing communism oh my.
Maybe someone can explain this to me....
How can a "governing body" exist for something that it's currently not in charge of? This is like someone moving into your house, and then starts explaining how you've got everything set up incorrectly.
"The question of a future mechanism, the question of oversight, and the paradigm of co-operation amongst all stakeholders."
The word paradigm alone reminds me of the Dilbert pointy haired boss learning manager speak through self help tapes.
Vote for Pedro
It STARTS with DNS root files.
Then it moves on to what countries get which websites because y'know China gets ticked off that their people can see that free speech type stuff and the US gets ticked that people can see boobies.
Then it becomes a controlling system...y'know to "protect" us from spam and worms and horrible criminal violations like sharing that intellectual property, but not missiles and weapons type intellectual property (because governments are free to do that...) just stuff like movies and tv shows.
Then you begin restricting what you can be POSTED onto the internet... because we certainly can't have hate speech in cyberspace!
Want a good model? Look at the game ratings sysstem.
The government demanded it (under threat of making one themselves and imposing it by law) while at the same time saying they didn't want to restrict purchases or violate free speech rights. They just wanted to give parents a *choice*.
10 years later and now if you sell an M rated game to a minor you can go to jail.
It's NOT a simple administrative matter.
What we need is an Internet Bill of Rights to guarantee several conditions of the Internet as it exists today. The Internet today only enjoys things like freedom of speech and freedom from taxation because that is the current policy of the U.S. -- but who knows when that could change? I'm not giving disrespect to how the U.S. currently runs the Internet; rather, I think some of the U.S.'s policies of Internet governance need to be codefied into international law. Then and only then should we even consider handing the Internet over to the U.N.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I nominate Senator Orin Hatch for the office of Lord Gov'nor of the Internet. Oh, wait, we're trying to 'save' the Internet. In that case the interview should consist the question: "What do you know about the following: Dan Glickman, Mitch Bainwol/Cary Sherman and Orin Hatch? the first person to say "who?" gets the job. And an special section of the Internet should be created to contain the RIAA, MPAA, Hatch and Kansas.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
And here I thought that the "redudant, autonomous, interconnection of private networks" didn't need to be saved, much less governed. I say, let em govern what they think they can. Nobody can stop the signal.
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.
"I would encourage you all not to focus on general themes of internet governance but instead go to the heart of the matter"
Okay.
Fascist states are pissed that they don't get to regulate the content on the internet, because it hinders their ability to feed their population piles of political bullshit.
What do I get? Is the problem solved yet?
Seriously. The only correct theme here is the "general" one -- freedom is linked to prosperity.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
KHAAAAAN!!!!!
"I would encourage you all not to focus on general themes of internet governance but instead go to the heart of the matter," were Khan's opening words. And then he listed them. "The question of a future mechanism, the question of oversight, and the paradigm of co-operation amongst all stakeholders."
Aren't "oversight" and the "paradigm of co-operation amongst all stakeholders" pretty much at the heart of "general themes of internet governance"?
ie: 'Let's not focus on how we're going to run this thing, lets focus instead on how in the future we're going to cooperate, oversee.. and... run this thing'
Nice political vapor-speak.
Further proof that they're going to make one hell of a mess...
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The great firewall of the UN..
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Give me a break. One man or woman is never the saviour of anything. Titles like the one on this Slashdot article are sensational garbage. One person didn't not create the Internet and one person will never have the power to destroy it or save it.
This is merely a grab for power and influence by the UN. The internet doesn't need saving from anything other than free speech. The UN is interesting far more in political influence than they are in the well-being of the internet. In a UN-controlled internet if you say something they don't like you'll simply be shut down.
It doesn't end there, however. There's a massive potential for revenue on the Internet. Sooner or later we're going to be taxed for things as simple sharing emails. A bloated bureaucracy like the UN needs to find funding from somewhere. And the wealthier nations are going to be paying the bill to enable impoverished nations to get online. Of course, they promise to offer internet access to people in impoverished nations. But first of all, what good is browsing the internet to someone who is starving. And secondly, we all know how good the UN is at mis-managing money, and that's when they're not outright stealing it.
What the UN will do by controlling the internet is stifle progress and use it as a tool to spread their own gain. What they're looking to do here is undermine the influence the United States has in the world. It's not for nothing that Europe is in support of all this.
If there wouldn't be any reasons for wanting to have control, the US wouldn't mind giving away control to some international organisation. The fact that some people in the US want to keep control, is the fear of the rest of the world.
It's all a matter of who has the power. Has the US got plans with their current power? If not, then there's no problem in giving it away. If so, then that's a good reason for the rest of the world to want to take that power away from the US.
Meet the Man Who Will Fuck Up The Internet.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I'm sure you only called the UN a 'world government' as a rhetorical device, but unfortunately there are those who actually believe it is some kind of world government so the point sometimes need reinforcing.
The UN is an international organisation. It was never intended to be a government, it doesn't function as one. It is a (mostly) consensus-based body, because the point is that it is intended to be completely neutral and express the combined will of the countries of the world.
Before you tell me how the UN is pointless, just remember how many millions of people depend every day on the vital work of WHO (eradicated smallpox, takes care of outbreaks of diseases, etc), UNHCR (cares for literally millions of refugees), UNDP (funds vital development projects), WFP (delivers food aid to famine stricken areas), FAO (source of co-operation on agricultural development), UNIDO (shares technical knowledge for industrial development), UNEP (monitors environmental damage and provides expertise for solving environmental problems), UNESCO (funding restoration of cultural sites, making research grants etc). Not to mention all the others like ILO, UNICEF, ICJ, ICC, etc.
All that is what the UN does, and they do it in a way that no one else can. Why? Because they represent neutrality, they represent the authority of the peoples of the world, and by and large they do a damned good job of carrying out their mandate.
And then there's the General Assembly, which of course is a talking shop, but it's better to have a talking shop than none at all--it's a place for opinions to get aired, and a place for the international community to express its opinions.
NONE of this is any kind of 'world government'. It is the governments of the world, getting together to co-operate on solving some of humanity's biggest problems, and trying to work out their differences without having to resort to conflict. And while the headline-grabbing events are when this doesn't work (like with Iraq), the vast majority of the time it is actually very effective--you just don't see it on FOX News.
Now, you can be extremely dogmatic and tell me that anything done by anyone that isn't in the name of private enterprise is doomed to fail. But I challenge you to show how private enterprise would have filled all of the vital functions that the aforementioned UN agencies have filled over the last 50 years. And no, this is not a question of 'If you had waited long enough, the market would have done it'. Any longer wait and more people would have died of smallpox; any longer wait for refugee camps to be built and people die of cholera. And of course, there's not really any profit to be made in these situations anyway. That's when the international community simply says 'Right, let's solve it'. Consensually.
Don't you think it is more than a little deceptive to take a quote like "the internet is five days away from total collapse as governments are finally forced into a corner and told to agree on a framework for future Internet governance." completely out of its context? The original quote from the article is, "If a certain US senator and a certain EU commissioner are to be believed, the internet is five days away from total collapse..." To take a quote like that and crop out the fact that it is qualified with a statement that it is propaganda from two particular individuals and try to pass it off as a premise of this article is wholly dishonest.
The rest of your post is either poorly informed and considered garbage, or an attempt to troll. Just a few choice samples:
Let every ISP decide. The competition will allow the creation of new ways to excel.
Ignoring that in the majority of the world, including the US there exist government enforced monopolies on transmission lines, and thus there is no free competition.
putting all into a head nodding "we can all control our citizens equally" concert.
Assigning villainous motives to people trying to decide upon a communication standard between them. It has nothing to do with controlling people, just agreeing on an equitable way to communicate with one another.
Meaning that they will generalize everything in vague definitions easily adjusted to their situation.
Something specifically addressed as false by the article, but which this poster chooses not to address since it is easier to post this FUD.
They have no clue what to control next, but surely there must be more taxes, regulations and restrictions added to the lawbooks.
Crap pulled from his anus. This was about agreeing upon principals of how they will communicate and has nothing to do with taxes.
etc., etc. etc.
This is one of those posts where you wish a "-1 complete lies and fabrications" mod existed.
So Masood Khan is going to save Al Gore?
The problem is that others (governments, issue groups, consumers, companies, etc.) have complaints about the contents of these packets. Whether we on /. consider these complaints to be legitimate or not is beside the point. Someone will be pushed to decide what can and cannot go on the Internet. ISPs won't take this job as it only raises their costs and raises the ire of customers -- a lose-lose proposition. Instead, that someone will, inevitably, be some government someplace.
The sooner the people of /. educate governing bodies on the legitimate and beneficial uses of disputed communications and content, the better.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
A Genghis Khan descendent perhaps?
Redundant? Who else made a joke like mine? In case you didn't get it. It was a play on ICANN.
So it's five days away from a meltdown?
/. or our
I say, leave it alone for five days and watch the fun.
When all us geeks can't get to
favorite radio stations or comics, we'll
solve the problem a new way. or destroy
the planet, but either one works.
He was...wasn't he? UN control is a bad bad bad thing.
I really think that of all the things that the UN should be worried about, the internet is close to the bottom of the pile.
Nobody wants to have supervision, and nobody wants some comitee deciding who the 'stakeholders' are. What we need is to be certain that no government or corporation will be able to pull stupid shit like killing the xxx TLD or Verisign's hijacking of the root for their little search engine.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
We all hear people complaining that they don't "control" the internet.
I'm not American. But well Internet works, it is free and I trust more an American administration than a Chinese one at the moment.
So the basic question is: Who force them to stay "inside" the Internet? They have routers, they have servers, uplinks, they can setup their own ICANN server within a day.
If they feel so threatenned by the American institution, why don't they leave it and setup their own?
Do you often surf on their web sites? Personnaly all I receive from China is SPAM.
Let's call it the "Politically correct" Internet. It will under the control of China, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Tunisia and all these fantastic countries we hear complaining. And for the rest of us we keep things as they are.
I don't want to surf all the day on a network partly monitored by non democratic countries. The UN is full of them, I don't want them to control any part of my life, not a single nanosecond, not a single bit.
Olivier
The US could build support by one at a time "knocking" recalcitrant countries off of the net (removing their domains). They will squirm for a while and then get back in line. Soon, all will be happy ;-)
Seriously though - the US should keep the tdn's. The US may have its problems, but still can more adeptly administer these domains than some of the people who want control (or at least a say). I know if I needed brain surgery, I wouldn't be telling my neurologist how to do his job ;-)
If we let the current administration set the agenda on how the internet is governed the solution won't be to wait for the other party to get into office as it will be just as hard to get them to relinquish control. We really need to decide now just what we want the internet to be because I assure you that government sees it as another means to an end. What would that end be you ask? Why the pacification of the sodden masses I say, the great legions of beer swilling, monday morning quarterbacking, complain about your government but vote for em anyway drones that make up the largest majority of the populace. International oversight is as frightening to them as transparency in campaign finance. The politicians cannot afford to give up even the tenuous hold they have on cyberspace right now because rampant freedom is of course anathema to their needs. Without some way to massage our understanding of current events to fit their agenda why we could have people questioning the need for every law they pass or every committee they form. Even the very notion that there are opposing parties in government would become suspect if we had an internet that wasn't controlled.
Not takling.
The root servers are run by a US corporation that is subject to US law. So in a very real international sense the US does run the root servers. Just because our method of governance on the issue is private rather than public does not change the ultimate authority in the matter.
Why do we need beurocracy [sic] to get involved here? The internet works fine.
This is like asking why ecologists need to get involved in ecology... the world works fine. Remember, large parts of the world take a longer view than America, and in that long view they've realized that a serious possible point of failure in the Internet is America's power to unilaterally affect the root servers.
Remember, although you may personally have views on the superiority of private enterprise, plenty of people in the world expect representation through government, not corporations. Those people should not be subject to the whims of a US corporation when it comes to managing their local slice of communication infrastructure.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
give it to the UN. If UN doesn't want to play, then start getting used to calling the internet something stupid like USnet or Amerinet
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD Looks like the man was more right than I ever realised before.
Brain(s): 0.0% user, 1.3% system, 0.1% nice, 98.6% idle
And an example of U.S. censorship is how the creation of ".xxx" domains was blocked after the federal government had intervened.
I'm not suggesting that turning DNS and root servers from ICANN over to the U.N.'s ITU will necessarily improve things. But the current status quo isn't good either.
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
Wait... You mean this isn't a Senate sub-committe? What other kind of subcommitte is there?
"10 years later and now if you sell an M rated game to a minor you can go to jail."
Speaking as a non-American, I find you USA really weird and repressive. I don't want to sound like a troll, but I trust China more than USA with the neocons in control. It's not an anti-American thing, it's an anti-neocon thing.
Today they want to deny the rest of the world the vote on the DNS, tomorrow it will be something else they don't want a vote permitted on.
You want the whole internet kahn?
Here it comes...
Can someone give me an example.
I think I nailed a few of the problems.
Including many Americans...
The American government is built on the principle[1] that the government are servants of the people. They are elected by the people and the people are protected from the government through the Constitution and checks and balances. The structure of the American government is one that is untrusting of itself. This is the way it's always been. There's no history of monarchy in American government.
Americans have trouble with organizations like the UN because it exists outside of this world. The UN presupposes trust in government--which Americans simply don't possess.
The idea of turning over control of something as important as the internet to an organization that assumes that government is a trust worthy thing is very contrary to the basis of the American form of government.
It's not because the US doesn't respect the rest of the world or wants to control everything. American's don't trust government. I'm not claiming this is the best system, I'm just attempting to explain the mentality.
[1] You can argue until the cows come home whether this is true in practice but it suffices to say that American's believe this to be mostly true.
You are the first non Anonymous Coward to post this, so you were the first I saw as I hide all AC's.
Now back to my point. You forgot to mention that he's clearly the antichrist as the antichrist is the only one levelheaded enough to be saying what he is saying.
I didn't realize that it had an imortal soul...
Is anyone else scared that "the man who will save the Internet" is the ambassador from Pakistan, a country that can't even save itself? Sure, Pakistan has gotten lots of people and governments around the world to agree on some things lately, but none are due to Pakistan's effective management and consensus building.
--
make install -not war
And now the new Internet regulator: Osama Bin Laden! He is here to answer your questions.
Problem is, though, yet again, the predictions are being made by people who don't understand the 'net. Look, the internet doesn't care what you put on it, it's just a network, and all TCP/IP does is move data across a link. Besides, last time we had an attempt at any sort of net regulation, we got the CDA.
This sig no verb.
If big government had done this 10 years ago, HTTP, DNS, FTP, SSH all of it would be replaced by one simple do all example of innovation.
OLE
I am sure we'll be better off if they get a chance today.
The U.S. Administration has recently released the Deck of Cards Christmas Edition, featuring Masood Kahn as the "Dark Joker" from heck.
Demand is expected to surpass supply. Orders will not be shipped before April, but all pre-orders will make it out before Christmas.
The ones claming the internet is in danger are the ones that needs to be help.
Keep you Dirty , Stinking hands off our internet! If you like our toy soo much that you want to take it home to your house, then go buy your own! Maybe then someday we can play together... Till then, keep away from our internet!
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
A 7/7 rating, in case you're wondering, is the worst a country can get and some of the countries pushing big to take the Internet out of U.S. hands and place it in the hands of the U.N. are China (7/6), Iran (6/6), North Korea (7/7), and Vietnam (7/6). In short, the world's hell-holes, places with good reasons to fear a free Internet.
Sadly, "The Man Who Will Save the Internet" is all too typical of the sort of tripe turned out by press correspondents the world over--fawning and inaccurate when is isn't hysterical and alarmist. This official may or may not patch together a tolerable compromise, but he's no savior. I'd be more impressive if the position were held by the Danish official who refused to meet with Muslim leaders over some political cartoons they disliked. He told them he was going to do nothing about them, so there was nothing to discuss. That's one European who should be made an honorary Texan!
--Mike Perry, Seattle, editor, Dachau Liberated
well aslong as they have him stripped, bound and in all sorts of hilariously demeanioning sexual positions i dont see why not.
If this Khan dude is such hot stuff, why is he still chairman of some dumb subcommittee? From his name, you'd expect the shithole country he came from to make him President or Grand Marshall or something.
Does Masood Khan use TP? I hear that many muslims do not. Perhaps they use sand from the desert...
Gore is a political nut. However, he is by far the most trustworthy in regards to the future of the Internet when you even THINK about having the UN run things.
Fuck the UN. Bunch of filthy thieves they are!!
Life is not for the lazy.
They're called the Internet Protocols. Anything else is damage and will have to be routed around. In other words, this is just my way of saying what most other people here are saying: Government, go away. You can only screw things up.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
____________________
WORLD'S WORST REGIMES UNVEILED
Several of the World's Greatest Human Rights Violators Sit on UN Human Rights Panel
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, March 31, 2005 -- Freedom House today released its annual list of the world's most repressive regimes at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Six are members of the UN body, charged with monitoring and condemning human rights violations.
The report, "The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies 2005," includes detailed summations of the dire human rights situations in Belarus, Burma (Myanmar), China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. Chechnya, Tibet, and Western Sahara are included as territories under Russian, Chinese, and Moroccan jurisdictions respectively.
The report is available online.
Significantly, six of the eighteen most repressive governments--those of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe--are members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), representing nearly 11 percent of the 53-member body. "Repressive governments enjoying CHR membership work in concert and have successfully subverted the Commission's mandate," said Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor. "Rather than serving as the proper international forum for identifying and publicly censuring the world's most egregious human rights violators, the CHR instead protects abusers, enabling them to sit in judgment of democratic states that honor and respect the rule of law," she said....
An additional nine countries Freedom House rates as "Not Free" enjoy membership on the Commission: Bhutan, Egypt, Guinea, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Swaziland, and Togo. Together, "Not Free" countries comprise just over one quarter of the Commission's membership.
_____________
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
... Because reality-checks are always not-for-profit ;-)
It's well-and-truly-chiched, but "Only YOU can Save The Internet"(r)(tm)(c)(fubar-blingbling)
Sit on yer ass and whine all you like, meanwhile The Man is busily whoring everything you care about to The Corporate Fat Cats.
Take back the government, make it accountable to YOU (Da Peeple). VOTE their silly asses out of administration and send a big "Fork You, Yuh Bahstid" message to everyone who is actively doing their best to screw over the geeks/nerds/and internet-users in general.
Because if YOU don't fight for what you believe in, then WHO WILL?
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Certain EU Commissioner: "Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming here. According to our best research, the internet is five days away from total collapse."
Gasps from the assembled bureaucrats, politicians and appointed functionaries.
Certain US Senator: "It's true! Just a few days ago, three to be precise, it was eight days away from collapse."
Muttering amongst the massed bloviators. The geek running the projector shakes his head.
Certain US Senator: "And do you know why that is?"
Blank stares.
Certain US Senator: "Because it took three days for our last delegate to arrive. Glad you could make it, Manuel. How's Fidel these days?"
Diplomatic chuckles all around
Certain EU Commissioner: "Right, then, to the business at hand. If we can make a resolution within three days, we can distribute it to the press on the fourth, and by the end of the fifth day, the Internet will have collapsed."
Applause.
Certain EU Commissioner: "We can do it, but only if we do our best! We have to work fast, we have to work together, and most of all, we need to craft a resolution that is completely impossible to be technically implemented. Every mandatory provision must be mutually exclusive with at least two other mandatory provisions! However, each provision by itself must seem reasonable and justifiable."
Certain US Senator: "If you're having trouble, just say it's all for the children. But only as a last resort."
Certain EU Commissioner: "If we do our best, the Internet is done for by the weekend. If we don't, it could continue running for weeks. Weeks! Now, just to check... who here knows anything about... domain names? Nobody? Excellent!"
If it is assumed that the UN is to govern the Internet, then Mr Khan does indeed have a significant job, and the committee that he chairs has significant decisions to make.
If it is NOT assumed that the UN must govern the Internet, then Mr Khan's opinion matters as much as the next AC.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
- America does not 'own' the Internet, nor are they soley responsible for its invention, construction or maintenance .iq - Iraq)
- Each country needs to be satisfied that their ccTLD is in safe, unbiased and reliable hands and it appears the majority consider the UN trumps the US here
- Network Solutions have not proven their trustworthiness, particularly in light of having potentially jeopardised the stability of the Internet by introducing SiteFinder. Such 'live experimentation' would be virtually impossible under UN governance.
- It is not always trivial to determine who should be responsible for a ccTLD, especially in times of political unrest (consider
- America's views on intellectual property are not necessarily shared by those countries who may be affected by them should they retain control
- The Global TLDs (gTLDs) are exactly that: GLOBAL. They are not 'American' despite the fact that Americans typically, for whatever reason, don't tend to use their own ccTLD: '.us'. Their governance should reflect this fact.
- The introduction of new TLDs needs to be carefully considered or deregulated completely, rather than driven by commercial interests
- The Internet will not collapse depending on the outcome of this decision
- The US has little to gain and a lot to lose by forcibly retaining control despite the public perception of the issue
all we need is an all mighty dictator of the internet.
Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
Move along, citizen.
I wonder how the Iraq ccTLD (.iq) might have been handled under UN governance - although I am not particularly biased on this issue I found it interesting that the process was well underway almost 18 months ago, and that the legitimacy of the 'Coalition Provisional Authority' was accepted apparently without question. Strange this not be considered when the criminal history of the previous custodian was of paramount importance.
.IQ ccTLD. In December 2004, Prime Minister Allawi sent ICANN a letter designating the appropriate party representing Iraq and requesting that ICANN begin the process of redelegating the domain to the National Communications and Media Commission of Iraq.
.IQ ccTLD under appropriate oversight of the Iraq Government concerning the national policy interests. NCMC and the Iraq Government also acknowledge and support ICANN's responsibility for coordinating management of the DNS, including the .IQ ccTLD, to safeguard global technical coordination interests. In reviewing the request, in light of the Iraq Government's endorsement of NCMC as the appropriate manager, the IANA concludes that the .IQ ccTLD should be redelegated to NCMC.
http://www.iana.org/reports/iq-report-05aug05.pdf
In June 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority formally contacted ICANN regarding the steps necessary for redelegation of the
Conclusion
The structure proposed by NCMC [National Communications and Media Commission] and endorsed by the Iraq Government is to have NCMC undertake management of the
I agree with you that repeating something many times has no effect on whether or not it's true.
This particular statement you are commenting on is true of course and would be if it had been stated only once but that's beside the point. You could disconnect all of Europe and Asia and the vast majority of Americans would not even notice. There, I said it again.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I'm sorry to interrupt you sir, but before you continue, please step into this van. It will provide a designated Free Speech Zone, where you can continue with your presentation. Please be aware that transportation TO the FSZ is provided free of charge. Return transport is your own responsability, and ther may be some ...difficulties... with scheduling such return.
Now, please lean over while I inject this identichip. The identichip is for your convenience. It allows eazy Entry to the FSZ.
That's it, just bend over....
Yes, the last election was ugly, but the whole "get behind the President" mentality is core to how leadership works in the US. The government here gets its power and ability to function from one and only one idea: an implicit mandate from the citizenry. Get about 52 million citizens together to agree that this government has got to go and BOOM, just like that...it's gone. Without a clear mandate, the entire idea of what the US is starts to fall apart. So yeah, it is important to get behind the President quickly and decisively.
I hate the fact I have to defend the last election. I was a campaigner for Dean. I hate this current asshat.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
...he could well be, som e data suggests that as many as one male in 200 is his descendant http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is _6_163/ai_97997816
t ml
also http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/khandna.h
Your vision was sort of tongue in cheek but that is exactly the direction we are headed with increasingly onerous "IP" laws and globalist trade schema. There very well could come a time where some invention was owned in perpetuity by some corporation or corpora-governmental hybrid, which I see as the next geopolitical evolution on the planet.
Really, this is no different than any country that finds it has sourced what it considers strategic reources to other countries. In this case, a lot of countries have put data for their citizens (and attached data that should be secure) on the net and are now sweating about it as they don't control it. For my money, the insecurity comes less from the US than the fact that the internet is a lousy place to secure any important data. Futrther, if the US really controlled the net, then all those Al Qaida e-mails would have been instantly traced to source and damn near al of us would be in RIAA hell. Npbody really controls the net.
I'm from Hanoi, Vietnam, the country have 200K ADSL currently. The government is control DNS as DNS service is suggest to be under centralised control. Here are facts:
* Register a domain name cost you 30 US$, every year, while register a company only take you 13 US$, once.
* Business lease line is five times expensive than home ADSL because "IP address is expensive". Thus, every business subscribe to home ADSL service.
* Many people asked me, why I need to pay just to have my name on the net.
M Nguyen
YIM: mnguyenvn
last line.... "remarkable abilities of the unassuming ambassador from Pakistan.® "
hell I never knew that the country names were registered trademarks !
or does it mean that the whole story is 'registered' by 'theregister' ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And the index needs to be centralised so people can get consistent results. And the group that controls the index gets to decide what stuff is in it and who gets sections of it. And, when the index is for a system as economically important as the internet, being thrown into the outer darkness of indexlessness can really hurt a country. And, if the group that controls the index has a reputation for being somewhat trigger-happy in their dealings with other countries, it's not surprising that the rest of the world gets somewhat unnerved.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Not only did the USA develop the internet, so far, it has mainly been "left alone" from a freedom of speech realm. Now, give control of the internet to the most pathetic, disorganized, and UNcapitalistic organization in the world (the UN) and see what happens. Suddenly, if anyone says something that the UN, or any of its thug 3rd world countries doesn't like, they will threaten to yank connection to the net. If you want root control under the authority of the UN, then have them develop their own net and you connect to it. Also, give the UN control and their socialist agenda will continue. You want to connect to the net? Then pay the "tax" to "help" poor countries connect to the net, which won't happen because as with the oil for food scandal, it won't go where it is suppose to. Most of the oil for food (and any other worthless program) the UN comes up with just does nothing more than to line the pockets of the idiots at the UN, and the thugs of the countries where the help is suppose to go toward.
The US has already said they aren't giving the internet up to the yipping yapping whiners. Why keep posting their drivel?
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
In the ultimate irony, the U.S. Department of Defense has created the first funtional anarchy in the history of mankind. Yes, there is some "Internet Governance" (i.e. ICANN and IANA) but the core of the matter is that the Internet only actually works because everyone cooperates. When folks stop cooperating (bickering over peering agreements, etc.) parts of it may stop working, demonstrating the validity of the ananarchical model and proving that, at the core--at the heart--it really is an anarchy. A co-operative, mercantile, market driven anarchy. Even anarchists agree there have to be standards but on the Internet they are so loose that we call them either a "Request for Comments" (IAB/IETF) or a "Recommendation" (W3C). And you can just ignore them if you want--look at how Microsoft has been blowing of the W3C for years with their browser. And who can be a member of an IETF Working Group? ANYONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD! You just join! (How cool is that--it's not perfect but it actually works, and anyone who wants to participate has a voice.) People can propose and build new protocols but if no one uses them they wither on the vine (i.e. desktop push models; no one really wanted push, and where is it today? And how about VRML? Seen any lately?). The last thing we need is for someone to step in and slap a government on top of this wonderful anarchy. I feel I should end with a rousing call for all of us anarchists to unite, but the sad thing is that is contrary to the concept of anarchy; so at least let's all cooperate, to oppose this attempt to impose tyranny on our anarchy. And while we're at it, let's just celebrate the whole concept of an anarchy created by the Depratment of Defense. Irony not only lives but thrives online.
Damn. Maybe someday I'll learn to spell, too. Or at least proofread.
They seem to do a freaking well good job at "how people communicate" with the phone line. Your post smack of US centralism, and UN bashing which is probably why it is modded +4 insightful, after all this is not a NEUTRAL ground for discussion, but an US centric forum. This is absolutly not about taxation, remmember taxation is local to any country. So if germany decide to fuck up its own people and tax them to hell using DNS control, why should US care ? Your argument is MOOT. As for control, well Seeing the debacle in the domain name (due to US control+lobbyism combo) I can think why any country would rather the control be in the hand of the UN (so that everybody is sure that NO DECISION is done because nobody can agree with it, as opposed to only 1 country controlling a resource and thus can do anything they want. YEAH they promise they won't do it. Sure. And if it is their interrest to have a tighter control and change the rule they will still hold their promise. Yeah. Right. I have a bridge to sell you).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
...You missed the part about the USA veto.
http://www.theonion.com/content/index
'nuff said
The Internet, in many ways, is like the old Wild West. That is to say, the frontier of freedom and individual expression - by whatever means necessary. The problem with such freedom is that you have corruption wherever government does exist, and lawlessness where the government does not. The UN is trying to solve both of these problems in a singular motion. That does not bare justification and it tends to disrupt the integrated population. The majority of the people, however, would benefit from this...even if that's only due to their ignorance or lack of participation.
The true denizens of the Internet - like most people found here - naturally rebuke against such reformation policies. Rightly so. The haven that has been created, the virtual world in which we can express, will cease to exist in many forms. Most Americans still see Texas as badass or lawless, and compared to most states that is true. However in contrast to its original form it is little more than a novelty. This change took a long time and much conflict, but it inevitably came to pass, even in a country that existed only because of rebellion.
This will be a long and hard fight, but we of the Internet will lose. The freedom that now exists will cease to be. This is simply because it will move to the greater good - which, in otherwords, means a compromise between dominating cultures. Europe is liberal, China is communist...you see where this is going. America's freedom helped create the Internet and I believe it should remain in those hands, but we can only hold off so long. There are breaches all over the world and even our own people - mostly ignorant of the facts - will be persuaded.
The Internet will become international and corporate and things once taken for granted will slowly dissolve. Space, other planets...colonies...these will exist as the new frontier. Not in my lifetime. I'll enjoy the Internet today and over the next decade or two, and that's my peace. Revel in this while you still can, for it will be but an eyeblink in the history of civilization.
No. England tried to stop the creation of the United States. There was this thing with a revolution, technically speaking.
So far this discussion has had a distinctly American flavour:
... who is going to stop a government from exerting its authority over what's done with all the routers, switches and servers on its territory?
... they blew it.
... there is an easy and natural way this can go: fracturing of the Internet along national lines. The alternative is tedious negotiation. Of the sort we see happening now.
... I don't think we'd have much to worry about. It looks as if it's their problem, not ours.
- Government is bad
- Foreign Governments are worse
- the UN is worst of all.
Whilst I love the freedom that the Internet gives me, I have to concede that it cannot be a place of lawlessness. Despite all the emotional reactions against government interference. And that is where government comes in. Both as regards security (read anti-terrorism, using Internet taps as evidence in criminal cases) and as regards protection of property (read copyright infringement). Government will have an influence on the Internet. In fact it has already, and its role is increasing. Get over it!
Now the big question is what form this government influence should take, and how far it should go.
On the one hand we have the "minimalist" approach (the one I side with) which will only regulate that which is needed to uphold existing law, and the "meddlesome" approach in which we see government censorship of websites.
From what I see, meddlesome governments are going to have a meddlesome influence on that part of the Internet which is hosted on their territory, and maybe have a big mandatory firewall on any routers that sit on the pipelines to foreign parts. We are seeing that already in the case of China and Iran. Tough on their citizins, but what can we do? After all
Then there is the issue of names and numbers. That's what worries me. One the one hand, are we really justified in expecting the rest of the world to acept the decisions of ICANN (being beholden only to the US dept. of Commerce)? If they were beyond reproach, yes, but they aren't.
What about the shortage of IP numbers? Who decides the allocation of them, and who decides whther or not we'll move to IP6? There seem to be some concerns of a non-technical, non-neutral type. And about domains? Is it reasonable to expect China, India, and Europe to be dependent on ICANN for a decision on whether or not they can have an additional domain? Some subsidiarity may be called for here.
And on top of that the declaration of the Bush adminstration that it will retain control of the Internet. As far as I'm concerned
Now as others have pointed out
And you know what? If the result is not acceptable, the US won't go along with it. Then we'll see who'd rather be compliant with US dns servers and who'd rather have the ones in China or Iran. And frankly
""The question of a future mechanism, the question of oversight, and the paradigm of co-operation amongst all stakeholders."
O.k i know politicians love that kind of talk, BIG words makes people think they are BIG, millions of meaning can come out of this sentence, but can someone translate for the regualr joe.
Let us not forget about Haliburton wild life and forest reserv. http://www.haliburtonforest.com/
(oh... the sarcasm, the irony, the pain!)
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Actually n3td3v has already saved the internet.
And if the consequences of not getting the kind of lunch you wanted bore any relationship to the consequences of starting a war, killing thousands of people, destroying the reputation of your home country, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and and turning a major mideast country into a training ground for terrorists, you'd have a point.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks