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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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!
This was about agreeing upon principals of how they will communicate and has nothing to do with taxes.
Surely, sir, you jest. "principals of how they will communicate"? What is so hard about "I talk to you, and you talk to me"? There is no place for the UN in how people communicate. Either they do or they don't.
No this is about taxation and control. Right now they are working on the 'precedent' stage. The first move of all politicians and governments is to first set a 'precedent', usually through a policy that can't be 'morally' argued with.
"Children are dying! The Federal government must feed the children!"
Can't argue against that, even though it isn't the Federal government's job to feed the children (it's the parents, then city's, then county's, then state's job, if any). So the federal politicians set a precedent that they must feed the children. This gets extended to they must feed the old, too. Then everybody. Then everybody must eat what the government provides for them, which they do at twice the cost in the form of taxes. And if at any point, a man would say that the theiving politicians should keep their hands off the dinner table, they are labelled as a cruel and heartless bastard.
Well, OK. I'm a cruel and heartless bastard. And as such, I loudly proclaim that the UN should not be allowed to set a precedent. Connect to the Net, or create your own, I don't give a damn. But in no way should the UN have any control over how my computer communicates with another.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I'm lauging at the superior intellect...
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.
Nope, sitting pretty in the land of the free. Hence my use of the phrase, "our method of governance" referring to our laissez-faire, entrepreneurial approach. But I don't seem to arbitrarily despise France either, so I'm not very American in that regard.
First of all, I don't arbitrarily despise France (as you may have guessed my name is French), but the point is (and I don't even think a Frenchman would disagree about this), in France the govt has more power than the US govt. and the corporations have less power than US corporations. I think we can at least agree on that right?
The implementation isn't important, the implications are. If those few sysadmins could make a mess of things, it makes other nations nervous.
Ok, I agree that these sys admins _could_ do a lot of damage. So, what do you think the UN will do if they're in charge? Hire magical sys admins that are incapable of doing a lot of damage? It would probably end up being the same sys admins, or people with similar qualifications. The same people will be capable of doing a lot of damage if the UN "runs the internet".
ICANN hasn't shit on anyone's lawn, but it certainly can in theory
This is your best point yet! So, given that ICANN hasn't done anything wrong, why would we want to turn this, as you called it: "helluva responsibility", over to an organization that _has_ done a number of things wrong?
No Sigs!
He's going to save the internet by assisting with getting all the regulators and governments to "cooperate" together on it? How is that a good thing? That's like asking if you want a shit sandwhich or a piss cola. How about NO regulation or governance like the last few decades (essentially)?
The only thing worse than 161 governments trying to fight each other for "control of the internet" is 161 governments cooperating to "control the internet".
well aslong as they have him stripped, bound and in all sorts of hilariously demeanioning sexual positions i dont see why not.
Exactly.
If this guy actually got 161 governments to sit down and actually work together on something, I would be deeply, deeply concerned. Given that the average government official is probably in bed with so many different corporations and special interests (and it might not even be illegal or frowned upon in their countries, so it's not like we have much recourse) anything that they'd sit down and turn out is ultimately going to be terrible for users.
In my more morose moods I have this feeling that I'm going to some day be sitting around and telling my grandkids about how the Internet used to be, back in those wild, turn-of-the-century days, before everything was regulated and monitored to death; in the same way that I remember him telling me once about a time when you could buy a car and drive it around without a license to do so, or bolting a metal identification plate onto the bumper.
Governments are a sophisticated protection racket. You trade them some freedoms, in return they offer you some protection against our more cruel and brutish impulses and in theory allow us to live more pleasant lives. But with the Internet, there's currently nothing that we need protecting from and if we allow it to be regulated, we will have just given something away for nothing -- and it's not something we're ever likely to get back.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Shotgun never said in his/her comment that it wasn't his/her obligation to help feed the children. He/She rightfully pointed out that it wasn't the Federal United States government's obligation. He/She also rightfully pointed out that feeding children is primarily the responsibility of (those children's) parents. Of course, if those parents are unable to fulfill their responsibility, then help should come from the city, county, or perhaps the state.
Shotgun doesn't want the children to starve -- he/she just wants local problems to be solved on a local level. It is all about limiting the power to `fix` a problem to those closest to the situation.
But what is the point of throwing your weight behind a president you don't support? Why not do what people in a lot of other countries would do, and do whatever you can to make it impossible for him to govern?
When my co-workers and I go out to lunch, we usually end up doing informal votes on where to go. If I want to get, say, Vietnamese, and the 5-6 other guys want to get BBQ, I usually state my case (we just went there) and see if anyone changes their vote. If not, I say, okay, and never mention it again.
If I spent the entire time in the car bitching about how we should have gotten Vietnamese, lunch wouldn't be that enjoyable. That's the way democracies work. You don't always get what you want but you respect your fellow citizens enough to not be a complete tool about not getting your way (as long as it doesn't impede on a fundamental right--hence the Constitution).
The problem today is that too many people are bitching about not getting what they wanted for lunch.
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.
Governments are a sophisticated protection racket. You trade them some freedoms, in return they offer you some protection against our more cruel and brutish impulses and in theory allow us to live more pleasant lives. But with the Internet, there's currently nothing that we need protecting from and if we allow it to be regulated, we will have just given something away for nothing -- and it's not something we're ever likely to get back.
That's not entirely true. There is crime on the Internet. If you get scammed by someone over the Internet (and it doesn't necessarily have to be someone from an obscure ex-soviet country or from China, it can happen anywhere), won't you expect the police to do something about it? Sure, perhaps your bank will reimburse you, but should they go unknown and unpunished, and keep ripping people off? Tracking down and catching Internet criminals takes time and international cooperation.
There's good and there's bad in policing the Internet. I guess the only solution is to let "them" do it, but jump up in arms at their throat the second it looks like human rights are trampled. I know it's probably just fantasy, but if the White House lawn would fill up with thousands of angry citizens every time they don't like something, perhaps the
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
A heavy burden of regulation is just what we need to quash everyone but the big companies and governments that can afford to follow them. Of course, that's a good thing from most of these countries' point of view. Their biggest issue isn't that the US has control in some kind of abstract official sort of way. It's that they want to police the internet for crime.
In many of these nations' cases, "crime" means political or religious dissent. There's a reason that Iran and China have lobbied so hard on this issue.
As it stands now, you can get an IP address and a domain name regardless of your political leanings. That doesn't have to be the case. America officially "controls" the system, but that control mostly consists of preventing anyone else from doing anything to restrict free use of the net. All it takes for this online freedom to go away is for us to compromise a little. And then next year, a little more...
So if you think that this guy is going to save the internet, then I have news for you-- how nice or friendly or telegenic a person is has nothing to do with whether you should be supporting them.
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!