Slashdot Mirror
UN Official Says UN Not Taking Over Internet
kaufmanmoore writes "Hamadoun Toure, the new head of the UN's International Telecommunications Union says that he does not plan to take over governance of the internet and leave it up to groups like ICANN. In his statement he says that the ITU will instead focus on bridging the digital divide, internet security and standardize broadband communications. When asked about Chinese censorship Toure said that issue is beyond the mandate of the ITU."
The UN needs to have no control over the Internet. They have demonstrated time and time again (e.g. Oil-for-Food campaign) that they are incompetent with managing programs.
If TLD's are such an issue, let them have their own DNS system. No one is forcing anyone to use ICANN or even IANA.
I for one welcome our new ICANN overlords.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Feh, prisons.
Compare it to the Congress. If you dare.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Does this mean we will have a walled network where it takes cash to get in, and no one is anonymous?
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
It's good to see the U.N. has just outright came out and see it doesn't see a need for them to run this. I think Security is a bigger issue, although I do not exactly have any idea on what they are working or doing to secure anything. A large number of countries seem to look at anything associated with the U.S. as a talking point for change. There's not a whole long wrong with ICANN doing what it does right now as far as I can see. People just like to complain and try and get a change just so they can oppose someone they aren't fond of. Well so much for all the calls for the U.N. to run it. Let's see what all these whining complaining bastards try and do next.
When asked about Chinese censorship Toure said that issue is beyond the mandate of the ITU.
In communist China, the censorship is beyond you!
DNS and IP space allication != "The Internet".
There's so many con-artists, thieves and rapists in there
They're called politicians.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
China should be disconnected from the rest of the world and have it's own Internet. No more spammers and hackers operating out of China.
But then, where would it stop? Separate Korea and Russia too?
If the UN wants to help out, they should get their brains together and come up with an international plan to require these countries to put a stop to spammers and hackers.
Can you tell I hate spammers?
-Maurice
FixingTheWeb.com Helping to keep the bad guys out...
Is this really the intellectual level on which debates are conducted in the US?
I see this kind of childish reaction all the time. Someone says something that can be perceived as being critical of the US or even just a US company and people will immidiatly start calling those being critical names, complain about everyone supposedely attacking the US, etc, etc.
And they will not even, for one second, try to take a look at the issue at hand as maybe, just maybe, they'd find out that some things these "complaining bastards" say might be reasonable, understandable, backed up with sound arguments.
Really, this is kindergarten and not the behavior of grown ups.
Remember Darfur?
Remember Somalia?
Remember Bosnia?
Remember Israel?
"Union says that he does not plan to take over governance of the internet and leave it up to groups like ICANN."
I mean I know what they want to say, but this sentence still doesn't mkae any sense to me. Shouldn't it be "Union says that he plans to leave it up to groups like ICANN and not take over governance of the internet."
As much as I dislike the government most of the time. I have no complaints on how the DNS allocation is done...
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
Actually, if the UN were to follow its own Human Rights Declaration, it clearly states in Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I would suppose that this means freedom from censorship on the internet. The UN has been constantly ignoring its own mandates for the protection of Human rights becuase its councils concering Human rights are consistently run by the countries who violate those rights. Even right now, China is a member of the Human Rights Council. The UN cannot function under the weight of its own political correctness and the weight of its member states violating its own declarations.
What has China got to do with the spam problem? Most spam comes from the US.
http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lassThey can have my tubes when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
I live in Taiwan. Screw the UN.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
With no global tax and no global army, the UN lacks the money and the power
to rule the internet.
Any power the UN has is because the world powers use it to provide the cover of international law
to protect their interests. Of course this is significant because when world powers want to do something
they must compromise to get UN backing. The absence of UN backing means additional political costs for
any nation that acts without UN backing.
Gee, that's magnanimous of the nice guys at the UN, not to take over something that was invented by the US military using US tax dollars, that they do not own, and that they have no authority to take over. How sweet and thoughtful of those kind corrupted windbags.
But wouldn't it be neat if they DID take over the internet? Iran could head the committee that censors all web content (with Saudia Arabia, Sudan, and China making up the rest of the panel), and Nigeria could handle internet security!
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
and no way. I wouldnt see a single byte traveling on the internet be subject to a governing body where these opressive, mafia (in case of russia) and medieval (you know which) countries have a say in. Internet thrived with what was governing it up to date, and from now on i would like to see it thrive - so let it be as it is now.
Read radical news here
Just imagine the scandals they could perpetrate if they decided they were going to take it over?
Breaking News: Fox Official Says Foxes Not Taking Over Henhouse.
Since this nobody spoke up (did anyone ever actually ask him?), I'd just like to say that I do not plan to take over governance of the internet either and will also leave it up to groups like ICANN. I will instead focus on getting a job, moving out of the basement and more cowbell. If anyone asks me about when I'm going to be in a real relationship, I'd have to say that it's beyond my mandate.
I'm not sure I understand how people get away with thinking the DNS root servers comprise "THE INTERNETS". It's pretty trivial to configure most OSes to use any DNS resolution server you want, that resolves any domains you want. There are plenty of alternative roots out there that do just that. They even defer to the existing ICANN roots in most cases.
So why is it that all the press I hear - and most importantly, the political leaders they listen to - acts like they're completely unaware of this flexibility?
I know, I know, the ignorance of politicians should never surprise me.
I would just like everyone to know that I'm NOT going to take over the United States. Please rest assured that you have nothing to worry about despite the fact that I'm clearly in the perfect position to do so even though I have no supporters, military, or finances. And please, no matter how many times you all welcome me as your new overload, I don't feel I'm properly qualified for such a position.
Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
Article 29(1) means that everyone has duties to the community in which he belongs--and the free and full development of his personality is not possible without such allegience. Thus, if you are a Chinese person in China, you owe allegience to China and have duties as defined by your community. This is in sharp contrast from the United States, where communities and countries derive from individual rights, rather than the other way around.
Article 29(2) indicates that your "rights" and "freedoms" are not limitless, but are subject to limitations, including the limitations of the morality, need for public order and "general welfare". Since you as an individual derive your rights from the community in which you live (rather than the community coming about because a group of free individuals voluntarily band together), rather than individuals shaping the morality of the community in which they live, individuals are subject to the morality of the community they live in--and communities may make laws limiting your actions so that you behave in a moral fashion.
Article 29(3) indiciates that your "rights" and "freedoms" are further limited--you may not commit any action that runs "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
And to cap all of this off, Article 30 states that you may not engage in any activity which destroys any of the rights outlined in the document--including the right to rest, reasonable limitations on working hours, and the fundamental right to an adequate standard of living--including the fundamental right to clothing and medical care. (Should we interpret a doctor who goes home rather than treats a sick man as an infringment on the man's fundamental right to medical care, or an infringement on the doctor's fundamental right to reasonable limitations on working hours?)
The whole document is a Utopian fantasy that no nation-state in the world takes seriously, so don't be surprised if UN officials wipe their asses with the document--as that is all the document is really worth.
How can an individual have fundamental rights if all fundamental rights are legislated by committee?
In order for any state in the United States to be a member of the United States, it must establish a constitution and elections within the borders of that State. It's why every state in the United States has an elected governor, and not an unelected King. Its why every state has some sort of parlimentary system, with representatives elected from various dictricts within that state, instead of representatives from various warlords and clans being sent to the King's Castle to parlay over internal matters.
It may sound stupid, but there is no reason why the states of the United States are republics except for that one clause. Without that clause, Governor Schwarzenegger could dissolve the California Assembly and declare himself King, and there would be nothing the United States Congress could do about it, as it is an interior matter. (Well, they may try to invoke the Commerse Clause and the Full Faith clause--but those are legal stretches that were only recently widened.)
The United Nations has no such clause.
And that is my problem with the United Nations.
Even though it was started as a hopeful experiment to convince the powers of the world to adopt Democracy, often we have some of the most un-democratic countries and some of the worse abusers of Human Rights taking control of various committees. Very few countries within the United Nations even give a damn about the Rule of Law--which is why we get endless declarations and resolutions and mandates coming out of the United Nations falling on deaf ears.
Now if the United Nations would adopt a resolution making it mandatory that continued membership in the United Nations requires adopting a Republican form of government, and if we were to elevate Democracy to an ideal rather than denegrate Democracy as a byproduct of United States emperialism, and if we were to make our representatives to the United Nations elected positions rather than appointed ambassadors, then it would be something I could fully support.
Until then, the United Nations is at best worthless and at worse, evil.
The UN couldn't take over the internet even if it wanted to. They could CLAIM control, but thats right up there with a former US VPs claim that he invented it. Governments around the world have been trying to control the net for years. It has failed every single time. The beauty of the net is thats its completely free form outside influence. Besides, the UN's a paper tiger anyway. They have no enforcement ability whatsoever.
Ironically, it is because they ran Echelon (and stop pretending it, or newer programs like it, including Carnivore, which did finally go online a few years ago, thanks to "9/11") to spy on everyone out there in Europe and it was eventually proven in several VERY unpublicized cases that it was also used to spy on various technological advances described in emails (back before email spying and hacking were commonplace tools for every script kiddie) and transferred the contents of those emails to various big corps that stood to make billions from the advances.
Same crap now. In my opinion is that the UN CAN run the "internet" but I don't want them to. My suggestion is to screw the UN, withdraw any support from them, no more than anyone else out there provides. Whoever provides the least funding should be the baseline. The USA is taxed, so the US can spend loan money on the UN, using the USA's taxes to pay off the interest.
Just like the IMF... just because it CAN be used as a world bank, doesn't mean it should replace the lower banks.
The more you centralize, the easier tyranny can survive. That is why none of us have gold and silver money (coin form) in all our countries, instead we have paper currency (current as money) which is used to speculate us into the "boom and bust" cycle that banks created, and banks uphold.
Bankers should've been lynched when they first didn't have enough gold to cover their "cash" and outright checks. They defrauded the world of its money, now they want to take our speech too. China has proven it can be done and the people can't stand up and fight (or won't, since it is a Democratic Socialist Republic (what a triple oxymoron that is)).
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
...there also is no bill in congress to stop internet radio and outsourcing does not take away jobs in the US. Now get back to watching TV and obeying the government you chattle!
it is because they ran Echelon
Firstly, ECHELON was run by UKUSA, not the UN. The USA were one-fifth of UKUSA, and you're saying that ECHELON was so bad that the USA should administer international telecomms instead of the UN? You have that backwards.
Secondly, if ECHELON was run by the UN, that would completely contradict parasonic's claim that "they don't even know what an IP is".