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."

9 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Re:As has been said before... by mastershake_phd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who cares about TLDs, what I want to know is who controls the IPs?

  2. Re:As has been said before... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The UN actually works. Remember the Korean War? The ITU does an amazing job of managing radio frequencies. And what about all the successful peacekeeping operations the UN has conducted? Do you see smallpox around? A lot of the UN bashing in America is about how badly the UN works when America doesn't cooperate. And I would prefer to have essential functions under the control of a bueracracy that has no effective leadership when it comes to devisive issues then to a bueracracy that caves to special intrests every single time.

    --
    Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
  3. Re:As has been said before... by parasonic · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Who cares about TLDs, what I want to know is who controls the IPs?
    Yes, but the UN doesn't. For all practicality's sake, they don't even know what an IP is. They don't know how the Internet and Web work, but they certainly think that it shouldn't be something that the originator (the US) shouldn't have control of...for whatever reason. Maybe the UN should peitition the US with a list of grievances of mismanagement in order to have a reason for the whole thing to be handed over. Having control over IP addresses is a much more encompassing leash that IANA has and just like ICANN does not abuse.

    It's all black and white to the UN, two dimensional rather than three, and there are so many levels of ubiquity, ambiguity, and abstraction that they do and will continue to fail to see.
  4. Re:As has been said before... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot of the UN bashing in America is about how badly the UN works when America doesn't cooperate.

          Or it arises when the UN disagrees with what America wants... just like all the France bashing that has arisen since 2003.

          (with a french accent) Hehehe mes amis les americains, I hate to say "we told you so", but... have fun in Iraq. And now you want to send in MORE troops? You reinforce successes, not failures. Strategy 101.

          The US is always very quick to get offended by anyone who disagrees with the US. Their foreign policy is built on it. Oh, feel free waste a mod point to mod me troll my American friends, I have plenty more karma - and it will just prove my point :)

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  5. Re:As has been said before... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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. You are right, the Internet should be in the hands of those who abused the Oil-for-Food program the most - Americans.
    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  6. Re:As has been said before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The UN actually works. Remember the Korean War?

    The UN acted during the Korean War because the Soviet Union didn't show up to vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

  7. Re:As has been said before... by smilingman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're being disingenuous. The modern UN doesn't have the military power to take on any nation. Its only function in nations like these would be to provide humanitarian support and peace keepers after there was a peace to keep. Speaking of which, in all these conflicts, where was the US?

  8. Re:As has been said before... by k1e0x · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The modern UN's military power is largely that of the US. If the UN voted to use military power the US would practically need to commit troops on some scale.

    And you cant have real peace till somebody wins.. thats the problem with the UN, they never win.. they just sit in the middle for a time then leave and the original parties go back to war.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  9. Re:As has been said before... by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speaking of which, in all these conflicts, where was the US?

    Because peace keeping is a lose-lose situation for the U.S... if they get involved, you will bitch about "U.S. Imperialism"... if they don't get involved, you will whine "Why doesn't the U.S. do anything to help".