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."

17 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. As has been said before... by parasonic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah I remember the Korean War and the failure to either win or negotiate a peace settlement. I remember Oil for Food and all the kickbacks, I remember Darfur, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Former Yugoslavia and all the other genocidal and refugee human tragedies that the UN did and are doing nothing about, I remember all the meaningless resolutions passed against Iraq without any consequences, I remember several individuals at the UN that sold the world famous stamp collection without approval, I remember the Tianamen Square crackdown and the UN doing nothing, I remember the UN peacekeepers being called umbrellas that fold up and go home when it rains, I remember other UN peacekeepers raping young African girls without consequence. I remember a lot of this. I also want others to remember that you can't be UNhelpful without the UN in the lead.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:As has been said before... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Oh, feel free waste a mod point to mod me troll my American friends
      oops ... what happened? 5, Insightful? Hmmm, how'd that happen? Clearly you knew very well that on /., bashing Americans and America is one of the fastest ways to get karma.

      I have plenty more karma - and it will just prove my point :)
      You just proved my point!
      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    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 jav1231 · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you put Libya on your Civil Rights commission, nuff said. The U.N. servers only one useful purpose: Having them meet on U.S. soil provides a convenient place to spy on them. Which I think is great!

    9. Re:As has been said before... by +PhilipMarlowe9000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Remeber Sudan/Darfur? Serbiea/Kosovo? Bosnia? Tianement Square? Tibet? Rwanda?" The UN is not on Mars, nor in heaven; it's effectives is helped or hindered by how much nation-states want to contribute. Furthermore, the UN traditionally has had a mandate not to intefere in nations because of national sovereighty.

      --
      My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music. Vladimir Nabokov
    10. 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/
    11. 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".

  2. Good to see.. by madsheep · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Like they could by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  4. Chinese Mandate by descentintomaelstrom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Go ahead and try it, UN by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Funny

    They can have my tubes when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

  6. The truth about the UN by voss · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.