Slashdot Mirror
Russia and China Withdraw Bid For Internet Control
judgecorp writes "Russia, China and other nations have withdrawn proposals to take control over the Internet within their borders. The proposals, handed to the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) on Friday, caused widespread dismay and protest. The WCIT event in Dubai, run by the UN agency ITU, is working on new International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) which are due for their first revision since the emergence of the mass Internet. The line-up of nations wanting to formalize their power to restrict the Internet included Russia, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan and Egypt. Their proposal has been withdrawn without explanation, an ITU spokesperson confirmed."
I think our "friends" may have learned some tricks from here in America. Prepare for drafts with a lot of double-speak that is going to be pushed quickly and with as little media attention as possible.
So in exchange for shutting up about it, they'll probably get it officiously, thanks to nations who also want full control but didn't formally ask for it (ie, all of them?).
Or am I being paranoid?
It'll be a very long time before world peace is achieved, but this news may have potentially cut that time by decades or even centuries.
Language, currency and cultures often divide us, but the internet is one of the things unified in this world. Long may it stay that way.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
1) Make a huge noise about implementing draconian measures.
2) Withdraw these measures after the hue and cry.
3) Propose more "reasonable" measures that will, after the dust settles, actually end up giving more control.
This is how our gas prices keep going up. They jack the prices up by a dollar, then back down 80 cents. Repeat as necessary.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
"Mommy, the other countries laughed at us and made fun of our idea!"
This summary is slanted and biased: "proposals to take control over the Internet within their borders". The text "within their borders" has been added by the submitter - the word "border" isn't even in the document that text links to.
Countries already have control over the internet "within their borders", just like they have control over everything else within their borders. They were seeking control *outside* their borders, to force outside companies to have to pay them to deliver content. What these countries are wanting (among other things) is the ability to force content producers, like Google's YouTube, to have to pay their ISPs in order to be able to deliver content at a "quality" level to their citizens.
In other words, there are countries that want the US to have to pay them so their population can consume content created by the US. If Google deems it wise to invest in a country's infrastructure so that more people in that country can (for example) watch YouTube videos at a certain level of quality, then that's Google's prerogative. They shouldn't be forced.
Better known as 318230.
The cast of countries that submitted this proposal all share a common trait of disrespecting the freedom of expression of their own citizens. This disrespect is rooted in fear. These governments see their own citizenry as a threat to their own power, especially if those citizens can read anything they want on the global internet.
I really don't get all this "control of the internet" hoopla. The reality is that anyone can run a DNS server. These countries can run one of their own if they don't like ours. They can also put whatever firewall they choose on the lines going in and out of their countries. They already have as much control as they choose to have. What is the point of having some international governing body? I'm not getting it.