[Sergeant Bob]

Plan for UN to run internet 'will be shelved' (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565743698&p=1012571727102)

By Frances Williams in Geneva
Published: November 9 2003 21:19 | Last Updated: November 9 2003 21:19


An attempt by developing countries to put management of the internet under United Nations auspices is likely to be shelved at next month's world information summit in Geneva - but the issue is now firmly on the international agenda, summit sources say.


It will be one of the main bones of contention this week as government negotiators and non-governmental organisations descend on Geneva for the final round of preparatory talks on the draft declaration and plan of action due to be endorsed by heads of state and government at the summit on December 10-12.

However, UN officials say they see no compromise emerging. They expect governments to decide instead to continue talks on internet governance with the aim of reaching accord by 2005, when the second stage of the two-part summit is due to take place in Tunisia.

"They're no longer going to try to agree on this," a UN official said last week.

Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones, are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago.

The critics argue that the internet is a public resource that should be managed by national governments and, at an international level, by an intergovernmental body such as the International Telecommunications Union, the UN agency that is organising the information summit.

However, the US and the European Commission are staunchly defending the Icann model, which is based on minimal regulation and commercial principles. Icann members are predominantly drawn from industrialised countries and the established internet community.

Defenders of the status quo say handing over power to governments could threaten the untrammelled flow of information and ideas that many see as the very essence of the borderless internet.

But these arguments appear to be losing force against the emergence of new challenges such as unwanted advertising ("spam"), privacy and security worries, hate speech and child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.

The question of internet governance, which erupted at a relatively late stage in the preparatory summit negotiations, is just one of many issues negotiators must try to resolve this week. Rich and poor countries are also at odds over creation of a "digital solidarity fund" that would finance investment to bridge the "digital divide" in access to information and communications technologies.

Other unresolved disputes concern the balance between intellectual property protection and access to information, the role of the media, and acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.

[4570Rick]

I don't want my government messing with the net.

I damn sure don't want the UN screwing with it!!! :fire:

[agricola]

er......

Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia

since when are the Saudis short of a few bob?

[Tamara]

My first thought was: "If they want to run an internet, let 'em go friggin' build one."

Come to think of it, that's my current thought, too.


The mindset of folks like that amazes me; I don't often find myself lying awake at night thinking "Y'know, it's unfair that eeevil capitalist pigdogs control the internet; it should be run by a committee of Tamaras." It's gotta be a bummer to actually view the world that way.

[Waitone]

Other unresolved disputes concern the balance between intellectual property protection and access to information, the role of the media, and acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.Oh that's rich. The UN worried about freedom of expression.

The real reason for UN control over the internet is not mentioned. TAXATION. The UN wants // needs a self-sustaining stream of revenue apart from the largess of its members. A use tax on the internet is ideal. Marginally small, hidden, and based on usage.

[Sodbuster]

Watch internet usage drop drastically if/when it is taxed. That would suit China, Saudi Arabia et al just fine... less ideas of freedom floating around, don't you know. Authoritarian governments have an interest in a limited or even non-existent internet.

[twoblink]

Tamara,

It amazes me that these people amaze you :p

One of my favorite quotes: "Stupidity knows no bounds.."

:D

UN, they want my guns and my internet..

"In the news today, the official mattress police duties have been handed over to the UN...":barf:

[Denver]

Don't these freakin' busy bodies (I am referring, of course, to the UN...)have anything else to do other than lust for the opportunity to live other peoples' lives for them? Expletive!

Whose idea was it to let these creeps even sit their unwashed butts on the soil of the "Heaven rescued land"?

For crying out loud! How do we get rid of this scourge?

[HankB]

An attempt by developing countries to put management of the internet under United Nations auspices. . . First off, these "developing" countries have been "developing" for generations, with little progress because of their "traditional" undemocratic, socialist, or kleptocratic ways. In some cases - South Africa, for example - things actually seem to be going backwards.

It's just a grab for 1)money and 2)control. Turd world nations want the benefit of the internet, but they don't want people having access to viewpoints OTHER than the official line.

I also noted that agricola wrote:since when are the Saudis short of a few bob? This is cause for concern . . . agricola, coming to this thread before I did, expressed my sentiments quite accurately. When I start agreeing with him . . . :what:

[El Tejon]

Ag, the House of Saud is a little light with helping fund The Base and all. Oops, the truth got out!:eek:

[Brian Dale]

However, UN officials say they see no compromise emerging. They expect governments to decide instead to continue talks on internet governance with the aim of reaching accord by 2005, when the second stage of the two-part summit is due to take place in Tunisia. I hadn't remembered that Algore was funded by Tunisia when he invented the Net. ICANN members are predominantly drawn from industrialised countries and the established internet community. Oh, really. Oh. You mean that the people who built something of value are still running its framework? How novel. This has to be stopped. I suppose that the fairy tales about DARPA funding and CERN were just cover-ups of the real pioneering work done in Ghana, East Germany and North Korea, too (/sarcasm).

The short version of the story: the nouveaux-riches parasites who work in the UN see something of value and they want to control it. Nothing to see here ...

[Henry Bowman]

It's as if I were reading a (short) chapter from Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand). Substutute "internet" for "railroad." The looters don't create anything.

[cordex]

"Y'know, it's unfair that eeevil capitalist pigdogs control the internet; it should be run by a committee of Tamaras."
*grin*
Why does the phrase "out of the frying pan into the fire" come to mind?

[capt_happypants]

I, for one, welcome the all-knowing and benevolent wisdom of the Committee of Tamara(s), and as a former content writer, I can be extremely useful. I can write copy that will inspire your underlings to work ceaselessly in your horrible Reloading Caverns and your Gun Cleaning Stations.

Otherwise, I'd rather not let an organization that names Libya to the head of the Human Rights Commission, have the final say on Internet governance.

[Newton]

The mindset of folks like that amazes me; I don't often find myself lying awake at night thinking "Y'know, it's unfair that eeevil capitalist pigdogs control the internet; it should be run by a committee of Tamaras." It's gotta be a bummer to actually view the world that way.

Which isn't at all like saying "Y'know, it's unfair that eevil smelly Ayrab type people control all the oil; it should be run by a committee of Republicans."

But you're right, it is a bummer to view the World in that way.

[longeyes]

Look for this to spur a new wave of creativity in highly-targeted viruses.

[Skunkabilly]

I'll take pop-up ads and spam over the UN any day.

:cuss: them!

[10-Ring]

First virus & the UN would run! Like Skunk said...:cuss: them!:fire:

[dustind]

and acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression. But these arguments appear to be losing force against the emergence of new challenges such as ... hate speech...

EDIT: The first one is reason enough to be against it. The second quote reminds me of Oleg's UN poster.

[Don Galt]

Not only did al gore not invent the internet, he never said he did. He said the government did. The "we" in "when we invented the internet" was in answer to the questions "what has the government done that you're proud of" or something like that. Its time for people to stop misrepresenting this thing. (Not that I think the internet wouldnt' exist without the government, but the governmetn did help in the early days cause they wanted arpanet.)

Anyway, the thing about the internet is its really built upon routers. Long haul and short haul connections carry the traffic, but what lets the internet exist is routers. Routers are cheap, and getting cheaper. Connections can b e made by dialup, or wireless or even directed wireless over a couple miles.

In other words, if the UN takes over the interent and it becomes too much of a burden, it would be very easy to create our own internet. Either a network that is tunneled thru the regular internet over whatever protocol they do allow (to run traffic they don't) or a seperate dialup connected internet.... helll the average college student could wire a good sized city for a couple grand.

The internet genie is out of the bottle. And while things will probalby get more restricted over the next decade or so, there is a limit to how much they can do--- because as soon as the effecctive cost of doing your own network is lower, people will do so. Many large companies have their own networks. ITs not that hard....

The UN wants the internet? Molon Labe!

Don

[Moparmike]

What would be hysterically funny is all the people hacking into the UN and killing it. They would employ white-hats, and the black-hats would become more skilled because of going up agains the skilled WH's. The UN would be in effect promoting and teaching hacking by their very existance/internet regulation.

Maybe its time to take up hacking. I could help take down the UN....
Hmm, there is growing merit in that idea.:eek: :D

[gunsmith]

it should be run by a committee of Tamaras.

It's an Idea who's time has come! Lets all call our
locally elected "assembly to the UN person" and tell them to turn over the keys to the committee of Tamaras!:D

[Don Galt]

Naw, I don't think hacking is necessary... except in the creating software sense. That kind of hacking yeah--- software to tunnel thru the allowed protocols.

But no need to break into their computers.

Just create our own network and route around their damage. The IP was designed for just such an eventuallity (the military assuming that the "damage" in question was a nuclear strike that took out a major city.)

Don

PS-- I'm willing to consider this idea of a committee of Tamaras, but first I want proof that there's more than one.

[Phyphor]

But as a MCSE, they will NOT in fact recieve any assistance from me, to set up their control of the internet.

And I suspect, few, if any, folks will assist the UN in taking control.

[Skunkabilly]

Phyphor, what makes you think people won't help the UN?

"I can't wait to get my MCSE and quit this job." Nick Burns, your company's computer guy

[Andrew Rothman]

acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.

There are no acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.

[tyme]

To clarify, the UN wouldn't be controlling things like popup ads. The plan was/is to investigate turning ICANN functions over to the UN.

Basically, this means the UN would run top-level DNS servers (hostname to ip translation) and netblock assignment. Only the former really affects most people significantly. More than likely the UN would run both with roughly the same policies that guide ICANN now, only they might increase fees to turn the internet into a revenue generating machine.

There'd probably be a bit of revolt on principle, but the likely consequences are price increases for domain registration. You'd still get spam and popups, and the UN wouldn't protect you from viruses either.

[Skunkabilly]

I wonder when the UN is going to tax air to control the common cold. :barf:

[Don Galt]

Yeah, what happens when the UN takes over ICANN functions?

Gun organizations can no longer register for domain names. NRA.org is gone when renewal comes up.

Sex organizations cannot have an internet presense.

Anti-communist organizations come under pressure.

People will be shut down, or have their domain service revoked, for "broadcasting" their internet service into china.

ETc.

Its a bad idea. ICANN Sucks, but the UN can only be worse.

[RocketMan]

The best way to take down the UN has nothing to do with hacking their computers.
It only requires a team of "eleet fightin' men" to infiltrate the UN building and remove all the copiers and laser printers.
The UN would collapse in a day.