UN control of the Internet?

Atlas

Master Poster
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,223
The UN seeks to exercise governance over the internet.

It's a bad idea for a few reasons, not the least of which is as an avenue to raise money. The UN cannot tax it's member nations, it must extract donations and dues. It seems to me that governance of the internet would give the UN a way to gain revenue through something like taxation of the world communication grid. UN "taxes" to me sounds like a bad idea for several reasons all on its own.

This article lists some other reasons.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113133007519089738.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep

*Apparently this week is free week at WSJ Online - No subscription required.
 
One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to "take over," police or otherwise control the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet's global reach, and that effort is at the heart of this summit
...
The United States deserves our thanks for having developed the Internet and made it available to the world. For historical reasons, the United States has the ultimate authority over some of the Internet's core resources. It is an authority that many say should be shared with the international community. The United States, which has exercised its oversight responsibilities fairly and honorably, recognizes that other governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns, and that efforts to make the governance arrangements more international should continue.
The need for change is a reflection of the future, when Internet growth will be most dramatic in developing countries
...
This Working Group on Internet Governance presented its findings in a report that reflects the views of its members, but not of the United Nations.
...
The group also offered several options for oversight arrangements, with varying degrees of government involvement and relationship to the United Nations. None says that the United Nations should take over from the technical bodies now running the Internet; none proposes to create a new U.N. agency; and some suggest no U.N. role at all. All say that the day-to-day management of the Internet should be left to technical institutions, not least to shield it from the heat of day-to-day politics.
...
Everyone acknowledges the need for more international participation in discussions of Internet governance. The disagreement is over how to achieve it. So let's set aside fears of U.N. "designs" on the Internet. Much as some would like to open up another front of attack on the United Nations, this dog of an argument won't bark.

From here.
 
The UN seeks to exercise governance over the internet.

*shrugs* At least it would be a more independent body than the US Deparment of Commerce which currently control the root servers; and let's not forget that there already are UN bodies which handles various international telecoms matters.

Anyway, this is an old story. Here's the most recent article I found after a quick search on The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/01/bush_net_policy/
 
I am not particularly interested in giving those lickspittles any control over anything the impacts me.
 
I am not particularly interested in giving those lickspittles any control over anything the impacts me.

Funny, that's pretty much my own view. Of course, I'm thinking about the US Department of Commerce.

Would you have been equally resistant to a UN body taking over the root servers if they were currently run by, say, Italy?
 
Just to reiterate:

None says that the United Nations should take over from the technical bodies now running the Internet; none proposes to create a new U.N. agency; and some suggest no U.N. role at all. All say that the day-to-day management of the Internet should be left to technical institutions, not least to shield it from the heat of day-to-day politics.

Just because some Republican senator sees a way to get his name in the papers does not mean he is telling the truth.

You may, of course, feel free to assert that just because Kofi Annan (who wrote the rebuttal) says something does not mean he is telling the truth either.
 
Funny, that's pretty much my own view. Of course, I'm thinking about the US Department of Commerce.

Then have your country develop its own damn internet, and they can turn over control to a body where countries whose entire GDP wouldn't buy a cable modem have a vote equal to technological superpowers. We ain't interested in that idea.
 
Then have your country develop its own damn internet, and they can turn over control to a body where countries whose entire GDP wouldn't buy a cable modem have a vote equal to technological superpowers. We ain't interested in that idea.

Mine did to a degree although it was never international.
 
I do think groups like ICANN should be democratized and more internationally accessible, but as to whether the UN is the best route for that....Eh. It could very easily be argued that while they're not doing a good job now, they could easily be doing a WORSE job.
 
The UN can have my Internet when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers...

2511_bazooka.jpg
 
The UN can have my Internet when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers...

I suppose the logical way to decide this issue would be a Quake Arena deathmatch?

As he logged into the chatroom you could tell he didn't fit
With his hand made scripts, custom bots, perl handled bluetooth mic'.
Tonight there'd be a showdown then everyone could say
Who shoots the meanest game around, The Dubya or Kofi Ann'.
 
See? With control of teh internets we will cause foreigners to laaaaaaag.
 
I can understand other nations not being entirely comfortable with the US controlling the net. I mean if you are a nation on our axis of eviiil list we might cut off your access to ebay or something. Who knows, maybe we will reroute traffic going to islamofascist sites to playboy.com.

On the other hand I don't like the UN having control over anything. The nations pushing for UN control have some of the worst freedom of speech protections on the planet. China wants it and anyone following the state of the internet in China can see that allowing the chinese any further control would be a bad thing.

It works as it is, any calls for changing things at this point seems premature. And if it does change I would rather see it go to Italy, as one poster asked about, than the UN.
 
Jesus, some of those nations would try to cook it.

Why not Gurnsey? They have cows. They would make a fine steward. Or any of those nutsey Scandinavian countries. Don't want anyone excitable in charge. Or Monaco.
 
richardm, I tend to read a certain nuance into Kofi's statements. I hope I'm not being biased or cynical in my interpretations of the meanings behind his words.
One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to "take over," police or otherwise control the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet's global reach, and that effort is at the heart of this summit.
When Kofi says, "Nothing could be further from the truth," I think he means, "Folks, that's too near the truth for your ears right now, let me discourage you from thinking about it."
There are also legitimate concerns about the use of the Internet to incite terrorism or help terrorists, disseminate pornography, facilitate illegal activities or glorify Nazism and other hateful ideologies. But censoring cyberspace, compromising its technical underpinnings or submitting it to stringent governmental oversight would mean turning our backs on one of today's greatest instruments of progress. To defend the Internet is to defend freedom itself.
You need the UN or the terrorists win. The UN wants to DEFEND the Internet! Who you gonna call?
Governance of matters related to the Internet ... has been managed in an informal but effective collaboration among private businesses, civil society and the academic and technical communities. But developing countries find it difficult to follow all these processes and feel left out of Internet governance structures.
Everything is being handled fine except for the poor, stupid and slow countries who are terrified they won't get to participate in the kickbacks the controlling authorities will be due.
The need for change is a reflection of the future,...
So far... Kofi is saying - Whoa whoa whoa, take over the internet? No way. The US is doing a great job - but there are terrorists and somebody should be defending the internet. Let's give the US a hand for a job well done. OK, and now let's get on with the serious business of change, specifically - changing attitudes for the necessary UN takeover of the internet. Today, we'll softpeddle it as merely, "The need for change".
... when Internet growth will be most dramatic in developing countries. What we are seeing is the beginning of a dialogue between two different cultures: the nongovernmental Internet community, with its traditions of informal, bottom-up decision making, and the more formal, structured world of governments and intergovernmental organizations.
Wow, business and governments talking. Here is where the real money's at.
The Internet has become so important for almost every country's economy and administration that it would be naive to expect governments not to take an interest,
They're coming...
But governments alone cannot set the rules. They must learn to work with non-state stakeholders.
Work with Me... Me and Kojo.
At the summit two years ago in Geneva, discussions on Internet governance reached a stalemate. So the U.N. member states asked me to establish a group to examine the issue further. This Working Group on Internet Governance presented its findings in a report that reflects the views of its members, but not of the United Nations. It proposed creation of a "new space for dialogue" -- a forum that would bring all stakeholders together to share information and best practices and discuss difficult issues, but that would not have decision-making power.
That's right, I'll make all the decisions because, as I've just pointed out, I'm only doing this out of niceness and concern for the world.
The group also offered several options for oversight arrangements, with varying degrees of government involvement and relationship to the United Nations. None says that the United Nations should take over from the technical bodies now running the Internet;
We'll spring that on you later.
Everyone acknowledges the need for more international participation in discussions of Internet governance. The disagreement is over how to achieve it.
But we're not above just paying off the loudest bitchers if it means becoming masters at the tollgates of the information highway.
So let's set aside fears of U.N. "designs" on the Internet.
It's going to happen whether you're afraid or not.
 
richardm, I tend to read a certain nuance into Kofi's statements. I hope I'm not being biased or cynical in my interpretations of the meanings behind his words.

You are. I really don't see why you are so concerned. The internet has bigger things to worry about right now.
 

There was a recent falling out between two compainies who own networks that make up part of the internet. While they appeared to sort things out the increaseing financial pressure on such compainies makes repeats more likely. Potentialy that could lead to there being no internet left to run. In reality the real risk is that it makes the internet a lot harder to use (depending on your location large areas of the internet could go down for no aparent reason) and more expensive to host stuff on (since to be reliable you would have to have your site connected to two or more networks).
 

Back
Top Bottom