|
Stay on guard: UN control of the Internet under debate
|
View this Thread in Original format
| imokruok |
We disagree on a lot here. But I think there's one thing that we all should be able to agree on. UN control over the internet is a bad idea. In the UN's own Human Rights charter, they have this wonderful line: "rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Who wants to bet that it would work its way into internet regulation?
Say what you will about the current form of governance, but it's the only way we'll keep the truly free speech we have now. In our current system, government is essentially kept out of regulation. Where government is involved, it's the US government, which is massively constrained by the 1st Amendment. (Also note who is the strongest supporter of the plan: China and Cuba!!)
-----------------
Fight for control of the Net erupts at U.N.
Dec. 6, 2003
LONDON (Reuters) - A controversial plan to grant governments broad controls over the Internet has stolen the spotlight of a United Nations conference on IT next week, where China and Cuba will be among its strongest supporters.
Leaders from nearly 200 countries will convene in Geneva for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) on December 10-12, an inaugural conference with lofty goals to discuss bridging the digital divide and fostering press freedoms.
But a contentious political move to grant an international governing body such as the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) control over Internet governance issues -- from distributing Web site domains to the public to fighting spam -- has all but obscured the more virtuous aspects of the event.
Incubated in a geeky part of the U.S. Department of Defense decades ago, the Internet has become a thriving global marketplace since being fully turned over to the private business community in the early 1990s.
But many in the developing world believe a new approach is needed as the medium enters its teen years, one that will see poorer countries harness new technologies to improve their competitive stance.
ATTACKING STATUS QUO
The most recognisable Internet governance body is a California-based non-profit company, the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Under the new plan, it has the most to lose.
Incorporated in 1998, ICANN oversees management of the Internet's crucial addressing system which matches numerical addresses to familiar Web site addresses such as www.google.com.
While ICANN's oversight has been confined to the decidedly technical matters behind doling out domain names and establishing a domain name dispute resolution system, the group has been criticised roundly for adopting a pro-business approach that neglects the developing world.
The ITU, a 138-year-old trade body that among other things established country code rules for international telephone dialling, has been put forth by the developing world as the governing body that will best address its needs.
"What we are looking at is the future management of the Internet. It's not about who owns it or who will be regulating the laws, but what is best way to manage what has become a natural resource for all of humanity," a summit official said.
But U.N. officials have distanced themselves from some of the more radical suggestions put forth by member states who would like to see planet-spanning controls on content and taxes.
Still, proponents of the status quo are concerned that tinkering with the Internet now could stifle the medium's commercial potential.
"We do see a role for governments, as is recognised in ICANN's structure. However, we are concerned with any efforts to increase governmental involvement at the expense of private sector leadership," Theresa Swinehart, Counsel for International Legal Affairs for ICANN, told Reuters.
So far, a change in leadership has been bogged down by fractious discussion with a definitive resolution not expected until 2005 when the second WSIS summit is held in Tunisia.
But many believe the new guard has already arrived.
"We are seeing a clear shift from the mid-90s when governments were told to stay away," said Michael Geist, a law professor at University of Ottawa who specialises in Internet governance issues.
"Governments have shown they are very interested in getting involved on a domestic level and now they are looking at the international level." |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| Maybe it's just my lack of knowledge about ownership, but since when has anyone actually owned the internet? I always thought of it as something that was just out there, not property. |
|
|
| imokruok |
It depends where you are. In the USA, the internet is mostly "owned" by the corporations that own the fiber. Sprint, Level3, AT&T, etc. Undersea cables were famously run by Global Crossing and some national phone companies. In other nations, the national telephone provider usually owns the backbones. (i.e. France Telecom, Telecom Italia, etc.)
But who "owns" the internet makes no difference if government decides to regulate it. (Just like it didn't matter that AT&T owned all of the phone lines in the 1970's, the government still regulated the access.)
The proposal here is that the UN have some overarching authority on all internet providers. It could condition access to the network on meeting certain conditions. Or if it took over the domain name registry, it could essentially regulate everyone who wanted a domain name through user agreements. Example: You are allowed to register tranceaddict.com, but you must agree not to encourage any of the following things: (fill in A, B, and C). |
|
|
| arctic |
| ^ If that is correct, then it does intdeed sound like a very bad idea. The fact that Cuba & China (Who even block google ffs) are the main people supporting it is extremely worrying. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
^ If that is correct, then it does intdeed sound like a very bad idea. The fact that Cuba & China (Who even block google ffs) are the main people supporting it is extremely worrying. |
Just for my own knowledge, why do Cuba & China do that? |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
Maybe it's just my lack of knowledge about ownership, but since when has anyone actually owned the internet? I always thought of it as something that was just out there, not property. |
I'm with him. |
|
|
| djSlain |
doesn't Cisco Systems have some ownership of the internet?
...please, no al gore jokes... |
|
|
| tathi |
the internet is pretty |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
Just for my own knowledge, why do Cuba & China do that? |
Actually, I meant to say China alone, i'm not sure what Cuba does internet wise :p
But yeah, apparently China sees people criticizing it on the internet as a threat, they track down any Chinese citizen who speaks out on a website, and there are even documented cases of people being locked up for expressing an opinion on the internet. As for them blocking heaps of sites (Google included), I have no idea, mabye they see it as a threat. :conf: |
|
|
|
|
