|
The UN and the Internet
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Izzy |
U.N. finds Net governance tempting
Last modified: March 25, 2004, 6:57 AM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
NEW YORK--A task force that intends to increase the United Nations' involvement with running the Internet is convening here Thursday, its first meeting since VeriSign filed a lawsuit against the group that now oversees domain names and addresses.
The meeting comes as the international body is growing more interested in taking over some of the functions of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and ICANN Chairman Vint Cerf will offer opening remarks.
The United Nations' goal has met with firm opposition from large sectors of the U.S. business community.
"The U.N. tends to be a very slow moving vehicle," Elana Broitman, Register.com's policy director, said in a recent interview. "It's very bureaucratic. Frankly it doesn't give the private sector a seat at the table very often. And so from that perspective, it's highly unlikely we'll see the same kind of innovation and efficiency that we see in ICANN."
The agenda for Thursday's U.N. meeting includes a discussion titled "Accumulated Concerns, Perspectives, and Exploring How We Can Cooperate." Domain names, technical standards, network security, intellectual property, privacy, e-commerce, free speech, taxation, and "cultural and linguistic diversity" also are listed as topics for discussion.
VeriSign's lawsuit, filed last month, lists 43 pages of grievances, alleging that ICANN repeatedly thwarted VeriSign in its attempts to cash in on its master database for .com and .net. VeriSign also accuses ICANN of antitrust violations, a charge that could imperil its ability to continue to operate in its current form.
The United Nations has already made moves to position one of its agencies, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), as a candidate for an ICANN takeover. A recent presentation in Geneva by Tim Kelly, the head of the ITU's strategy and policy unit, made a pitch for the organization to supplant ICANN, at least in part. It touted the strengths of the ITU as neutrality, "international legitimacy, credibility and accountability," and "observance of due process."
In an recent interview, Cerf said he did not see any reason for the United Nations to get more involved "as long as we stay well within the ambit of our responsibilities."
"If VeriSign gets what they want, ICANN becomes irrelevant and you don't have anyone watching the registry operator," Christine Jones, general counsel for domain name registrar Go Daddy, said recently. "The more important player is the U.N. and the ITU, which is trying to gain control."
http://msn-cnet.com.com/2100-1028_3...122&tag=hotmail
any reactions or am i just bringing in more cannon fodder for occrider and yoepus? |
|
|
| imokruok |
Government control of the internet, whether it be the UN or another body, is an aboslutely dangerous proposition. At least in the current arrangement, the US government - with the broadest free speech protections on the earth - doesn't even run ICANN. Rather, ICANN is a quasi-public institution, run by businesses and individuals that have an interest in innovation and progress. Nothing I've ever see coming from the UN has the idea of "innovation and progress" in mind.
The bottom line is that the lack of regulation on the part of the US was one of the reasons for the greatest technological boom this world has ever seen. Why change that by putting part of the internet under the control of a group of people who debate for a living? |
|
|
| smokeape |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Government control of the internet, whether it be the UN or another body, is an aboslutely dangerous proposition. At least in the current arrangement, the US government - with the broadest free speech protections on the earth - doesn't even run ICANN. Rather, ICANN is a quasi-public institution, run by businesses and individuals that have an interest in innovation and progress. Nothing I've ever see coming from the UN has the idea of "innovation and progress" in mind.
The bottom line is that the lack of regulation on the part of the US was one of the reasons for the greatest technological boom this world has ever seen. Why change that by putting part of the internet under the control of a group of people who debate for a living? |
Imokruok struck the nail on the head. F*ck the UN and anyone else who even believes they can control free speech over the Internet!
:eek:
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
U.N. finds Net governance tempting
Last modified: March 25, 2004, 6:57 AM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
...
The agenda for Thursday's U.N. meeting includes a discussion titled "Accumulated Concerns, Perspectives, and Exploring How We Can Cooperate." Domain names, technical standards, network security, intellectual property, privacy, e-commerce, free speech, taxation , and "cultural and linguistic diversity" also are listed as topics for discussion. |
:nervous: :nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| Shakka |
Boortz's comments today sum it up quite well:
| quote: | Danger, Will Robinson.
Look around the globe. The more despotic the government, the more that government tries to control the dissemination of all information within its borders. The United Nations is not an organization that is interested in freedom. It is an organization that is interested in one-world government and the international redistribution of wealth.
If you've listened to me for any time at all you've already heard my riff on the UN and freedom of speech. Sure, freedom of speech is "guaranteed" in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights; but if you read a bit further, to Article 29 (3) to be specific, you will read that "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
If the international community succeeds is making the Internet a UN operation it will just be a matter of time before the UN starts regulating content. It will all be done in the name of "world peace," of course, but it will be done. Web sites will be scanned for material that might be "offensive" to various cultures .... calling Palestinians murderers, for instance ... and will censor those sites.
The United Nations is no friend of freedom, and it is no friend of the United States. The Internet is an American creation. If people in other countries want to use it, fine. But operational control should stay here. We've had enough internationalism lately.
|
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| Wow. 5 of the forum's "Right Wingers" in a row! |
|
|
| occrider |
| Well, I'm not right wing, but I'm more or less obliged to say something since the topic at hand is the UN. Yes ... it sucks :) |
|
|
| imokruok |
| Well, it looks like we've settled the issue. Nice job guys! :D |
|
|
| smokeape |
Lol! I agree, put the nail in the coffin unless we get some wiener wanting a serious flame!
:D
[[[smoke]]]
It's all about the music
Saltwater - Stange (Alphazone Mix) |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Well, it looks like we've settled the issue. Nice job guys! :D |
haha, ya guess thats that. pretty easy and quick agreement....
next topic please :) |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Wow. 5 of the forum's "Right Wingers" in a row! |
All I'm going to say, before I agree with the sentiments expressed here about censorship, is that all of you "right-wingers" had better not also be in favor of what the Clinton/Bush FCC has done in the last few years concerning media consolidation and "indecency" crackdowns.
;) |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
All I'm going to say, before I agree with the sentiments expressed here about censorship, is that all of you "right-wingers" had better not also be in favor of what the Clinton/Bush FCC has done in the last few years concerning media consolidation and "indecency" crackdowns. |
I think people could benefit from a course in philosophy, logic, or law. Many hold inconsistent views that conflict with a principle they say they believe in. Like being in favor of free speech only if one doesn't say anything too outrageous. Conservatives aren’t for non-governmental interference; they just differ on what should be left alone. They have their own list of issues they want the government to interfere with. |
|
|
|
|
