> Controlling the internet, Who should be in charge

[{GD}Independent]

I split this off from the tech support posts it hitched a ride on. So debate on everyone - Eliteone

 

 

 

It's the damn UN! They're trying to make it look like the US can't administer the Internet properly any more, and should relinquish control to the idiots in charge of the useless UN! Sabotage! Here's an interesting discussion of the topic, for those of you still unaware of this dangerous new debate: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...&tid=95&tid=219

Edited November 17, 2005 by eliteone

[RXS]

No thanks....keep the UN out of it!

[Alexa]

DscheeeeDeeeeee! Was this neccessary? As I always say: Never poke subtle fun at unsubtle people!

 

And we go:

 

The first sentence in the linked post implies that the whole matter is about "controlling" the internet, whatever this means. That means that the US is controlling it now? As far as I know, it's way less serious.

 

I cite the post: "[...] The European Union is pressing for a U.N. role in governing the Internet. [...]". This is fragmentary. The EU joined in. There are many countries demanding that already.

 

Anyway, at least today the NS server seems to have problems "at home".

[RXS]

There is more to it than that...google it

[Alexa]

Peeps, plz do a traceroute when your ping is abnormal, and do one again when it is OK. That way we could get closer to the source of the problem.

 

There is more to it than that...google it

 

Already did. There are a lot of good arguments for changing the current state. Of course there are a lot for conserving. Frankly, I don't care. What frightens me:

 

I'm very often not content with the EU and its regulations. But I know that only the dialogue can unity people and bring peace and wealth to all. May the UN have its problems or not: I bet in the US senate/congress/government (and in those of other countries of course) the same things are going on (in small) as in the UN (be it fraud, waste of funds, inefficiency etc.). Is the UN perfect? No it isn't. But it's the best representation of nations we have. I, as many other Europeans here, can't understand the US view of things sometimes. But then again, my roommate just came back from a trip through the whole US, and he told me that indeed the US public is split 50/50 about a lot of topics, and not, as some point out here, stand as "one man".

[RXS]

I'm very often not content with the EU and its regulations. But I know that only the dialogue can unity people and bring peace and wealth to all. May the UN have its problems or not: I bet in the US senate/congress/government (and in those of other countries of course) the same things are going on (in small) as in the UN (be it fraud, waste of funds, inefficiency etc.). Is the UN perfect? No it isn't. But it's the best representation of nations we have. I, as many other Europeans here, can't understand the US view of things sometimes. But then again, my roommate just came back from a trip through the whole US, and he told me that indeed the US public is split 50/50 about a lot of topics, and not, as some point out here, stand as "one man".

 

I apologize in advance for hi-jacking this topic...maybe it can be moved by a mod.

 

I hear what you are saying Alexa, but let me say I have no confidence in the UN's ability to govern the internet or make the correct decisions required for such an important tool. I will offer two of several reasons why I have no confidence in their ability. On a professional level, the UN has requested equipment bids from my company - Never have I've seen such defunct and useless organization that loves nothing more than to spin in minutiae. Suffice it to say, they don't make decisions on who can provide the better equipment at the best price, as you and I do.

 

Also, this is the same organization that has shown such sound decision making as appointing six of the eighteen most repressive governments--those of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe--to be members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

 

"Repressive governments enjoying CHR membership work in concert and have successfully subverted the Commission's mandate," said Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor. "Rather than serving as the proper international forum for identifying and publicly censuring the world's most egregious human rights violators, the CHR instead protects abusers, enabling them to sit in judgment of democratic states that honor and respect the rule of law," she said.

The whole press release can be read here:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/033105.htm

or the report can be read here:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/mrr2005.pdf

 

The list could go on and on and on. Disagree with me if you like. My stance is that the UN will screw it up and ruin a thing of beauty.

 

And one more thing...once they are in, there is no getting them out...government never gets smaller, only bigger.

Edited November 16, 2005 by RXS

[Alexa]

Well, ping problems -> internet problem -> administering the internet...kinda fits

 

Suffice it to say, they don't make decisions on who can provide the better equipment at the best price, as you and I do.

German goverment regulations on public tenders are: Cheapest one wins, quality must be OK (I believe). Inferior regulation I think. I heard the US government has been accused of favoring certain companies when making contracts and such. By the way, I've been working shorly for a company which had 3 government institutions as biggest customers. Watch out, RXS, this sort of behaviour tends to ooze into a company!

 

Also, this is the same organization that has shown such sound decision making as appointing six of the eighteen most repressive governments--those of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe--to be members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

Political thinking is "special", I reckon. The question is what to do? Let's say the US would do things that aren't accepted by other UN members, and Germany is in a Commission with the right to make decisions. How would the US feel to get directions from Germany? I don't think it's good the way it is, but excluding them from this Commission and making regulations "for" them could be taken as isolation. Again, an example certainly not limited to Germany, the advisors of a former environment minister came straightly from Germany's biggest polluters. Lobby or fair representation?

 

The list could go on and on and on. Disagree with me if you like. My stance is that the UN will screw it up and ruin a thing of beauty.

Get free p#rn!

Enlarge your p##is!

I heard the Chinese government had good ideas for the internet:

www.freedomhouse.org/filterofourbelovedleaders.asp?report=dissident&name=Wu&Xin

 

JUST JOKING! Serious subject.

 

And one more thing...once they are in, there is no getting them out...government never gets smaller, only bigger.

Thats a discussion I very often have. I think Human beings should be capable of using reason to be efficient (hence I also think government related businesses could be run efficiently). The reality proves me wrong.

[RXS]

I appreciate your comments Alexa.

 

I think the internet should be regulated on a country by country basis. What's good for the US may not be good for Germany. The burden would then lie upon Germany to filter, restrict, regulate as they please. Having the UN decide what is good on a global basis may not be good for individual countries. Again, I push for local regulation, not global regulation.

[MajorPayne]

I appreciate your comments Alexa.

 

I think the internet should be regulated on a country by country basis. What's good for the US may not be good for Germany. The burden would then lie upon Germany to filter, restrict, regulate as they please. Having the UN decide what is good on a global basis may not be good for individual countries. Again, I push for local regulation, not global regulation.

 

 

The only potential problem with that is if total control was on a by country base the nameserver in one country would not necessarily direct internet traffic to the same url in another country etc. The present system has uniformity in place already.

[Eliteone]

From CNN.com

 

TUNIS, Tunisia (AP) -- A summit focusing on narrowing the digital divide between the rich and poor residents and countries opened Wednesday with an agreement of sorts on who will maintain ultimate oversight of the Internet and the flow of information, commerce and dissent.

 

The World Summit on the Information Society had been overshadowed by a lingering, if not vocal, struggle about overseeing the domain names and technical issues that make the Internet work and keep people from Pakistan to Canada surfing Web sites in the search for information, news and buying and selling.

 

Negotiators from more than 100 countries agreed late Tuesday to leave the United States in charge of the Internet's addressing system, averting a U.S.-EU showdown at this week's U.N. technology summit.

 

U.S. officials said early Wednesday that instead of transferring management of the system to an international body such as the United Nations, an international forum would be created to address concerns. The forum, however, would have no binding authority.

 

U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce Michael Gallagher said the deal means the United States will leave day-to-day management to the private sector, through a quasi-independent organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN.

 

"The Internet lives to innovate for another day," he told The Associated Press.

 

Negotiators have met since Sunday to reach a deal ahead of the U.N. World Summit on the Information Society, which starts Wednesday. World leaders are expected to ratify a declaration incorporating the deal during the summit, which ends Friday.

 

While the summit drew thousands of people from around the world, most western countries opted not to send their top-ranking leaders, preferring instead to send government workers and low-level figures.

 

However, other leaders were scheduled to attend, including Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, Senegal's Abdulaye Wade and Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was due to fly to the summit Wednesday, organizers said.

 

The summit was originally conceived to address the digital divide -- the gap between information haves and have-nots -- by raising both consciousness and funds for projects.

 

Instead, it has centered largely around Internet governance: oversight of the main computers that control traffic on the Internet by acting as its master directories so Web browsers and e-mail programs can find other computers.

 

The accord reached late Tuesday also called for the establishment of a new international group to give more countries a stronger say in how the Internet works, including the issue of making domain names -- currently done in the Latin languages -- into other languages, such as Chinese, Urdu and Arabic.

 

Under the terms of the compromise, the new group, the Internet Governance Forum, would start operating next year with its first meeting opened by Annan. Beyond bringing its stakeholders to the table to discuss the issues affecting the Internet, and its use, it won't have ultimate authority.

 

Gallagher said the compromise's ultimate decision is that leadership of the Internet, and its future direction, will remain in the hands of the private sector, although some critics contend that the U.S. government, which oversees ICANN, if only nominally, could still flex its muscle in future decisions.

 

"The rural digital divide is isolating almost 1 billion of the poorest people who are unable to participate in the global information society," the agency said in a statement.

 

Ahead of the summit, rights watchdogs say, both Tunisian and foreign reporters have been harassed and beaten. Reporters Without Borders says its secretary-general, Robert Menard, has been banned from attending.

 

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

 

[{GD}Independent]

Thank God we were able to bully the rest of the world into bowing to our wishes!