Plan for UN to run internet 'will be shelved' (but now on international agenda)

Financial Times ^ | 11/10/03 | ft

[Mark Felton]

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.

[edwin hubble]

agreed.

...and Happy Birthday 11/10/1775 Semper Fi

[Leatherneck_MT]

Semper Fi :)

[weegee]

They want it so they can "tax" it.

It's about censorship; specifically content from the land of Free Speech (America).

Europeans Outlaw Net Hate Speech

[Conservababe]

URL-for-food.

I am laughing so hard. That is exactly the way oil is pronounced in some parts of the south.

[debg]

domain name suffixes will henceforth become:

.commie
.orgislam
.netun
.edujew

[proud American in Canada]

"So the Internet - bought and startup-funded STRICTLY by US dollars as a DOD initiative, and strongest point-of-view AGAINST the international socialist control, is going to be targetted (by the democrats! as soon as they get in power!) to UN thought police"

My thoughts exactly...

Hey, UN, when you invent something, you're more than welcome to manage it.

[Principled]

I am laughing so hard. That is exactly the way oil is pronounced in some parts of the south.

I know! Reckon why I'm laughing so hard?!

[proud American in Canada]

"The minute the UN starts running the Internet is the day my computer and all outside communications devices goes in the shitcan."

Absolutely ... mine too, though I will suffer severe FR withdrawal pains. ;) :)

You know, FR is a great example of why this proposal should never come to pass--this site would be one of the first to be cut out, on the "hate speech"/objectionable theory; for evidence, see FR's case in California (was it San Francisco?) where the city councillor said FR postings were full of hate speech, or something to that effect.

If I'm not mistaken, JimRob and FR are suing for defamation/slander.

[Sub-Driver]

headline should be front page on the Onion...

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

High speed internet access for every hut and shantytown across the globe, reflecting the standard of service the UN is renowned for.

[proud American in Canada]

"domain name suffixes will henceforth become:

.commie
.orgislam
.netun
.edujew"

LOL!

How about:

.alltalk/nowalk
.islamisareligionofpeace

oh, come on Freepers, I'm sure you can come up with more. :)

[veryone]

Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[proud American in Canada]

"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."

Sure, they've convinced governments. But have they convinced the people? Not really. I'll be happy to click the old "delete" button on spam a few times a day in exchange for freedom.

[veryone]

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm

[debg]

.aerointobuildings
.bizformugabe
.usbelongstoun
.tvaljazeera
.ccdemocrats

[Robert A Cook PE]

Censorship?

put Hillary in charge of the DOJ/FCC/ICC/Dept of Commerce for one month and the Internet, TV, and all radio would be filtered for "hate speech" and "intolerance" and "fair and balanced" criteria...

Oppose her decisions, you get shut down immediately.

[proud American in Canada]

Interesting link. The one saving grace is that this meeting occurred before 9/11. I'm not sure that the Supremes have changed since then but most Americans have, including GW.

I think that since 9/11, far fewer people are likely to view "internationalizing" U.S. laws as a good thing, Sandra Day O'Connor excepted.

[proud American in Canada]

".aerointobuildings
.bizformugabe
.usbelongstoun
.tvaljazeera
.ccdemocrats"

LOL!

.allyourconservativewebsitesarebelongtous

[TheAngryClam]

...and acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.

UGH.

[rs79bm]

I know! Let's give control back the inventor---- Al Gore!!!