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.

[Stand_Up]

"Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones...

Poor my A$$.

[proud American in Canada]

"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... "

Yep...

*shivers involuntarily*

The Internet is the one of the last bastions of freedom left to people. I suppose that's why the lefties hate it.

[Hoverbug]

They can have my keyboard when they pry it from my cold dead hands!

HB

[proud American in Canada]

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

Yeah!! And for our security, Al would put the Internet in a lock box. ;)

[Newbomb Turk]

Well we gave away the Panama canal didn't we ?

[kcar]

Brilliant idea: Turn the internet over to the UN because China and Brazil would like that.

Guess we'd find an underground alternative internet if that happened.

[chilepepper]

I can picture it now... Robert Mugabe denounces the white oppressors for taking all the class "A" 16 bit mask addresses and declares that the Zimbabwean people have siezed 15.0. and henceforth the Zimbabwe Peoples Party will start distributing the 15.0. addresses to needy peasants and Party members...

Jimmuh Carter writes a guest editorial in the Atlanta Constipation agreeing with the move and perky Katie Couric runs a puff peace on Constanzia Lubumbeze who runs a Socialist Lesbian Blog on the WWW who will be one of the first users of the new class A addresses...

[proud American in Canada]

"They can have my keyboard when they pry it from my cold dead hands!"

And isn't the UN trying to regulate guns here in the U.S. as well?

[c-b 1]

And isn't the UN trying to regulate guns here in the U.S. as well?

I believe confiscate would better describe what they are trying to do with our guns.

[ohmage]

From your link to the past on post 34...

http://www.usasurvival.org/report.html I lifted it from freedomnews' post of 2 and a half years ago.

[Amerigomag]

I think this article (because of the technical ignorance of the author) is referring to the world wide web (www), not the internet.

There is one hell of a lot more on the "internet" than just world wide web traffic.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[They want it so they can "tax" it.]

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

All of the above.

They mainly want to control the spread of unwanted ideas. You will note that those in opposition are mainly totalitarian regimes who are extremely fearful of uncensored communications reaching their great unwashed. God forbid that they might receive unfiltered information and might start to think critically about their circumstances.

Next they want to tax it. Specifically, they want to extract wealth from the USA and the West to redistribute to the rest. Probably they will want to impose a graduated access tax, with "select" countries exempted.

Then of course, they would insist on free advertising for their pet causes. Thus users would be inundated with popups advertising all manner of socialst causes.

The Dims would of course go along with these controls, as long as they could benefit similarly in the USA. I can imagine an "Internet Fairness Doctrine" coming down the pike in time.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[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.]

After decoding: "And you rich mofo's will pay for it!"

[Hoverbug]

Proud,
You bet they are. I don't think they'll have much success though. Not from lack of trying, but from resistance from Americans.

Hb

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

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

Actually, they HAVE invented something that they are managing: Freeloading off of the United States.

[af_vet_rr]

No. NO NO NO, that's all we need is a bunch of despot third world dictators getting together and deciding what should and should not be allowed - I'm sure China would definitely not want certain things on the internet (such as free speech).

[af_vet_rr]

Everytime I hear anything vaguely related to the phrase"it's for the children", I get chills up my spine....I don't know why, perhaps it has something to do with the Constitution and firearms and a few other things. Yes, upon further reflection, that's why - too many would throw too much away "for the children".

[Mo1]

Is this for real?

The UN wants to control the Internet??

[Alouette]

Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia

When did Saudi Arabia become a "poor" nation? Did the eeeevil Joooooz swoop in and steal all their oil?

[kcar]

This thread has been duly noted by the UN Committee on Divisive Activities and all users have been zotted indefinitely, pending successful re-education in Collective Sensitivities 101. "Rich" and "Poor" are non-egalitarian code words that fosters hate and hurtful feelings reminiscent of anarchonistic jingoism. Those thus charged are electronically convicted and are assessed the "Hate Surcharge" (also electronic).