U.S. to retain oversight of Web

Washington Times ^ | 11/16/05 | Dan Caterinicchia

[advance_copy]

Efforts to replace U.S. oversight of the Internet with an international committee were defeated yesterday during U.N.-sponsored meetings.

Hundreds of government, nonprofit and industry delegates meeting at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis, Tunisia, agreed to establish a new international forum to discuss Internet issues, but it would not have any policy-making power.

"No new organizations were created," said David Gross, the State Department's Internet policy chief and head of the U.S. delegation. "No oversight mechanisms were established by anyone over anyone. There was also no change in the U.S. government's role in relation to the Internet, and no mechanism for such a change was created.

"It was a clean sweep, I'd say."

Several U.S. congressmen remain skeptical. Rep. John T. Doolittle, California Republican, with two other members of Congress, has introduced a resolution urging that the U.S. remain in charge of the Internet's day-to-day operations.

[advance_copy]

Good news, but there's still cause for concern. Tell the UN to keep its hands off the internet! Representative Doolittle is right. Congress should protect the internet from global government types, who seek to thwart free speech.

[DumpsterDiver]

John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on Monday said the U.N. summit would be worthwhile, but would not resolve an issue with so many global participants offering different opinions.

"Other governments are sophisticated enough to argue that they don't want greater control over the Internet, they want greater benefits from it," Mr. Bolton said at a luncheon meeting with reporters and editors at The Washington Times.

"Greater benefits means a greater say in how those benefits are distributed, and that's the camel's nose under the tent that we have to be very careful of. Whatever happens in Tunis, I don't think that's the end of the issue."

[browardchad]

Bolton bump.

[R. Scott]

If Nigerians want their own internet, let them build one.

[Rebelbase]

Hillary would give it to them.

[bkepley]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[libertylover]

European Union recently proposed phasing out the Commerce Department's oversight of ICANN.

Ah, the arrogance. Bolton should tell them to pound sand!

[woofer]

"...they don't want greater control over the Internet, they want greater benefits from it,,,"

Benefits equals taxes.

No other way to define it.

[pigsmith]

I'm surely showing my ignorance on the subject but how does the UN 'take over' the internet? To me the internet is everywhere, like air.

The UN demanding control of all or part of the internet, to my little mind, is something like the UN demanding they have their own smoking section in a restaurant...

[advance_copy]

When you type in an address like FreeRepublic.com, or you have it bookmarked, it gets translated into a 32-bit binary number (often represented with four decimal numbers between 1-255, e.g. 192.168.3.5). This is called an IP address and it tells the routers on the internet how to connect your computer with computer servers running the "domain" (i.e. plain language like "FreeRepublic.com").

The organization that keeps the directory of domain names is called ICANN, and it is regulated by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. The UN wants to take control of this, which would give them an opportunity to censor web sites they don't agree with.

The same type of translation is true for e-mail addresses. Handing control over to the UN would afford them the ability not only to censor, but also to tax things like e-mail.

Congress has done a very good job of keeping taxes and censorship off the internet. The UN will not. This is a very serious threat. Someone said that Hillary will give the UN control. That is probably true.

[George W. Bush]

Bolton is a gem. Talk about your bull in a china shop...

[DumpsterDiver]

Bolton is a gem. Talk about your bull in a china shop...

I'll say. It is a very refreshing change to hear someone tell it like it is.

[pigsmith]

"The organization that keeps the directory of domain names is called ICANN, and it is regulated by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. The UN wants to take control of this, which would give them an opportunity to censor web sites they don't agree with."

Swell.

...where's my picture of that giant screw through the UN symbol when I need it...

[pigsmith]

"Many nations, including China, Brazil, Cuba and Iran, have sought to end the U.S. government's oversight role, and the European Union recently proposed phasing out the Commerce Department's oversight of ICANN."

But they're all such good friends of ours, surely we can trust them!

/s>

[moose2004]

Hillary and all the libs would give it away. I remember when Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal, the coward.

[newcthem]

I suspect that old Koffi and crew will keep after the control of the internet.......probably figure they can make a killing off the Nigerian scams! ( Of course, the Nigerian scams and the UN are pretty much the same thing)

[Brilliant]

It's like arguing over who gets to stamp the name on m&m's. It's not a big deal, and the more the politicians talk about it, the more I think they have no clue how the internet works.

The US government does not run the internet.

[Obadiah]

Hillary would give it to them.

So would any DemocRat, the MSM, and most likely, many RINOs. If it meant that the world might like us more, consider it done -given away - gone forever!

[Delta 21]

I would love to see the United States "turn off" all foriegn web traffic for 5 minutes or so. It would show the world how reliant they are on the United States for their access to the world wide web. It would reak havoc here stateside but have a gigantic impact overseas.

Let me at the switch!