| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| UN control of web rejected! |
| 2003-12-08 |
| GENEVA — The United States, backed by the European Union, Japan and Canada, has turned back a bid by developing nations to place the Internet under the control of the United Nations or its member governments. That dissent is patriotic thing? That’s just a slogan. But governments, the private sector and others will be asked to establish a mechanism under U.N. auspices to study the governance of the Internet and make recommendations by 2005. The move came in preparatory talks for the World Summit on the Information Society, opening Wednesday in Geneva. More than 200 delegates from more than 100 countries attended the talks. The draft declaration to be issued at the end of the conference Friday also includes strong references to freedom of the press and freedom of information online, despite protests by Vietnam and China, which pushed for more restrictions. Of course. They dictate thought
More than 60 heads of state and government and about 12,000 delegates are expected to participate in the conference, aimed at advancing the management and worldwide use of the Internet, especially in meeting needs such as health and education in developing nations. Major differences remain between developed countries and African countries led by Senegal over the creation of a "global digital solidarity fund." Talks on the issue will continue today and tomorrow. Ambassador David A. Gross, the chief of the U.S. delegation, applauded the decision on control of the Internet. "For the first time, we see governments internationally recognizing that which we have talked about for many years — that the Internet is a responsibility not only of governments, but also primarily of the private sector, civil society and others both in the developed and the developing countries," he said. "So we see now a consensus around the U.S. position, which is that multistakeholders all play an important role in the process." The nations agreed Saturday to ask U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to set up a working group on Internet governance "in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full participation of governments, the private sector and civil society ... to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, by 2005." The decision was welcomed by Paul Twomey, president and chief executive officer of the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which coordinates such matters as servers and domain names. "This has been a victory for the pro-business model," he said. "I think this language is actually very pleasing. ..." "We think the action plan reflects the sort of argument we’ve been making for the last months. The partnership of the private sector and civil society has actually helped build the Internet, and we think that’s the right sort of partnership for going forward." Civil society refers to foundations and private organizations independent of government or business. Senior diplomats familiar with the confidential talks said the compromise stemmed from the firm stance taken by the United States and compromise language offered by Canada and the Swiss chairman of the talks, Marc Furrer. The latter is the director of Switzerland’s Federal Office of Communications. "The Swiss were good at cooling things down," said one diplomat who participated in the talks. "At times, things got quite feisty between China, Brazil, South Africa, the U.S. and others." Given the dramatic growth of the medium, developing countries have been pushing for a greater role in managing and setting policy for the Internet. But the United States and its supporters have argued that government interference could retard growth of the Internet. Many developing countries remain skeptical. "We feel as the system gets more complex, we don’t want the whole question of Internet governance to be concentrated around the existing ICANN, which is closely linked to the U.S. Department of Commerce," a senior Brazilian diplomat said. Carlos Achiary, national director of Information Technology Argentina, said many governments are frustrated because the Internet is having a tremendous effect in their countries, but they have no place to submit their requests, complaints or suggestions. "The key point is, can a government work with an organization like ICANN? How a government deals with ICANN is not the same for the United States as for Mali. There should be an entity where all governments have the same rights somewhere inside the U.N." But in the end, one Latin American ambassador said, "No one wanted to challenge the real power of the private sector of the rich countries." Snap! Twang! "Oh shit. There goes my harp again" |
| Posted by:Atrus |
| #3 Does this mean MORE NAKED WOMEN! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-8 7:02:34 PM |
| #2 GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN) ARTICLE IV – MEMBERSHIP Principle 14 Members of the GAC shall be national governments, multinational governmental organisations and treaty organisations, and public authorities, each of which may appoint one representative to the GAC. The accredited representative of a Member may be accompanied by an adviser. The accredited representative must hold a formal official position with the Member’s public administration. The term ‘official’ includes a holder of an elected governmental office or a person who is employed by such government, public authority or multinational governmental or treaty organisation, and whose primary function with such government, public authority or organisation is to develop or influence governmental or public policies. Principle 15 Membership is open to all national governments. Membership is also open to distinct economies as recognised in international fora, and multinational governmental organisations and treaty organisations, on the invitation of the GAC through the Chair, or on the invitation of the ICANN Board. In the event of a dispute about whether an entity is eligible for Membership, the dispute will be referred to the ICANN Board. Principle 16 Governments or organisations not having a representative to the GAC may nominate an accredited government/organisational representative to represent its Membership on the GAC. Principle 17 Those who constitute the Current Membership are defined as those Members from whom the Chair has received formal notification of the name and contact details of their accredited representative. The list of current Members shall be updated regularly and be posted online. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-12-8 3:43:33 PM |
| #1 A reprieve! Thanx, Guvs! Hey, there are measures available to keep the morons in line if they get uppity and snippy. Look at who rejected this... that's the vast bulk of the power (and infrastructure) of the 'Net. As usual, the "aggrieved" asshats are freeloaders. We can live quite well without them. They, however, cannot live without us, almost at all, and that's just the fact. Every domain or IP address or range of addresses can be given the "death penalty" for any / all protocols in multiple ways. Hell, just by managing the DNS (and the update process) they go *poof* - inaccessible - and that's no bullshit. China, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, (woohoo, what a list of 'Net heavies) and anyone else who wants out is welcome to leave - disconnect them from the major backbones - more bandwidth for the rest of us, in fact. Many countries would become, literally, islands - unable to access anything outside of their own country - and only that if they actually own the networks in their territory. Any and every server / router / bridge can be instructed to send any and all of their data packets to the bit bucket. It works because it's not in the hands of any government, including the US's - in spite of comments to the contrary. Keeping it that way is just the best way for uninterrupted growth and health - not the only way. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-12-8 1:34:41 PM |