| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| e-Meddling: (the UN Internet Grab) |
| 2005-10-17 |
| International bureaucrats and assorted countries are struggling to wrest control of "Internet governance" from that old unilateralist bogeyman, the United States. There's one big problem with this picture: Cyberspace isn't "governed" by the U.S. or anyone else, and that's the beauty of it. But if the United Nations gets its way in the coming month, the Web will end up under its control. Uh-oh is about right. Internet governance, such as it is, currently falls under the purview of a California-based nonprofit called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Better known as Icann, it was created by the U.S. Commerce Department in 1998 to administer the "root zone file," the master list of all Web addresses world-wide, which the U.S. has kept since the creation of the Internet in the 1970s. Ensuring that any given Web address, or domain name, is assigned to only one Web site is a key reason why the Internet has become such a powerful tool. Maintaining the root zone file involves assigning -- or, more commonly, accrediting other companies to assign -- domain names, such as our OpinionJournal.com. Icann also manages the top-level domains such as .com and .org. This includes the 248 country-specific ones -- from .ca for Canada to .aq for Antarctica, and everything in between. Local authorities set policy for their country-specific extensions, conferring with Icann to make sure everything works smoothly. And that's it. Real "governance," on the other hand, could bring oversight of content and even transactions by a new international body -- two jobs that Icann explicitly doesn't perform. For an example of how the Internet is governed, look no further than the strict limits China -- one of the main proponents of "internationalizing" the root zone file -- places on Web sites that promote or even discuss democracy. But if China and other countries already do this now, why would they be pushing for change? Good question. So far, exactly what this new intergovernmental body would look like or do remains worryingly vague. According to a report of the U.N.'s Working Group on Internet Governance, this body could be a Global Internet Council to which Icann reports; or it could keep Icann in place and simply make recommendations; or it could take over Icann's duties and relegate the private sector to "providing advice." The working group's report says the governing body would respect freedom of expression. At the same time, it holds as one of its "key principles" the "respect for cultural and linguistic diversity as well as tradition [and] religion." On the Internet, it says, "that translates to multilingual, diverse and culturally appropriate content" (our emphasis). And who decides whether content is culturally, or otherwise, "appropriate"? Today, no one. Tomorrow, Tehran, Beijing or Brussels. One constant -- and this is where vagueness becomes an even bigger danger -- is that a U.N.-run oversight body would address "public policy issues that currently do not have a natural home or cut across several international or intergovernmental bodies." In other words, it could do darn near anything it wanted. It's no surprise that supporters' bureaucratic web of choice is the U.N., which cloaks its designs on Internet control in language about such niceties as bridging the "digital divide." Spreading Web access is a worthy goal, but centralizing control runs directly at odds with that aim. The phenomenal growth of email, e-commerce and e-everything else is directly attributable to the Internet's decentralized nature. One area where a U.N.-run Web might very well expand its reach is into the taxpayer's pocket. Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac have long dreamed of a global "solidarity" tax on online financial transactions. This could be their vehicle for doing so. By no means is Icann perfect. The main gripe is that the agency is subject to occasional political pressure from Washington. In August, Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher objected to Icann's plans to introduce a .xxx top-level domain for pornographic Web sites. This political misstep, while hardly the norm, undermined Icann's independence and gave ammunition to the multilateral-at-all-costs crowd. The Administration can neutralize its opponents by moving ahead quickly with plans to grant Icann its full independence next year. Without U.S. support for the U.N.'s Web "governance" campaign -- withheld so far -- the current system can't be changed. But Washington doesn't hold all the cards here. Countries could create parallel Internets. The same Web address might take users in China and the U.S. to different Web sites -- a nightmare outcome for online business as well as the vibrant marketplace of ideas that the Internet has fostered. Perhaps our friends at the European Union, who last month turned against the U.S., will realize that their sudden push for "control" over the Net carries a high price. This is gonna get really ugly. |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #41 Mizzou Man -- This is indeed a continuing saga. This particular article, while a repeat topic, brings some fresh perspectives. For example, I don't believe the Kofi/Chirac "pity tax" surfaced from previously posted articles, as being a motivation for the takeover. Nor have previously posted articles delineated present day "Cyberspace isn't governed" versus the implications of "governed". This is a very significant development, one that bears ongoing vigilance. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-18 00:00 |
| #40 I'll work on #1 and #2, .com. #3 is far outside my purview, I'm afraid. G'night to you and all Rantburgers far and near. Sleep well and safely until the morning! :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-17 23:26 |
| #39 I think not buying their stuff is #1. Making sure no Clinton ever again occupies the WH would be a close #2... Getting our FBI Agents laid once in awhile might be #3, lol... More? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-17 23:19 |
| #38 Well, darn, this is almost as good as my marriage! (We planned our fights -- over kids' curfews and daughters' dating age -- before we were even engaged.) Ok, so the order of the next couple of wars is: WWIV, or the War Against Islamofascism (currently being fought) the War Against Expansionist China (formerly known as Communist/Red China) one to two decades hence the War for Control of the Internet (time to be determined, X number of years after the U.N. manages to get control of the current set-up) I bought an old-fashioned rotary lawnmower, so I'm doing my bit for WWIV ;-) , and I've two siblings who are programmers, which is my "contribution" to the Internet war, but how can I help against the Chinese, besides not buying stuff at Wal-Mart? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-17 23:16 |
| #37 True enough, Rafael. Their problem would be that their 'Net would be controlled by politicians, ours by technologists. They would have to steal improvements, not that they wouldn't, but the number of people who'd lose access to the free flow of information would be huge. In my not even remotely humble opinion, this move would be more insidious and more harmful to more people than any of the "isms" we've faced, before. This power grab is one of the darkest, most obviously evil, ideas I've ever heard. If it happens and the split occurs - and persists, I believe that someday a war will be fought with this (or its future equivalent) as a primary reason. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-17 22:53 |
| #36 and leave the U.N. to watch their new acquisition crumble into the dust? I'm not so sure that would happen. The Europeans are smart enough to pull this off, and make their internet a real competitor. Just look at their mobile phone network. It's better than the crap here in North America. Hell, we've got competing TV standards, phones, region specific DVDs/DVD players, voltage, some of them even drive on the wrong side of the road (sorry UK)... what's one more ubiquitous behemoth, the Internet. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-10-17 22:37 |
| #35 nose of the camel under the tent is nothing to welcome or accept TW |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-17 22:18 |
| #34 Raptor, it is an article of faith to me that should the U.N. actually get possession of the internet, our clever programming types (two of whom are siblings of mine) will invent something even better for us to use in its place. Granted I am a Pollyanna, but from what I hear, the internet is being improved all the time. So why couldn't we just abandon the current system and go to Internet 2.0 (or whatever number is appropriate), and leave the U.N. to watch their new acquisition crumble into the dust? Of course, this does mean keeping a sharp eye on events, so that we (the programming community, I mean) know when to take that step. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-17 22:13 |
| #33 You guys had better care about the U.N.getting control,if they do you can kiss the free exchange of information,news and ideas goodbye. the power of bloggers to effect events and call asshats on thier shinannigans(Swift Boats,H. Rienes,J.Blair,D.Rather) will be gone.First hand reports of what is going on in the world will be history.We will be stuck getting spoon fed by the MSM agin.That is why Fred and co. keep posting these articles.I say keep it-up guys,say load,say it often,and spread it wide. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-10-17 21:38 |
| #32 MM - some of us get swamped at work and don't get to visit Rantburg every day. So some repetition of important stories is OK. If something was posted previously - or if the headline doesn't interest you - skip over it and go on to the next story. I do. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-10-17 21:32 |
| #31 There is an archive search on the upper-right. I generally do a quickie to look for the last name of a terrorist that got whacked or something like that. I don't think it will search for the URL of the posted article, and since the wire services carry everything around to local newspapers' pages, I don't think it will help much. Yesterday, I posted the exact same article as someone else, but My source was the WaPo, while his was the AP or something like that. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-10-17 21:02 |
| #30 Mizzou Mafia, an amazing number of Rantburgers (in cluding Master Fred) are programmers of one kind or another (not me, that's much too like real work for me!). This sort of thing (sorry!)really punches all their buttons. The rest of us just go on to the other articles. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-17 20:54 |
| #29 BTW, this is like the 10th story on this issue that Rantburg has run. Shouldn't there be a Google, Yahoo search function to search for repetitive posts, lest the posters be exposed as just above car swarmers (TM - and DynoMite!!!!!!) But even given the (light) criticism, I still bow down to the temple of Rantburg. So say we all. |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2005-10-17 20:10 |
| #28 I'm sorry, disregard what I said, I'm thinking of the Command Post. ;=( |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2005-10-17 20:05 |
| #27 Winds of Change? The last few times I've visited that Web site, the news has been a week old. Very weak for a group blog. Too bad, since it rocked during the start of the Iraq War. :-( |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2005-10-17 20:03 |
| #26 "Are the MSM and Libs soo anti Bush/Cheney that they'd sacrifice the constitutional right to free speech?" Somehow I can't see the Markos "Screw Em" Kos folding his tent politely at the whim of the UN either. This issue may follow the Law of Unintended Consequences and unite previously disparate and antagonistic forces AGAINST the "Jobs Program for 3rd World Bureaucrats." |
| Posted by: doc 2005-10-17 19:26 |
| #25 The Internet is killing the MSM They would prefer it dead. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-10-17 19:18 |
| #24 #21: "Are the MSM and Libs soo anti Bush/Cheney that they'd sacrifice the constitutional right to free speech?" Are you kidding? Free speech is only for them anyway, not for the proles. And since they think the same way the UN and communists do, how will it hurt them? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-10-17 19:06 |
| #23 "No" and "build your own, genius" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-17 19:04 |
| #22 Time to roll out that totally encrypted underweb idea I've been having... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2005-10-17 18:53 |
| #21 I haven't heard one thing of this in the MSM. You'd think when a couple of countries out there want to deny American's their right to free speech there would be more of an outcry. Are the MSM and Libs soo anti Bush/Cheney that they'd sacrifice the constitutional right to free speech? |
| Posted by: macofromoc 2005-10-17 18:53 |
| #20 Consider that in China, a policeman is able to request a suspect's email address and then scroll through the last several dozen emails sent or received at that address. DO WE REALLY WANT CHINA HAVING THE LEAST SAY ABOUT ADMINISTERING THE INTERNET? Had the UN been responsible for inventing the Internet, it would have been strangled in the cradle innumerable times already. These f&*kwits are merely looking for another fatted calf to slaughter upon the altar of their corruption and greed. I will personally learn how to crack & hack in order to attack UN based servers should they wrest control of the Internet from its rightful owners. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-17 17:40 |
| #19 More of a question than comment> Is there anything we can do collectively to vote this absurdity down?? |
| Posted by: ARMYGUY 2005-10-17 17:37 |
| #18 Without a fool in the WH, we will not give up anything - anything at all - to some obviously malignant and asinine international cabal. So, what will happen when they get a simple "LMAO - STFU, it's NOYB, FOAD &, BTW, HAND" response? That is the only issue in play at this time. 2008 will quite possibly be very very different - if the latte / limo libs get their way. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-17 17:23 |
| #17 You know they would demand Rantburg, WindsOfChange, and the Whitehouse website itself be shut down on the spot. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-10-17 17:11 |
| #16 Folks, this comes down to a show down over national versus international sovereignty rights. The donks have an interesting decision to make on this, given their willingness to defer rights to the UN, etc. One thing for certain: the Internet cuts across all aspects of the US (Red, Blue, etc., etc.). The pols better watch it on this one. The Internet argument is not much different than the ones being waged over Koyoto and the ICC. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-17 17:09 |
| #15 Is it too late to request a change of venue for this post to Page 3, or maybe page 4? |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-10-17 17:02 |
| #14 Damn, and I just got a hot lead that ROPMA.com might be available. |
| Posted by: Jim in the Helicopter this Time 2005-10-17 17:02 |
| #13 First thing the UN controlled Internet would do would be to enforce restrictions on what it considers to be racial provocations and hate speech. Having done this it would move to expel or shut down any Israeli use of the Internet because in their minds, Zionism is racism and support of Israel is hateful speech. |
| Posted by: Dixonh2 2005-10-17 16:36 |
| #12 Choose America - the UN or the Internet? Yeah, that's a tough one. Do you feel lucky punk? |
| Posted by: Cromolet Omomong5969 2005-10-17 16:31 |
| #11 What do we think about this? Kofi Annan is more than just being full of shit. Same for ol' Jacques. They're both 24ct jerkoffs. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-17 16:19 |
| #10 I wonder whether, given how badly all the Oil for Food investigations are going not only for Kofi's friends, but also for the diplomatic elite of certain countries, this loudly trumpeted grab for control of the internet isn't actually intended to distract us from continuing to uncover what had been discretely buried? If so, they misjudge us, as we have actually a surplus of good people to carry on both efforts simultaneously and effectively, but they couldn't and so wouldn't expect us to. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-17 16:18 |
| #9 First of all, a harunph of support for Old Patriot. ;-) Secondly, President Bush has historically been keen on dotting i's and crossing t's before doing what he was going to do anyway. Bolton was sent to Turtle Bay to clean things up. Once he's demonstrated that isn't doable, then Bush will withdraw from the U.N., not before. In my humble opinion, of course. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-17 16:11 |
| #8 The EU, UN, China etc. are afraid and envious (thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's internet). Under the banner of whatever leftist drivel they can come up with, they want to censor and tax. I'm not sure about their ability to censor under any circumstances but there's no doubt this is an another end around attempt at gaining an international tax. |
| Posted by: BillH 2005-10-17 15:58 |
| #7 As much as I was initially thrilled by it, I'm beginning to think the Bolton approach is the wrong approach. We need to bring all of our U.N. delegation "home" except for one lowly clerk who is empowered solely to attend all General Assembly and Security Council meetings and veto everything in sight. Then drop our annual payments to two cents, because we are only there to put in our two cents worth. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-17 15:40 |
| #6 The whole beauty of the net is its openness and distributedness. Decentralization is the future, asshats. The EU, UN, China etc. are afraid and envious (thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's internet). Under the banner of whatever leftist drivel they can come up with, they want to censor and tax. It's an elitist power grab pure and simple. The net is real power to the people. Let's keep it that way. |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-10-17 15:40 |
| #5 Ladies and gentlemen - What do we think about this? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-10-17 15:28 |
| #4 Dang, my spelling is rotten today. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-10-17 15:13 |
| #3 Well said, Old Patriot! everyone harunph Old Patriot! Hopefully there will be a major pudh to get the UN out of New York. We may still need to be a member, which is dubious, but we need that "August Body" out of our country. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-10-17 15:13 |
| #2 Amen, OP. When you are right, you are right. |
| Posted by: RWV 2005-10-17 15:10 |
| #1 It's time to pull the plug on the international idiots in Turtle Bay. The US can simply shut down all Internet access in any country that pushes this plan. It's not that difficult. Yes, they can create their "own" Internet, but either it will use TCP/IP, or the whole thing will have to be engineered from the ground up. It took us 40 years to get where we are today. Without US software (patented), the Internet would stop, period. While some countries would like that, they don't understand the economic destruction that would cause THEM. We can live with it, but the majority of the world cannot. It's time for the US to take the gloves off, and start ACTING like a superpower - not by bullying, but by standing up for what it considers its rights, privileges, duties and responsibilities. The first place to show such toughness is by shutting down the open sewer at Turtle Bay. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-10-17 14:35 |