| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Plan for UN to run internet ’will be shelved’ |
| 2003-11-10 |
| 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 Summit on the Information Society 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. Just what we need...China and Saudi Arabia administering the internet. 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. All so very International, of course. Are there little French fingerprints on any of these documents? 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. I smell a capitalist plot to oppress the proletariat by providing instant global communications and free pr0n. 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. Just ask Al Gore. 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. "Think of The Children™." 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. More money from "rich America" to poor and unaccountable UN bureaucrats. 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. Blogosphere? Report to duty stations immediately! |
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #6 I'd expect expedited connects, OP, but only to "approved" sites....everything else would get redirected. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-10 9:39:39 PM |
| #5 The United Nations can't keep the staff from raiding the till (the power outage/cafeteria fiasco), can't track down lost UN property, and can't function well enough to know who's already where, and to what extent. If they get hold of the internet, expect 4-hour waits to get online with Broadband, and forget dial-up! Nobody can mess things up to the extent the UN does! This whole thing is the result of people in suppressed countries being able to get information not readily available, to communicate without 'supervision', and to access information the "government" (whatever one it might be) doesn't want them to have. The governments are losing control of their citizens - who knows, the next thing you know, they might be demanding free elections, government accountable to the electorate, and personal freedoms. Can't POSSIBLY allow that! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-10 9:29:24 PM |
| #4 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. Acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression. In UN speak is itself cause for decreased international regulations on what can and cannot be displayed on the internet. Right now, UN's unqualified support for 'holocaust on the installment plan' alone oughta tell you where the UN wants to drag the world should they be allowed to regulate the internet in their own, weird, twisted visions. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-11-10 8:54:31 PM |
| #3 definitely top 10 along with LGF, Fredmeister. That's something to be proud of! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-10 8:23:03 PM |
| #2 That'd be... ummm... us. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-11-10 7:50:09 PM |
| #1 If they do, you can bet they'd find an excuse to shut anyone they didn't like down. |
| Posted by: Atrus 2003-11-10 7:16:06 PM |