Should the UN Replace ICANN? 591
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo news has a story on how some developing countries want control of the assignment of network names and numbers turned over to an international body, such as the UN's ITU (International Telecommunication Union)."
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:5, Informative)
UN's record isn't that great IMHO
Oh really? Of the organizations I listed (in alphabetical order), how many are bloated and overbudget? How many have involved scandal of any kind? How many have been largely ineffective? Etc?
Honestly, I think that this is just going to turn into a big OFF-bashing thread.
Re:What is that supposed to accomplish? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is simple... (Score:2, Informative)
Vinton Cerf thinks he helped [interesting-people.org]
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/inter esting-people/200009/msg00052.html
Or was that an attempt to be funny? Not sure why you're being modded Redundant instead of offtopic... but it drives your comment down either way, huh?
Re:Are you f'n nuts? (Score:5, Informative)
CNN [cnn.com]
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are you f'n nuts? (Score:2, Informative)
The Oil for Food program was overseen by the security council. The security council has five permanent members: France, Great Britain, China, Russia, and The United States. The security council bears ultimate responsbility for any scandal connected with Oil for Food; Kofi Annan, and the rest of the U.N, had next to nothing to do with it.
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:5, Informative)
You see, there are these magical things called "links". How about you learn the spell for following them?
> Rwanda
Yeah, and when the UN didn't step in, the US stepped right in and took care of things, right? Oh yeah... we were completely ineffective there too.
> money launderer for Saddam.
As if we've done any better:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/fi
BTW, do you know what body of the UN had the authority to block contracts under OFF? It was the Security Council, and it only took one member to act.
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:5, Informative)
CEB: I still have no idea what they do. I am guessing this is where high level coordination occurs.
CTBTO: Looks good. I want to see a comprehensive nuclear test ban too, but I am sure the Bush supporters won't like it.
ECA, ECE, ESCAP, ECLAC, ESCWA: These are regional commissions for economic issues regarding regions.
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
UNCTAD, IACSD: Sustainability of human development.
HLCM, HLCP: coordination organizations.
IANWGE: Work on promoting gender equality
IAPSO: Procurement for other UN offices.
Note that many of these are support organizations for those who go out and do the real work. Others work on solving economic and social problems.
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:5, Informative)
But, hey, for the heck of it, lets look at your list (feel free to add more!)
> Oil-for-Food
OFF "leaked" by 2-4 billion$ (the other money was from oil smuggling, which never was under the jurisdiction of OFF). US reconstruction money (largely Iraqi oil profits) leaked by 9B$, when dealing with a smaller total. Net result: UN handled money better.
> forced prostitution rings in the Balkans
Perhaps you're confusing NATO with UN? Italian NATO peacekeepers were accused by the Spanish Secret Service of running a prostitution ring. Also, DynCorp (A private US company) was involved in a prostition-ring there; members even filmed the rape of a young girl.
> rape in the Congo
Yes, of the 11,000 UN troops in the congo, there were 150 allegations of rape against about a dozen troops. This is, percentage-wise, about on par with accusations against US troops by Vietnamese during the Vietnam war. And like we have any right to talk after Abu Ghraib and the recently exposed Guantamo details.
> Ruud Lubbers sexually harrasing his colleagues,
Sexual harassment? That's the worst you can come up with? I think you need to have a talk with Janis Karpinski about that in the US. Or perhaps talk with the >60% of female US soldiers who experienced sexual harassment, and the >30% of female US soldiers who experienced rape or attempted rape by their fellow soldiers, over the course of their military careers. 19% of women at the Air Force Academy were raped during their stay; 81% were too afraid to report the rape, and 42% of those who did experienced retaliation for doing so. I could go on and on, on this front.
> thousands of unpaid parking tickets issued to diplomatic vehicles in NYC every year,
*Unpaid Parking Tickets*? Please tell me that I just hallucinated you writing that...
> inaction in Sudan,
Naturally, the US stepped right up to take their place, right? Oh yeah, that's right, we were the leading cause of UN inaction on this front.
> Syria on the human rights committee...
Yes, everyone gets a chance. Like the US is one to speak with Guantanamo, Baghram, Abu Ghraib, Shebargham, and its policy of extrordinary rendition, especially to the very country you just named.
> Should I continue?
Please do. What's next - jay walking?
Re:Are you f'n nuts? (Score:2, Informative)
the culture of corruption is so rampant at the UN that no one nation, even the US, can overcome it. The other members of the security council were happy to block any serious investigation of the program when it was in place; top officals in France and Russia were receiving millions, too. The inevitable result of "one nation, one vote" when many of the nations are corrupt oligarchies or dictatorships is still more corruption. It's like working in a committee when a solid majority of the members are out to actively subvert the process.
Mark Steyn has it right:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?x
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, and when the UN didn't step in, the US stepped right in and took care of things, right? Oh yeah... we were completely ineffective there too.
Um, you know, the UN did step in in Rwanda. The complaint against them is that they didn't accomplish anything -- if anything, they made matters worse by attracting people to safe-zones that turned out not to be safe.
Mod parent and grandparent up! (Score:5, Informative)
True. If by funny you mean the sort of joke that makes you want to throw up... and let's not forget that the CIA under Reagan was the primary organizing force behind the Afghan mujahedin, including certain terrorists of recent renown.
The denigration of the UN, so mindlessly echoed by many on here, is a neocon tactic designed to set up the New American Century [newamericancentury.org]. Just look at the smearing of the IAEA (and subsequent total failure of the US to do any better). It's sad when people are so ignorant of history that they forget why the UN was created in the first place, or how Germany and Japan undermined the League of Nations as a critical part of their imperial manouevres in the 30's.
People need to take a minute to think about the agenda behind this constant rubbishing of the UN. Is Empire really what Americans want? Possibly not, but there's no way of knowing: see e.g. Mike Scheuer [bbc.co.uk], former head of CIA's bin Laden unit, who points out that the underlying reasons for Arab terrorism or the implications of America's continued imperial expansion are simply not part of the political dialogue in America right now.
As for bureaucracy, I've worked in many US govt labs and the idea that America is somehow less bureaucratic is another of those jokes that makes you want to hurl. People, turn off your TV, it's lying to you...
Re:Mod parent up (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. did sell arms to Iraq in the 80's, however when you look at the amounts [answers.com], you can see that these were miniscule compared to what they received from the USSR, France, and China. Even at its largest in 1988, U.S. sales only accounted for only 5% of Iraq's arms purchases. In fact based on these numbers, France has a lot to answer for.
Also the 'bioweapons cultures' that you refer to were most likely plain anthrax spores which were quite easy for anyone to order from a catalog back in the 80's. These have legitimate use for agricultural research and are not particularly dangerous unless they are 'weaponized' i.e. finely ground up, mixed with other substances to keep the spores viable, and mixed into an aerosol - a non-trivial task.
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:5, Informative)
The basic problem is that the US doesn't want to back up the ICC (which the Bush administration opposes). Thankfully the administration is now supporting a security force (they weren't when the majority of the crimes were being committed), and this year is leading the effort to help get peacekeepers there. They're still causing rifts by trying to keep the ICC out of it, though.
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/2003/march/031103
This isn't the same study that I encountered before (they got a higher % of sexual harassment in this one), but the results are quite similar.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No way... (Score:3, Informative)
I believe it's China and Russia [cnn.com], with the Veto's, that are not allowing anything in regards to Darfur get through the security council.
As to the Dues, the money used for Peace Keeping comes out of a budget meant just for that purpose, and does not come from the general administrative budget.
Re:No way... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:5, Informative)
Did ICANN?
This hardly seems a relevent argument in the context of the proposal.
Most of what the UN does is utilitarian stuff, like ITU creating standards or the WHO stomping on disease outbreaks. It all ticks along quietly because it's a long way from the politicians.
On the other hand most of the things the UN gets criticism for are either clearly outside it's power (how could the UN, which has no armed forces, have prevented genocide in Rwanda? Sent in some clerks to threaten everyone with really bad paper cuts?), or political schemes which were never supposed to work (eg oil for food, which was a propoganda tool for the western nations who set up the sanctions on Iraq, and so was immune to any kind of oversight, audit or normal management until it's propoganda use was over, it's supprising it wasn't a lot more corrupt than it was).
Like the EU, one of the main purposes of the UN is to be a front behind which governments can do things they can't be seen to do directly. The upside is that it's existance for that purpose means that some useful stuff gets done too.
Re:Conference (Score:4, Informative)
ICANN was also still in a confusing semi-democratic phase at the time (this seems to be steadily decreasing) and also weirdly self-imploding. Ester Dyson also gave the most contentless speech I think I have ever heard - no doubt to ensure minimum offense to anyone in the audience.
As with all these things wheels within wheels... but I do wish the call for some form of ICANN democracy would renew rather than lose it to a not very democratic body (i.e. the ITU) or to the corporations (kinda where it is now)."
Bing-go.
Twice in one night I have seen the crystal clear truth ring out and resonate on slashdot. Somebody call Guiness.
There was a cnference in DC in 1997 discussing the ill fated prededcessor to ICANN, namely IAHC. The purpose was to "introduce the concept of IAHC to people" The Architects of IACH (Bob Shaw, ITU; Albert Tramposch, WIPO; Don Heath, ISOC, the I* boys) were on stage and things were going great those those smug bastards as they continued to pull the wool over the sheep-like eyes of the poor unsuspecting members of corporate Dumbfuckistan until a luminary from the State department, Richard *cough*forgothislastname*cough* gave a passionate articulate tremendously driven speech about how the US had just spent years getting control of it's phone number back from the ITU as a Clinton policy initiative and how the ITU (as an instument of the small number of families than control the Euro phone systems) was about the worst thing you could ever have the within any distance of the Internet. Bob Shaw turned red with anger and looked like somebody had beamed a dead rat into his mouth. He was pissed somebody knew the truth. Tramposch lost his job over this as an embarrasment to WIPO (which is tough to imagine) while Shaw and Heath went on to work behind the scenes to found the ICANN we despise today. They are always in the shadows.
Good call on Estie. Vapid is the term I was thinking of. But, she made her $$$ by investing in the first registrar.
I was a contract whore for NSI at the time, I worked on the diagnostics for the shared registry system (then quit in disgust) and I can tell you that registrar went live before their system was even finished let alone working.
All the time while the public ICANN mantra of "stability of the Internet" was being bleated probably todistract people from noticing they'd hands repeatedly stuffing large wads of cash into their pockets. And you wonder why port 43 whois is broken...
Whenever a county is taken over by a dictator they always say they're doing it for "the stability". Check it out, that really is what they say.
Re:Unpaid parking tickets no joke (Score:5, Informative)
UN staff don't get diplomatic plates (unless Kofi Annan does). Those are ambassadorial staff, direct employees of foreign nations; the UN has no control over them. Same thing happens in every capital city in the world.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)
The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.
Re:What is that supposed to accomplish? (Score:2, Informative)
"In 1947, after the Second World War, ITU held a conference in Atlantic City with the aim of developing and modernizing the organization. Under an agreement with the newly created United Nations, it became a UN specialized agency on 15 October 1947, and the headquarters of the organization were transferred in 1948 from Bern to Geneva."
It's tragic (and deeply dishonest) the way UN-bashing (Kyoto-bashing, ICC-bashing...) is becoming a hackneyed tool of American unilateralists and imperialists seeking to justify their arrogant disregard for the rest of the world. So much is being lost through one nation abusing its unbalanced position of power in the world.
Re:I've got karma to burn, and a bone to pick (Score:3, Informative)
By 'Europe', what precisely do you mean? The sum total of the nations of the European continent? To review (it's so important to be clear about these things), those countries are:
Northern Europe: Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, UK
Eastern Europe: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, and Ukraine
Southern Europe: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegowina, Croatia, Cyprus, Gibraltar,Greece, Holy See, Italy, Macedonia, Malta, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslavia), Slovenia, Spain, and Turkey
Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Switzerland
Unless you can point to the time when the US was in control of all the above, I guess your definition of Europe just doesn't coincide with geography. Possibly you meant western Europe, but the existence of (neutral) Switzerland rather rules this out. Or possibly you meant 'Old Europe', which translates into 'France and Germany'.
If this is what you meant, I'll just point out that in the final analysis, Germany was only partly under US control. Thus the splitting of the country into two, the Berlin Wall, East Germany, Checkpoint Charlie, Stasi and all the other features of living on the edge of the Iron Curtain that fortunately have now passed into nostalgia. And as for France, you'll notice that at liberation, de Gaulle rather took political control of the situation before anybody got around to establishing an Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories; the World Bank did hold the purse-strings for reconstruction, so I suppose that's control of a kind, but not really what you had in mind.
As for had control of England or could have gave it back, I think you're reaching quite a bit there. Probably better to tone down the claims to had partial control of various European countries, gave it back, or indeed not to rant about control at all, which would certainly improve matters.
And a couple more points: suggesting that Germany is unhappy that the cold war is over... well, you must be thinking of a different Germany. Imagine having to apply for permission papers to visit your relatives, who only live ten miles away. Imagine living on the front line. Germans don't have to imagine either; they know how it feels, thanks. Some Germans miss communism, but I haven't met a single one who misses the cold war.
As for steamrolling Russia, hah, you seem to have forgotten about the nuclear deterrent, or the scale of the Soviet Union, or both. Even without the nukes problem, plenty of nutcases have tried and failed in the task of invading Russia.
So in summary: history (and geography) is more complicated than you make it sound. It's also more complicated than 'the US caused all the evil in the world', so I can see your point about being sick of lets take a stab at the US to some how validate their argument tactics. But there's little point in 'taking a stab at Europe to some how validate' your defensiveness, either
the UN is not a regulatory body (Score:3, Informative)
Putting ICANN under the UN is a VERY bad idea, as they would have no ability to resolve disputes with any legal validity. A unilaterally authority is better than none.
Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (Score:1, Informative)
If you actually did research instead of getting your information off of Oprah you would have known that after 2 congressional inquiries it was found that of the 52 cases of reported sexual harrassment (ie not rape) over the last 10 years at the AF Academy all exept one case was handled correctly by authorities, including punishments. Not sure where you pulled the 81% too scared to report from. As for the retaliation, from personal knowledge I can put forward that in a lot of cases it was after an individual was already in trouble (underage drinking, honor code violation) that all of a sudden they had been sexually assaulted and need special treatment.