U.N. To Govern Internet? 1197
Falmarian writes "Apparently the rest of the world isn't happy about the US franchise on internet governance. A news.com article discusses the possibility that the U.N. will make a bid for control of such governing functions as assigning TLDs and IPs." From the article: "At issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming. Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, 'consumer protection,' and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for 'universal access.'"
Yuk (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yuk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yuk (Score:5, Interesting)
At that point, I start lobbying Slashdot to bring alternic back up to snuff and in use. Screw that.
I *already* pay a tax for my domain name. It's called a domain name registration fee. The money goes to support those root servers (and to the pockets of the registrars, but hey).
Re:Yuk (Score:3, Insightful)
Or wait, are you wanting to talk about high profile events that occurred recently, ignoring all of that? If so, bring it on.
* Weapons of mass destruction inspections? What do you know, they were right!
* Oil For Food: Widely distorted in the
Re:Yuk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yuk (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll usually tell you that they in general blame unfair trade practices. For example, even with their low labor costs, African farms often have a hard time competing with subsidized US and European ag exports. First world nations do a lot of pretty nasty stuff as far as import regulations go (for example, declaring the Vietnamese catfish as not being a catfish, to subsidize the US catfish industry)
Not that many of their problems aren't their own fault, mind you.
Ask the people of Darfur how the UN has failed to even try to protect them
Because they *weren't authorized to intervene by the Security Council*. What, are you picturing some huge security council debate over whether cmm.com is typosquatting on cnn.com? We're not talking about troop deployments, we're talking about the internet.
Re:Yuk (Score:5, Funny)
But not to their faces.
Re:Yuk (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow! That's huge news! I had no idea that all African farmers were a single "African Economics Expert"! My army of cloner geeks will want to hear of this immediately.
had been raping the women
This has already been discussed in earlier comments. Of over 10,000 troops, everyone even remotely involved in the allegations was sent home; grand total, 77. And this is one of 16 current UN operations worldwide. Meanwhile, the troops fighting in the Congo have killed and raped sev
they ate their milk producing animals (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought I'd seen it all on slashdot, but your summation of hundreds of years of colonial exploitation and invasions, arbitrarily defined states (often encompassing many ethnic groups) which war with each other over resources, corrupt government, civil war and finally skewed trade laws which make it impossible to climb out of poverty as
'they ate their milk producing animals'
really does take my breath away.
If the UN know what they're doing, they'll surely be rushing lots of well informed teenage geniuses like yourself over to sort it out right now.
Re:Yuk (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask the starving people in Africa how well the UN has managed things. Ask the people of Darfur how the UN has failed to even try to protect them from genocide. But given that the UN lacks any real enforcement powers, I for one am not too worried about them trying to tax the internet.
My dad worked in Africa "de-mining". Why not ask Africans whether they'd prefer life without the UN. My experience was many Africans (and this wasn't your Cairo/Jo'burg Africans, this was twenty-years-of-post-colonial-conflict-sponsored-b y Washington-Moscow-London-Paris-Havana-Beijing Africa, by the way) respected the limited work the UN was able to do in extremely difficult circumstances.
The UN may be shite, but it's better than nothing. And it's a lot better than the League of Nations, which in turn was a lot better than... bugger all international cooperation.
And regarding Darfur, I've been following this since long before it hit the mainstream media. The UN's been there a long time, dealing with entrenched resistence from the (sovereign) government of Sudan, and from neighbouring states. It's not always possible - or even desirable - to just move into and occupy a country to effect change.
Israel (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't get off so lightly. What about the Carter (and later Reagan) Administration's "Join the Jihad" campaign aimed at recruiting militant Islamists and getting them together in Afghanistan (with training from the US) to fight the Soviets?
See, it is all the fault of two presidents from different political parties... At least as far as Al Qaeda and any collegiate international terrorism organization goes.
And Regarding Israel--- The history of the founding of Israel between WWI and 1949 is quite interesting and full of material that will make almost anybody uncomfortable regardless of political disposition. However, it was all started by the British who claim to have wanted to reward those Jews who fought for Britain in WWI by trying to promote British Palestine as a place where they could go to as a homeland provided that the existing Palestinians were not displaced (read the Balfour Declaration). The time between the end of WWI and 1949 was full of terrorism on the part of the Zionists and Arabs (continuing today often on both sides despite efforts of moderates on either side). And, most interestingly, the attempted collaboration between the ELHI brotherhod (in part lead by Yitzak Shameer) and Hitler (one might add that the ELHI brotherhood had no shortage of good things to say about the Nazis). As punishment for his efforts and sympathies, Shameer was later elected Prime Minister which should tell you a lot about Israeli politics.
Last time I checked... (Score:3, Interesting)
The UN is inefficient, but bad stuff tends not to come out of the UN because too many people have veto power. As opposed to here.
Such attacks are not about the UN (Score:4, Interesting)
From a year ago for example, a large number of leading indicators showed progress in Iraq's infrastructure. Compare that to the Congo or Haiti in which the UN is running peacekeeping operations.
Pardon me for being Mr. Obvious here but there is a big difference from running a peacekeeping operation and trying to rebuild a country after largely destroying it (first with sanctions, then with bombs).
"Men from roughly 50 different countries make up the U.N. forces in Congo, and the United Nations does not conduct background checks. Furthermore, U.N. troops are exempt from prosecution in Congo."
Can you say "International Criminal Court?"
While the US has made mistakes on the ground dealing with Iraqi and Afghani Prisoners and civilians, at least widespread allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse of women, boys and girls havn't been happening like they are happening in the Congo.
As others have pointed out, this never happend in Vietnam or anything, right?
Also a lot of this type of activity in the Congo has been happening between the warring factions. Sorry, but blaming the UN for their actions is like blaming the US when insurgents attack an Iraqi police station.
"Didier Bourguet, a U.N. official from France, is pictured here in an image found on his hard drive, which was obtained by ABC News. Also on the hard drive were thousands of photos of him having sex with hundreds of young Congolese girls."
If that is the case, then someone has an obligation to prosecute him. IANAL, but last time I checked, I think the country of nationality had the first right to prosecute in these matters, followed by the country where the crimes were committed, and following that, there is no reason why the ICC couldn't prosecute. Oh, wait, the ICC is a dirty word here in the US, sorry I forgot...
I would further point out that there is a large contingent of French, British, and German troops in the Congo under the EU (*not* NATO) flag, the first EU peacekeeping deployment outside Europe.
People forget that a large extent of the issue is that conservatives (the media insofar as most large media outlets are owned by other corporations such as Disney, GE, etc have inherent in their organizations a conservative bias) are largely upset that the US is no longer the dominant power in the world (except militarily). Every major trade war with the EU has ended in a US defeat. The EU has a larger population and a higher per GDP than the US. And the have two permanent seats on the UNSC, and many seats in both the GA and the WTO. Compare that to *1* for the US in each organization.
We in the US can hold our own against China and any other nationalist state. However, because we don't see internationalism as a worthy goal, we cannot hold our own against states who work together to set up common economic policy, as the EU has done.
Note that the parent poster, like many, seems to equate the UN with "France" and/or "Germany." This is further evidence of the building propaganda war against the EU. But what will happen if the EU ends up with three seats on the UNSC at some point (if, say, Russia were to join)?
I fear we are heading into a new type of cold war against an opponent we cannot hope to defeat. Thanks "New American Century..."
Re:Yuk (Score:3, Insightful)
Internet: Development of the DARPA Labs (USA)
Internet: PHYSICALLY constructed by the US
WWW: later addon from MIT
email: created by the US
ftp: created in the US
TCP/IP: created in the US
Feel free to add on. The point of this is that the internet, as it started, was wholly concieved and created by the US. Yes other countries added to and by more people connecting, you get more content. However, the fact remains that the US created it.
Now, the UN is coming in after this wonderfu
Re:Yuk (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to burst your bubble but WWW is a CERN invention [historyoftheinternet.com] (international organization part in Switzerland, and part in France). Check here [oup.co.uk] and here [web.cern.ch].
Re:Yuk (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yuk (Score:4, Informative)
In order to create a conflict the US had the weapons inspectors search Saddams palaces and harem for weapons of mass destruction, knowing that Saddam would refuse at first.
Re:Yuk (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would you want an organization whose consituents are mostly corrupt pseudo-democracies or flatout dictatorships to control anything?
Re:Yuk (Score:3, Insightful)
The UN isn't in the business of overthrowing governments. Neither is ICANN. The UN has, however, moved to stop abuses many times - including the oft American favorite, Gulf War I.
one dollar girls in Africa
Several *million* people have been killed in the Congo, and there have likely been equivalent numbers of rapes by various troops involved in the quite brutal conflict. And yet, in this one mission, of 16 worldwide, with 16,000 troops, with everyone accuse
Re:Yuk (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN isn't in the business of overthrowing governments.
I think you might want to read up a bit on why, exactly, the United Nations was founded. This article [opendemocracy.net] may or may not be believed in its entirety, but the fact of the matter is one way or another, the UN was conceived during WWII and was officially founded directly afterwards specifically to prevent dictators running roughshod over their neighbors all over the world. That was the original mandate, and that's why the five permanent members of the security council are who they are.
Even the UN's official history [un.org] is perfectly up front about its origins as a tool of the Allies in fighting Germany and Japan during WWII.
Now you see why many people in the US (and other countries) think the UN has gotten so far off track from its original mandate that it is no longer relevant. It was intended to at least contain, occasionally fight and if necessary overthrow dangerous governments like those of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Whether you want to believe it or not, and whether you agree with that cause, that is the truth.
I am no neo-con (or even a traditional-con); I voted against Bush both times. But I get just as annoyed as anyone when people speak of the UN as if its purpose is to keep anyone from fighting, ever. That was not why it was created. It was created to keep rogue states in check - that is the entire reason it exists. It was created during wartime, with a mandate that specifically told member nations to keep fighting. Yet nowadays, it is only ever used as an excuse to do nothing because of competing political interests from those who have something to gain by standing on the sidelines.
As for the UN taking over the internet... read any of what I just posted (either the two links or my commentary, whether you subscribe to the same view or not) and tell me how this would make a lick of sense.
Re:UN never said Iraq had no WMD ... (Score:3, Informative)
Turns out they had no evidence, let alone proof, because there was no weapons of mass-destruction program worth mentioning in Iraq. Oh... and the only ones who were saying that there was were the ex-Iraqis who everyone but the Bush administration had already
Re:NPR Slave (Score:3, Informative)
There is still no proof that the weapons of mass destruction weren't moved
Except for everything such as ardently pro-war hawk (formerly uberconvinced that Iraq had WMDs) David Kay's inspection report. Except for the fact that there was no infrastructure for any sort of relevant production in the entire country, and the agents degrade.
Read Kay's report. You'll notice no mention of the "sarin" and "mustard gas" shell finds. Why? Because, like the other several dozen false positives in initial testing,
Re:Yuk (Score:5, Informative)
While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.
Here's an article [wikipedia.org] with tons of links, for those who would like to distort his views by giving decade-old quotes that were overcome by events. I suggest you start reading the *recent* quotes from each of the heads of UNSCOM/UNMOVIC as well, plus the comments of the IAEA.
Re:Yuk (Score:5, Interesting)
Cycle of the ages (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cycle of the ages (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cycle of the ages (Score:4, Insightful)
However, lazy folks just prefer handing control over to someone else, and pay lip service to ideas like "freedom" and "liberty."
Really ? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, what is the UN qualified to have oversight on?
Re:Cycle of the ages (Score:3, Insightful)
My experience has shown that whenever a new area of freedom opens up, some group abuses it, requiring regulation/oversight.
Pardon me if this sounds offensive, I don't mean it to be, but my first (and second and third) impression from this statement is that you like control and telling other people what to do or how to do it. Some people prefer consensus and commonly held mores of behavior to authoritarian approaches with rigid rules and regulations, as in level 3 vs. level 2 of Kohlberg's stages of mor [wikipedia.org]
What a Great Idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, that's what we elected these people to do, right? Oh wait a minute. nobody elected the UN, it's a treaty organization.
I'm not trying to sound reactionary, but this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. The internet is fine the way it is. If the U.S. Congress has managed to keep its hands off it so far, the U.N. should follow suit, imo. The more politicians we get involved in managing the net, the worse it will perform for everybody.
Being Your Own Customer [whattofix.com]
Re:What a Great Idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say it's a pretty damn well run organization despite being run by the U.N.
U.N. is not just a bunch of incompetent politicians, although i'm sure a lot of americans like to think that.
Re:What a Great Idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
But what about "managing Teh Intarweb"? The majority of politicians these days don't even understand that there is more to the internet than what Internet Explorer shows them. If they start throwing around regulations that are impossible to follow (like "ban all sites that might offend someone, but we can't give you a list because that would be offensive", how many times have we heard THAT now?) the majority of the politicians wouldn't figure it out until everything starts going down in flames, and if they can't see the rubble in Internet Explorer, they don't know that it's there.
And of course, being unelected, should they get an email saying the internet should be shut down for its annual cleaning and believe that it's true, there isn't anything obvious that can be done about it.
Actually it is run by a incompetent politicians (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What a Great Idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what everyone with half a brain thinks. It is a joke of an organization. Libya was head of the human rights council! Other nations included Cuba (HA!) and Syria (HAHA!)
It is composed of European socialists and third-world zeros. If you want it to have any moral authority create the UDN (United Democratic Nations) and invite nations that respect the sanctity of human life.
--Joey
Re:What a Great Idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, on the same hand, the US has no real reason to give up control.
Hence the suggestion to use the UN - it seems like a middle ground somewhat. The people that suggested it are simply trying to create a compromise so the *net doesn't fragment.
Re:What a Great Idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ohh wait, you can't right?
Exactly douchebag
Re:What a Great Idea! (Score:4, Informative)
nobody elected the UN, it's a treaty organization
Re:What a Great Idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
The US _does_ control root, right?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:3)
The US controls most of the roots (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm all for it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm all for it (Score:3, Insightful)
Also remind the UN is more than the security council, for instance the World Health Org. and World Food Program are UN bodies with millions and millions of human lives depending on them on a daily basis.
I'm convinced the people working at the UN in the offices and in the field are higly motivated, skilled and
It isn't broke... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care who controls it... (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, get rid of them entirely. They aren't truly necessary except to maintain backwards compatability.
Peace Keepers on the Net (Score:5, Funny)
In communist Europe, the internet owns YOU..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
China would get a vote (Score:3, Insightful)
Call us cowboys, but a lot of the world doesn't want our freedoms, and would be more than happy to stop them for all of us. I don't think the spirit of the internet could survive a bunch of unelected corrupt dictators setting the rules.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to agree with most everyone else here: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don't agree with the idea that "the US invented it, therefore we should control it". I don't think that's a good approach or attitude, but I also think that the internet has been humming along just fine without any real government control.
Really...what would *anyone* have to gain from allowing the UN to control the internet from a practical standpoint (no, "sticking it to the US" doesn't count)? I think it's pretty obvious that the cost/benefit ratio is really, really bad in that scenario.
A false assumption here (Score:3, Interesting)
Air travel, news, food, and Earth's economy are just as "global", and yet there are no global entities in charge of those areas. Not only does there not need to be, there are good reasons to not have global (i.e. centralized) control of such things. 20th century history is full of examples.
One big reason to fear UN control beyond taxes: how long before they try to crack down on "hate speech," which will me
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN doesn't even vaguely resemble a world government. It's more like a country club for national governments. There's no real money in helping refugees, feeding starving children, or vaccinations; the UNHCR, UNICEF, and the WHO are decent branches of the UN. There is staggering amounts of money in "overseeing" oil and other commodity sales and there's probably also staggering amounts of money and power involved in domain name control. Do you really want an organization made up of unelected and unaccountable politicos running another program with money involved given the UN's track record in that regard?
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is not a global government. The UN is a treaty organization that wants to become a government. Your attitude is to just hand over a national asset to a questionable body that is not accountable to anyone.
Besides, why not do something better? Create alternate directories and advertise the IP numbers for those nameservers. Let software developers work out the problems with mult
The reason not is because the UN is ill suited (Score:4, Insightful)
Another problem is that the UN isn't an elected body. It's diplomats that are appointed and are not answerable to the public they supposedly represent. Politicians do enough shady shit when they ARE directly answerable, it gets far, far worse when there's no accountability.
I mean for a good example, see the receant Tsunami crisis. When the Tsunami hit, the important thing initally was getting basic aid there immediatly, food, water, and medical attention. A number of nations did just that. Both their military and civilian volunteers went over and worked their asses off to save lives. The UN, sent a group over to survey the damage and fact find, they gave some soundbites to the media, and whined that the troops over there should be wearing UN blue, rather than the uniforms of their countries. All the while people were in desperate need of immediate help.
That's just a good example of the general problem. Look at the UN office in New York. The oppulance is simply unbelievable for an orginization that is supposed to be a representitive of so many poor nations. Then realise they have offices like this all over the place.
Now for the US there's an additonal consideration in that the UN may decide they want regulations on the Internet that are unconstutional. The constution can't be overriden just by some treaty orginization, it overrides all other law in America (well, it's supposed to at any rate, politicans seem to forget that sometimes). So for example China might want to push a regulation that says no subversive political speech is allowed, and they'd have plenty of backers on that. Well, sorry, but that's unconstutional.
While I think we can work out a more equitable solution than the US running the Internet, having the UN run it isn't the right answer.
Anyone but the U.N. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone but the U.N. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is contradictory... power and protection for member states? How about we protect the member states by not giving the UN power?
The UN was supposed to be a framework for diplomatic cooperation of countries. A place for them to talk issues to death, to negotiate treaties and so forth. The failure we've seen has
That's worse than the US (Score:5, Insightful)
When the UN adopts the first amendment... (Score:5, Insightful)
...then maybe. Not before.
Re:When the UN adopts the first amendment... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The UN pays lip service to the freedom of speech, but clearly states in the charter (have you read it?) that these "rights" are subject to abridgement or revocation by the UN itself. A right isn't a right if it can be taken away. That's why the US founding documents speak of inalienable rights, endowed by the creator. In other words, rights that transcend the power of government.
ignoring problems comes next (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ignoring problems comes next (Score:3, Funny)
I see your point. The UN will act just like Microsoft does now.
Typical UN Resolution (Score:5, Funny)
We will give you 1 year to take down your website, before 'more drastic' measures will be taken.
One year later ...
Resolution 30357B - Illegal File Traders:
Oh, did we say one year? We meant two. Take two years. But take it down! Don't make us unleash the fury!
Two years later ...
Resolution 30357C - Illegal File Traders:
We at the UN can't help but notice that you haven't taken your site down. We strongly disapprove of your actions. So much so that we're giving you three more years to do it. But you'd better believe that when those three years are up it's clobbering time. Seriously.
Three years later ...
Resolution 30357D - Illegal File Traders:
It seems you are still running your illegal website. We downloaded several Chingy tunes today (thanks for the UN discount!). But you seriously need to take that site down. Seriously. To show you how serious we are, we're going to start a plan of denying aid to people not in any way affiliated with you. Yes we know this won't affect on you personally, but it makes us look like bad-asses. Five more years! That's all we can give you. Then out come the meat hammers!
Five years later ...
Resolution 30357E - Illegal File Traders
- Rider A: Condemnation of Israel for refusing to just fucking disappear like the Mayans
- Rider B: Pay-raise and trips to Disneyland!
Maybe it's us. Are we doing something wrong? Is there something we could give you to make you take that site down? Because, seriously, we're all pussies here at the UN and don't want to do anything drastic like follow through on our empty resolution statements. So why don't we go ahead and give you as many years as you like to take that site down. Just keep those kickbacks coming! And remember, we are the world's last resort for justice!
Re:Typical UN Resolution (Score:5, Funny)
The US is making us do this again. Sorry. So, *sigh*, this is probably your last warning. First of all, thanks for taking that copy of Herbie: Fully Loaded off your site. But if you don't provide proof that you're not operating another server somewhere in some way we can't detect, we're going to come get you.
A question of Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now if I want I can spew all the hate-speech I like on the internet.
Right now I can arrange the sale of firearms over the internet.
Right now I can play addictive text-based MUDs that waste more lives than either of the above.
Will these be preserved by a governing body who disapproves of all three?*
(*number three was a joke)
...other suggested responsibilities... (Score:3, Insightful)
TLD for food program (Score:4, Insightful)
As a forum for international discussion, dialog and negotiation, the U.N. is a fine organization. The U.N. as a body is, though, not actually accountable to anyone. This is why the U.N. should not be thought of as a government, or even a meta-government (a government of governments). Any body that is not accountable to (as in, risks being voted out of office or power), eventually becomes corrupt.
How much money went to Sadaam Hussein in the oil for food program? How much was actually used for food? Little if any. How much money was skimmed off the top by people at the U.N.? A lot, but we can never know how much because these people neither represent my (or your) interests, nor are they accountable to me (or you)!
Why the UN bashing? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not overly effective in some respects (stopping invasions, oppression) but that's a fault of the countries involved not the organisation itself.
Without the UN, there might still be apartheid in South Africa. There would be lots more people starving to death. There would likely still be smallpox. Free and fair elections would be unavailable in many countries. AIDS (and tuberculosis and malaria) would be far greater problems. Those accused of warcrimes might not be tried.
While it's easy to knock the UN following recent scandals, get a sense of perspective. It's extremely difficult to coordinate things on a world scale without any real authority but the UN does do an extremely admirable job.
Whether it would handle the root servers well or not is a separate issue but don't critise out of a hand an organisation that has saved millions of lives.
Manta
Kids, stop fighting (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry to have to agree though, the idea of the UN controlling the Internet is scary, for exactly the reasons that people have mentioned. It's currently largely unregulated (another word for that is "free", get it?). The comments from UN reps in other countries (e.g. Syria) revealed amazing ignorance of how the internet works, and an explicit desire to exert firm control over content. The complaint by Brazil about the
So far I have yet to hear either a good technical or policy-based argument against leaving it in US hands. I'm willing to be convinced, but so far all the arguments against US control have boiled down to, "we don't like you and/or don't want you to have it." Not good enough for me, sorry. I'm going to write my Congresscritters and ask them not to turn it over.
There is no Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now, almost everybody agrees that US-centric organization like ICANN get to govern top-level things like the root domain. But there is absolutely nothing keeping people following their own set of standards. Indeed, some already do.
I don't even worry that much about "fragmentation". The Internet is already horribly fragmented. It's no longer safe or consistent or well-organized, which you used to be able to count on. If, say, we end up with multiple conflicting namespaces, someone will create some meta-directory protocols or search engines or something.
Of course, it would be nicer if that didn't happen. No sense making things worse then they are.
I just keep thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking at the U.N. myself though I don't really see an organization consistent enough to draw any conclusions about it. It is an evolving entity. Look at its state over time since oh, say, 1985, and you'll realize there are almost no points over this time period where the U.N. in practice clearly resembles the entity it was just five years before. The U.N. had a clearly defined role during the Cold War; now that the Cold War is over that role no longer applies, and it is trying to find its new role. I don't think there's any way to predict right now what that role is going to be. The U.S. has the option of taking an active hand in shaping the U.N.'s new role, if we want (there have been parts of the last 20 years where we've done this, though right now is not one of them); however, what we can't do is make the U.N. go away. It's going to stay around, and it's going to develop into something. That isn't our choice. Our only choice is, will it develop into something with us or without us.
One thing that it occasionally worries me the U.N. might develop into is a bloc organization that basically represents "everyone but the U.S.". That is, I think it is possible that as the U.S. increasingly acts only in its own immediate interest to the exclusion of anyone else's interests, other countries will use the U.N. as a platform on which to band together and represent their interests in common, until the U.N. eventually becomes something which pens in the U.S. the way NATO penned in the USSR. As an American, I don't think this situation would be good for me or my country. However, I think it is possible. I also think that trying to push hard against or de-emphasize the U.N. does more to make the above "U.N. vs U.S." outcome likely than it does to make the U.N. weaker. The U.N.'s potential strength stems from the countries which wish to align with it; it's exactly as strong if the U.S. appears hostile toward it as it is if the U.S. appears apathetic toward it. However if the U.S. appears hostile toward the U.N. we do begin to set the stage for a situation where the U.N. begins to behave antagonistically back.
I see this DNS thing as a small but noteworthy step toward this situation.
Four or five years ago if the U.N. expressed an interest in controlling the DNS servers (and they did) there would be no point in taking this suggestion seriously (and no one did) because there was already an independent and international body (ICANN) on track toward running the DNS system. Now the U.S. has decided to make ICANN no longer a meaningfully independent body, and the governance of the DNS servers a U.S. national issue rather than an international one. And now, as a result, we are starting to see movements where service providers and governments outside the U.S. [slashdot.org] are starting to look into ways to break away from the U.S.-commerce-department-controlled ICANN system and into nameserver independence. In this light, the U.N. proposing they control nameservers takes on a very different tone. It underscores that if the U.S. does not wish to administer the nameservers under its control in an international fashion, there are other entities perfectly willing to assume that job.
If other nations choose to break away from the U.S. controlled nameservers, well, it's likely they'll do so together, meaning that we will have the U.S. commerce department running DNS for the U.S. and an international body running DNS for "everybody else". And who will run this international body? Well, the U.N. is a likely choice. The steady smear campaign against the U.N. doesn't exist in the same way outside the
Why not allow unlimited TLDs? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, it seems silly to rely on something like
If you need something authoritative, private authorities could use public/private keys as proof to do that. Indiviuals could then decide which private authorities have standards worth trusting. The U.N. could set up such an authority to authenticate government sites. When a user visits a government site, it could refer the application to the whichever authorities it chooses.
Limiting TLDs just creates conflict as different powerful interests vie for their own distinctions. Sure people can more quickly categorize this way, but the limitations seem to outweight the benefits.
Let's not and say we did. (Score:4, Interesting)
It is really bad as it is now. Every independent board member that has overseen ICAAN actions has said this. But putting it into the hands of the UN per se would just make matters much worse.
Also I have the strong feeling that many people don't have the slightest clue what the UN really is and what it does. The funny thing is everyone seems to have an opinion about it. Either they hate it or love it or like it or dislike it. Germans like it and left leaning Americans like it. French like it and conservative Americans dislike it. I don't know about Americans, but I know that Germans don't have a clue what it is they like.
Some basics:
The UN is made up of different bodies to which countries are elected. Each world region (like Africa or Asia) has a certain quota for how many countries they can vote into a certain comitee. Then there are also organizations for specific purposes. Like UNAIDS or the UN high comissionare for refugees.
The UN is very good for diplmacy for example. All nations can go there and resolve conflicts instead of starting wars. Granted, it hasn't work very good and could be made better, but I don't see any alternative. Kofi Annan for example pushed through some very important reforms in his first two years of office.
Anyways, I could go on for hours, but maybe You can just check their webpage. It is quite informative.
Just reading the UN Charta would most likely be very invormative to many people here I suppose.
The UN is many, many things at the same time. Maybe if a sensible set of rules would be put together for some kind of organization under the UN umbrella it would appear international and at the same time remain efficient. But is not going to happen anyways. So keep cool and keep cursing Verisign and their control over ICANN.
US to retain what? (Score:4, Interesting)
The other root servers could stop mirroring A, ISPs could stop pointing to the current root servers, or the end users could stop using their ISPs domain servers.
If the UN wants to set up and control their own root server, they should just do it, there's nothing stopping them.
-- Should you trust authority without question?
Re:get over it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:get over it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:get over it... (Score:4, Insightful)
aren't oppressive countries (i.e. against freedom of speech and though in this case) part of the UN? The USA anyone?
Living outside the US, all I can say is that having the US control the Internet is a bad thing.
More valuable than Lagrange points=US will keep it (Score:4, Interesting)
My bet is Bush'll nominate someone anti-UN to the UN to make it ineffective so this UN thing isn't an option. Oh....
Re:get over it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:get over it... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US invented the internet. The internet has to be controlled (to a degree) from somewhere. If everything is and always has been working just fine from where it is, why would anyone want to move it? Because they want to change it....that's why. It belongs where it is.
TV and the Telephone do not have one worldwide location of control. You can't control which country all of the billions of TV's are in... if there was only one, you could... do you get it now? Your
Re:get over it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Normally, I'm all about fair treatment of citizens across the world, regardless of their country of origin. But in this case, I really believe the US should retain control.
First off, no one is saying that the US is doing a bad job; they want change because they don't think it "feels right" that the US is controlling everything. This requires a certain amount of faith that a body like the UN can do as good of a job as the US has been doing. I would hate to have a switch take p
Re:get over it... (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of turf war is likely to happen with a UN controlled internet.
For example, what happens when countries like China, North Korea, and many more. Demand that the UN aid them in "filtering" the internet for their citizens.
The root servers are pretty stable and things are working fine right now. Theres no need for a change to a venue where politics will rule the technology (I know there are politics already, but were talking orders of magnitude difference here).
Re:get over it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll tell you what. Nothing happens. So what if they demand? They can be voted down by A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, involving more enlightened nations and the USA.
Your point doesn't stand. The UN is more democratic on any day than the USA.
Re:get over it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I could just imagine the UN Security council trying to run it.... Wait, nothing would ever happen because you need unanimous consent of all nations involved to do anything. Getting some of these to agree is a far fetched notion.
Of course we could always let the general assembly run it. There's a brilliant idea. Give the United States as much say over the internet as every other tiny country in the world. Thats fair and democratic?
They could also do it by population. In that case China has a huge advantage. That would be great.
Under any system we'd allow the wrong people to get our hands on it. Is letting china, libya, cuba, north korea etc telling the rest of the wold what to do with the internet really the definition of DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?
A big part of the problem is the UN has no accountability. When the UN starts using it to push their viewpoint (as the topic said universal net access) what then. What do we do when the internet becomes a vehicle for corruption? Who do we call and say change this? Someone will be getting rich while the internet collapses. Currently ICANN doesn't have the power to tax the net like this, or to create filters etc. In the hands of the UN. . . who knows what power it'll have. The UN has zero accountability. If ICANN tryied this now they'd be stopped in a second.
What I find the most amusing about all of this is how so many Europeans are all about this idea. As if they'd actually have a say over it? It wouldn't be the EU's internet, it would be the world. Under the UN that means security council or general assembly. Tell France or Germany that Uganda has as much say over the nets infrastructure as they do. Or that China has more say (due to bribing other countries) or whatever. The EU would lose out on the deal, but the only possible thing that would make them like it is the fact that it hurts the US more than it hurts them (kind of like Kyoto). Stabbing yourself to hurt the US is not a good idea.
While maybe some more international control could be used for the internet, I would say that there is no reason for the UN to have any say over it. The UN is corrupt and getting worse. There's zero accountability. Whats the best option then? Well tell us legitimate problems with the internet as its being run and maybe we'll examine them on that basis.
Phil
Re:get over it... (Score:3, Funny)
Since when is Tim Berners-Lee a European?
The man is British!
Re:get over it... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:get over it... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If they don't like it... (Score:3, Funny)
Since he's the main guy behind funding it with U.S. tax dollars, that would be more of an argument for keeping things as they are...
Re:Internet comes of age (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it matters anyway - as the parent says, a country struggling for complete hegemony over any
Re:Internet Comes of Age (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think they have any room to point fingers.
Oh and lets not forget that the solution is to take a system that has been working perfectly fine and give it to an unelected group of people with a incredibly bad track record. A gr
Re:Internet Comes of Age (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Internet Comes of Age (Score:5, Funny)
ANYBODY BUT THE DUTCH!
Next thing you know, the streets of the internet will be littered with sites trying to sell sex and drugs.
Re:Internet Comes of Age (Score:3, Insightful)
On a serious note, if ICANN were making politically-motivated decisions, I'd be for taking that power away from ICANN and handing it over to someone less susceptible to politi
Re:Internet Comes of Age (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The UN (Score:4, Insightful)
Which one?
-b
Re:The UN (Score:3, Interesting)
Global Use != Global Ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
If the rest of the world doesn't want to be a part of our DNS, they can set up their own. But we already have ccTLDs that expressly give such authority to governments. What do you want for nothing, a rubber biscuit?