UN to Control Internet?
Published November 11, 2003
That would be bad. Say it ain't so. And apparently it isn't - for now, anyway.
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.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.
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.
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.
Many "poorer" nations (er - and when, exactly, did Saudi Arabia end up on that list), as well as some who aren't so poor, are also quite restrictive of Internet access and filter a significant amount of content. This sounds like a vehicle for repressive regimes and politically correct nations (read: France, among others) to control the content of the Internet. Can you feel the "chilling effect" yet?
Note: The author wastes a fair amount of time blogging about a variety of subjects over at Walloworld, where this post originally appeared.
- UN to Control Internet?
- Published: November 11, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Sci/Tech
- Filed Under: Sci/Tech: Internet
- Writer: W.E. Wallo
- W.E. Wallo's BC Writer page
- W.E. Wallo's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The fact that others may be screwing up the Net doesn't mean that this isn't "a problem." Rather, it is evidence that everyone wants to control the Internet for their own purposes, be it corporate behemoths or national governments. I don't like the corporate interests either, but I'm also quite leery of the potential for repression in this proposal.
That Verisign can arbitrarily break the internet points to who holds the cards. Repressive governments such as the USA, China, France and so on already restrict internet usage, but they can't really affect the infrastructure. Rogue corporations, who are not accountable to anybody are a worse threat, and the UN has no control over these oligarchies.
The UN meeting is a paper tiger.
I agree with you that rogue corporations are a threat. I remain mystified why you regard the potential for increased governmental restrictions to be so insignificant. I disagree, but we're all entitled to our own opinions. :)
whilst i do not like pandering to commercial interests, at least in its present form the 'net is pretty well unrestricted. There is ALOT of information out there, as well as a great deal of places where almsot anyone can make their views known to stranegrs around the globe, in various ways. To me, the 'net works on a better model of democracy than any country at this point in time. It's not without its problems, but at least potentially anyone can have an influence over it
Bill, the point I have is that no matter what the UN does regarading the internet, it is meaningless. They can't even ban land-mines, so what can they do about the net?
Since the USA, China, France, Cuba and spammers already exert arbrirary control over the internet, what can the UN do?
I think it is better to focus on the real threats to the net, such as spam, variations on the DMCA, WIPO and so on rather than a theoretical UN conference which will result in nothing, along with their resolutions to prevent starvation, slavery, AIDS, land mines, global warming, and genocide.
Jim -
Those are fair comments. However, the article indicates that the proposal is not for an empty U.N. "resolution," but rather a transfer of control from the current commercial interests to a governmental oversight group. Among the reasons cited for this greater governmental involvement would be the very things you mention - spam, copyright, child pornography concerns, and the like. The goal, in my mind at least, is for a globalization of of the type of localized restrictions you describe, with the possibility of even more.
Forget the UN. Microsoft and the AntiChrist BG are going to control everything. For me, I'm all for the wild, wild, west. I'm sick and fed up with the bureaucrats, big business and special interest control freaks.
Bill, the real point is that whatever institutional body comes about, it is meaningless. It is about standards, and can a UN agency be any worse than Verisign? At least with the UN you have international legal pathways.
And what is going to happen with the interplanetary IP? (Yes, it exists). So, if somebody makes things here awful, you just move to Mars.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10027)
Considering companies such as SCO are doing far more damage to the net, I don't think this is a problem.
And has anybody asked Microsoft and Everquest what they think about this? After all, they have bigger economies than many UN members, and a greater stake in this issue.