Remarkably, the UN, in the throes of a major scandal, has decided now is the proper time to go ahead with the second phase of their widely ridiculed gambit to seize control of internet. From Tech Central Station:
The United Nations wants control of the internet. At its November 2005 meeting in Tunis, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) will deliberate its “second phase” of creating a bureaucracy to manage internet governance. The WSIS is run by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a specialized agency of the UN. At the WSIS Preparatory Commission meeting held this past September in Geneva, the European Union joined with countries like China and Iran in rejecting the concept of not fixing what is not broken and decided that increased international supervision—maybe even international control—of the internet has become necessary. Why the United Nations should have a special right to manage “internet governance” is unclear. The claim—like most UN claims—is based on the idea that, because it has the form of a government, the UN can grant itself whatever government-like powers it desires. In this case, the UN has decided it has an information age power of eminent domain and can take over any communications network of international scope.
The work of the WSIS is frequently cast in terms of the United Nations trying to take control of the internet from the United States. But the goals specified by the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) describe American control as only one aspect of the problem. The August report of the WGIG simultaneously decries “unilateral control by the United States government” and the fact that the highest levels of the internet “perform their functions today without a formal relationship with any authority”. In other words, the real problem in the collective mind of the United Nations is not that the United States controls the internet, but that no one does. The shots at the United States are as much marketing as substance; it is easier to sell any program at the UN by adding generous doses of anti-Americanism.
The United Nations either does not understand or is willfully ignoring the fact that the lack of control of the internet is not a bug—it’s a feature!
Well, sure. But what do you expect from a supergovernmental body that answers to absolutely no higher authority, and who views the votes of despots and tyrants as having the same moral authority as those of democracies?
I mean, hell—if I was king of the world, I’d claim for myself whatever I wanted, too. Although it wouldn’t be the internet. Not so long as Elle McPherson is still exercising regularly.
update: “KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF ELLE’S UTERUS, SEXIST!”
This might be as good a reason as any to never elect a UN appeasing limp wristed liberal to the White House.
It is very plausible that someone like Jimmy Carter would turn over the internet to Kofi. Ouch.
Jeff,
I don’t know much about female reproductive biology but I think it would rather difficult (and disgusting) to have your hands ON Elle’s uterus.
Also, if other countries want to control their parts of the internet, I say give it to them. Just block access to any servers/lines in the US and tell them to have fun. They’ll be begging us to be back in charge within weeks.
All those other countries are free to implement their own DNS servers and domains. Then ICANN won’t be able control the distribution of IPs, domains or any of those administrative duties.
Of course when their users can’t connect to domains they used to because the UN fragmented the whole system then they can deal with that back lash.
The UN can claim it’s going to “take” control all it likes. But the domain servers of the US (and likely North America) will continue to route as ICANN stipulates. http://www.amazon.com will still take you to the correct IP address here. But the UN says it’s unacceptable that the US government through the FCC can regulate ICANN I guess. The hard truth of the matter is that the UN doesn’t want “control” over the Internet as some utiopian administrative neutral party. All you have to do is listen to the UN themselves on this matter.
All of that can be seen at WGIG.ORG meeting <a href=”http://www.wgig.org/June-scriptmorning.html” target=”_blank”>minutes</a>. Take note that WGIG is the acronym of Working Group on Internet Governance. Review of the pervious quotes makes it quite obvious that the UN wants to control content, not administer technical aspects of the Internet. What’s spam to you but might be advertisement or information to another? The UN wants to administer this moral application of content deguised as some technical oversight. The Internet should never ever come under UN administration and it never will.
Presumably the UN will enforce this new control of the Internet by. . .what? How does one ‘control’ the Internet?
Ain’t gonna happen. The Internet started as a defense thing (DARPAnet), and it has too much of that heritage to be controlled. The only thing that can be controlled are the root DNS servers.
For the love of all that is Holy, no. This is the same bunch of incompetent goons that condemn Israel for sneezing, were bought by Saddam, ignore genocide committed by Muslims, pimp Tsunami and Earthquake relief (but forget about hurricanes), and they never met a dictator they hated.
And they want to screw up the internet.
Haven’t they screwed up enough things??
TW: deal: “Sorry, no deal.”
Just as a side note how are we MISSING this comedy? This gold plated goodness is happening and we are non the wiser. I’d give anything to see video of some Brazilian rep say in a serious and deadpan voice, “For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let’s be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography.” That’s a beautiful thing.
So the UN wants controll of the Internet?
Let them come and get it.
The mice have voted to bell the Cat too.
Give them their own .UN tld and let them administer it. Just like the steering wheel on the old kid’s car seat – they can turn it whatever way they want. We keep our Internet and the UN keeps theirs.
http://www.kofisays.UN sure to be a big hit.
High stakes Texas Hold ‘em w/ Kofi and the boys? What a gas! DEAL ME IN, BROTHER!!
TW: respect. right, as if.
Arrogant assholes. They can take their crooked, corrupt, bottom-feeding, limp-wristed, collectivist, ant-American, capitalist-teat-sucking selves and fuck the fuck off.
We should consider pulling their cables from our U.S. routers anyway. I trace and bust phishing spammers, and almost all of the spam and target sites are located outside the U.S.
Almost all content useful to U.S. users is found on U.S. sites anyway. Countries who want to stay on our Internet should sign a treaty with us to bust spam and phishing quickly and aggressively.
I know there are arguments for keeping the gates open for Chinese dissidents etc., but someone else can make them. Just call this post a tough bargaining position, if you like.
It’s not so much that the UN wants to control the Internet; what they desire (as member states) is local control of the content therein. Here is a thing that cannot currently be blocked or monitored like TV and telephone. And why is certain content such an issue for some regimes and rulers? One wonders…
Hmmmm.
(No, not really.)
Actually BLT countries can already control their own content with their own firewalls right now. China is the most popular example. The UN wants control over root DNS servers under the guise of administrative control but want to implement that content control from the root level.
Did they finally match Al Gore’s asking price for his patent?
Apologies for being totally O/T, but I noticed that Jeff has gone over the 3 million visitor mark. Well done, sir.
BECAUSE OF HIS ASS-KICKINGNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, it’s not their citizens to whom they want to block content.
How does the UN expect to be able to follow through with their dastardly plans, anyway? It seems to me to be like the Americans in charge of such things would simply say “Uh uh, uh uh, no way.”
Most excellent indeed with the 3 million news. Now, we have to wonder how he made it so far…
Because of the rape advocacy, perhaps? Nah, rape advocates probably don’t have that much internet access.
Or maybe the good old fashioned hypocrisy? Doubtful, given that by liberal definition, every rightie is a hypocrite.
No… no, I think there is only one possible explanation for how Jeff has pwned the internet so far. And it cannot possibly be intelligent, thought-provoking writing constantly found within the pages, between the stories of chocolate macaroons and hangovers. It cannot possibly be any of that, no sir.
No, it clearly must be the Zionist conspiracy. I mean, Jeff is a Jew. So clearly, the Zionists have hammered his site, inflated the view counts, a bit of consideration for services rendered, if you will. I KNOW IT FOR A FACT! MY INSTINCTS TELL ME SO!
Turing word “enough,” as in “Putting the entire post in all caps would have been too much. Just reading it in sentence case was painful enough.”
Dario: agreed. I was really attempting to make a point that the UN’s purpose behind taking control wasn’t so much to govern, but to censor. But you’re right, certain (mainly socialist) countries have already attempted and in some cases succeeded in banning specific domains and content. Having UN help, money, and approval would obviously allow them to legitimize and speed deployment of such filtering.
And you know what they say about socialism: ‘freedom breeds dissent’, and we can’t have that, now can we?
There are less than 2 months left in the eyar.
The home page un.org still says Copyright, United Nations, 2004
I’m still laughing about Brazil’s concern over pornography and Syria being upset about spam. Dario, are you sure your citation isn’t Scrappleface or Burgess? Next we’ll hear that Nigeria is worried that cyber scams could defraud its people.
dario,
When I read your post exerpting the statements made by the different representatives, I truly was rolling, certain that it was very artfully done satire.
Then I saw the link and felt a little sick.
This is where our money goes that could be helping Americans?
Fuck ‘em. Time to get out.
btw, Jeff, CONGRATS on the 3 Million mark!!
If you need me, I’ll be over at my blog, waiting for the count to hit 1000.
TW: “less”
ok, that was a cheap shot.
Once I was in a bar in Massachussets, and I heard a guy on the pay phone getting more and more agitated. He must have been talking to Kofi, because his last, very loud words before he slammed the reciever down were: “Oh yeah? Well, fuck you, you fuckin’ fuck”.
My sentiments exactly.
The UN taking over the internet? Priceless…
As someone who’s worked in this field for a long time, and for very large international network providers… I can pretty much say that I think the ITU/WGIG is on crack. As was already pointed out, it is just horrific to some of these countries that the internet isn’t heavily regulated. Remember, these are the same people who brought “the phone company” to the rest of the world – the heavily regulated, fee ridden, overpriced, horribly run, unreliable monstronsity that telephone service is in many countries outside of North America. These are the people we want defining standards and leading innovation? It will never happen… and content in many places will be stifled. But everyone has already pointed that out.
Not that there aren’t a couple of folks to blame on our side for getting the world so pissed off at the current system. Verisign, through the purchase of Network Solutions way back when, successfully turned a National Science Foundation contract to run .com and .net – and provided free domain names for registrants at that – in to a multi-billion dollar enterprise. And because of the desire of everyone to have a “.com” address, they now have the power to create DNS policy at will and de facto veto power over any technical changes/innovations they don’t care by simply refusing to implement them. Of course, ICANN/US Dept. of Commerce had the opportunity to address this when the time came to renew the .com and .net contracts earlier this year… but instead through an RFP process that many claim (and possibly rightly so) was weighted in Verisign’s favor and a review process that failed to compare apples-to-apples, or worse misrepresented both VeriSign and other bidder’s capabilities, other qualified companies were brushed aside and Verisign was awarded the contract until 2011. That’s the sort of thing that only fuels discontent with the current system and reeks of dirty politics, back alley money transfers and cronyism.
The fact remains, ITUization of the Internet is a horrible prospect… but one which is growing an alarming amount of traction over the last few years.
I’m quite ignorant of the “inner workings” and the details of the internet’s history.
I’m more informed than I like to be about the U.N.
I wouldn’t want the U.N. to be in charge of monitoring icebox sales in the Arctic circle.
TW:”choice”
like I have one
The UAE has a very pervasive and obvious method to censor sites. All internet connections are through the sole communication company (Etisalat), and all connections go through Etisalat’s firewall. Tons and tons of sites are blocked. If the UAE can do it, why do Syria and Brazil need to have the UN involved? Do they want to be subsidized for running the firewall?
Oh, wait. In the UAE, if someone could log on through America Online, there were no filters. Those pesky Americans, getting in the way of good, wholesome censorship.
(Strange fact: although pornographic and various political and religious sites were blocked, none of the Jewish or Zionist websites were blocked. Quite strange. Don’t know if it is case now, but it was in 1998. Am Yisrael chai.)
<a href=”http://www.mastergirls.com/pics/Modelle_Straniere/Elle_McPherson/Elle MacPherson 07.JPG” target=”_blank”>As Close To Perfection as Possible. NSFW</a>
I think we should be very afraid. If the U.N. doesn’t get it’s way, surely they will send out millions of strongly-worded emails threatening, oh, I don’t know, even more stern emails of remonstrance for non-compliance. And then? Sanctions!
I suspect most of the demands are fueled not by the member nations but by the UN bureaucrats.
The permanent staff at the UN wants to run everything in the world. That is the nature of government workers – if it exists it is their sacred right to regulate and tax it.
Some countries do, of course, have visions of control for political or economic motives. Some just want to tweak Uncle Sam’s nose. And some will support change because it gives them the illusion that they have actually done something at the UN; for after all the UN is the hope of the world!
I know that the day the UN takes control or is able to tax I will leave the internet. But that is easy for an old man who has no vital interests online. Business, government, institutions, and millions or individuals cannot now rely upon it.
Beats the ubernet. Zieg Heil!
What? Baron Ãœnderbheit’s going to take over? That could get… interesting.
You can have my Internet when you pry my mouse from my cold, dead hands…
I’m sure that in the back of their greedy little minds is the idea of “revenue” off of a UN regulated internet.
It is about content certainly, but also about generating revenue so that Kofi can skim money and then pump it back into failed third world societies (and his son’s pockets.)
And I think we have politicians here in the US that would just love this idea. Who was it again that protested the loudest about John Bolton going to the UN?
The worst thing about insane ideas is that insane people like them.
When does their domain registration expire?
TW: “evil”
Yes, I am. Thanks for noticing.
GO TEAM VENTURE!