Recommended Posts

A U.N.-sponsored conference next month in Dubai will propose new regulations and restrictions for the Internet, which critics say will censor free speech, levy tariffs on e-commerce, and even force companies to clean up their ?e-waste? and make gadgets that are better for the environment.

Concerns about the closed-door event have sparked a Wikileaks-style info-leaking site, and led the State Department on Wednesday to file a series of new proposals or tranches seeking to ensure ?competition and commercial agreements -- and not regulation? as the meeting's main message.

Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions and believes management of the Internet by one central organization goes against free speech.

?[Doing nothing] would not be a terrible outcome at all,? Kramer said recently. ?We need to avoid suffocating the Internet space through well-meaning but overly prescriptive proposals that would seek to control content.?

The conference will be run by the International Telecommunications Union (ITC), a U.N. agency that has typically provided a welcome service by making sure that the Internet works across countries. Many of its guidelines were first instituted in 1988. Most haven?t changed since then.

The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is the first such meeting since those guidelines were created, and businesses are taking it seriously: U.S. delegates will include representatives from AT&T, Cisco, Facebook, GoDaddy, and dozens more.

To dispel concerns, the ITU played damage control in early October.

?There are no proposals submitted to create new international regulatory agencies, or mechanisms, and hence no proposals to put ITU in control of the Internet!? said Malcolm Johnson, ITU's telecommunication standardization bureau director, in a written statement.

more

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1116569-un-to-regulate-the-internet/
Share on other sites

Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions and believes management of the Internet by one central organization goes against free speech.

No, the issue here is not "free speech" but that the US wants to keep control of the internet. The treatment of Wikileaks and Julian Assange perfectly demonstrates the United States' contempt for free speech when it goes against their interests. The legislation talked about here would require companies to clean up their "e-waste" and make equipment that is better for the environment, as well as setting aside investment to develop the internet backbone. Companies shouldn't be allowed to pollute and create inefficient products simply because it's more profitable - there needs to be safeguards in place.

Sadly, it's not surprising to see Fox News spin it as an attempt by the UN to take-over the internet. We know the US supposedly hates regulation - except when it comes to women's reproductive rights and preventing gay people from getting married - but it's not up to the US to dictate internet policy. It needs to be controlled internationally.

Build their own system and controll it. Enough said ....

You say that as if the US developed the entire infrastructure of the internet. Further, doing so would limit the influence of US companies in Europe. So while your "the US rules the world, suck it!" approach might make you feel better it's not actually in the interests of the US for Europe / the rest of the world to build a separate 'internet'.

Nobody should be in charge of the internet, IMO. It should be free and available for everyone to enjoy..... :blink:....I really have to lay off on the GNU/Linux.... :p

In principal, yes, in practice there has to be someone there to enforce the rules of fairness. We don't need laws and police to protect us from law abiding citizens, but instead to protect us from those who have no respect for the rules of society.

I'm really unsure how we should govern the body to protect the interests of society when it comes to the Internet. Pulling it up to the UN would help to tame the disproportionate control the US levies onto the Internet, but it would also enhance the interests of parties who want to cripple the web even more, such as China and Iran. I would support the control of it being in the hands of the people, but we don't have any precedents for international elections by the citizenry and I'm not sure the average person understands enough about it that they would care to make an informed decision.

Either way, we need a central governing body in the middle; the trick is how to ensure it protects our interests and not those of corporations or governments. Otherwise, we're trading one master, the US with one head, for another, the "International Community" with many heads.

  • Like 2

Ah lets just throw logic to the wind...

ah, comon, worked for GPS right?... right?... so when's the E.U.'s Galileo coming online full blown again? eh build your own always works out just great and fast when you do it for fear of someone else controlling it.... right?....

ah, comon, worked for GPS right?... right?... so when's the E.U.'s Galileo coming online full blown again? eh build your own always works out just great and fast when you do it for fear of someone else controlling it.... right?....

The success of the Internet has been largely due to the standardized nature of it. If you fragment those standards you'll end up harming both sides of the chasm, not helping. To suggest they build their own when doing so would be in the best interest of no one defies logic.

  • Like 2

In principal, yes, in practice there has to be someone there to enforce the rules of fairness. We don't need laws and police to protect us from law abiding citizens, but instead to protect us from those who have no respect for the rules of society.

I'm really unsure how we should govern the body to protect the interests of society when it comes to the Internet. Pulling it up to the UN would help to tame the disproportionate control the US levies onto the Internet, but it would also enhance the interests of parties who want to cripple the web even more, such as China and Iran. I would support the control of it being in the hands of the people, but we don't have any precidents for international elections by the citizenry and I'm not sure the average person understands enough about it that they would care to make an informed decision.

Either way, we need a central governing body in the middle the trick is how to do ensure it protects our interests and not those of corporations or governments. Otherwise, we're trading one master, the US with one head, for another, the "International Community" with many heads.

This is true. I have no problem with the UN taking down fake sites, sites with malicious intent, and sites that cause harm to children, etc and setting up standards. However, the whole PIPA/ACTA thing is a load. The UN should be very picket and choosey about what they take down and tell us exactly what it violated, or just give them time to take it down themselves.

While it would be sensible to put the UN in control of the internet - being an international organisation that can balance the needs of all countries - there needs to be safeguards in place to ensure that such power isn't abused. Net neutrality should be enshrined in law, which is something that the US isn't going to support. Even the UN seems unsure of what it intends to do and influential business organisations have made appeals to the UN to oppose net neutrality.

The issue should be how the UN should regulate the internet, not if it should.

  • Like 1

The success of the Internet has been largely due to the standardized nature of it. If you fragment those standards you'll end up harming both sides of the chasm, not helping. To suggest they build their own when doing so would be in the best interest of no one defies logic.

that was kinda the point on my sarcasim...

While it would be sensible to put the UN in control of the internet -

No it wouldn't. The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.

You just like the idea because you hate America so much.

  • Like 1
The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.

The diplomatic side of the UN is only one aspect of the organisation. Unfortunately it is the highest profile role of the UN and one which is paralysed by the use of vetoes by permanent members of the Security Council - particularly by the US, China and Russia. However, the UN does an incredible amount of very important work and UNESCO is a good example of that (unfortunately the US has dramatically undermined it since Palestine was admitted by a majority vote).

The reason that the US distrusts the UN - despite having huge influence over the organisation, including being home to the United Nations Headquarters - is that the US likes to consider itself above international law and it would rather dictate policy than work to form a consensus with other nations.

No it wouldn't. The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.

Do you honestly believe that the UN is more corrupt than the US Congress? Because approval numbers would suggest the opposite.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Waymo recalls self-driving software after cars enter closed freeway work zones by Paul Hill Waymo, the self-driving car maker owned by Alphabet – the parent company of Google –, has recalled some of its fifth-generation Automated Driving Systems (ADS). It did so after some of its cars drove through closed construction zones. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the affected vehicles were capable of driving through a closed freeway construction zone and continuing to drive at speed. The listing on the NHTSA website says that Waymo is currently developing a solution to fix this issue, but in the meantime, freeway driving is being restricted. Waymo will update its ADS software so that vehicles can detect when they can avoid entering construction zones. According to the Safety Recall Report, on April 20, 2026, Waymo’s Field Safety Committee began meetings reviewing an event from April 11, 2026, and five events from April 19, 2026, where Waymo’s autonomous vehicles didn’t recognize and drove past ramp closure signs into the pre-planned freeway construction zones. This took place in Phoenix, Arizona. Separately, on May 18, 2026, seven Waymo vehicles entered freeway lanes with active construction in the San Francisco Bay Area by driving between cones that were placed to show the lane was closed. On the back of both of these events, Waymo restricted freeway driving until it could address the issue. In June, Waymo’s Safety Board reviewed the issue and additional information related to ADS performances around construction zones; then, as a result, it decided to conduct a recall. This development is not good for Waymo as it adds to a growing list of technical hiccups its cars have experienced. Ultimately, it will lead to more scrutiny from lawmakers around the world who will be more cautious about letting autonomous vehicles on their roads without tighter regulation. For readers in areas where Waymo operates, does this news make you more wary about stepping into one of these vehicles?
    • I'm still on Windows 10 22H2 because I didn't want to deal with all the issues in Windows 11, so I waited almost a week before installing the latest Patch Tuesday update (KB5094127), I went ahead and did it, and it was a huge mistake—ever since then, my File Explorer has seen a performance drop of about 30% when transferring large files... Once again, Microsoft has outdone itself! This update cannot be uninstalled, either through the Control Panel (via Settings) or by accessing Advanced Startup Options. The only possible alternative would be to use system restore points, but I’d have to reinstall all app and driver updates (and there’s no guarantee it would work). Or there’s the “nuclear option” of a in-place repair without losing files or apps, but even then, all my customizations would be lost! Microsoft just can’t help but mess everything up! Way to go, Microsoft! But I still don’t want your c****y Windows 11!
    • Microsoft: Windows 11 could finally solve a major issue across AMD, Nvidia, and Intel GPUs by Sayan Sen While Microsoft has been trying to improve it, Windows 11 is definitely not flawless, as even today some issues are taking a year to publicly acknowledge. However, one area of trouble that may finally see much better results soon is graphics driver crashes. Work on graphics driver timeouts, also called Timeout and Detection Recovery (TDR), is not new as the latest WDDM 3.2 also has specific improvements regarding it. Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) version 3.2 is supported on Windows 11 24H2 and 25H2. However, with the upcoming version 26H2, TDR crash diagnosis could go to the next level as Microsoft is introducing a new DirectX 12 API feature called "DirectX Dump Files". Similar to how system memory dump files work when a system crashes or freezes or encounters any such major issue, DirectX Dump Files (DDF) will essentially record a snapshot of the GPU execution right at the moment a graphics-related crash or hang or freeze occurs, so that developers can better understand and diagnoze these TDR and timeout detection errors. The dump will be available as a .dxdmp file for analysis and it will be a comprehensive dump file generated with detailed insights about the hardware, drivers, Windows, as well as the affected application. This should be another welcome change in this department. Earlier at GDC 2026, when the technology was first debuted, Microsoft had shared more details regarding it. The company had explained how DDF is designed to gather data from every layer of the graphics stack into a single file, eliminating the need for developers to manually correlate logs from multiple tools. As mentioned above, the dump can contain a lot of useful details like GPU hardware state information such as register values, shader program counters, page fault virtual addresses, shader memory data, and command buffers. Alongside that, it also captures DirectX runtime and kernel information, including D3D objects, pipeline state objects, device error data, adapter details, and CPU call stacks. Microsoft says the feature has been built around two primary use cases: retail device removals and local device removals. The former allows developers to collect crash information from end users' systems in the field, while the latter helps QA teams and developers investigate issues on test machines. Developers will also be able to include up to 2 MB of custom application data through new D3D12 APIs, providing additional context for troubleshooting. In addition, Microsoft is introducing three dump collection modes ranging from zero-overhead capture, which has no runtime performance impact on supported hardware, to higher-detail modes that collect more vendor-specific debugging data. On compatible Tier 2 hardware, zero-overhead dumps will be enabled by default, meaning developers may begin receiving useful crash diagnostics without making any code changes. The table below explains the three tiers: Tier Description NO_OVERHEAD Enables crash capture with no runtime cost and is suitable for broad deployment MEDIUM_OVERHEAD Provides a balance, capturing additional diagnostic data with moderate impact HIGH_OVERHEAD Collects the most detailed GPU and driver state available, enabling deeper investigation at the cost of higher runtime overhead In terms of availability, the company expects broader release to be around the fall of 2026, which should be right around the time when Windows 11 version 26H2 lands. Right now, DirectX Dump Files are available as a preview and currently, only AMD has the compatible AgilitySDK Developer Preview driver version 26.10.07.02. You can find the official announcement post here on Microsoft's website.
    • And with SO much better perf than the laggy mess that is Files.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      BizSAR earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Jordan Smith earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      598
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      190
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      80
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      76
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!