United Nations to Govern the Internet?

[Jikosan]

"Leaders from almost 200 countries will convene next week in Geneva to discuss whether an international body such as the United Nations should be in charge of running the Internet, which would be a dramatic departure from the current system, managed largely by U.S. interests.

The representatives, including the heads of state of France, Germany and more than 50 other countries, are expected to attend the World Summit on the Information Society, which also is to analyze the way that Web site and e-mail addresses are doled out, how online disputes are resolved and the thorny question of how to tax Internet-based transactions.

Many developing nations complain that the world's most visible Internet governance body -- the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) -- does not adequately represent their interests and should be scrapped in favor of a group allied with the United Nations."

Read More:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2003Dec4.html

[DELTA75329]

I read about this last week on Boortz.com... :s

------------------------------------------------------

THE UN IS PUSHING FOR CONTROL OF THE INTERNET

Yup .. you got it. There is a move afoot to turn the control of the Internet over to a United Nations agency. You can almost imagine the arguments. Right now the names and Internet URLs are assigned and controlled by an American entity. Most of the computing power that drives the Internet is located in the United States. In a situation like this it is easy to develop various conspiracy theories pointing to U.S. efforts to keep undeveloped and developing countries down by denying them full access to the Internet and manipulating Internet access for the benefit of America's friends. It doesn't matter whether these claims are true (they're not) or untrue. It just matters that charges like this resonate with America's haters around the world.

This move was inevitable. For the most part the Internet knows no international boundaries. Someone in Croatia can order a book from a Japanese book store with a few mouse clicks. A villager in Uganda can voice an opinion on a Hollywood chat line in seconds. These capabilities are not going to escape those who would like to establish a one-world government through the UN. In their minds anything with the international reach of the Internet simply has to be regulated and controlled by the United Nations.

And just how does the UN feel about things such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression? Just read the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sure, right there in Article 19 it says that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." It also says that everyone has the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Even if the UN did control the Internet we would be assured of our freedom to seek, receive and impart information, right?

Not so fast. You need to read a little further. Just read Article 29 Section 3. Here, I'll print it for you:

"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Do you need me to translate? This section says that your freedom of speech, your freedom of expression, and your freedom to "seek, receive and impart information" cannot be exercised if you would interfere with the "purposes and principles of the United Nations," whatever those are.

Remember also that the United Nations has recently determined that some forms of "hate speech" can actually be war crimes. Now ... define "hate speech." And while you're working on that definition remember that liberals, the very people who love the United Nations and who feel that we should turn over our sovereignty to this august organization, would tell you that the very idea expressed on this web page are "hate speech."

Yeah ... UN control of the Internet would certainly be something to look forward too. Not only would web site content end up being censored, but you could also look for other goodies such as a UN imposed sales tax on all Internet transactions to fund UN activities around the world .. activities that usually work against the interests of the United States.

[ShoeHornOPlenty]

And we all know how effective the UN is :whistle:

[syntaxerror64]

I think this is a really bad idea... hopefully the government says no.

[Sparkler]

the un is a real bad group

it shouldnt exist

[xpfreak]

omg this would be a bad thing no, no, no, please god dont let this happen ;)

[KebecoiS]

I'm totally against centralization of this... internet will soon look like real world and some things will suck badly!

Maybe if a group of people that REALLY know how internet is and computers could do it, but please, not the UN!

Cheers.

[BxBoy]

I say keep it the way it is..

[JHAres]

Just read Article 29 Section 3.  Here, I'll print it for you:

"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Do you need me to translate?  This section says that your freedom of speech, your freedom of expression, and your freedom to "seek, receive and impart information" cannot be exercised if you would interfere with the "purposes and principles of the United Nations," whatever those are.

Remember also that the United Nations has recently determined that some forms of "hate speech" can actually be war crimes.  Now ... define "hate speech."  And while you're working on that definition remember that liberals, the very people who love the United Nations and who feel that we should turn over our sovereignty to this august organization, would tell you that the very idea expressed on this web page are "hate speech."

Yeah ... UN control of the Internet would certainly be something to look forward too.  Not only would web site content end up being censored, but you could also look for other goodies such as a UN imposed sales tax on all Internet transactions to fund UN activities around the world .. activities that usually work against the interests of the United States.

The complete Article 29 says:

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

But if you read the next:

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein

And you last paragraph looks absolutely paranoid to said the least... do you think there are not censorship in the USA when something is considered against the "institutions"...??? That's "normal"... Do some research in the net, for example here... :rolleyes:

.. activities that usually work against the interests of the United States.

Geez... :pinch:

"You are either with us or against us"... and you know who said that...

[sarcarsm]Great philosophy...[/sarcasm] so you can't be neutral or against any form of violence ???

If you are a real trekker, you must think in a united world, without frontiers, without superpowered nations, without resources of any kind controlled by one nation or a partial group of them... ;)

P.S.: I'm not trying to start a flame war, is just my humanistic opinion... of course you can disagree and still thinking that something what must be considered now as "mankind patrimony" (as the Internet) in control from only one nation (USA, China or whatever, I don't care)...

P.S.2: Oh... btw, I'm not specially interested in the UN control, but must be administrated by a neutral international agency...

[Jelly2003]

I like the concept of worldwide control over the internet better then individal countries making their own rules.

If a company in America sends spam, and they outlaw it in America they simply move to say.... Egypt (for the sake of this example) and keep sending spam.

A worldwide internet governing body would fix that.

That all im saying on this issue.

[Marshalus Veteran]

'United Nations Security Council votes to grant Neowin.net exclusive coverage of all tech news'

[Marshalus Veteran]

I like the concept of worldwide control over the internet better then individal countries making their own rules.

If a company in America sends spam, and they outlaw it in America they simply move to say.... Egypt (for the sake of this example) and keep sending spam.

A worldwide internet governing body would fix that.

That all im saying on this issue.

Not really, cause the UN can't really MAKE anyone do anything, AFAIK. It's up to the countries who make it up to take action.

[rickyk87]

please lord no!!!! :cry:

[MadDog]

I like the concept of worldwide control over the internet better then individal countries making their own rules.

If a company in America sends spam, and they outlaw it in America they simply move to say.... Egypt (for the sake of this example) and keep sending spam.

A worldwide internet governing body would fix that.

That all im saying on this issue.

A worldwide body could also say, "America, you have too much bandwidth. Send half your routers and other telcom equipment to Kenya to help them build up their infrastructure." It's a horrible idea. It's just anti-Americanism. Socialistic nations have fallen behind the capitalistic US. So, instead of switching to capitalism and competing in the marketplace, they are going to try to force the US to hand over what America has built up with American money and manhours. Same reason the idea of the World Court stinks. An American company becomes "too successful" and you take them to WC and sue them... just stupid. geesh.

They could decide to impose a global sales tax on anything sold on the Internet. Also, in their charter they state that they believe in the right to free speech then in the next article state that it's protected as long as the speech is deemed acceptable by the UN. The UN needs to go!

Edited December 7, 2003 by MadDog

[harleydog]

THE UN IS PUSHING FOR CONTROL OF THE INTERNET

:x

This blows.....

[JHAres]

A worldwide body could also say, "America, you have too much bandwidth. Send half your routers and other telcom equipment to Kenya to help them build up their infrastructure." It's a horrible idea. It's just anti-Americanism. Socialistic nations have fallen behind the capitalistic US. So, instead of switching to capitalism and competing in the marketplace, they are going to try to force the US to hand over what America has built up with American money and manhours. Same reason the idea of the World Court stinks. An American company becomes "too successful" and you take them to WC and sue them... just stupid. geesh.

Mate, that's absurd... geez... :pinch:

[Nexus-]

hmm interesting we will have to see how many people will actually listen to the rules the un makes up for the internet

i think it would stay pretty much the same

[V3L0C|7Y]

The UN is definitely bad news. They're very tyrannical when they actually do something, aside from that they're useless. Who knows what chould happen if the UN were to become involved with TCPA? Here's hoping this isn't the end of the internet as we know it.

[xpablo]

This will never happen, because the USA will not let that happen.

[mxp]

wow this will have mixed reactions

[EWC]

Just came across this one...

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031208-125717-6682r.htm

"U.N. control of Web rejected"

"GENEVA — The United States, backed by the European Union, Japan and Canada, has turned back a bid by developing nations to place the Internet under the control of the United Nations or its member governments...."

[SunnyB]

To hell with the UN.

Why at this point, when the internet is at it's most profitable and popular, should someone else take control of it?

I would rather see Microsoft take control of the it than let the UN regulate it.

They're both bad but one is "badder".

Let those "developing" nations develope their own internal internet. Like AOL but with intra-national traffic only.

They can then spam themselves to death.

[DELTA75329]

I like the concept of worldwide control over the internet better then individal countries making their own rules.

If a company in America sends spam, and they outlaw it in America they simply move to say.... Egypt (for the sake of this example) and keep sending spam.

A worldwide internet governing body would fix that.

That all im saying on this issue.

Yea..we all know what a stellar reputation the U.N. has amassed when it comes to enforcing it's own resolutions. Sure, they just need a little time. Say 15 years or so.

[DELTA75329]

If you are a real trekker, you must think in a united world, without frontiers, without superpowered nations, without resources of any kind controlled by one nation or a partial group of them...  ;)

So... lemme get this straight... I "must" meet your brain-dead criteria in order to be a "real" trekker?

:huh:

Blow me.

My love of Star Trek has nothing to do with this. Maybe you haven't heard, but Star Trek is a TV show, not reality. The utopia displayed on Star Trek is achieved by people freely choosing to live as such. No where has Star Trek ever suggested that people be compelled to do so by a U.N. type organization. (Don't even think of debating me on Star Trek... it's a TV show for God's sake) All the same, Star Trek is fiction.

Speaking of reality, I don't think you're tree-hugging happy land is realistic either. No superpowers? Resources for one and all? Here's a clue: in this world, all men are not created equal. Who knows why, but that's the reality. I agree we should all share and pull our own weight, but we should choose do so because it's in our best interests. Not because the U.N. says so.

Seriously, c'mon now. Don't you presume to tell me how I "must" think. It's cheap and really not a good idea on your part. This united world you speak of is wonderful in theory, but I'm not all for it if the U.N. has to be at the helm.

On other thing... In addition to your associative error, you conveniently missed that I didn't write that bit about the UN pushing for control of the internet. I specifically credited boortz.com.

[EDIT:] I don't mean to come off as entirely belligerent, but your suggestion that my love of Star Trek must somehow govern my perceptions, opinions, and constructs is really quite rediculous. Really, I can do without the insult to my intelligence, thanks. [/EDIT]

P.S.: I'm not trying to start a flame war, is just my humanistic opinion... of course you can disagree and still thinking that something what must be considered now as "mankind patrimony" (as the Internet) in control from only one nation (USA, China or whatever, I don't care)...

I do disagree. Because your opinion says f**k off to the American economy. Much of the internet was developed in this country. Much of it is maintained here. Now the USA is supposed to just turn over how it is governed because some group of squabbling elitist imbeciles think they know better? I don't think so.

Edited December 8, 2003 by DELTA75329

[JHAres]

So... lemme get this straight... I "must" meet your brain-dead criteria in order to be a "real" trekker?

:huh:

Blow me.

My love of Star Trek has nothing to do with this. Maybe you haven't heard, but Star Trek is a TV show, not reality. The utopia displayed on Star Trek is achieved by people freely choosing to live as such. No where has Star Trek ever suggested that people be compelled to do so by a U.N. type organization. (Don't even think of debating me on Star Trek... it's a TV show for God's sake) All the same, Star Trek is fiction.

Speaking of reality, I don't think you're tree-hugging happy land is realistic either. No superpowers? Resources for one and all? Here's a clue: in this world, all men are not created equal. Who knows why, but that's the reality. I agree we should all share and pull our own weight, but we should choose do so because it's in our best interests. Not because the U.N. says so.

Seriously, c'mon now. Don't you presume to tell me how I "must" think. It's cheap and really not a good idea on your part. This united world you speak of is wonderful in theory, but I'm not all for it if the U.N. has to be at the helm.

On other thing... In addition to your associative error, you conveniently missed that I didn't write that bit about the UN pushing for control of the internet. I specifically credited boortz.com.

[EDIT:] I don't mean to come off as entirely belligerent, but your suggestion that my love of Star Trek must somehow govern my perceptions, opinions, and constructs is really quite rediculous. Really, I can do without the insult to my intelligence, thanks. [/EDIT]

I do disagree. Because your opinion says f**k off to the American economy. Much of the internet was developed in this country. Much of it is maintained here. Now the USA is supposed to just turn over how it is governed because some group of squabbling elitist imbeciles think they know better? I don't think so.

Mate, obviously is a TV show, I'm not brain-dead as you said (thank for the insult), but is based in a better conception of the world, the vision of G. Roddenberry about a more fair mankind, represented in a TV serial...

I never intended to insult your intelligence, maybe when I used the phrase "...you must think..." I picked the wrong words. Sorry, my native language is not english and I can't express myself in a more "elaborated style". Obviously you can think in the way you want, my real intention was simply state the way of thinking being "inside" the philosophy contained in the creation of the Star Trek show.

About your love to Star Trek, my position is exactly the opposite, I love that serial because represent in some way my conception for a future society, a mature society... we are still in the "tribal" stage, fighting for the power and resources...

Sure all men are not created equal, that's why in the civilized world, in the democracy, you protect the minorities, there are social services, etc, etc... is not the jungle law, that's is what we call "civilization"... Thanks for the clue...

[sarcasm]Thanks god we don't live in Nigeria or Biafra...[/sarcasm]

About the Internet, I disagree, Internet is what it is now because there is no frontiers there. Sure it started in the USA, but now is a global structure and grows thanks to that... thanks to the work of millions... thanks to the developments made in a lot of countries... not only in one of them...

I never said "f**k off to the American economy", I said Internet now is beyond only one country and maybe will be better an international organization to manage the net, because it's global structure, I don't said specifically "the UN". Again, to be clear, I don't want "control" in the net.

BTW, yes, you credited to boortz.com, but was unclear to me where finish the quote and where start your comments... Sorry, I'm a dead-brain-tree-hugging guy and maybe a little analphabet too... ;)