Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Most Important Meeting You've Never Heard of

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the but-only-if-you-use-the-internet dept.

Government 171

An anonymous reader writes "In December the nations of the world will gather in Dubai for the UN-convened World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'). The topic of the meeting is nothing less than the regulation of the Internet. Under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union the governments of the world will review the international treaty known as the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR). The last review of the ITR was in 1988 when the Internet was just aborning. The remarkable and reshaping growth of the Internet provides the excuse for the new review. What's really afoot, however, is an effort by some nations to rebalance the Internet in their favor by reinstituting telecom regulatory concepts from the last century." At least it's being held in a hotbed of unfettered online communication.

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524297)

All I ever read about is slavery. Is Dubai just a metaphor for "the rich can control everybody else" or is it a real country?

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41524399)

"A real country"? You mean like for example.. the US? The rich certainly don't control people there!

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (1, Troll)

gsgriffin (1195771) | about 2 years ago | (#41525415)

I hope there is a repost of this after the conference and with accurate, actual agreements and understandings that come out of this meeting. It has been vogue to take any international meeting and assume that the US is trying to get rich off the poor and silence the world and and control everyone. If you lived here, you'd see how wrong you are, but from where you sit, I can understand how you and your friends bantering over a beer might come to that conclusion. There always has to been someone on top that is the target and the concluded cause of all your problems.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (1)

Creepy (93888) | about 2 years ago | (#41526141)

Weird - I am in the US, and feel we ARE trying to control the internet and everything on it, like forcing US copyright law on the world, as in SOPA/PIPA and ACTA, insisting on tax breaks for the rich (which means more taxes for the poor and middle class), attempts at a flat tax to abolish the IRS (all of which are a tax increase for the poor/middle class), etc. Other laws like COPA, and the DMCA attempt to dictate world internet policy. The FCC chairman seems to want all internet to be metered and charged like long distance calls and billed by usage (and wow - talk about regressive... I'm less at odds with usage billing if it is reasonable, but look at what Verizon Wireless and AT&T is charging for tiny amounts of data and I'm absolutely offended).

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (4, Insightful)

gsgriffin (1195771) | about 2 years ago | (#41527355)

You're focusing on only what you want to hear. In the US, you can see and do a lot on the Internet. They are not trying to control 'everything on it'. You can watch your porn, put up plans to make a bomb and kill people, tell nasty lies about anyone you want. You can't steal something that someone else has created.

Also go do your research rather than just listening to your political party of choice. About 97% of all of the taxes in our country are paid for by about 5% of the wealthy people in this country. In other words, we get our highways, police, national parks, etc...because the wealthy have paid their taxes. Take away the wealthy in our country and your taxes will double overnight. I for one am not wealthy, but I'm grateful to those who are and are paying taxes. BTW...the people that get the most back from the government are those that pay nothing. I'm shocked why they feel they should contribute absolutely nothing. Try living in another country...like India or anywhere in Africa. Even if you live at $2/day, you have to pay huge school fees and buy uniforms for your children if you want them to simply go to school. Can't afford it, they don't get an education. It appears you are concerned about the "poor" in America, but statistically, check out a global wealth calculator...several on the web...those living on welfare in the US are still in the top 20% of wage earner in the world for doing nothing. Not a bad gig. Don't like it, try living in another country and doing nothing and see what it gets you.

The cell phone providers are not the internet. They are your ISP. They can charge what you are willing to pay. If nobody is willing to pay it, they will go to some other provider. The try to limit the traffic...not control it. They want to earn money. So does any business.

Copyrights used to be easier because it was all physical or intellectual. Now the Internet has allowed people to copy what they didn't create for free and pass it around for others to have for free. Whatever movies you like or computers games or TV shows you may like, do you think they would exist if there was no protection at all and everyone could copy and pass them around for free? Really? The reason they can still be in business is because our government is trying so hard to protect and make it illegal to takes what someone has created and pass it around for free. If the US didn't pay to go to the movies, buy DVD, and rent the movies, I'd have a hard time believing that anyone in Hollywood would be willing to put up $100M to make a great movie. They'd loose all their money.

Go ahead and explain to us how and why anything would be developed (pharma, entertainment, software) if nobody is willing to pay for it and just waits to get it for free. I'd love to know how that system works?

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41527605)

faggrt

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525883)

Honestly I can't stand people who go out of their way to feel like a victim. The rich don't control people in the US. If you feel differently, your victimization is in your head.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 2 years ago | (#41526407)

No, the rich only control the politicians who make laws that control the people. Or are you actually claiming special interest groups and lobbyists don't have any sway in the law making process?

Guess what? Not everyone who feels like this is a victim, and the rich do not control every aspect of this country. The truth is somewhere in the middle of the two. There are just way to many people lined up at either end of the argument. It isn't as black and white as most people would like to make it seem.

Also telling everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion that their feelings are "all in their head" is a good way to have people tune out from everything else you are saying.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41527709)

They don't have nukes.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41524417)

All I ever read about is slavery. Is Dubai just a metaphor for "the rich can control everybody else" or is it a real country?

Dubai is an example of the glorious harmony between (middle) east and west! A city that wraps the middle east's robust traditions of rule of law and enlightenment liberalism and the west's values of sober financial honesty in the civic-planning expertise of Vegas developers on PCP... Truly, an example for us all.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41524725)

I'm not so sure they're an example for everyone: China arguably does even better by combining the political freedoms enjoyed by northeastern Europeans for decades, the environmental and labor laws found in many nations in southeast Asia, and the economic opportunities common to Central America.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524831)

Whoosh...!

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41525329)

Not a whoosh: I'm saying that Chinese people have the political freedoms of the Soviets, the environmental protections of India (take a look at the Ganges), and the economic options of sweatshop labor vs subsistence farming.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525527)

Reverse whoosh!

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | about 2 years ago | (#41527169)

"Glorious Harmony" sounds like the name of the cult that dressed them selves up in robes lay down and poisoned themselves because they new the Alien ship was coming to snatch them away to heaven.

Yup (2)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41527767)

Dubai is an example of the glorious harmony between (middle) east and west!

Kinda like Cleveland.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524483)

well it isn't a country so guess it's the other thing.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524519)

Dubai is an artificially constructed where no city naturally arise. The entirety of Dubai is a playground for the ultra-wealthy and infamous. Think of it as the headquarters of The New World Order.

Re:Is there any GOOD news from Dubai? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41527087)

Dubai is not a real country just a state in the Emirates.

BUY YOUR TINFOIL NOW (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524303)

Supplies will be limited in December.

While there's ICANN... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524365)

there's no free internet...

Time for COMMUNISM! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 2 years ago | (#41524379)

Communism is the only solution! Workers to power!

Re:Time for COMMUNISM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524515)

You're slipping mate. I'm worried. There's no mention of dog smoochers or horse pigs. I guess it's the shock of actually being an Italian or is Laura keeping you busy?

I've never been to Dubai (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524387)

I hear it is nice. Pretty expensive too. Glad that my tax money is being spent on sending government employees to such an out-of-the-way place. After all, if they don't deserve it, who does?

Re:I've never been to Dubai (4, Informative)

Copley (726927) | about 2 years ago | (#41524507)

Out of the way for who?! The "nations of the world" are attending, not just the US [I'm guess you're from the US with your rather parochial ways]. Dubai seems pretty central [wikipedia.org] to me.

Re:I've never been to Dubai (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41526789)

Why not a map weighted by GDP? Why not a map weighted by number of internet users? Why not a map weighted by bytes per capita? Why not a location that reduces the total amount of travel? I'll bet you're from somewhere that doesn't give a shit about carbon footprint. But since this is a Telecommunications Conference, why don't they try teleconferencing?

Re:I've never been to Dubai (4, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41525119)

Glad that my tax money is being spent on sending government employees to such an out-of-the-way place.

Your gasoline money paid for the place so what's a few airplane tickets?

I've been told to worry more about WPTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524395)

If we survive WCIT, we then have WPTF in 2013
(http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/default.aspx)

The good folks at ISOC (http://www.internetsociety.org/) along with other influential policy people in the industry are working hard on both of these.

Re:I've been told to worry more about WPTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524427)

WTPF even. WTF indeed :)

Re:I've been told to worry more about WPTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524663)

Thank you so much for defining those meaningless acronyms...

it became what it is.... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524411)

The internet became what it is and revolutionized human communication precisely because it was not regulated. It was an anarchy, and should remain one.

Re:it became what it is.... (4, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41524527)

Problem is.. it is not one and never has been. What needs to be figured out over the coming decades is, will the US unilaterally regulate it, or will an international organization do so. Neither is a particularly good option, but I doubt we will have much other choice.

Re:it became what it is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524949)

The answer to this is easy The United States invented it and we should continue to regulate it period! Otherwise there will be a split in the web and it would no longer be called the World Wide Web because we would still keep our part of the internet free, obviously, and other countries that don't like that would either have to adopt a China style "great fire wall" or divide the internet into pieces depending on what the other countries want their citizens to have access to.

Re:it became what it is.... (2)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41527577)

The irony, of course, being that the 'world wide web' was invented by people at CERN, which is swiss/french.... so under that logic the EU should regulate the web and the US would regulate routing, I guess.

Re:it became what it is.... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41526663)

How about the US regulate the servers and routers that are in the US, and other countries regulate those in them?

Re:it became what it is.... (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41527229)

Neither is really an option. It's not like either the US or the UN could convince China not to censor their network. Tyrannies will always control their national subnets, the only difference is that they now also want control over the Internet of everyone else.

Re:it became what it is.... (3, Insightful)

swalve (1980968) | about 2 years ago | (#41525315)

Ridiculous. The content wasn't regulated, but the nuts and bolts are. Things like TCP/IP and routers and shit. You are confusing the roads for the route.

Re:it became what it is.... (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41526081)

It was an anarchy

... created by those well-known anarchists at the US Department of Defense, with funding and public support from that well-known anarchist Al Gore.

Re:it became what it is.... (3, Interesting)

JWW (79176) | about 2 years ago | (#41526945)

If ever there needed to be proof the legislators NEVER think of unintended consequences of the laws/programs they create, the Internet is it.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that if they had known what the Internet would become that they would have passed the legislation and funded the programs that spawned it in the way that they did. They would have ensured the regulatory capture first, which would have saved them all this hassle of a rear guard action of trying to achieve it now.

The Internet's success was probably the most serendipitous accident in human history. Had the lawmakers actually really known exactly what they were doing, I am certain they would not have done it.

Please note that I am not at all inferring that the engineers and technical experts working at DARPA at the time didn't know exactly what THEY were doing...

aborning? (2)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 2 years ago | (#41524423)

I would have said, "in its formative years"..

That said, thanks for the new word.. it's well cromulous.

Re:aborning? (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41524873)

You know, if you look a word up in the dictionary to see if it's real, slang, or newly coined you look a lot less stupid. Aborning is a real word, "cromulent" was invented in a cartoon making fun of making up words.

Definition of ABORNING [merriam-webster.com]
: while being born or produced
Origin of ABORNING
1a- + English dialect borning (birth)
First Known Use: 1916
2aborningadjective
Definition of ABORNING
: being born or produced
Examples of ABORNING

First Known Use of ABORNING
1943
Related to ABORNING
Synonyms: nascent, budding, inceptive, inchoate, incipient
Antonyms: adult, full-blown, full-fledged, mature, ripe, ripened

Re:aborning? (2)

swalve (1980968) | about 2 years ago | (#41525357)

Regardless, it's a stupid word that seems to have been used simply because someone's thesaurus suggested it. It's one of those word-salad words you see in power supply reviews, used simply to adhere to the fake rule of not using the same word twice.

Re:aborning? (0)

Creepy (93888) | about 2 years ago | (#41526237)

I'd rather have real words that aren't in common usage than ignorant mistake words that have come into common usage. My pet peeve is "baited breath"... drives me nuts every time I see it. Why the f**k would you bait your breath? Sadly, some dictionaries are even acknowledging it as a valid word (correct word is bated breath, where bated is the short form of abated, which means stopped).

Re:aborning? (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41526241)

It only seems stupid to you because it looks made up out of the word born.

There's nothing stupid at all about dusting off a lesser known word and holding it up to see if it should regain some stature.

Re:aborning? (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | about 2 years ago | (#41527211)

Well is looks like it was made up of a form of the work born actually.

Re:aborning? (1)

jrroche (1937546) | about 2 years ago | (#41526459)

You know, if you took a class on linguistics and learned that language changes naturally and can only really be described based on real-world usage, not prescribed according to a dictionary, you'd look a lot less stupid. "Aborning" has 116,000 results on google and the top results are dictionary definitions, suggesting it may as well be made up because absolutely no one ever uses it. "Cromulent", meanwhile, has 249,000 results -- though admittedly, the top results are also mostly definitions and origin explanations -- suggesting it is a word people actually use and/or give a damn about, which a dictionary writer would probably tell you gives it more validity as a real word.

Re:aborning? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41526919)

Indeed, language does change, as anyone who's ever seen Shakespeare or a King James Bible knows. Yet "hither" and "yon" are still words; just because they're little used doesn't take away their status as real words. Meanwhile, I've only seen "cromulent" used in its original meaning, which is making fun of newly coined words by coining a new word.

Reading the draft treaty (4, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41524425)

I read through the very early draft: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf [itu.int]

It seems like the focus is mainly compensation structure and what obligations exist for telcos passing traffic through. Content provisions are light. For example

Member States are encouraged:
a) to adopt national legislation to act against spam;
b) to cooperate to take actions to counter spam;
c) to exchange information on national findings/actions to counter spam.

This is a crucial treaty in the way the public water system is crucial to public welfare. Its existence is a matter of public interest, the details of implementation not so much. Most people want their messages to pass but don't really care how telcos pass expenses around.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41524561)

Yeah, but it dovetails with 'how dare those dang foreigners interfere with the US!' narrative,. so it is getting lots of hyperbolic attention and fear that the US will be under UN control. Exceptional-ism is still a pretty strong meme in the US, and anytime a story comes out that someone other then the US might have power or that the US isn't a unilateral power that can do whatever it wants unquestioned, it gets whipped up into an expletive storm.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524787)

Just posting to give your view my support. Sick of all the cock-faced nationalist wankers the US floods Slashdot with when it comes to stories like this.

The fact that they still to this day claim that somehow the UNSC is relevant to the ITU, or the fact that Russia could somehow enforce global censorship even though this would require their dear USA to support it because the ITU works on consensus only, or the fact that they claim it's full of time/money wasting beauracrats when in fact staffed by the world's foremost telecomms academics and experts demonstrates that they don't actually know what the fuck they're on about even though they post this shit anyway.

Still, good on you having the balls to point out the facts on this topic with your actual account, I long got sick of it. Stories about this topic almost always seem to be 100% FUD cooked up by the US authorities and/or it's nationalist fuckwads because they don't want to be able to give up their ability to censor international domains at will, whilst simultaneously using censorship as their go-to excuse as to why no one else should run the net in the most classically American hypocritical way possible.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524979)

And what I love the most is that most US citizen's arguments related to censorship are only loosely related to real censorship issues, and more closely related to I DESERVE FREE FUCKING SOFTWARE.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525107)

You're just mad because it conversations used to be Euro-centered, and now they're US-centered. Suck a dick.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (0)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41525193)

because they don't want to be able to give up their ability to censor international domains at will,whilst simultaneously using censorship as their go-to excuse as to why no one else should run the net

When has the USA ever censored international domains? We have enough real problems in the world let's not make up fake ones to fight about. The USA has a several hundred year strong history of light censorship, especially political censorship an excellent track record. If I had to trust any single entity not to censor the US government is a good choice.

There is nothing hypocritical about having them play that role. Anymore than there would be in choosing the German government to conduct accounting audits all over the planet.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525295)

ICE domain seizures and the illegal actions taken against megaupload.

I fear the UN more than the US when it comes to censorship, but let's not try to pretend the US believes in free speech when it threatens the powerful.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41526055)

The Nation has been publishing continuously since 1865.
Labor newspapers that had existed for a century only closed in the last few decades.
Books of all sorts are published freely.
The internet allows for free speech.

Yes the US does believe in free speech even when it threatens the powerful. There are infrequent incidents in the other direction but they have a fantastic record.

____

As for mega upload they were charged in Virginia court and Australia courts for crimes related to piracy. That is a typical business seizure that happens to businesses which are fundamentally criminal enterprises. You may disagree that megaupload was a fundamentally criminal enterprise but there is nothing unusual about the government seizing business assets for companies under indictment. That's not censorship.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41526389)

US courts ordered seizure of domains of legal gambling operations in places like Antigua and the WTO even backed Antigua's stance. The courts did this because gambling was bad in said state, so effectively US censorship was being exported not just globally, but to the detriment of foreign nations with no stake in the US.

Also, ICE domain seizures have hit more than just illegal sites. In fact, this is one of the fundamental problems with them - there seems to be no real process to deem a site illegal or not, ICE just takes them regardless so you can't simply write them off as seizure of sites peddling illegal wares because that's never actually been proven because there is no process to do so.

So fundamentally not only is the US seizing domains that are against it's laws, even if legal everywhere else in the world and using international rather than US specific domains, but it's also seizing domains without bothering to prove illegality. That IS censorship and of course, that's before you even get into the slightly greyer area of de-facto censorship by trying to cut funding to sites like Wikileaks by taking the unprecedented step of forcing Visa/Mastercard/Paypal to stop supporting them so that they can't afford to keep publishing- again, despite having broken no actual law.

Sorry but it sounds like rather than simply accepting that the US absolutely has engaged in international censorship, you're merely trying to make excuses as to why it's not censorship, even though it clearly is.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41526559)

you're merely trying to make excuses as to why it's not censorship, even though it clearly is.

No it isn't clear. I'm not saying the US hasn't shut down internet sites engaging in commerce, they certainly have. But that has nothing to do with censorship. Lets take your example and simplify by assuming it were domestic. The government could very easily seize a cardroom or illegal casino and that wouldn't be censorship. If they seized something like cardplayer magazine that would be censorship. Absolutely the USA wants to regulate commerce.

Your complaints about ICE, the customs office is subject to US law and rules of due process. If they suspect criminal activity and the agency appears in court then it does go through the court system. There is the process. Now I agree that what the US is going is effectively exporting US law, and that is a problem. But it is not censorship.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41527491)

A lot of that depends on tradition though.. you can not come down on books or newspapers because they have gotten slapped for it in the past (and yeah, when those mediums were new, the government tried to crack down on them then too).. now we have a new medium and tradition isn't there, so we are going through the same cycle of seeing how much power they can exert before people get pissed off enough. That 'fantastic record' came about because when the government oversteeped people got angry, and we need to keep getting angry whenever they try to push those boundaries again.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (1)

Jiro (131519) | about 2 years ago | (#41525445)

You just contradicted yourself. You said that 1) Russia cannot enforce global censorship because it would require that the US cooperate in doing so, and 2) the US wants to be able to censor international domains at will.

2 shows that 1 is possible.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41526729)

So how is the current status quo where the US can enforce censorship without Russia possible?

I think the AC's point was that you'd need agreement from all 203 or whatever UN members, whereas currently you just need the US to decide to do it. The point being that the US can't use that as an excuse not to hand over unless it fully intends (and to be fair, has done) to implement censorship itself which in a circular way means the excuse makes no sense because the US is saying it wont hand it over because of censorship, but that's only a problem if the US supports that censorship meaning it's not actually an excuse not to hand it over if the US is going to go ahead with it anyway.

Or to cut a long story short, your argument might be true, but it also implies that the US' primary argument against giving up control must therefore be inherently false. In other words, there is only contradiction in what he said if the US' argument is false, so effectively he's forced the argument to the logical conclusion that either censorship is not a problem, or censorship is a problem and the US is going to be to blame for it. Either way it shatters the US' argument that it's an inherently trustworthy custodian of the internet.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (3, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41525111)

I'm American and yes treaties aren't popular here. Though in all fairness most Americans in almost all their practices live in a world where on most things the US congress is the final authority. There is no American version of Brussels. Further remember that 1/2 of Americans haven't been out of the country, for many Americans their primary view of foreign countries are the stories about how their family fled and images on news programs emphasizing how much the USA is hated globally. So a large percentage of American population are isolationist. I good deal of the US probably wouldn't mind a US internet, that is loosely connected to other nation's networks; like the telephone system rather than a genuinely global system. Which isn't hypocrisy but rather a deeper desire to move away from empire.

That being said, we also do have foreign policy hawks and then business interests that like US domination rather than US participation.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41527117)

1/2 American's haven't been out the county?! That a massive exaggeration, over 80% do not even had a passport!

Re:Reading the draft treaty (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41527519)

I have known people who, cradle the grave, never traveled outside a 30 mile circle or so.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41527629)

I'm European and I think you are an idiot for bringing nationalism into a debate about the global net. Like it or not, the Internet has become what it is under American control, they developed it and built it up to a thing that fundamentally changed our lives. That's why I trust them much more than the barbarian-dominated UN. America is still the land of the free and one of the most liberal places in the world, and while I don't like it when they try to force that liberalism on the political or economical systems of other countries, that freedom is crucial for the Internet to function. The Internet is a worldwide thing, and national legislation of it is bullshit and would just fracture it into small subnets, ruining its biggest strength. And while I would love if it was led by a global organisation of professionals, that has exactly zero chance. In the current situation most countries only support the treaty because they want to censor the net and want to introduce tariffs on throughgoing traffic. This is a move to give politicians even more control over the net.

Re:Reading the draft treaty (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525013)

The medium is the message: Governments and Industry are at the table and we aren't.

im late im late! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524481)

and i just lost a TB of movies! Cmon guys, gimme a year to replace, and no more questions, aight?

think not. Maybe this is what these new NSA telecom centers are really for.

~dangling prop

Gandolf metaphor (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524501)

Gandolf: "No! You must understand... I would use this ring from a desire to do good, but through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine".

Re:Gandolf metaphor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524801)

Gandolf

Gandolf the red nose reindeer had a very shiny.. lalala :-)

HO Ho (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41524533)

Discussing Unfettered communication" in the UAE [thenational.ae] is like discussing celibacy in a brothel.

Re:HO Ho (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41524645)

Which is to say, it's a fantastic time saver if the plan is to consider, but then reject, the idea...

Well, bollocks to that. (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#41524809)

As a non US citizen, I hope this fails completely and the US maintains control.

As far as I can see, the US can be pretty crap, but they are by far the least worst option. if you think the US is bad look at the free speech protections of every single other country in the world.

Presumably, this meeting won't actually mean anything unuless America decides to cede control. I don't se why they would actually do that.

Re:Well, bollocks to that. (1, Interesting)

gsgriffin (1195771) | about 2 years ago | (#41525375)

Wow! A non-US citizen that isn't throwing crap at us every chance you get? Sure, we work hard, make a lot of money and help a lot of struggling nations, clean up after natural disasters, and give far more to charity around the world than any other nations (per person and collectively as a nation). There will no be many that try to turn that around and call us evil and controlling....I just try to imagine what the world would be like if Iran were the most powerful country in the world....how would this conversation be going on the Internet today....oh yeh, not well....you'd be hunted down, imprisoned and killed for writing this.

Yes, the US wants to have protection over copyrighted material. Take away that completely, and you will see software and movies and entertainment fade away as they are unable to make money doing it. Give people that take the risk and pay upfront to create something their reward. I don't get this everything should always be free for everyone mentality....except, of course, if it is something YOU create or make...then you should get paid.

Whatever...

Re:Well, bollocks to that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41526375)

A non-US citizen that isn't throwing crap at us every chance you get?

Oftentimes it's said that the more people claim you aren't number one, the more likely the inverse is, in fact, true.

As Shakespeare said, He who Doth protesteth too much....

Re:Well, bollocks to that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41526421)

Sure, we work hard, make a lot of money and help a lot of struggling nations, clean up after natural disasters, and give far more to charity around the world than any other nations (per person and collectively as a nation).

That statement didn't sound true. So I did a quick look and the first I found was this:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html

It seems a rather balanced source, I'll summerize: The U.S. is not a charitable country compared to other rich nations. The U.S. citizens compensate this by donating more than other nations citizens.
Higher taxed citizens seem to partly expect their government doing much charity work and thus do less themselves, where in the U.S. that seems to go the other way around.
The combination, citizen + nation charity still doesn't put U.S. first though.

Re:Well, bollocks to that. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41526843)

Take away that completely, and you will see software and movies and entertainment fade away as they are unable to make money doing it.

Do it. If people aren't willing to fund their entertainment voluntarily, why should my tax dollars be spent forcing them? If it's not worth it to you to pay money willingly it *should* go away.

And consider the size of the entertainment industry compared to the computer industry. If we have to choose between general purpose computing, and an entertainment industry, technology clearly provides a larger chunk of our GDP. No question about it, tech is more valuable than entertainment.

And that's assuming your worst case scenario where all the artists in the world take their balls and go home. What would actually happen is people would choose to fund the things they love. Look at Kickstarter, people donate what would be the full price of a game that hasn't even been created yet. There are other ways to do this besides creating scarcity with coercion.

Copyright should be abolished. If that brings the end of the entertainment industry, that's still a net gain. But it wont, because entertainment predates copyright and it will out live copyright as well.

The witch thus spake... (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41524823)

By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicket this way comes.

Re:The witch thus spake... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41526117)

something wicket this way comes

And what the heck does this have to do with an ewok [wikia.com] ?

But the +600 net will follow, too. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41524833)

"If you agree to censor blasphemy and other anti-religious screeds, I'll agree to censor psychics, Scientologists, and anti-global warming claims."

"Ok, but let's also require IDs for Intertube access so -1 Troll downmods will follow people everywhere they go."

"Deal!"

Beware the Ides of Peaceful Negotiation.

Summary has a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524837)

(WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'). The topic of the meeting is nothing less than the regulation of the Internet.

That should be pronounced "wicked".

Old Doctor Who episode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41524909)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Doctor_Who%29

Not quite Timey-Wimey, but definitely Wibbly-Wobbly.

Re:Old Doctor Who episode? (1)

ajlitt (19055) | about 2 years ago | (#41525833)

I think you may have replied to the wrong story.

No, that is not how it is pronounced. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 years ago | (#41524921)

In December the nations of the world will gather in Dubai for the UN-convened World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT – pronounced 'wicket').

It is pronounced wicked despite the T in the acronym to reflect the evil intentions and ulterior motives of them. And also to pretentiously sound like some organization that is the mortal enemy of some super hero.

Re:No, that is not how it is pronounced. (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41525145)

Something WCIT this way comes.

Re:No, that is not how it is pronounced. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41527019)

Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't pronounced, *period*. It's an initialism.

Internet regulation inevitable... (4, Interesting)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#41524963)

To avoid wealthy-elite/government domination of communications, you'll need an open source, wireless mesh internet, sort of like these guys (http://www.shareable.net/blog/afghans-build-open-source-internet-from-trash-0), to create an "underground" internet, perhaps literally (http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/FelixRadio/FelixRadio.htm).

First contact with a space civilization (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525033)

THAT will be the Most Important Meeting I Will Ever Hear.

Your puny human meddlings will not hold a candle to that.

Re:First contact with a space civilization (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525199)

But you will hear about that meeting. You (with 'you' meaning 'most people') will never hear about WCIT.

Re:First contact with a space civilization (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525801)

Already happened and you'll never hear about it.

Life, the Universe and Everything (1)

pbarker3 (2590837) | about 2 years ago | (#41525105)

An international "wicket" meeting to regulate the Interwebs. - Wicket Gate? Now all we need are white robots showing up to free their Krikkit masters [wikipedia.org] ...

censor the hostee net access! (1)

jago25_98 (566531) | about 2 years ago | (#41525291)

hijack the internet connection and start censoring it. speed up the discussion a bit!

We are going deeper undegraund (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41525355)

internet will be divided, with different kinds of restrictions from different countries, it's now happening everywhere - in some places it's political, in some it's about copyright and another 'illegal' content, it is happening. It will be like this - from China you can see this part, from Europe this part, from Iran this another part of a used to be global network. We will have to live with it and find a ways around it, and, as a geeks, show the ways to the people. Get used to so called darknets - tor, i2p, and a likes. Get used to it and show people around you how to navigate it, share some resources for darknet operations - this is our future, free from censorship, politics, copyright or anything else. Because this battle is lost, casual internet WILL be censored and divided.

Try this! http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php/silkroad/category/12

I hope the attendees don't eat any poppy seed buns (1)

bdwoolman (561635) | about 2 years ago | (#41525457)

in business class.

"In one of the most extreme cases, it [Dubai] reported a man being held after poppy seeds from a bread roll were found on his clothes."

Dubai wants tourism and convention business, but their draconian drug paranoia makes this aspiration ridiculous. How many of the attendees to this conference will be harassed or even imprisoned I wonder? I know this is old news, but any chance I get I take the opportunity to share this BBC article [bbc.co.uk] concerning Dubai's absurd reactionary jailing of innocent visitors. I have been there (It's nothing special, people.) But now I shudder to think that I had my OTC allergy medicine with me. I would not go back to Dubai on a bet.

The idea of having an internet conference there is like planning a human rights conference in Damascus. But, I guess since the organizers want anything but transparency, it makes for a terrible logic.

ITU attempted to replace TCP/IP back in the Day (5, Informative)

seawall (549985) | about 2 years ago | (#41525933)

OK, many people involved are probably retired or dead by now, but way back in the early eighties there was the ISO networking standard which was to replace TCP/IP and it was HEAVILY pushed by ITU. It had it's charms but man it was heavy.

"ISO will replace TCP/IP in 5 years" was a real thing. After 10 years the phrase became a joke. Now it isn't even that.

Ever wondered why the L in LDAP stands for "Lightweight"? It started as a radically simplified version of ISO directory services.

Almost nobody used ISO (including ITU, which at the time preferred paper over networks internally) but ITU really pushed it over that toy internet thing. They also charged a lot of money to buy the bookshelf-meters of ISO documentation...only available on paper for the most part.

It is probably completely unfair to the ITU of 2012 but I find myself worried whenever they are mentioned in the same breath as "internet".

You got the pronounciation wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41526521)

It's pronounced 'wicked'

Now that I've head of it... (2)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#41526579)

What's the new Most Important Meeting I've Never Heard Of?

Yub Yub (2)

AtomicBison (2667343) | about 2 years ago | (#41526743)

WCIT – pronounced 'wicket'. Wicket as in Wicket Wystri Warrick? - "Starcruiser go CRISH CRISH!" CRISH CRISH as in the internet plummeting to it's doom? I see what they've done here....

Is anyone else morbidly amused by... (1)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | about 2 years ago | (#41527295)

...the fact that an organization that has human rights worldwide as core functions is hosting something in a known hotbed of human trafficking and slavery?

$Deity what a fucking farce.

Pronounced "wicked" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41527435)

Convening in Dubai. Your petrodollars at work.

We could have been on the way to the stars by now. Instead the whole world is on the way a highway to hell. Morlocks and Eloi, etc. None free.

Fuck these bastards. Fuck the UN.

Dec 12? (1)

debraye (2743785) | about 2 years ago | (#41527437)

So this must be what the Mayans where talking all along!

I'm reminded of a quote... (1)

BeanBagKing (1151733) | about 2 years ago | (#41527549)

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore That said, governments of the world gathering to discuss peanut butter scares me for some reason. Gatherings to discuss the internet is absolutely horrifying...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?