×

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!

ICANN Troubles At UN Summit On Internet

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the kofi-and-elmo-presiding dept.

The Internet 610

Internet Ninja writes "The UN/ITU-organized World Summit on the Information Society currently happening in Geneva, and in attendance is Paul Twomey from ICANN, who has been ejected from a preparatory meeting, along with all other non-governmental observers. Obviously Twomey wasn't happy about that, saying: 'At ICANN, anybody can attend meetings, appeal decisions or go to ombudsmen. And here I am outside a UN meeting room where diplomats, most of whom know little about the technical aspects, are deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet. I am not amused.'" We've previously reported on this meeting, which may help decide governance of the Internet, albeit in the longer-term.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

610 comments

FP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685375)

first non-SCO-troll frist post!!!! mod me down i am a troll

N! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685381)

N.

Sweet irony (5, Insightful)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685391)

deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet.

Unlike ICANN, who of course, have members of the internet at large on their board. Oh, wait a minute...

Typical... (2, Interesting)

cybrchrst (535172) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685393)

That is unbelievable. When are these people going to realize that they need to get the input of someone that at least represents the people that they are going to 'govern'?? He's got a right to be pissed, and I would honestly be pissed too.

Re:Typical... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685417)

Let me guess, you aren't familiar with ICANN, are you?

Re:Typical... (1, Insightful)

Snoopy77 (229731) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685476)

When are these people going to realize that they need to get the input of someone that at least represents the people that they are going to 'govern'?

Yeah but what does this has to do with ICANN? Oh, you thought ICANN represents the people, how quaint.

Re:Typical... (5, Insightful)

Geek of Tech (678002) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685558)

>>> When are these people going to realize that they need to get the input of someone that at least represents the people that they are going to 'govern'?

Forget people they will govern. At least get input from the people who know how it works. Try and put someone there that has any idea what the internet does. Someone that knows the boundaries of the technology. Not someone that knows the best way to tax people.

Re:Typical... (3, Insightful)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685482)

Would you be pissed?
Or would you be pissed if you were not an American? and if you are not an American, you should have been pissed already in which can being peed upon twice makes no sense.

Before you take arms in the typical slashdot manner, consider the key lines from the article:

The move underscores the wrath of countries that for years have been unhappy with what they perceive as their voicelessness over how the Internet is run and over U.S. ownership of key Internet resources. It also foretells the level of criticism that both the U.S. government and the Internet Corporation, or ICANN, may face at the UN meeting, one of the largest gatherings ever of high-level government officials, business leaders and nonprofit organizations to discuss the Internet's future. .
I understand the concerns of other nations about their having a say in the way the Internet as we know today is going to shape into. I also understand how a lot of the work went into the original ARPANET and DARPA from the US and the universities. I guess we need an UIO (United Internet Organisation!)...something like that. Can't we frag each other in peace? :-)

Re:Typical... (0, Troll)

shaitand (626655) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685576)

UN == US, I fail to see what difference this makes.

Re:Typical... (2, Interesting)

MikeDawg (721537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685621)

UN == US, I fail to see what difference this makes.

I disagree with this whole-heartedly, I don't know what country you come from, or whatver, but I must disagree with you in saying that the UN == US. The UN is made up of hundreds of countries, of which, 5 control the main security of the UN, of which, US is one of the 5. By no means is UN == US.

Re:Typical... (5, Funny)

maleficus (731732) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685549)

someone that at least represents the people that they are going to 'govern'?? So send some middle school nerd with acne.

Re:Typical... (5, Interesting)

Performer Guy (69820) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685618)

Are you talking about ICANN or the UN. This is just ICANN getting a taste of what they've been dishing out to the rest of us. Yes it stinks but so does the way ICANN has behaved in the past.

Stupid White Men (3, Informative)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685397)

Yet again, the people who use the technology have no control over the technology... a prime example of the folly of Mr. Moore's 'Stupid White Men'. Everyone at the conference should be tested before entering- they should all be able to figure out how to turn on a computer. Ick.

Re:Stupid White Men (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685444)

Let me guess, you aren't familiar with the UN, are you?

Re:Stupid White Men (-1, Flamebait)

SpaceCadetTrav (641261) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685450)

Here's a tip.

To avoid looking like an idiot, it would be best to avoid referencing "Michael Moore" in any post.

Re:Stupid White Men (0, Flamebait)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685522)

Actually I think Michael Moore would be completely in favor of what is going on. After, the 'evil' ICANN who are not the members of any government are being shoved aside by third world dictators under the flag of the UN.
From everything I've seen of his work he would heartily approve (as long as the US is explicitly excluded from any influence in this council of course) After all, once the Internet is under the control of the UN we can finally get rid of all those nasty racist white-man websites [nra.org] that were previously protected under the racist imperialistic document [cornell.edu]
put together by evil white men.

Re:Stupid White Men (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685583)

Actually I think Michael Moore would be completely in favor of what is going on.

Michael Moore is a blowhard, the left wing equivalent of Rush Lumbago.

Way to go UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685400)

nice way to shoot your self in the arse UN... NO way in hell ICANN will left a singel finger to help them in any way and will now probally actively hinder them and get industry to motivate the US to kill it if it ever comes up for vote

Slashdot sucks (Sco re:5, Insightful) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685401)

Forget Them... (0, Troll)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685404)

If the UN ever controls the Internet, forget it: I'm building my own damn (inter)network. What do we want controlling the Internet: a bunch of stupid diplomats, most from dictatorial nations, or a democratic, open ICANN? Granted, sometimes ICANN does screw up, but it does a decent job.

Re:Forget Them... (1)

maleficus (731732) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685531)

The internet should NEVER be controlled by anyone. I don't even think we need to worry about this though, because if you think about it, controlling something as vast as the internet is downright impossible.

Re:Forget Them... (1)

be-fan (61476) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685586)

Yes, those dictatorial nations like France, Great Britain, and Germany...

Re:Forget Them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685623)

And Iran and China...

You had to know this would happen... (5, Insightful)

NWRefund (723683) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685405)

Politicians, no matter which country they come from, are only concerned with their adgendas. Why would they want actual technical advice on this sort of topic? Look at it this way: if they come up with good ideas now, how are they supposed to claim success later on when they come up with better ones? But if they screw things up right off the bat, they can all point fingers and blame one another, then propose ways to "fix" things.

not good for the Internet (3, Interesting)

pbranes (565105) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685406)

Unfortunately, the UN is about as anti-US as they come. The move to take control of the Internet goes along with the rest of the UN's practices - to break down boundaries of countries and slowly form a single world government. While that sounds like a good idea, the UN is a little too socialist for my likes. They openly state in their charter that all humans have certain rights, like freedom of speech, as long as using that right doesn't interfere with a stated goal of the UN. This will mean censorship of the Internet and probably will cause coutries to isolate themselves from the rest of the world to avoid the negative effects of a UN run Internet.

Re:not good for the Internet (3, Insightful)

TwistedSquare (650445) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685504)

It's just a tug-of-war between the US and the UN really. Sometimes the UN is wrong (as you mention), sometimes it's the US (war crimes tribunal etc).

Incidentally what factors are making the UN look at taking over from ICANN?

UN/US (2, Insightful)

glpierce (731733) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685527)

"the UN is about as anti-US as they come"

A few major players in the UN may be anti-US, but the effects are negligible; the US doesn't obey the UN/international treaties on issues the gov't feels would have a major negative (or prevent a major positive) impact on the country/economy (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol, Operation Iraqi Freedom, bioweapons).

Re:not good for the Internet (2, Insightful)

Snoopy77 (229731) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685561)

Unfortunately, the US is about as anti-UN as they come. The move to take control of Iraq goes along with the rest of the US's practices - to break down boundaries of countries and slowly form a single worldwide US government. While that sounds like a good idea, the US is a little too imperialist for my likes. They openly state in their charter that all humans have certain rights, like freedom of speech, as long as using that right doesn't interfere with a stated goal of the US. This will mean chaos in Iraq and probably will cause countries to isolate themselves from the rest of the world to avoid the negative effects of a US run Iraq.

Re:not good for the Internet (2, Insightful)

Jungle guy (567570) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685584)

I agree that the UN runnning the Internet is not a good thing, but I don't know how much power they can have on the internet. Most of the infrastructure is on private hands, at the United States, and they can't do anything about it. They can create problems to connect the american networks to those on other countries, but I bet nobody wants to disconnect from the United States and from the rest of the world.

Re:not good for the Internet (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685590)

The UN has alot of problems, many of which seem to defy logic. For example, where but in the UN security counsel is 1 person out of 9 a majority that can stop ANYTHING that's going on?

Where but the UN can countries with tons of human rights violations be on and chair commities to end human rights violations? (Iraq was going to be on it or chair it soon before we removed Saddam from power). Maybe the US should follow their leadership and put serial killers incharge of the courts and molesters in charge of counseling sex-abuse victims.

And I won't go into how the members of the UN aren't elected and are appointed and aren't out to better the world but (usually) to their country. This has already been pointed out by other posters.

Really we shouldn't even WORRY about the UN taking over the internet. If how they handeled Iraq is any indication, then we can just ignore whatever rules they invent forever and unless another country decides to enforce things, nothing will every happen to us.

The League of Nations (doesn't that sound like it's from a comic book?) was destroyed becaused it didn't prevent Hitler from taking power and causing things like WWII (which it was supposed to). The UN failed to stop Saddam from all the things he did to his people and others, and with the rest of their oddball rules and complaints of useless things and hipocritical actions, I don't think they'll be around for long either (or at least they will lose what little power they have left). Instead they charge us dues and tons of money to do next to nothing but waste it on burocracy. And then what happenes when their building is old and needs to be replaced or fixed? They demand that the US builds them a new one FOR FREE, because all that money they collect is needed to swim in (or something). Personally, I hope the UN building is declared unfit for occupancy and they are forced to move to some other country (France, Germany, you guys have any openings?).

PS: I'm sure you get it by now, but I'm a bit of a critic of the UN.

PPS: If by some miracle the UN DOES take over the 'net, I would support building a NEW internet that was controlled by someone else (private institutions like Universities or even the US Government) so the UN can't decide to take it over and we can do things like we do now (or better! Ham radio type licenses to use the new 'net or at least to post to it).

PPPS: I'm out of PSes. :)

anti-US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685612)

If i remember correctly, the only time in recent history that the UN has gone against the wishes of the U.S. has been on the unilateral attack on Iraq. Many of the santions that are placed on other countries are with a US agenda and seeing that the US is also part of the security counsil, if the UN truely was anti-american, the US could veto almost all resolutions.

grg

Re:not good for the Internet (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685639)

I bet most people didn't know that the United Nations now owns the US's national parks. It's collateral on the national debt.

Re:not good for the Internet (1, Informative)

Angostura (703910) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685651)

Point 1 - locking ICANN out is daft

Point 2 -

Sigh, you know - this U.N bashing gets old very quickly. The U.N is a forum where sovereign governments can get together to attempt joint decision making. Is it fool-proof? hell no.

Are there areas where intergovernmental coordination is useful? hell yes. The ITU (a UN body) makes a decent stab of coordinating radio frequency usage worldwide, the world health organization, the UN high commission on refugees are probably responsible for saving millions of lives.

Is the U.N a branch of the illuminati intent on a single world government? No. But yes there is a place for international rules.

"This will mean censorship of the Internet" - you know that right? When you say censorship, you mean like - what- effective controls on Spam, yes? no? you mean something else?

I think you summarise your issues where you say: "the UN is a little too socialist for my likes". Now, I leave it to you to show which aspects of the U.N charter are socialist.

Here's the charter [un.org] for you... and here is the text of chapter 1:

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

YAHOOOOO!!! FROSTY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685408)

2nd FROSTY OF THE DAY, MY BITCHES!!

OPEN UP AND SAY "FP"!!!

You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward. You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward. You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward. You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward. You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

Who is there? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685412)

I found this interesting

Top biggest delegates in the World Summit on the Information Society:

1. Malaysia 137
2. Romania 116
3. France 108
4. Canada 101
5. Cuba 88
6. Japan 85
7. Russia 80
8. Iran 79
9. Nigeria 69
10. Gabon 66

They should just make their own internet if they want exclusive control. Ther nothing prohibiting them from doing this.

Full List in PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685551)

The full list for those interested. I guess group 8 got kicked out.

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/draft_announ ce d_summit_participants.pdf

Re:Who is there? (3, Interesting)

Cosmik (730707) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685579)

66 from Gabon? Sheeesh. No intended offence to the Gabonese (?), but why so many from a country with a population of only 1.3 million? The trip was a good excuse to do some Christmas shopping in Europe?

Re:Who is there? (2, Interesting)

maleficus (731732) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685588)

Communications in Malaysia


Telephones - main lines in use: 4.4 million (1998)

Telephones - mobile cellular: 2.17 million (1998)

Telephone system: international service good domestic: good intercity service provided on Peninsular Malaysia mainly by microwave radio relay; adequate intercity microwave radio relay network between Sabah and Sarawak via Brunei; domestic satellite system with 2 earth stations international: submarine cables to India, Hong Kong, and Singapore; satellite earth stations - 2 Intelsat (1 Indian Ocean and 1 Pacific Ocean)

Radio broadcast stations: AM 56, FM 31 (plus 13 repeater stations), shortwave 5 (1999)

Radios: 9.1 million (1997)

Television broadcast stations: 27 (plus 15 high-power repeaters) (1999)

Televisions: 3.6 million (1997)

Internet Service Providers (ISPs): 8

*snickers* Source: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_in_Ma laysia [wikipedia.org]

News flash... (0, Flamebait)

SpaceCadetTrav (641261) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685420)

The UN is a waste. How are you going to get a group of people representing every ethnicity, religon and country on earth to agree on anything?

Can't blame them... (5, Interesting)

falxx (456915) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685423)

I don't remember where I read it, but MIT actually has more IP's than the whole of China... If you still don't catch the drift, well, then I don't really know...

Seems futile anyways, weren't they(UN) going to only appoint some group that was going to watch ICANN, and their motives? (:

Re:Can't blame them... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685441)

I don't remember where I read it, but MIT actually has more IP's than the whole of China...

Routable or total?

Re:Can't blame them... (0)

falxx (456915) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685490)

Internet-reachable, of course... they can use RFC1918 as many times as they want, but that don't make Internet(tm) out of it...

Re:Can't blame them... (4, Funny)

pegr (46683) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685492)

I don't remember where I read it, but MIT actually has more IP's than the whole of China...

That's nothing... I own my own class A! Anything in the 10's is mine...

Re:Can't blame them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685532)

Perhaps you read it in the linked article?

Re:Can't blame them... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685545)

"I don't remember where I read it, but MIT actually has more IP's than the whole of China..."

MIT isn't the one trying to limit its users and censor access. Does China have fewer because there's not enough space, or simply because their "Great Firewall" doesn't need all that many public IP addresses?

Re:Can't blame them... (1, Interesting)

falxx (456915) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685653)

Well, it's estimated that within 2007, 50% of the total internet-users will be Chinese.

Kiss it, love it, you know it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685426)

You guys suck my Dick.

That's right suck it !!!!

What's all this bullshit about karma relating to how many posts in a day ??

Now Slashdot is just about karma whoring and bullshit salesman posing as posters. Fuck it. There is surely something better to do than kiss ass with a bunch of dork bots with their sophmoric political views.

Fuck off.

Poor old ICANN... (5, Insightful)

rcs1000 (462363) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685434)

It's funny, I don't often feel sorry for ICANN. Along with the bulk of /.'ers I've found them heavy handed and only occasionally democratic. Mind you, they're better than some... but that's another story altogether.

That said, they don't deserve this. They are an NGO with an expertise. Not being interested in their opinion, or even giving them a glimpse of how and why decisions are made is worrying to the extreme.

On the positive side, this UN conference seems pretty unlikely to do anything. Mugabe (the "elected" President of Zimbabwe) has already used it to rail against such horrible (liberal, Western, bourgeois) things such as a free press. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=tec hnologyNews&storyID=3972352&src=eDialog/GetContent &section=news)

Let us not forget either; it's probably more important to bring clean drinking water and telephones to developing nations than Google and Slashdot.

Here's how to deal with the United Nations (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685435)

If they make a decision you don't like, you ignore it.

Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685437)

now not only will we have secure computers thanks to MS we'll have people who know nothing about the internet telling those of us that do what do do with the 'net.

Chuck

UN Lacks Authority to Regulate UN (5, Insightful)

reallocate (142797) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685439)

The UN lacks the authority to regulate the Internet. It is a non-democratic organization comprised of unelected diplomatic representatives, a number of whom do the bidding of unfree regimes that want to block and censor the Internet. They claim to do this in the interest of preventing pollution of their culture by outsiders, but, in reaity, they are merely seeking to all possible means of internal dissent. (For examples, Iran and China.)

Re:UN Lacks Authority to Regulate UN (5, Insightful)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685524)

one important ommitance is saudi arabia.

they are the same if not worse than iran and china.

Re:UN Lacks Authority to Regulate UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685587)

Umm, Iran has a democracy.

Re:UN Lacks Authority to Regulate UN (2, Interesting)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685635)

Sure. You're right. But that didn't stop them from kidnapping Milosovic and putting him on trial.

The UN thinks they are the rightful rulers of the big blue marble. They think that they are right and that everyone else is wrong and that they make the rules that everyone else must abide by. NATO is the enforcement arm of the UN.

They'll do as they please. The NEW WORLD ORDER is what they are about.

Re:UN Lacks Authority to Regulate UN (2, Interesting)

cthugha (185672) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685658)

I don't really have a problem with the UN (or another international body) handling basic things like overall regulation of the DNS, routing tables, etc. The Internet needs this minimum level of governance just to function and, speaking as a non-US resident, the fact that my elected government has a seat at the UN gives me more of a say than ICANN (a creature of US law and regulation) presently does.

The bad news would be if this were used as a springboard to get into other areas of regulation (e.g. censorship). However it should be remembered that no organ of the UN has a legislative function, not even the General Assembly. International law is changed largely through treaty, and the General Assembly is only relevant for the very weak influence it has on the development of customary international law. Hence, governments will still have to sign up to any proposed regulatory framework.

This is already happening with and without the UN. In some cases it's good, e.g. when the UN drafts model uniform laws for electronic commerce, and in some cases it's bad, e.g. the Council of Europe's cyber-crime treaty. I don't think it can be avoided: trans-national regulation is probably inevitable since people want some guarantee of redress regardless of whether a wrongdoer lives in the US or Uzbekhistan (sp?) in order to conduct their dealings on the Internet with some degree of confidence. We should focus our efforts on getting a decent system in place.

YAY (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685447)

I for one welcome our new UN overlords.

department... (4, Funny)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685448)

from the kofi-and-elmo-presiding dept.

Personally, I'd prefer it if Elmo was presiding. Elmo makes more sense than all the diplomats put together.

So what? (1)

pegr (46683) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685451)

So what if the UN decides it owns the Internet? It's not like they can do anything about it! What are they going to do, take it? The US is the military of the UN (unfortunately). I say let the UN make dumb pronouncements and let them fade into obscurity all the sooner, corrupt bastards...

No. Hell no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685457)

To hell with the UN. The ICANN member means well, but they are almost as rotten. I have come to this conclusion: as long as there is connectivity, there
will be a Internet in one form or fashion. I personally know of several Gibson inspired hackers
that have been thinking out different implementations of the "walled city" project.. basically a user routed Internet using VPN tech.. There are SEVERAL of these projects going on with the same name.. These guys aren't going to stand by and be idle, and neither am I. What can the UN do with the connections? Can they take my line? Can they regulate it? They might tell me what countries I can and cannot access, and every design of the walled city (cities?) defeat their possible controls.

If they want OUR Internet, they are going to have to take it, with force.

The devil in the details (5, Funny)

Entrope (68843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685461)

Each of the world's five continents would have one elected representative on the committee, elected by the countries from the continent they represent.
Okay, I can understand leaving out Antarctica, but who gets to break the news to Australia that their continent has been demoted and made subservient to Asia?

Re:The devil in the details (5, Funny)

Cosmik (730707) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685540)

Oh well. Us Australians will just form our own governing body with Antartica. Then the Australians will light 20 million BBQs in an effort to melt the Antartic ice-caps and flood your silly little internet club away. Or maybe we'll be classified as subservient to the USA (as part of North America), as our Prime Minister seems to want.

Hello ICANN! (5, Funny)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685465)

Pot... Kettle.... "Black!"

Re:Hello ICANN! (1)

g_adams27 (581237) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685571)

Ok, that's it. I will award my mod points to the next insightful comment on any topic that uses the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" without resolving to cutsiness like "Pot, this is kettle - just thought I'd give you a call!"

(Fine, mod me down, offtopic, whatever; I'm just tired of oh-so-clever phrases that... well, aren't.)

Re:Hello ICANN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685608)

Why not just mod all the fucktards down?

We've said screw you before... (5, Funny)

jdhutchins (559010) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685470)

We need to pull another Iraq on the UN.
UN: "Hand over control of the internet to us (the un), and take it away from icann."
Bush (or whoever's president at the time) needs to say "Screw you. No."

We've done it before, no reason why we can't do it again. I'll bet that almost every ./er know more about how the internet is run and works than all the dipomats combined.

Re:We've said screw you before... (5, Insightful)

MochaMan (30021) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685543)

And Americans wonder why they have such a rotten reputation worldwide...

Goodbye karma!

Re:We've said screw you before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685597)

They don't have a rotten reputation.

Re:We've said screw you before... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685631)

There's a reason the US has a reputation for breaking its treaties, and that would not help matters. Abiding by the decisions of the UN is what we agreed to do when we ratified the UN Charter (which is really just a multilateral treaty).

Don't think we should listen to the UN? Fine. Then we should pull out of the UN, or we're in violation of our treaty obligations. But UN-bashers like Bush, etc, wouldn't dare do that because even though ignoring the UN makes us look like a bunch of treacherous backstabbers to the rest of the world, we get a lot out of being in the UN, particularly out of having a permanent veto on the Security Council.

So put up or shut up is what I'm saying. Either we should pull out of the UN or we should live up to the agreements in the treaty we signed--for a change. Violating treaties left and right made us very popular with the Native Americans, and I suggest it'll do the same wonders for our popularity worldwide. And something makes me think we're not just going to mow down the entire rest of the world as easily as we did the Native Americans.

Re:We've said screw you before... (1)

maleficus (731732) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685654)

I agree. However, the US may be fighting for control of the internet in due time...

Gah, the UN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685480)

As in the UN that named Lybia as head of the Human Rights Commission?? They would probably pick some island nation with a population of 12, none of which have ever used a computer, to head the "Internet Commission." Also, at every meeting France would bitch about how everything needs to be written in French.

Great Description (5, Insightful)

Eberlin (570874) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685489)

"diplomats, most of whom know little about the technical aspects, are deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet."

Doesn't this pretty much describe just about every IT department known to man? PHBs and suits making uneducated decisions on how things will run based on buzzwords, corporate kickbacks, and their own job security while those who DO know what they're doing get ignored or brushed aside.

Welcome to IT, dude.

Could be a good thing (2, Informative)

DougJohnson (595893) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685515)

It's highly unlikely that these delegates will be discussing which technologies to support and whatnot. It seems much more likely that they'll be considering means of legislating abuse of the system , how technology impacts national/international laws, and what to do when these laws are breached.

I think that's an admirable thing, and it's time for some international co-operation regarding persuing SPAMers, Hackers, and other individuals that would use the lack of international legislation to perpetrate their nastiness.

I hope you've all read yesterdays post about security breaches. The author found linkages between no less than 4 countries hosting servers in order to send out SPAM.

screw foreigners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685518)

Honestly i think we should just let them fuck up the internet.

I dont know where these 3rd world people get off being all angry that we didn't think of them when creating technology.

we should just leave them in charge for a while, and when we are communicating with drum signals again, we can see who was right and who was wrong.

Behind the scenes (4, Interesting)

cluge (114877) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685526)

One of the top countries pushing for UN control over the Internet is China. You know the country that has it's own firewall to help them government sniff out subversives. I guess actually having someone in a prepatory meeting that believes in free speech and open elections was a problem.


Finally there are a few EU countries (France) that really like the idea as well. They want to protect their innocent youngsters from "American Culture which is so pervasive on the Internet". The gentleman from ICANN wasn't a native French speaker, he definitely shouldn't be allowed to participate.


The Internet is a wonderful experiment, but it is almost entirely dominated by the US, and the english language. That rubs many the wrong way. I'd am VERY suspicious of such meetings, the motives behind them dont seem very "egalitarian". They are self serving, and mostly trying to prevent the free exchange of ideas IMHO.

Angry People Rule [angrypeoplerule.com]

Re:Behind the scenes (1)

maleficus (731732) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685637)

"mostly trying to prevent the free exchange of ideas IMHO."

I concur. The internet has evolved from a simple experiment into, as you adequatley put, the free exchange of ideas all over the world. Except China.

It's about time! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685530)

Verisign has a monopoly on root servers. Where does that come from?

MIT has more public IP addresses than China. Where does that come from?

ICANN is chartered as a non-profit California-based corporation. Why should it be so? Why California, why not Peru or Japan or Spain? Is there something fundamentally Californian about today's Internet?

It's about time that the public resource constituted by Internet addresses and DNS servers be handled by a truly international standards body, just like it's the case for telephone numbering.

Thanks to the US for creating many of the technologies that make the Internet possible. But as is the case with the phone numbering plan, it's time for the Public International Internet to be managed more openly and cooperatively.

enforceability? (3, Interesting)

Hollins (83264) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685537)

In the articles I've read, I haven't seen mention of how the UN expects to have its claimed governance of the internet acknowledged by current authorities.

If the UN claimed governance of the airwaves, wouldn't the FCC simply laugh? I realize that the FCC is a national body and ICANN is international, but unless the UN plans to set up its own root servers and coerce everyone to use them, how will this be enforced?

Can anyone comment on this?

Re:enforceability? (4, Informative)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685568)

If the UN claimed governance of the airwaves, wouldn't the FCC simply laugh?

No, the US has ceeded the cross-border allocation of frequencies to the ITU before the UN was established and the ITU has since been incorporated into the UN.

I spoke to Esther Dyson about the conference at lunch today, her version was nothing happened and that the best result that was going to happen...

Send the UN a message (2, Interesting)

Radical Rad (138892) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685539)

Paul Twomey from ICANN, who has been ejected from a preparatory meeting, along with all other non-governmental observers.

Then Paul Twomey should send Kofi Annan a 200 foot high message [wired.com] through the Hello World project [helloworldproject.com]. Here are webcam pics of the four displays [helloworldproject.com] in different parts of the world. One is in Geneva.

duke nukem forever (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685557)

i hope duke nukem forever comes out soon. hail to the king.

F.E.T.E. (4, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685559)

The UN can hold all the meetings it wants about taking control of the internet, but in the end, this will probably occur:

UN: The communities of the world have decided that it's best we run the internet. We demand control.

USA: Demand? How bout this, you go fuck yourself, and maybe we'll allow the UN to exist for a few more years.

What are they gonna do, take it by force?

I'm no fan of ICANN, but ICANN is better than the UN. Last thing we need is the chinese fire wall on a global scale.

Fuck 'em. The End.

As opposed to? (1, Flamebait)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685563)

And here I am outside a UN meeting room where diplomats, most of whom know little about the technical aspects, are deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet.

As opposed to politicians and diplomats, most of whom know little about anything save how to kiss lobbyist/mafia/dictator ass and keep their job, deciding how billions of people should live their lives?

In the US, have you ever noticed that most of your government representatives are, to quote Dilbert, Dumb As Toast? In one of those strange twists, however, Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and probably one of the best educated presidents we've had in a while. His diplomatic talents are practically without comparison.

As far as dumbest, in recent history- it's a tough choice between Regan and Dubya. Dubya certainly takes the title of Worst Diplomat, save maybe his father, who liked to throw up over foreign dignitaries. His father, however...
could say more than
four words at at time.
God bless
America!

ITU is very technically competent (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685581)

To the stupid posts above mentioning that "diplomats" are not competent to handle the technical issues: diplomats are there to focus on the process, not the specifics.

ITU (this is a UN-ITU joint summit, isn't it?) is perfectly competent to handle the technical issues linked with numbering and naming. They do it very well already for the phone [itu.int] and for a portion of the OID tree [alvestrand.no].

I assure you that the first victim of this (2, Troll)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685599)

will be free speech. You mark my words in stone.

The rest of the world is P.I.S.S.E.D. at the level of free speech exercised on US based servers and they seek to stop it at all costs.

The US has the most liberal speech laws in the world and the rest of the world can not allow that.

You watch and see, they'll institute international tribunals to arrest speech violaters (thought criminals) and whisk them away to The Hague for a trial by tribunal and internatinal justice for thought crimes...

Strange ICANN deaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685610)

Dozens of the world's preeminent scientists - at the very top of one field in particular: microbiology - have been mysteriously killed off [stevequayle.com] in the last few years. This is fact, and it's not major news. Why?

Now, in a not so strange twist, there are reports that current and former ICANN members have disappeared. Why?

Prepare for the new world order. At least the new bigbrother internet will run 90% faster when 90% of the population has been murdered.

The answer is obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685636)

Haven't you read "Schrodringer's Cat" by Robert Anton Wilson?

Explains things perfectly

Can't control something that doesn't exist... (2, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 10 years ago | (#7685640)

Here is a cut and paste of what I said in the other Slashdot discussion about the UN trying to control the Internet:

The reason no one can control the Internet is because there is no "Internet," lest we forget the early 1990's when newbies would ask us about the "Internet Company" and you would explain that there is no one company, just a bunch of network providers that are interconnected.

The only reality is that there are lots of computer networks variously located in many sovereign nations that happen to be cooperating at this time (the networks, not necessarily the nations). Just like everything else in the world, it all comes down to where the wires and the servers sit. If I say "fark the UN" on my website hosted out of Texas, I am protected by the US Constitution...which is the law of my land.

Frankly... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7685660)

The UN is always having some sort of summit about something. It's essentially an international meeting of a bunch of bureaucrats who whine and moan and plan and argue and then really don't get anything done at all. I don't exactly think we have much to fear from a UN-controlled anything, much less something as pervasive in everyday life as the Internet.

That said, it's probably safe to say that no one in the meeting knew a switch from a hub, or even if it would be feasible for the UN to dictate the shape of the Internet. Somebody from ICANN would probably be the best bet if you'd want to know how the Internet "should" operate. And the fact that Twomey wasn't invited as a delegate, or even a visitor, underlined their obvious ignorance.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...