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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and spa (2, Insightful)

Hulkster (722642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751179)

According to the article: "All countries want to counter spam -- unsolicited commercial messages that can flood email accounts by the hundreds and burden the web with unwanted traffic" and I'm not sure if I completely agree with that and/or what they are going to do about it ... but they talked a good story back in July/2004 [cbsnews.com] - remains to be seen if they can walk that talk - UN's record isn't that great IMHO. BTW, here's the UN ITU Home Page. [itu.int]

Support Celiac Disease Research [komar.org]

Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751278)

Well, if the UN can manage CEB [unsystem.org] , CTBTO [ctbto.org] , ECA [uneca.org] , ECE [unece.org] , ECLAC [eclac.org] , ESCAP [unescap.org] , ESCWA [escwa.org.lb] , FAO [fao.org] , UNCTAD [unctad-undp.org] , HLCM [unsystem.org] , MA HREF="http://ceb.unsystem.org/hlcp/default.htm">HL CP, IACSD [unsystem.org] , IANWGE [unsystem.org] , IAPSO [iapso.org] , and about 5 times as many more, I think they can handle one more. :)

UN's record isn't that great IMHO

Oh really? Of the organizations I listed (in alphabetical order), how many are bloated and overbudget? How many have involved scandal of any kind? How many have been largely ineffective? Etc?

Honestly, I think that this is just going to turn into a big OFF-bashing thread.

Re:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (-1, Flamebait)

pbranes (565105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751353)

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:Can United Nations REALLY stop cyber crime and (3, Insightful)

suyashs (645036) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751369)

I don't want the UN deciding what is and isn't spam...at least the first amendment is valid in the US, an international body may decide that "hate speech" is illegal and therefore decide to censor certain websites like countries do now. I would prefer as little world government interference with the internet as possible.

wow. (-1, Offtopic)

mushroom blue (8836) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751181)

holy crap. this is sorta broken on the front page. have to go to yro.slashdot.org to make it work.

oh yeah, fp.

I vote that... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751183)

...ICANN should replace the UN.

FP. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751184)

FP ?

Why (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751185)

You'd just be replacing incompetence with incompetence.

Re:Why (1, Insightful)

c++ (25427) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751270)

Alternatively, you'd just be replacing one money-greedy organization with another.

The UN is good at running child porn rings... (1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751186)

So I would guess that they would be good at running the internet. At least USENET.

This is simple... (1, Redundant)

LighthouseJ (453757) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751189)

Call Al Gore and find out what he thinks, afterall he invented the thing.

Re:This is simple... (1, Informative)

javaxman (705658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751348)

Call Al Gore and find out what he thinks, afterall he invented the thing.

Vinton Cerf thinks he helped [interesting-people.org]

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/inter esting-people/200009/msg00052.html

Or was that an attempt to be funny? Not sure why you're being modded Redundant instead of offtopic... but it drives your comment down either way, huh?

Re:This is simple... (-1, Offtopic)

LighthouseJ (453757) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751394)

Well, I'm waiting for the mods to pull their heads out of their asses and realize it's supposed to funny. It's not redundant, no one else has mentioned it, and it's not offtopic, being that it's about the internet. I couldn't really care what a bunch of random jerks think of my comments, if I did, I would have posted it anonymously.

NO! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751191)

ICANN may suck a little but fuck the UN!

Yeah... let's replace DNS with X.500 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751192)

that'll be fun ;)

The UN????? (3, Insightful)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751193)

You want control turned over to an international body. OK, that sounds reasonable. But the UN? I mean... how about somebody with a little more tech savvy and a little less politics?

Re:The UN????? (-1, Flamebait)

gophergod (820471) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751227)

Or better yet how about a grouop that is'nt blatantly ANTI US. Besides the Internet was created in the USA.

Re:The UN????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751245)

Or better yet how about a country which isn't so ANTI WORLD? Besides the web was created in Switzerland.

Re:The UN????? (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751252)

UN isn't anti-US, however the US is anti-UN.

Re:The UN????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751338)

Whatever. The UN is petty political body with far too much power, far too little oversight and too much money.

As for the US sentiment, I seem to remember something about a Human Rights Council not too long ago.

Apparently they would rather have Human Rights set by mass murders, tyrannical dictators and your garden variety banana republic rather than the United States.

Re:The UN????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751382)

Whatever. The UN is petty political body with far too much power, far too little oversight and too much money. Whatever. The UN is petty political body with far too much power, far too little oversight and too much money.

The same could be said about the Republican party. Or the Democratic party. Or the Libertarian party. Or the Green party. But then again, any amount of money or power is too much for any of those to have.

Re:The UN????? (5, Insightful)

Chirs (87576) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751303)

Have you even heard of the ITU?

They manage the radio spectrum, satellite orbits, and distress/safety stuff. The reason why you can make a phone call to China is that telcos around the world generally abide by ITU standards (technically "recommendations"). They do a bunch of other stuff too (R&D, etc.).

If anyone is to be given control over the Internet, the ITU is probably the most appropriate organization.

Re:The UN????? (2, Insightful)

cybercobra (856248) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751318)

Parent is not a troll. Seriously, all the ITU's computer-related X.### standards, except for a few, have been replaced by much better ones. Why would they do any better w/ domain name admininstration? Also, the body should be apolitical and have more tech experience, ruling out the UN. Additionally, isn't it kind of screwed up to have non-1st world countries having such a large say in what won't effect them much until years to come when they become 1st world countries? Granted, they should have some say so prices aren't put too high, but still...
I agree though, I want to CAN ICANN. The levy on .net, .com, etc that they proposed a while ago is absurd.

Re:The UN????? (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751342)

> isn't it kind of screwed up to have non-1st world countries having such a
> large say in what won't effect them much until years to come

Wait... are you saying that countries that are just now establishing their infrastructure should have no say over what the standards for that infrastructure will be?

Re:The UN????? (2, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751449)

Wait... are you saying that countries that are just now establishing their infrastructure should have no say over what the standards for that infrastructure will be?

And how exactly would control over ICANN change anything?

ICANN is a toothless tiger in any case, their control over the 'root' does not extend to ownership of the actual IP addresses embedded in BIND etc.

A long time ago I was a member of a dinner club, there was a guy who nobody could stand who really really wanted to be the President of the club. So he got his friends to join and elect him President even though none of them ever went to any of the dinners. So the rest of us quit and started a new club leaving him to eat on his own.

ICANN is not a control point for the Internet, nor is the IETF which is also being targetted by this campaign. The real influence lies in W3C and OASIS these days - both of which have done a MUCH better job of being inclusive than the old boy network that controls the IETF.

ITU is Tech Savvy (2, Insightful)

sasha328 (203458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751320)

After all, they are made up of communications companies. See their website [itu.int] .
In all fairness, it would make sense to move control to the ITU. Even though there will be a lot of people who will complain about a "political body", ie the UN controlling such things. Sure the UN is a Polititcal Body. So is any government, if you haven't already noticed; but the UN does more than just political work. think UNICEF, UNESCO, FAO, WHO, and the list goes on.
Is there going to be political influences in the ITU if it controls ICANN? Sure, just as there is now.
If I had a say in this, I'll vote yes. They are the body to control worldwide tele/data communications.

Re:The UN????? (2, Insightful)

ortcutt (711694) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751356)

So you think international control sounds reasonable, but you don't want "politics" involved. How could control be turned over to an international body without politics being involved? I don't know if you understand what the word "international" means. The body wouldn't be international if politics weren't involved.

Oh, great.... (3, Insightful)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751195)

...can you imagine trying to register as domain name with a bureauacracy like the UN in charge?


Re:Oh, great.... (3, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751298)

Yeah, I could, as opposed to having ICANN in charge. And perhaps for once domains won't be as subject to patent and trademark lawsuits, since the US seems to be about the most patent and trademark-happy nation on the planet.

forcefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751211)

if need be. ;o)


Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751213)

This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA.

Are you bothered by dogs, either yours or a neighbors?

Maybe you have stepped in dog doo-doo...

Whatever the case, the ECFA is for you!

Join now, don't change your skin color,

Join an evil trolling organization now!

Brought to you by the ECFA/GNAA Troll Group, Inc. "The World's Worst (and most effective) Trolls" - formed by the 2004 merger of the ECFA and the GNAA.

Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751220)

ICANN has some children that need to be molested?

Anyone but the UN (0)

jadavis (473492) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751221)

Maybe it should be an international thing, but NOT the UN.

The UN is structured around things that have nothing to do with international names.

Overrepresented countries like France would probably love it, but underrepresented countries like India might not like it so much.

Re:Anyone but the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751378)

i think you may be confusing the general assembly with the security council... there is more to the UN then f0> "news" would have you believe :)

Fuck governance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751224)

There should only be enough organization to support the technical aspects of making the internet run. Politics and governance will be the end of what makes the internet great.

CocUk (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751225)

other members in when iDC9 recently

Is this really a good idea? (1, Interesting)

mushroom blue (8836) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751226)

as much as I dislike ICANN, as they're hopelessly corrupt, I'd take them any day over the United Nations. but it's a matter of choosing "We'll ignore anything you say unless you give us lots of money" over "we'll ignore anything you say unless you give us lots of money, and then we'll take 6 years making a decision on it".

hrm. can we choose c) none of the above?

I agree option C is the only way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751295)

Seriously, your comment summed it up nicely.

Can you say Oil for IP's??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751231)

So since there is so much corruption within the UN (and every other monolithic machine out to help save the world from itself) wouldn't we just wind up with someone getting away with stealing the microsoft domain and using it to sell pirated copies from a country that doesn't protect IP?

No!!! (0, Redundant)

darkfus (177149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751232)

Its all ours.. Al Gore invented the Internet! Stop this madness - this would be like letting them have electricity too.

my sig file is somewhere below..

Re:No!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751299)

A proper analogy to giving them electricity would be like giving them TCP/IP and cat 5. Unless of course, we were actually giving them eletricity, and just not the science behind electricity.

Packets for food (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751236)

Rich spammers get the packets, developing nations get some food, and UN bureaucrats get a fat payoff.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Time to bone up on my French.

Oh great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751238)

Tney'd send spammers like 15 resolutions telling them to stop and the the spammers would be likt, "screw your resolutions, man" and then some country would be like, "Fuck this, the UN sucks" and they'd take matters into their own hands.

Replace but ICANN but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751241)


Are you f'n nuts? (-1, Flamebait)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751242)

Are you f'n nuts? The UN couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag. They have a decades long record of failure recently highlighted with their widespread debacles with the Tsunami of Boxing day. You want to hand over the Internet to an agency that lost track of how many billions to Saddam Hussein? This is the most brain dead proposal I have ever heard in my life. They are accountable to no one, and know it.

go go USA !!1!!1!!1! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751288)

How about we hand the country over to a family which funded Osama bin Ladin with millions in military aid? Oh wait, we already did. That's right, folks... the Bush family gave our old buddy Osama millions of dollars to train him to become a better fighting machine.

And who was it who put Hussein into power in the first place? That's right again, folks! The good old US government, world police! And who supported the Taliban before 9/11? Right again. You're getting good at this.

Re:go go USA !!1!!1!!1! (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751433)

if you pull your head out long enough to figure out that ... oops... you don't have to hand it over to the US. They invented it all to begin with.

Re:Are you f'n nuts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751379)

I predict your post will be modded up and down like crazy and will eventually end up -1 Troll.

/. veers more left than Pravda, and we all know the left hate George Bush, and therefore love anything that he's ever criticized.

How about we replace the UN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751247)

I mean there's so much corruption in there, just look at the food for oil program.

What is that supposed to accomplish? (1, Insightful)

teutonic_leech (596265) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751254)

I think anyone seriously considering such a move should attend at least 10 UN sessions throughout their full excruciating length in order to get a sense of the beaurocratic monster this organization has become. If that doesn't immediately relegate this ridiculous proposal into the shredder, then I don't know what will... Winston Churchill is being quoted as having said this about the U.N.: Use it when possible, ignore it when necessary. I believe this is a statement in itself ;-)

Re:What is that supposed to accomplish? (5, Informative)

Chirs (87576) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751345)

Did you read the summary? They're not suggesting that the General Assembly vote on everything. They specifically mentioned the ITU, which already manages all kinds of technical stuff internationally: satellite orbits, radio spectrum, telecommunications interoperability, etc.

Re:What is that supposed to accomplish? (2, Insightful)

cybercobra (856248) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751387)

Winston Churchill is being quoted as having said this about the U.N.: Use it when possible, ignore it when necessary. I believe this is a statement in itself ;-)
Yes, and we all know how well things turned out when Dubya followed this advice: Hundreds of soldiers dead over a war for oil, the US' standings in other countries ruined, a civil war going on in the occupied country... If there was ever a quote from a famous person to ignore, this would be it.

Conference (4, Interesting)

locarecords.com (601843) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751255)

I remember attending the Politics of Code [ox.ac.uk] conference in the UK in 2003 and hearing Richard Hill from International Telecommunication Union [itu.int] giving a very odd speech about the ITU and international regulation of the Internet etc. At the time I thought it was a coded land-grab for the transfer of control of ICANN to the ITU.

ICANN was also still in a confusing semi-democratic phase at the time (this seems to be steadily decreasing) and also weirdly self-imploding. Ester Dyson also gave the most contentless speech I think I have ever heard - no doubt to ensure minimum offense to anyone in the audience.

As with all these things wheels within wheels... but I do wish the call for some form of ICANN democracy would renew [technologyreview.com] rather than lose it to a not very democratic body (i.e. the ITU) or to the corporations (kinda where it is now).

UN Censorship (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751264)

The UN is determined to censor the Internet. So called "hate speech" will be outlawed. The UN definition of "hate speech" includes such broad categories as Bible verses, ethnic satire, criticism of terrorists, and jokes targeting third world dictators.

Say NO to the UN.

We'll need a new protocol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751265)

BH/IP: Black Helicopter over internet protocol.

no way no how (-1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751266)

it's more a question on WHO is pushing for this. who controls the ITU? most likely it's countries who are anti american and want to see the american ICANN replaced. no fucking technical merit to it, just politics. quite frankly ICANN has all the power, fuck the UN it's the most corrupt bunch of rich old perverts the world has ever seen. no one has the power to oust ICANN.

Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751272)

If there is one thing that can be consistently learned from history, it's that centralized power is remarkably often the best solution.

No way... (2, Insightful)

w42w42 (538630) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751274)

The UN can't respond to something as catastrophic as genocide w/ in a year or two of its happening, and normally then it's "ah, ... ". This is nothing but a power grab - their interest is not in humanities welfare. I vote NO on rewarding incompetence and nepotism.

Re:No way... (4, Funny)

skaffen42 (579313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751300)

I vote NO on rewarding incompetence and nepotism.

Always good to meet another Kerry voter... :)

Re:No way... (1)

Space_Soldier (628825) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751374)

I concur. The Internet is international, and using an international organization for assigning for assigning names makes sense, but the UN, unfortunately, cannot stop genocide, like you said. The problem with UN is that it is a confederacy, and confederacies don't work. We had a confederacy in this country for 10 years until a few rebellions resulted in the creation of a federacy. The UN would be a very efficient government if they restructure it into a federacy. Until then, NO to UN. They ICANN might be corrupt, but at least it works.

Re:No way... (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751462)

Well there just wasn't any graft to be made in stopping genocide. They liked the oil to food program because lots of cash ended up in everyone's pocket. Too bad none of it (or the promised food) went to the average Iraqi. Heck they even like helping refugees since get to throw a hump into the females. So now they see the possibility of siphoning off more money from the internet, why wouldn't they want to administer it.

If it's not broken? (1)

Oracle of Bandwidth (528405) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751276)

Yeah ICANN could use a few tweeks, and have tried to push evil on us once, but all in all they work for the vast majority of domains. So if it isn't broken, why fix it? I don't give up a known evil for an unknown one?

Botswanna has their position about this online (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751277)

goto http://click click grunt click hiss grunt click snap snap click grunt grunt dot com.

The ITU... ugh. (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751281)

CCITT/ITU has some good points. The X.500 standard for labelling directory information has become a fairly established standard. Or, at least, some of it. X.25 for slow serial is actually pretty decent. And their older modem standards for Europe were very acceptable.

The first problem is that they are hardly open. They charge a LOT for any of their documentation, which is split into many, many books. Unless you start off as rich as Bill Gates, you're unlikely to ever get enough of the texts to actually know what the standard even is.

The second is that they operate in a manner that resembles a medieval court. I half expect to see things by them with a royal seal and a coat of arms.

I have a much, much better idea and it's cheap. Let me run it. I would do a lot better job than either ICANN (ICAN'T) or the UN ever could. Given that most DNS servers cache, and therefore the actual throughput to replicate any top-level changes would be relatively low, I wouldn't need much more bandwidth than I already have.

(How much bandwidth do you need, when changes can take days to get anywhere? And how fast does the top-level domain change, anyway? I didn't know they added TLD extensions on a daily basis. Most of the actual domain names registered are registered with registrars lower down the heirarchy.)

If the DNS system switched from tree to grid, which it easily could and partially has, then a central administration system has nothing to do. Which is fine with me, if someone takes me seriously and gives me the job. Hey, I've no problem with world Governments paying me to do nothing, the way they do with Microsoft.

Are they serious? (1)

staeiou (839695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751291)

Anyone remember the Oil for Food program [wikipedia.org] ? The UN was given control over selling Iraqi oil and only giving Iraq humanitarian goods in return. Instead of doing this, they siphoned out a significant amount of money and oil for personal use. If they would take money that was supposed to go to the Iraqi people (not Saddam) for their own personal gain, what would they do if they controlled all domains and TLD's?

The UN is not the organization to trust the internet to. Yes, I know that ICANN isn't the internet, but if the UN gains control of what ICANN does, what else are we going to give them?

HAHAHAHA!!! (0, Redundant)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751296)

The UN couldn't break up a cookie fight at Brownie Camp, let alone manage something as complex as the internet.


The networks that connect to it should control it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751297)

Its a network of networks and those networks that connect to it have developed it quite nicely with less government intervention then expected.

ICANN won't let this happen (1)

Kip Winger (547075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751301)

According to this article, ICANN has no intention of letting this happen:

http://australianit.news.com.au/common/print/0,720 8,11393890%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html [news.com.au]

Of course, the only way around this is for the UN to take ICANN by force, which won't happen in the United States, whether by the US government or especially by the UN. Until Vint Cerf at ICANN changes his mind, the internet will not be governed by the UN.

Fuck em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751306)

We let other nations use our Network as a courtesy, if they don't like it, they can build their own network like China did. Most of the SPAM comes from outside the US anyway.

The UN? The most corrupt buerocracy on the planet? (0, Flamebait)

mrright (301778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751325)

The UN has got to be the most currupt buerocracy on the planet. They just had the biggest corruption scandal ever [economist.com] . Bigger than ENRON and WorldCom combined.

Oh, and their peacekeepers are busy abusing children [theage.com.au] .

With the tsunami aid effort, they were mostly concerned with holding meetings [blogspot.com] in 5 star hotels while other people did the real work.

They also constantly bash israel without ever mentioning that the palestinean side is not exactly peaceful either.

And they have recently decided that what is happening in sudan is not genocide [cnn.com] . I guess they will decide it was genocide after all when everybody is dead. Like they did in ruanda.

The UN should be dismantled or at least seriously reformed. They should not get any more responsibilities, since they are obviously unable to cope with the responsibilities they have in an ethical manner.

Re:The UN? The most corrupt buerocracy on the plan (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751430)

Here's the deal-yo.
First: Spell Check is your friend.
It's "Bureaucracy", NOT however the fuck you spelled it above.
Also, there has never been any genocide in "ruanda", however the genocide in "Rawanda" is very well documented. I'd like to add that the USA didn't do anything during the Rawandan Genocide either.
Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Without Mercy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751326)

Perhaps we should create a new organization...
the ICANN't ;)

Re:Without Mercy (0, Redundant)

Oracle of Bandwidth (528405) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751384)

A little more seriously, what is to stop everyone from saying "Screw you" to the UN and using their own domian name servers?

UN Arrogant? (3, Interesting)

kbahey (102895) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751327)

from the gold-medal-in-arrogance dept.

Say what? I don't know what this tagline is supposed to mean. Does it refer to ICANN or the UN? If this was directed at the UN, they are many things, but arrogant is not one of them. I know the average US citizen has been turned against them by the media portrayal, but this is a bit too much.

Anyways, the idea that an international body handle internation communication is not new, as pointed to by the the ITU already in place.

Dot UN domain? (0, Flamebait)

gelfling (6534) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751333)

Here are the UN sanctioned domain names: .UN (UN) .BM (boom) .JD (jihad) .TW (third world) .FA (famine) .BH (blue helmet) .WC (war criminals) .OF (oil for food)

UN? No way. (2, Insightful)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751339)

OK, let's see. In the last year, we've heard about the UN Oil-for-Palaces program, UN peacekeepers in central Africa running underage prostitutes, UN bureaucrats sexually assaulting junior employees, etc., etc.

Mind you, all is not lost. If the UN does get this role, then the Internet as we know it will become a shambolic mess, and the US will just have to invent something else.

That's the spirit! (5, Funny)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751346)

Let's take away control of the Internet from the corrupt, unaccountable, undemocratic, hopelessly bureaucratic organization that controls it today so we can make sure it's controlled by ...

Oh, you said the UN?


UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11751352)

If they want to stall or reverse the progress that has been made then by all means turn over control the UN so all the UN member can play politics with policies. The UN doesn't exactly have great track record and the last think we need is the worlds largest bureaucracy in control.

Oil for Food (1)

bullterror (412884) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751371)

Is anyone following the investigation of the UN's Oil for Food program and the honest millions that Kofi's son made off the suffering of iraqis? (this is not a defense of the bush administration, just an attack on Kofi Annan's crooked kid.)

Cue the UN Bashing quotes! (1)

cranos (592602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751380)

To all the Americans bashing the UN, how about you pay your fees before you start attacking an institution that you yourselves were instrumental in creating.

Now thats out of the way, I too believe that ICANN should either give over its responsiblities to an Independant International Body, or in itself become that body. Notice I said Independant, this means not beholden to one organisation/nation or another, not the UN, not the US or any other group.

Re:Cue the UN Bashing quotes! (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751427)

To all the Americans bashing the UN, how about you pay your fees before you start attacking an institution that you yourselves were instrumental in creating.

We'd rather mismanage our own money, thanks.

Ya, That'll work. (1)

Agarwaen The Tired (471456) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751386)

*cue sarcasm*
Let's replace a quasi-governmental body have trouble reacting to the growth of the internet due to it being formed during the internet's infancy with another quasi-governmental body formed in the aftermath of WW2. YA, That'll work. *end sarcasm*
Seriously, the UM works well in certain areas (specifically oversight of election and aid program), but is NOT a good foundation for any type of Hegemony. Hegemony meaning any body that makes rules for the entire planet with power to enforce them over local or national preference.
Point being UN is not a good foundation as it was designed to prevent a nuclear WW3 as a treaty organization. I'm not saying it's bad but it's a very silly fit we looked at properly

Absolutely Not! (1)

Spock_NPA (12762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751393)

The United Nations does not even represent the interests of all the people on Earth. Even if we ignoring the masses under totalitarian governments, corrupt governments, un-representative governments, ignoring all of them, we are still left with nations that arn't even allowed to participate fully in the United Nations. Two very significant countries comes to mind - the Republic of China on Taiwan, and Isreal.

Some realism... (1)

tbo (35008) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751398)

First off, let's be realistic: the current US Congress wouldn't let the UN run the internet. After all, our own Al Gore invented it... But seriously, there's a lot of mistrust of the UN, much of it for good reasons.

The lack of accountability [economist.com] and responsibility that led to the Oil-for-Food scandal [washingtontimes.com] is hardly encouraging. Can we really expect the UN to be more responsive to internet users' needs than ICANN, as bad as ICANN is?

There are also some really twisted jokes to be made about how effective the UN would be in fighting child porn, considering the actions [washingtonpost.com] of some of its employees and peacekeepers in the Congo.

In essence, we're talking about replacing a large, corrupt bureaucracy with an even larger corrupt bureaucracy. Doesn't sound good, does it? I'd much rather see ICANN's functions assumed by a diverse group of private companies, with oversight from democratically-elected governments. In particular, the Chinese government and other repressive regimes can stay the hell away from internet regulation. Even good companies can be pressured into making bad decisions [marketingvox.com] when China gets involved.

I *KNOW* I've just opened the flood gates of Bush jokes, DMCA rants, and PATRIOT Act tirades, but please, before you post, think about whether you're (1) on-topic (this is about the UN replacing ICANN), and (2) saying something new that hasn't been said in the numerous slashdot stories on the DMCA, etc. I'm all for a good joke, but please let it be something more original than "Bush is really stupid, and Americans are fat and stupid for voting for him". I live in one of the bluest areas of a very blue state, and I've heard them all.

No, no, no, this is all wrong.... (3, Insightful)

ajdavis (11891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751400)

I'm reading The Checkbook and the Cruise Missle [amazon.com] , in which Arundhati Roy says injustices increase as decision-makers are geographically separated from those affected by the decision. She cites the World Bank in Geneva, and the IMF, the WTO, as examples.

So Third-World countries want power over names? And they think they can accomplish that by moving the naming committee to UN Headquarters in New York? The UN didn't work for poor people in Iraq, or Palestine. Why will it work in the case of Internet names?

This is the first case I know of where software standards have reached the level of world politics. (It's different from software patents in Europe.) I don't think they ever belong there. Software standards have developed reasonably well under Darwinian conditions: it may take decades, but eventually everyone switches to open standards because there's an advantage to being able to communicate. E.g., everyone uses TCP/IP now, not IPX or any other proprietary network protocol. I know, I know, we're still fighting this battle daily, but you can see the positive trend, & it's happening without any legislation or government enforcement.

What I'm getting at is Third World countries should just set up their own root DNS servers. Whatever it is they want -- get rid of the 3-letter root domains? So instead of .com, US sites will have to use .co.us like everyone else? That seems reasonable. If they just set up root DNS servers that don't answer requests for .com (or .org, .gov, etc.), those servers will be more convenient to client hosts in their region. Software will get patched to check both authorities, since it's an easy fix, & US sites will register both types of domains to maximize their availability. Then, over an excruciating number of years, while everyone has to support both naming styles, .com & the other 3-letter domains will die out, & the plaintiffs will have their way.

I'm gonna sound like a Wired columnist, but here goes: The Internet is suggesting new kinds of economics, government, maybe religion.... We should stick with what works, instead of imposing traditional kinds of governance onto the Internet.

Rational thinking (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751416)

I'm well aware of the recent UN bashing by the United State's administration, but to be honest, does anyone take it seriously apart from them? I don't get you people.

Probably it's a better idea to trust a huge international body, which already manages a lot of aspects of various fields than the current quasi corporate owned system.

Censorship (1)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751419)

Personally, I couldn't care less who controls passing out domains, as long as two factors are in place:
  1. Any one can register any domain, trademarks not withstanding. Along with this, if I get there before you have a trademark, you lose.
  2. Nothing is censored, period. Once I have a domain, I can do whatever I damn well please with it. If I want to put up a page which repeats "Kill the President, heil Hitler!" a thousand times, with images of the Goatse guy interspersed, no one is allowed to force me to take it down. Local laws may mean you get arrested for it, but the domain registry doesn't get involved.
Granted, at the moment, ICANN doesn't really fit this either, so I don't mind them losing it, just as long as the people who get it are better. And, somehow, I don't see the UN as being better. Maybe we should give the whole thing to Jamaica, I've never seen them get up in arms about "indecancy".

aaah all the UN bashing posts already (1)

Phil246 (803464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11751451)

The UN probably isnt the best place to take over from ICANN, i cant think of a decent reason why they should to be perfectly honest, but lets not get caught up in merely bashing the UN.

Sure its had its problems, and no political organisation is ever whiter then white, regardless of which country or countries its from.

Politicans in general are sleazy, and often prone to corruption - heck look at the US administration if you require proof.
The scale in which big buisness has bought power in America alone is frightening, and i dont believe for a second its restricted to there alone - there are bound to be other countries under the thumbs of buisnesses.

Personally i would like a not-for-profit organisation to be set up, which did not rely overly on any one country and which had absolute transparancy in its accounts and can show that it is trustworthy to the public of the world, not just to any one country.

Of course its never going to happen but theres nothing wrong in hoping is there? :)
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