Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

UN Official Says UN Not Taking Over Internet

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the our-hands-are-clean dept.

The Internet 104

kaufmanmoore writes "Hamadoun Toure, the new head of the UN's International Telecommunications Union says that he does not plan to take over governance of the internet and leave it up to groups like ICANN. In his statement he says that the ITU will instead focus on bridging the digital divide, internet security and standardize broadband communications. When asked about Chinese censorship Toure said that issue is beyond the mandate of the ITU."

cancel ×

104 comments

As has been said before... (5, Interesting)

parasonic (699907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591548)

The UN needs to have no control over the Internet. They have demonstrated time and time again (e.g. Oil-for-Food campaign) that they are incompetent with managing programs.

If TLD's are such an issue, let them have their own DNS system. No one is forcing anyone to use ICANN or even IANA.

Re:As has been said before... (2, Insightful)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591578)

Who cares about TLDs, what I want to know is who controls the IPs?

Re:As has been said before... (4, Insightful)

parasonic (699907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591734)

Who cares about TLDs, what I want to know is who controls the IPs?
Yes, but the UN doesn't. For all practicality's sake, they don't even know what an IP is. They don't know how the Internet and Web work, but they certainly think that it shouldn't be something that the originator (the US) shouldn't have control of...for whatever reason. Maybe the UN should peitition the US with a list of grievances of mismanagement in order to have a reason for the whole thing to be handed over. Having control over IP addresses is a much more encompassing leash that IANA [iana.org] has and just like ICANN does not abuse.

It's all black and white to the UN, two dimensional rather than three, and there are so many levels of ubiquity, ambiguity, and abstraction that they do and will continue to fail to see.

Re:As has been said before... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592826)

For all practicality's sake, they don't even know what an IP is.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in? The UN has been running international telecommunication systems very successfully since before I was born. It's one of their strongest areas.

If you seriously think this and aren't just trolling, then you are deluded and you need to familiarise yourself with the UN and not just the anti-UN propaganda that's so popular in the USA.

Re:As has been said before... (2, Informative)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593272)

When you put Libya on your Civil Rights commission, nuff said. The U.N. servers only one useful purpose: Having them meet on U.S. soil provides a convenient place to spy on them. Which I think is great!

Re:As has been said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595334)

When you put Libya on your Civil Rights commission, nuff said.

No, not "nuff said". You've missed a very important bit: the bit where you explain what the flying fuck that has to do with the effective running of international telecommunications.

Show me any organisation in the world that doesn't have a colossal fuck-up in it somewhere, and I'll show you an organisation that doesn't do anything.

Re:As has been said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17596704)

An organization that cannot correct from the top such a blaring error as having Libya on the Human Rights Commission does not inspire great confidence in being able to manage the Internet. The UN manages the ITU just fine because it hasn't been politicized (it is sort of like politicizing a committee that makes standards for the roads). The Internet is a completely different beast. Every despot in the world wants to take away this crown jewel from the US. The Internet has exponentially increased the power of free speech in many countries. Not everyone likes that.

The Internet is one of the greatest technological achievements of all time. But technology can be used for good or ill (like nuclear energy). Forgive me if I have reservations of having people like Castro and Mugabe controlling it.

Re:As has been said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17598922)

An organization that cannot correct from the top such a blaring error as having Libya on the Human Rights Commission does not inspire great confidence in being able to manage the Internet.

You are taking an example of their competence in an entirely different field and trying to generalise it to another field, whilst simultaneously ignoring actual examples from the field in question. This is not objective or rational, this is the argument of somebody whose first step was to decide what he wants the outcome to be and second step is to look for only the evidence that supports it.

Your Libya example is a really tenuous link, and yet you favour that over a directly relevant example. Why?

How cute, you're thinking the UN as benevolent. (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 7 years ago | (#17601814)

Ironically, it is because they ran Echelon (and stop pretending it, or newer programs like it, including Carnivore, which did finally go online a few years ago, thanks to "9/11") to spy on everyone out there in Europe and it was eventually proven in several VERY unpublicized cases that it was also used to spy on various technological advances described in emails (back before email spying and hacking were commonplace tools for every script kiddie) and transferred the contents of those emails to various big corps that stood to make billions from the advances.

Same crap now. In my opinion is that the UN CAN run the "internet" but I don't want them to. My suggestion is to screw the UN, withdraw any support from them, no more than anyone else out there provides. Whoever provides the least funding should be the baseline. The USA is taxed, so the US can spend loan money on the UN, using the USA's taxes to pay off the interest.

Just like the IMF... just because it CAN be used as a world bank, doesn't mean it should replace the lower banks.

The more you centralize, the easier tyranny can survive. That is why none of us have gold and silver money (coin form) in all our countries, instead we have paper currency (current as money) which is used to speculate us into the "boom and bust" cycle that banks created, and banks uphold.

Bankers should've been lynched when they first didn't have enough gold to cover their "cash" and outright checks. They defrauded the world of its money, now they want to take our speech too. China has proven it can be done and the people can't stand up and fight (or won't, since it is a Democratic Socialist Republic (what a triple oxymoron that is)).

How cute, you don't have a clue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17603688)

it is because they ran Echelon

Firstly, ECHELON was run by UKUSA, not the UN. The USA were one-fifth of UKUSA, and you're saying that ECHELON was so bad that the USA should administer international telecomms instead of the UN? You have that backwards.

Secondly, if ECHELON was run by the UN, that would completely contradict parasonic's claim that "they don't even know what an IP is".

Re:How cute, you don't have a clue (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 7 years ago | (#17610902)

Parasonic's insult may have been aimed at the UN politicians. Not the UN logistics crew.

Presuming that the logistics guys don't know, is like presuming that just because a politician only sees votes he'll win by dropping 1 million USD Raytheon Bunker Busters on random houses, hoping to catch Osama, doesn't mean that the ground crews don't know what it does, or the scientists that design them don't know how they work.

We live in a world of mentally retarded slaves and masters, neither of which speaks the other's language. The only difference is that slaves control each other on behalf of the masters, since the slaves hate seeing other slaves get free.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17613234)

My point is simple: How can any organization who exhibits behavior like the Libya incident be considered competent at all? Furthermore, I submit that the U.N. isn't competent in any area. Think of all of the failures. Oil for Food. Countless "Peacekeeping Missions" gone awry. This is all moot because the U.S. will never let them have control.

Re:As has been said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17616332)

My point is simple: How can any organization who exhibits behavior like the Libya incident be considered competent at all?

And my point is that no organisation meets this stringent criterium. Certainly not the USA. All large organisations include severe fuckups. I already explained this, but you seem to have ignored it.

Furthermore, I submit that the U.N. isn't competent in any area.

That's because you're burying your head in the sand. The ITU, the most relevant part of the UN to look to as an example of their competency in the area of international telecommunications, is being managed competently. I've already pointed this out too, and you are ignoring this too.

It really looks like you're ignoring the relevant information because it's pro-UN and bringing in irrelevant information because it's anti-UN. Unless you are willing to address the two points above, there is no point continuing to respond; you're a kook.

Oil for Food.

The Oil For Food that was a prefectly decent plan, only corrupted by particular member nations including the USA? Oil For Food is an argument against the USA, not for it.

Countless "Peacekeeping Missions" gone awry.

Compared with the USA's success in this respect in recent years, I'd say the UN compares very favourably.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591946)

what I want to know is who controls the IPs?

  ME.

  mu#4#aH4#A#4!!!111on3

Re:As has been said before... (1)

wfberg (24378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592144)

Who cares about TLDs, what I want to know is who controls the IPs?

It's one of the IANA functions contracted out to ICANN, but it's implemented by the RIR [wikipedia.org] s.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598102)

I've gathered bits and pieces about this kind of thing from various sources over a long period of time, but is there anyone who can just lay it all out at once for me?

The Internet, unless it is a series of tubes (I got that out joke out of the way, so you can just save it for another thread), is a network of fiber optic cable and a few other physical and link layer mediums, that are all accessible via IP. But the backbones, and the networks they provide service to, are all privatized, aren't they? So who mandates that a particular network obeys the rules of the internet? That is, how do you stop some ISP from usurping globally addressable IPs that are designated as belonging to someone else? And add any other protocol requirements you can think of to the problem - In a global network, how do you stop one rogue from damaging the integrity of the system? Is it enforced via the contract each ISP has with its ISP, all the way up to the backbone? How do different backbones cooperate?

I guess the IP interoperability part is the difficult part. DNS isn't anywhere near as important by comparison, but I assume that a similar set of rules govern that system as well?

Essentially, its the details of how this unregulated network survives that confuses me.

Re:As has been said before... (4, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591690)

The UN actually works. Remember the Korean War? The ITU does an amazing job of managing radio frequencies. And what about all the successful peacekeeping operations the UN has conducted? Do you see smallpox around? A lot of the UN bashing in America is about how badly the UN works when America doesn't cooperate. And I would prefer to have essential functions under the control of a bueracracy that has no effective leadership when it comes to devisive issues then to a bueracracy that caves to special intrests every single time.

Re:As has been said before... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17591844)

Yeah I remember the Korean War and the failure to either win or negotiate a peace settlement. I remember Oil for Food and all the kickbacks, I remember Darfur, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Former Yugoslavia and all the other genocidal and refugee human tragedies that the UN did and are doing nothing about, I remember all the meaningless resolutions passed against Iraq without any consequences, I remember several individuals at the UN that sold the world famous stamp collection without approval, I remember the Tianamen Square crackdown and the UN doing nothing, I remember the UN peacekeepers being called umbrellas that fold up and go home when it rains, I remember other UN peacekeepers raping young African girls without consequence. I remember a lot of this. I also want others to remember that you can't be UNhelpful without the UN in the lead.

Re:As has been said before... (5, Insightful)

smilingman (942304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592702)

You're being disingenuous. The modern UN doesn't have the military power to take on any nation. Its only function in nations like these would be to provide humanitarian support and peace keepers after there was a peace to keep. Speaking of which, in all these conflicts, where was the US?

Re:As has been said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592808)

Where is the UN in asking for assistance?

Re:As has been said before... (1)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594062)

It's in the UN Charter actually, countries are able to provide troops to the UN (not the same as coalition forces, actually placing them under the command of the UN). No one has done this for obvious reasons, but it's there, and the fact that they don't have troops limits what they can do. In all fairness, the UN is a diplomatic body. It does the job of trying to prevent WWIII and trying to do some good. There's a massive assistance program in Palestine run by the UN, and they have done good work in other places as well. Read the preamble to the UN charter sometime. The founders knew that they couldn't form an army that would stop everyone else from fighting, that was the US's job. They could, however, go after the causes of that fighting, try to head them off 50 years ahead of time. That's the idea with the work in palestine, but a lot more would be needed before the conditions there could be considered livable. Rather than waiting for people to attack you before you do something, you give them food, water, medicine, and education so that they're less likely to attack you. This doesn't work perfectly, we have much of what we need here in the U.S. but we've also got domestic terrorism which will never go away (I'm not talking about arabs on visas, I'm talking about Timothy McVeigh).

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17601930)

"The founders knew that they couldn't form an army that would stop everyone else from fighting, that was the US's job."

Yeah, right. Anyone hear the cries from everyone each and every time we try? Hmmm. Resolutions out the ass and when their 'military' move to enforce the issue, they throw up their hands and whine that we shouldn't.

"They could, however, go after the causes of that fighting, try to head them off 50 years ahead of time."

They could, however, they don't. They are much more interested in letting things go to a deeper hell so they can retain 'management' positions.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 7 years ago | (#17602060)

I could agree that they would be dreamily "trying" to do things, and "hoping" to do good things, but their record is crap.

When they pulled the belgian paratroopers with ammo and food (those boys whup major ass and love it) from the canadian who ran the Rwanda peacekeeping op during the machete chop job, the UN proved that they represent "the state" and "not the individuals or the people at large". They are NOT on your side, and countless of their words, speeches, writings and resolutions ENDLESSLY proclaim that they support only "legitimate state actors, not nonstate actors". Guess what, Saddam, the Shah, Deng Xiaoping/Pres Hu, Mao Tse Dun, Hitler, Stalin, etc were "legitimate state actors". In fact, some of them got themselves on the security council, being such "fine" state actors.

Re:As has been said before... (3, Insightful)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593692)

The modern UN's military power is largely that of the US. If the UN voted to use military power the US would practically need to commit troops on some scale.

And you cant have real peace till somebody wins.. thats the problem with the UN, they never win.. they just sit in the middle for a time then leave and the original parties go back to war.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593834)

Beyond that, the US is where it always has been.. either pointlessly holding up signs saying "make love not war" or bombing the piss out of people making more enemies in the process.

We need to be -not involved- as its not our problem.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596026)

Military power is not an issue. There's plenty of military power around. It's just that nobody is willing to use it. I don't know if it's because of the UN or because the member states are too scared to do anything that might cause casualties. I guess it must be the member states because the EU doesn't seem to have balls either.

Yeah, I suppose there are several countries operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who's actually doing the heavy lifting and taking nearly all of the casualties?

Re:As has been said before... (2, Insightful)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596890)

Speaking of which, in all these conflicts, where was the US?

Because peace keeping is a lose-lose situation for the U.S... if they get involved, you will bitch about "U.S. Imperialism"... if they don't get involved, you will whine "Why doesn't the U.S. do anything to help".

Re:As has been said before... (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591896)

A lot of the UN bashing in America is about how badly the UN works when America doesn't cooperate.

      Or it arises when the UN disagrees with what America wants... just like all the France bashing that has arisen since 2003.

      (with a french accent) Hehehe mes amis les americains, I hate to say "we told you so", but... have fun in Iraq. And now you want to send in MORE troops? You reinforce successes, not failures. Strategy 101.

      The US is always very quick to get offended by anyone who disagrees with the US. Their foreign policy is built on it. Oh, feel free waste a mod point to mod me troll my American friends, I have plenty more karma - and it will just prove my point :)

Re:As has been said before... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592258)

with a french accent) Hehehe mes amis les americains, I hate to say "we told you so", but... have fun in Iraq. And now you want to send in MORE troops? You reinforce successes, not failures. Strategy 101.

That is hilarious. Like anybody should really listen to the French for military advice?

The Complete Military History of France. [albinoblacksheep.com]

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593898)

Funny how the page you linked to, which you claim is the "Complete" Military history of France, fails to mention:
Battle of Bouvines - July 27, 1214, Battle of Patay - June 18, 1429, Battle of Formigny - April 15, 1450, Battle of Castillon - July 17, 1453, Battle of the Chesapeake - September 5, 1781 - which incidentally saved the US's butt from the Brits
Battle of Valmy - September 20, 1792, Battle of the Vosges - July 13, 1794, Battle of the Bridge of Arcole - November 17, 1796
Battle of Hohenlinden - December 3, 1800, Battle of Austerlitz - December 2, 1805, Battle of Jena-Auerstedt - October 14, 1806
Battle of Friedland - June 14, 1807, Battle of Tudela - November 23, 1808, Battle of Ucles - January 13, 1809, Battle of Ciudad-Real - March 27, 1809, Battle of Wagram - July 5-6, 1809, Battle of Smolensk - August 17, 1812, Battle of Borodino - September 7, 1812, Battle of Lutzen - May 2, 1813, Battle of Vauchamps - February 14, 1814, Battle of Navarino - October 20, 1827
Invasion of Algeria - 1830, Battle of Balaclava - October 25, 1854, Togoland - August 26, 1914

      WWI - which that page seems to portray the US as winning single-handedly. The revolts in Germany and the British blockade probably had more to do with ending the war than the US' participation, which was 3 years late, as usual.

      WWII - again a unilateral victory for the US, apparently. The French Resistance obviously had no participation, nor did the Free French hit the beaches in Normandy, right?

      See the US loves to portray the French as "surrendering". Yes, they only got invaded by the most modern and organized army the world had seen to that point - you know, the one that conquered the rest of Europe and most of Russia, and took the allies over a year of fighting on 3 fronts to defeat? And the French still managed to fight for 3 months. Not quite an immediate surrender. I wonder what the Americans would have done with panzer divisions in Washington, DC? Oh wait, for a while there - the US wasn't even sure which side of the war to fight on...

Desert Storm - January 2001, which France participated in.
Cote d'Ivoire - January 2003

      Nice when you stack all the "facts" only on your side, huh? France my not have the most glorious military history, but painting them as cowards and perpetual losers only shows ignorance on your part. It's like saying the Roman Empire were cowards because hey, where's their empire today? The US has not been entirely undefeated - despite it's budget, size and technology - sometimes by embarrassingly small and/or poor countries. But we won't talk about that, ok?

      To quote from Tolkien, somewhere in the Silmarillion: "It may be the part of a friend to rebuke a friend for his folly". However when what you receive in return is mockery and scorn, well, let's just see how well you do on your own then. You know it was France that both financed and helped you win your independence from the UK, right? You might as well tear down that statue of liberty if you despise them so much. It was, after all a gift from your "enemy", useless France.

      I've had just about enough of all the anti-French sentiment from ignorant, racist bigots like yourself.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595724)

If I had mod points, they'd be all yours. As someone who is part French (Probably like 1/6. I've got blood from a ridiculous amount of European countries) it does get under my skin when the French are taunted for no reason. (*With fake accent* Besides, as we all know, ze French are ze best taunters of all! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!) Does anyone remember a little name... something like... Napoleon? I seem to recall he was a pretty decent commander.

And I also tire of people who act like the U.S. won WWII all on its own, like the Nazis were ready to topple all of the world, when all of a sudden, "AMERICA MAN" appears and bam, Hitler goes down, good triumphs over evil AND gets the girl, and they live happily ever after. The truth is more like even without our help, the Allies would have more than likely won. Making enemies with Russia was really the Nazis biggest mistake. (But don't get me wrong. It's a good thing that we did, eventually, come to battle. It sped up Germany's defeat. I'm just saying that the idea that the French did nothing but surrender is, at best, totally historically inaccurate and, at worst, plain bigotry.)

Re:As has been said before... (1)

BgJonson79 (129962) | more than 7 years ago | (#17599174)

Napoleon was Corsican, not French. And if I recall, Corsicans were treated as second class citizens. And he still lost.

It's like the misnomer of Hitler being German... he was Austrian.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17599988)

True, he did lose, but he did pretty damn well for himself.

As for nationality, I did not know that about Napoleon. But at the same time, I don't really care so much about where one was born as where one lives later and what they do there. Einstein is often credited as one of the top U.S. scientists, even though he was not born in America. So, as long as he fought under the French banner... eh, works for me, though I understand if some may disagree.

Re:As has been said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595986)

I won't nitpick (I know little about French military activities between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI) but if you read up on reports made during the period, the French WERE bumbling military fools.

WWI: The French military completely and uttered dropped the ball. There were reports of orders being mis-interpreted resulting in the killing off of carrier pidgons. At strategic roads and pathways, German troops sometimes encountered no resistance. And of course, everyone's favorite "the French have a crappy military" fact, Paris was almost taken.

Furthermore, frankly, WWI wasn't a war that concerned the U.S. It was sparked by an assassination in a region the U.S. had little to no involvement in, promoted by ultra-nationalism (which the U.S. is largely immune to due to its hodgepodge collection of immigrants), and fueled by an arms race the U.S. was not apart of (some U.S. troops were armed with French weaponry). If the U.S. entered WWi at its outbreak, the nation would have revolted. "Its a European war" was a popular saving even AFTER the U.S. entered the war. Congress almost voted against declaring war. And the Committee of Public Safety was formed to control dissidents (which makes today's Patriot Act seem tame in comparison.)

WWII: The U.S. was funding and supplying Britain (and later Russia) for years before officially joining the war. With the exception of sending uniformed soldiers ("Volunteer Units" were quietly given the thumbs up) the U.S. literally sent everything from food, to weapons, to destroyers. The French resistance was a sham and most historians know it. The average expected period of time a new recruit in the resistance was expected to live was less than a week at times. There was never a Warsaw Ghetto Uprising-sized or similar push by the French resistance, the Dutch resistance was far more successful and helpful, and the French Resistance suffered heavily from infighting between the pro-nationalists and the pro-Communists (who had decades of experience working underground by this point and initially formed the French Resistance.)

I'm not saying that the French are fools when it comes to war, but realistically, they haven't had any serious major victories since Napoleon.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597158)

US lend-lease programs supplied only about 4% of USSR military production during the WWII (though it did help very much). And the second front was opened only when the outcome of war was virtually certain.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598296)

(US citizen here.) I was going to make a sarcastic response in your favor, but you used my closer - the fact that Americans like to forget the origins of the Statue of Liberty, and that we would not have won the Revolutionary War without French aid.

So instead I'll poorly imitate your accent and mock you for not having a word in your language for "Renaissance".

Seriously, I get pissed off when I read French bashing, or other egotistic crap from within the US. I also don't like the fact that I as a citizen am implicitly included in retorts directed at this country as a whole, but there's not much I can do about that unless I want to buy Sealand.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Aglassis (10161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17600736)

I hate French bashing as well. But what I hate even more is people who complain about French bashing and then go on to bash the US. It is so childish and at its roots it suggests that one form of the bashing was somehow inherently justified. Why they think that the US bashing is OK but the French bashing is uncalled for (or vice versa) perplexes me. For me it would seem that they would look inward and not automatically bash the US because of its high probability to be hypocritical. In fact I would think that they would question whether either form of bashing was justified.

Unfortunately most people (including many tech geeks in this discussion) are unable to understand the utter triviality of bashing another nation in response to being bashed. I think it is part of a more general problem where it is intellectually easier to blame another person, religion, country, etc., than to do the intellectually difficult problem of debating and objecting to ideas.

Re:As has been said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17599656)

I've had just about enough of all the anti-French sentiment from ignorant, racist bigots like yourself.


Well, go ahead! Act on it! Go find yourself some anti-Frog venom spouting redneck and KICK HIS ASS!

Didn't think so, asshole.

The French are at odds with the US agenda, and must be treated as such. They are not, nor have they ever been friends. They helped us during the revolution because they wanted to take the piss out of England.. no more, no less.

Re:As has been said before... (2, Interesting)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592306)

Oh, feel free waste a mod point to mod me troll my American friends
oops ... what happened? 5, Insightful? Hmmm, how'd that happen? Clearly you knew very well that on /., bashing Americans and America is one of the fastest ways to get karma.

I have plenty more karma - and it will just prove my point :)
You just proved my point!

Re:As has been said before... (1)

smilingman (942304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592726)

And now he's been modded down as overrated and a troll. Hmm... methinks you spoke a little soon.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593744)

Clearly you knew very well that on /., bashing Americans and America is one of the fastest ways to get karma.

No; the fastest way to get karma is to predict that you're going to lose it *or* to invite down-modding. Both of these generally lead to the post in question hitting +4 or +5.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598126)

Correlation is not causation. Feel free to mod me down for pointing that out.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596040)

The French bashing bothered me until I gradually started to realize that it's completely justified. Just look at how they handled the riots in Paris, and how they're ready to fire upon IDF forces but apparently won't do anything about Hezbollah (as far as I know).

Re:As has been said before... (1)

AArmadillo (660847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596122)

When was Iraq supposed to be 'fun'? It was necessary, not fun (necessary, both in that it was mandated by a UN resolution and that Iraq had spent quite long enough under Saddam). Considering Iraq just held its first free election, I think it is safe to say that the United States' actions have had some good come of them. As opposed to France, which was content to supply Iraq with weapons in exchange for oil. Talk about no blood for oil, eh?

UN Failures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592108)

The UN actually works. Remember the Korean War?

Remember Darfur?

Remember Somalia?

Remember Bosnia?

Remember Israel?

Re:As has been said before... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592594)

The UN actually works. Remember the Korean War?

The UN acted during the Korean War because the Soviet Union didn't show up to vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Re:As has been said before... (1, Redundant)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592788)

Remeber Sudan/Darfur?
Serbiea/Kosovo?
Bosnia?
Tianement Square?
Tibet?
Rwanda?

The Korean War was just about the last time the UN had a backbone.

Re:As has been said before... (3, Interesting)

PhilipMarlowe9000 (1035214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593464)

"Remeber Sudan/Darfur? Serbiea/Kosovo? Bosnia? Tianement Square? Tibet? Rwanda?" The UN is not on Mars, nor in heaven; it's effectives is helped or hindered by how much nation-states want to contribute. Furthermore, the UN traditionally has had a mandate not to intefere in nations because of national sovereighty.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Aglassis (10161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596898)

Nice trying to shift the blame. It is the *job* of the UN to get member states involved--not the other way around (like it has been for the last 50 years). An international association that fails to get its members to work has failed as an organization--not just as failures of individual members.

If the UN cannot get any member states to contribute then a new organization is needed to do the job. In my opinion, the UN should be dissolved and a modified NATO should do the work (admitting a couple of new open democratic states like Japan and South Korea). I do not understand why we cling to this belief that if every country on Earth agrees with an action then it is justified, otherwise it is unjustified. We just run into the problem of despots doing unjustified actions that nobody can agree are actually unjustified.

Kick out the despots, and only admit open democratic states with strong protections on human rights. Otherwise the UN will continue to be completely worthless except for setting international standards for things like road signs.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593576)

> And I would prefer to have essential functions under the control of a bueracracy

Ugg..no bureaucracy please..

> And I would prefer to have essential functions under the control of a bueracracy that has no effective leadership

Even worse..

> And I would prefer to have essential functions under the control of a bueracracy that has no effective leadership when it comes to devisive issues

Essential functions are not divisive issues? Or did you just mis-spell what you meant?

> And I would prefer to have essential functions under the control of a bueracracy that has no effective leadership when it comes to devisive issues then to a bueracracy that caves to special intrests every single time.

It would appear the UN is just as easy to cave in.. Lets get to the root problem here. Uhhh....??? Why again do you think we need a bureaucratic government body controlling the internet again? I'm not following you.

More government is always the answer? "Where are you brains in your ass?" - Cereal Killer

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593628)

The UN actually works. Remember the Korean War?
The UN getting into the Korean war was a pure accident. The US put forward a bill to get the UN involved. The USSR SHOULD have vetoed it. They didn't veto the bill because they had just walked out for the day in protest of something or another. As a result, Russia was not there to throw down a veto. If the USSR had just stayed in their seats, instead of scores of American military with a few UN logos slapped around and a handful of allies, it would have been scores of American military without any UN logos with a handful of allies.

The UN is good for a lot of things like emergency aid, negotiating peace between waring sides, humanitarian missions, observations of ceasefires, broad health initiatives, environmental treaties, and even occasionally setting up international standards. The UN is utterly worthless at protecting/enforcing freedom and liberty, conducting military action, or enforcing even the most basic morals like don't genocide thy neighbor.

Re:As has been said before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594208)

I would not even give the UN as much credit as you have. It is an ineffective organization in just about everything that they do.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Dysl3xicDog (1040956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593884)

So they're going to send us a letter? "We have taken over your interwebs!" Signed, U.N. (Useless Ninnies)

Re:As has been said before... (1)

Monsuco (998964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594422)

The UN actually works.
Just like the League of Nations worked? Or the international court worked? The UN has lasted longer and has been a bit more active than the last two were, but it still is developing the "not my problem" mentality that allowed for Germany to arm the hell out of themselves before WWII and for all nations to do so before WWI. The UN is similar to it's predecessors in that it waste money on committees and threats of light economic punishment and appeasment that it will allow for a third world war (possibly with Iran though, so I guess that is different.). How can we trust them with ICANN. The Web is fine as is.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

N1EY (817702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597644)

I disagree. The ITU is a conference of individual regulatory agencies of various governments. It has been ineffectual of assessing the value of broadcasting. They have allowed broadcasters to park all over medium wave and shortwave. Do we really need all of these things spread all over the place? It has allowed too much broadcasting to occur. It has no ability to enforce proper spectrum plans as developed. Pirates operate in one country and effect users in another country with no enforcement available to terminate or restrict such operations. N1EY

Re:As has been said before... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592158)

They have demonstrated time and time again (e.g. Oil-for-Food campaign)

That's a really bad example. Oil-for-food was a fine plan, it was particular UN member nations (including the USA [wikipedia.org] ) that undermined it.

they are incompetent

Ever made an international phone-call? Telecommunications is one area that the UN does well in and corporations do poorly in. The ITU, being discussed here, is the worlds oldest international organisation. Meanwhile, telephone operators in the USA had to be forced into guaranteeing 911 service by the government. A bit of a stark contrast in quality, wouldn't you say?

Re:As has been said before... (1)

PhilipMarlowe9000 (1035214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593382)

Agreed. The US only started to complain that the UN was ineffective (and cited Oil for Food constantly) when it didn't rubber-stamp the Iraq war. IN that case, the UN Weapons Inspectors were essentially proven right-- there were no WMD's in Iraq. In regards to oil for food, there is no substantiated evidence that anything corrupt has happened: Chalabi was the only one to raise specific charges (and we know how reliable he is.) What Annan's son did is his personal business, and there is no evidence to suggest paternal influence in getting him the job (nor is that a crime).

Re:As has been said before... (1, Insightful)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592426)

The UN needs to have no control over the Internet. They have demonstrated time and time again (e.g. Oil-for-Food campaign) that they are incompetent with managing programs.

If TLD's are such an issue, let them have their own DNS system. No one is forcing anyone to use ICANN or even IANA.
You are right, the Internet should be in the hands of those who abused the Oil-for-Food program the most - Americans.

Re:As has been said before... (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594876)

I guess Oil-for-food cancels out the successes of the UNDP, CSD, UNESCO, WHO, FAO, IBRD, IDA, IFC, MIGA, ICSID, IFAD, and UNICEF, doesn't it?

um (1, Funny)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591550)

I for one welcome our new ICANN overlords.

Like they could (-1, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591596)

The UN can't manage itself. There's so many con-artists, thieves and rapists in there it makes the US prison system look like kindergarten.

Re:Like they could (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591704)

Feh, prisons.

Compare it to the Congress. If you dare.

Re:Like they could (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591822)

There's so many con-artists, thieves and rapists in there

      They're called politicians.

Security? (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591722)

Does this mean we will have a walled network where it takes cash to get in, and no one is anonymous?

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17593462)

We already have a walled network that takes cash to get in and no one is anonymous....

Re:Security? (1)

wordsthatendinq (971620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594224)

This isn't much of a response to the previous post, but I didn't want to start a thread with the same title...

The ITU has way too many things on its agenda [itu.int] to do a good job improving security in any area. Consider the ICANN, whose focus on Internet addresses is rather one-dimensional. IMO, it isn't even clear that ICANN does enough for security and efficiency. For example, every time the ICANN releases a new domain extension, the majority of memorable names get taken up almost immediately by domain squatters who proceed to make big bucks off of nothing. This is inefficient in the sense that monopoly is inefficient (not to mention annoying and responsible for the proliferation of firms with nonsense names that make you want to punch them). This is also a security issue because of the information people could inadvertently release by accidentally going to domain squatters' web pages.

I guess there are good things to be said about ICANN's being hands-off. But my point is if such gaping issues can exist within the single area of assigning addresses, imagine how many things the ITU would have to deal with if they were serious about security...

Good to see.. (2, Interesting)

madsheep (984404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591726)

It's good to see the U.N. has just outright came out and see it doesn't see a need for them to run this. I think Security is a bigger issue, although I do not exactly have any idea on what they are working or doing to secure anything. A large number of countries seem to look at anything associated with the U.S. as a talking point for change. There's not a whole long wrong with ICANN doing what it does right now as far as I can see. People just like to complain and try and get a change just so they can oppose someone they aren't fond of. Well so much for all the calls for the U.N. to run it. Let's see what all these whining complaining bastards try and do next.

Being from outside of the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592096)

Is this really the intellectual level on which debates are conducted in the US?

I see this kind of childish reaction all the time. Someone says something that can be perceived as being critical of the US or even just a US company and people will immidiatly start calling those being critical names, complain about everyone supposedely attacking the US, etc, etc.

And they will not even, for one second, try to take a look at the issue at hand as maybe, just maybe, they'd find out that some things these "complaining bastards" say might be reasonable, understandable, backed up with sound arguments.

Really, this is kindergarten and not the behavior of grown ups.

Re:Being from outside of the US (1)

madsheep (984404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17604224)

Nice response and very informative. Oh wait it was very bland, generic, and served no purpose. :( Aww poor baby. Maybe you'd like to add some substance to such a reply. You would like to but you cannot. Thanks for the blurb though.

I'm sorry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17591728)

When asked about Chinese censorship Toure said that issue is beyond the mandate of the ITU.

In communist China, the censorship is beyond you!

For the last freaking time... (1)

Psionicist (561330) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591796)

DNS and IP space allication != "The Internet".

Re:For the last freaking time... (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592112)

True, but try using the internet without them...

Or try explaining that to a politician.

As for the Chinese... (0, Troll)

Mopar93 (1046032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17591934)

When asked about Chinese censorship Toure said that issue is beyond the mandate of the ITU

China should be disconnected from the rest of the world and have it's own Internet. No more spammers and hackers operating out of China.

But then, where would it stop? Separate Korea and Russia too?

If the UN wants to help out, they should get their brains together and come up with an international plan to require these countries to put a stop to spammers and hackers.

Can you tell I hate spammers?

-Maurice

Most spam originates from the US not China. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592566)

What has China got to do with the spam problem? Most spam comes from the US.

http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso / [spamhaus.org]

Re:Most spam originates from the US not China. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17592766)

That link should be http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso [spamhaus.org]

Re:Most spam originates from the US not China. (1)

Mopar93 (1046032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594514)

However, take away the spam that originates from "infected" computers and then make the comparison between the US and China. China harbors the real spammers. In the US, they get it done by taking over home and business computers. The user doesn't even know he is sending out spam from his own computer.

Almost all spam originating from the US can be stopped at the SMTP level because spammers are a bit stupid in many ways. Infected computers don't actually operate like a real email server.

Now, take another look at that comparison on spamhaus.org. It looks like the numbers are higher for the US than China. However, even though there are fewer ISPs listed for China, that has nothing to do with the total quantity of spam. A server running 24 hours a day sending out spam can pump out more spam than an infected computer that might be turned off 22 hours each day. Spamhaus's numbers aren't true reality.

If you block China, Korea, and Russia, you'll block over 75 percent of the spam coming into your email server. If you have no use for any of those countries visiting your website or sending you email, just block them. I've got a few sites that don't need them. I block those 3 countries and about 40 others as well. It fixes a lot of problems.

-Maurice

Still doesn't make sense... (1)

jimktrains (838227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592260)

"Union says that he does not plan to take over governance of the internet and leave it up to groups like ICANN."

I mean I know what they want to say, but this sentence still doesn't mkae any sense to me. Shouldn't it be "Union says that he plans to leave it up to groups like ICANN and not take over governance of the internet."

As much as I dislike the government most of the time. I have no complaints on how the DNS allocation is done...

Chinese Mandate (5, Interesting)

descentintomaelstrom (1050760) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592410)

Actually, if the UN were to follow its own Human Rights Declaration, it clearly states in Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I would suppose that this means freedom from censorship on the internet. The UN has been constantly ignoring its own mandates for the protection of Human rights becuase its councils concering Human rights are consistently run by the countries who violate those rights. Even right now, China is a member of the Human Rights Council. The UN cannot function under the weight of its own political correctness and the weight of its member states violating its own declarations.

Re:Chinese Mandate (1)

smilingman (942304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592814)

That's not political correctness, it just has its hands tied by large, powerful nations with veto powers.

Re:Chinese Mandate (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595764)

Even right now, China is a member of the Human Rights Council. The UN cannot function under the weight of its own political correctness and the weight of its member states violating its own declarations.

The de facto standard for human rights these days is worse than China. If some small country is oppressing freedom of speech or imprisoning political dissidents, the UN has to compare it with China's behavior before condemning it. Any declaration that would apply equally to China would be completely unenforceable and would threaten the legitimacy of the UN.

Useless Document (1)

w3woody (44457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596184)

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] is essentially a useless document because of clause 29 and 30:
Article 29:

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

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

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

Article 30.

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

Article 29(1) means that everyone has duties to the community in which he belongs--and the free and full development of his personality is not possible without such allegience. Thus, if you are a Chinese person in China, you owe allegience to China and have duties as defined by your community. This is in sharp contrast from the United States, where communities and countries derive from individual rights, rather than the other way around.

Article 29(2) indicates that your "rights" and "freedoms" are not limitless, but are subject to limitations, including the limitations of the morality, need for public order and "general welfare". Since you as an individual derive your rights from the community in which you live (rather than the community coming about because a group of free individuals voluntarily band together), rather than individuals shaping the morality of the community in which they live, individuals are subject to the morality of the community they live in--and communities may make laws limiting your actions so that you behave in a moral fashion.

Article 29(3) indiciates that your "rights" and "freedoms" are further limited--you may not commit any action that runs "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

And to cap all of this off, Article 30 states that you may not engage in any activity which destroys any of the rights outlined in the document--including the right to rest, reasonable limitations on working hours, and the fundamental right to an adequate standard of living--including the fundamental right to clothing and medical care. (Should we interpret a doctor who goes home rather than treats a sick man as an infringment on the man's fundamental right to medical care, or an infringement on the doctor's fundamental right to reasonable limitations on working hours?)

The whole document is a Utopian fantasy that no nation-state in the world takes seriously, so don't be surprised if UN officials wipe their asses with the document--as that is all the document is really worth.

How can an individual have fundamental rights if all fundamental rights are legislated by committee?

Re:Chinese Mandate (1)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596814)

Virtually every country besides China restricts speech. In the United States, it is illegal to advertise a candidate 30 days before a federal election. In most European countries, it is illegal to say something that "promotes hate". In Canada, all films need to be approved by the government.

When we complain about China, we aren't complaining about censorship... we are complaining about censorship that doesn't appeal to Western esthetics. Virtually all countries censor, though. The west, being hipcrites, just want China to censor in a way that they approve of. It is a battle for Western culture to dominate Eastern culture, not a battle against censorship.

Re:Chinese Mandate (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17599954)

I don't think so. Censorship of publications and internet postings by China is quite simply quantitatively greater censorship than the restriction on advertising political candidates 30 days prior to an election in the United States. The number of situations in which China can censor is greater than that number in the USA, and the number of expressions actually censored is greater in China than the USA.

It's not a culture issue; China really does censor more than the United States. You can quibble about various things the Bush Administration has done, but most of those are actually against United States law and will be corrected when Bush leaves power. If China's leader intentionally screws China, the Chinese must wait until his death.

Go ahead and try it, UN (3, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592764)

They can have my tubes when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

The UN? Riiiiiight! (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593048)

I live in Taiwan. Screw the UN.

The truth about the UN (2, Informative)

voss (52565) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593086)

With no global tax and no global army, the UN lacks the money and the power
to rule the internet.

Any power the UN has is because the world powers use it to provide the cover of international law
to protect their interests. Of course this is significant because when world powers want to do something
they must compromise to get UN backing. The absence of UN backing means additional political costs for
any nation that acts without UN backing.

how kind of the UN (2, Funny)

callmetheraven (711291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593168)

Gee, that's magnanimous of the nice guys at the UN, not to take over something that was invented by the US military using US tax dollars, that they do not own, and that they have no authority to take over. How sweet and thoughtful of those kind corrupted windbags.

But wouldn't it be neat if they DID take over the internet? Iran could head the committee that censors all web content (with Saudia Arabia, Sudan, and China making up the rest of the panel), and Nigeria could handle internet security!

NOT with countries like China, Iran, Russia in it (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593546)

and no way. I wouldnt see a single byte traveling on the internet be subject to a governing body where these opressive, mafia (in case of russia) and medieval (you know which) countries have a say in. Internet thrived with what was governing it up to date, and from now on i would like to see it thrive - so let it be as it is now.

Thats mighty big of him. (1)

wmarcy (716319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593726)

Just imagine the scandals they could perpetrate if they decided they were going to take it over?

Fox Official Says Foxes Not Taking Over Henhouse (1)

bwoodring (101515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594362)

Breaking News: Fox Official Says Foxes Not Taking Over Henhouse.

Hey! Me too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594576)

Since this nobody spoke up (did anyone ever actually ask him?), I'd just like to say that I do not plan to take over governance of the internet either and will also leave it up to groups like ICANN. I will instead focus on getting a job, moving out of the basement and more cowbell. If anyone asks me about when I'm going to be in a real relationship, I'd have to say that it's beyond my mandate.

DNS = "The Internet" ? (1)

bitspotter (455598) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594712)

I'm not sure I understand how people get away with thinking the DNS root servers comprise "THE INTERNETS". It's pretty trivial to configure most OSes to use any DNS resolution server you want, that resolves any domains you want. There are plenty of alternative roots out there that do just that. They even defer to the existing ICANN roots in most cases.

So why is it that all the press I hear - and most importantly, the political leaders they listen to - acts like they're completely unaware of this flexibility?

I know, I know, the ignorance of politicians should never surprise me.

MY TURN! (1)

TheRon6 (929989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595574)

I would just like everyone to know that I'm NOT going to take over the United States. Please rest assured that you have nothing to worry about despite the fact that I'm clearly in the perfect position to do so even though I have no supporters, military, or finances. And please, no matter how many times you all welcome me as your new overload, I don't feel I'm properly qualified for such a position.

Re:MY TURN! (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17599972)

I for one, welcome our new unqualified overlord on the condition that he's slightly less unqualified than our last one.

informativ3 TrollkoreTrollkore (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595978)

Th4t shoul3 be

fri5t 4sot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17596058)

project f4ces a set Good3ye...she had

The UN is not a Democratic World Government. (1)

w3woody (44457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596376)

In my opinion the single most important clause in the United States Constitution is not the First Amendment nor the Second nor the 14th. It is Article IV, section 4, clause 1:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,...

In order for any state in the United States to be a member of the United States, it must establish a constitution and elections within the borders of that State. It's why every state in the United States has an elected governor, and not an unelected King. Its why every state has some sort of parlimentary system, with representatives elected from various dictricts within that state, instead of representatives from various warlords and clans being sent to the King's Castle to parlay over internal matters.

It may sound stupid, but there is no reason why the states of the United States are republics except for that one clause. Without that clause, Governor Schwarzenegger could dissolve the California Assembly and declare himself King, and there would be nothing the United States Congress could do about it, as it is an interior matter. (Well, they may try to invoke the Commerse Clause and the Full Faith clause--but those are legal stretches that were only recently widened.)

The United Nations has no such clause.

And that is my problem with the United Nations.

Even though it was started as a hopeful experiment to convince the powers of the world to adopt Democracy, often we have some of the most un-democratic countries and some of the worse abusers of Human Rights taking control of various committees. Very few countries within the United Nations even give a damn about the Rule of Law--which is why we get endless declarations and resolutions and mandates coming out of the United Nations falling on deaf ears.

Now if the United Nations would adopt a resolution making it mandatory that continued membership in the United Nations requires adopting a Republican form of government, and if we were to elevate Democracy to an ideal rather than denegrate Democracy as a byproduct of United States emperialism, and if we were to make our representatives to the United Nations elected positions rather than appointed ambassadors, then it would be something I could fully support.

Until then, the United Nations is at best worthless and at worse, evil.

Re:The UN is not a Democratic World Government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17611218)

Troll alert. Not all methods of governance need to be a Republic to be successful or beneficial to it's subject/citizens etc.

Also, you could make a point that in certain circumstances Republics/Democracies don't work either. Cuba has the best health system in the world, for example.

I'm going to paraphrase Churchill and say "It has been said that Republics are the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

If you don't understand what Churchill was trying to say, you need to pick up a book on Philosophy.

Oh come on... (1)

hitmanWilly1337 (1034664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17599264)

The UN couldn't take over the internet even if it wanted to. They could CLAIM control, but thats right up there with a former US VPs claim that he invented it. Governments around the world have been trying to control the net for years. It has failed every single time. The beauty of the net is thats its completely free form outside influence. Besides, the UN's a paper tiger anyway. They have no enforcement ability whatsoever.

The UN does not want control... (1)

harshmanrob (955287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17603538)

...there also is no bill in congress to stop internet radio and outsourcing does not take away jobs in the US. Now get back to watching TV and obeying the government you chattle!
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...