UN eyes the internet

Top Five Changes When the U.N. Takes Over the Internet

5. Kofi Annan changes his name to k0F1 4Nn@n.
4. Email inquiries now sent to Strong Bad.
3. War resolved through Counter Strike.
2. Microsoft given seat on the security council.

and:
1. Google searches take ten years, and find nothing.


Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

[Edited on Nov 10, 2003 by Keith]

Yeah, but it's that very freedom and anarchy that you love that scares the piss out of the people in charge of things. Dont' think for a moment that they'll be some benevolent paternal figure gently nudging the Internet along....it would be Big Brother in all his hideous glory. If someone--anyone-- "runs" the interenet, then that means things will not get done without their permission. Else, what's the point of running it?

I think Kofi just wants access to unlimited porn.

Be prepared to fill out one of these forms.

keith, you forgot to mention try the veal

I think this is absolutely necessary. Right now the United States government controls the internet. Through their divisions and contractors, they handle everything from IP address allocations to rights to domain names. They also govern how the tier 1 internet providers can operate. This translates into one nation having control over what we consider an "international medium".

Currently the internet does NOT provide free international communication. Ultimately there is no guarantee for freedom of speech, or freedom to privacy.

This is an example of why I do not like the UN. I like some of the things about them. I think they can do some good. I think they could do better and need to do some serious restructuring. But there's a push for more and more control over things and some of those things strip away at a nation's sovereignty. Kofi actually scares me a little because he's pushed a little harder for more control for the UN in new arenas when there's still many programs that need tweaked and a few that need major overhauls as they aren't working as intended.

And, no. I'm not one of the black helicopter types. I have some concerns but none that lead to paranoia

While ICANN is fundamentally a non-profit, non-governmental organization, they are still based in a single (USA) nation, and are subject to only that nation's operating laws and procedures, and base their own regulations on that country's law. From what I've heard (maybe this is old hat) ICANN has rejected all suggestions for international representatives and board members. An organization funded mainly on US dollars, located in California, with all American board members hardly does the internet justice, don't you think?

To date, any lawsuits formed on the ownership of .com/.net/.org domains take place in US courts through ICANN by the UDRP. ICANN accreditation is a step in the right direction as far as registration goes, but when it comes to things such as trademark ownership, there isn't currently a means of forming international laws. From what I gather this is what UN control would allow. The UN is the only governing body with the jurisdiction to create international laws, and while I normally wouldn't promote international law, the internet is one area where it is required.

Oh and total ownership/control, fuck that- I just would like to see someone do something about international trademark infringements and cybercrimes

In many countries, 'cybercrime' includes things like publically criticizing the local government and looking at pr0n. This would result in governments like Saudi Arabia and Communist China having direct influence over the rules that govern your use of the internet. Under no circumstances could this possibly be a good thing.

if you read the article it poses as arguments for UN control, the regulation of spam and criminal contents. I don't trust any governement to take control of the web and solve those issues.

I think those are mainly excuses to try and regulate the speech of freedom there is in europe and usa, wich may not be perfect, but it's surely better then most other countries in the world.

"unresolved disputes:...acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression." that's what they are after.

I give the UN control of anything. They nevr finish anything and fuck up just about everything they touch.

Better the UN than many others. It's likely that very little will actually change. Effective control by one body over the internet to the extent that it affects the day-to-day user would impress the hell out of me.