There is a move afoot to turn the control of the Internet ov [Archive]

janeth

12-07-2003, 01:27 PM

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2003
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

THE UN IS PUSHING FOR CONTROL OF THE INTERNET

Yup .. you got it. There is a move afoot to turn the control of the Internet over to a United Nations agency. You can almost imagine the arguments. Right now the names and Internet URLs are assigned and controlled by an American entity. Most of the computing power that drives the Internet is located in the United States. In a situation like this it is easy to develop various conspiracy theories pointing to U.S. efforts to keep undeveloped and developing countries down by denying them full access to the Internet and manipulating Internet access for the benefit of America's friends. It doesn't matter whether these claims are true (they're not) or untrue. It just matters that charges like this resonate with America's haters around the world.

This move was inevitable. For the most part the Internet knows no international boundaries. Someone in Croatia can order a book from a Japanese book store with a few mouse clicks. A villager in Uganda can voice an opinion on a Hollywood chat line in seconds. These capabilities are not going to escape those who would like to establish a one-world government through the UN. In their minds anything with the international reach of the Internet simply has to be regulated and controlled by the United Nations.

And just how does the UN feel about things such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression? Just read the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sure, right there in Article 19 it says that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." It also says that everyone has the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Even if the UN did control the Internet we would be assured of our freedom to seek, receive and impart information, right?

Not so fast. You need to read a little further. Just read Article 29 Section 3. Here, I'll print it for you:

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

Do you need me to translate? This section says that your freedom of speech, your freedom of expression, and your freedom to "seek, receive and impart information" cannot be exercised if you would interfere with the "purposes and principles of the United Nations," whatever those are.

Remember also that the United Nations has recently determined that some forms of "hate speech" can actually be war crimes. Now ... define "hate speech." And while you're working on that definition remember that liberals, the very people who love the United Nations and who feel that we should turn over our sovereignty to this august organization, would tell you that the very idea expressed on this web page are "hate speech."

Yeah ... UN control of the Internet would certainly be something to look forward too. Not only would web site content end up being censored, but you could also look for other goodies such as a UN imposed sales tax on all Internet transactions to fund UN activities around the world .. activities that usually work against the interests of the United States.

minstrel

12-07-2003, 02:05 PM

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
I don't know about the rest of you but sites with names that end in "z" or contain words like "nuze" don't fill me with confidence as to the accuracy of their content (or intent for that matter).

There is a move afoot to turn the control of the Internet over to a United Nations agency. You can almost imagine the arguments. Right now the names and Internet URLs are assigned and controlled by an American entity. Most of the computing power that drives the Internet is located in the United States.
(1) that is increasingly less true - "dot com" is no longer the only address, for one thing - The US has nothing to do with "dot ca" names, just as one example.
(2) anything the UN wants to actually do is extremely unlikely to happen - it's pretty clear by now that the UN has lost virtually all credibility and all the power they once had to actually make a decision and do something meaningful on the world scene - it's basically become like a book club now - they meet once in a while, make a lot of meaningless speeches, and then go home and try to sober up...

janeth

12-07-2003, 02:44 PM

I hope your right. I'm not sure what they could do but I'm sure no good would come from it.

mikmik

12-07-2003, 06:02 PM

minstrel said:
Some things, see 2 (two) posts up.
janeth then said:
I hope your right. I'm not sure what they could do but I'm sure no good would come from it.

Okay, let's see where we are..H-h-m-m--mmmm..Yes, I believe we are in the IT forum, not the "Break from Reality" room so I think he has a very good chance of being right, and I agree with his reasoning.

minstrel

12-07-2003, 06:08 PM

Thank you Mik... thank goodness you're back - Janeth has been picking on me... it was just a matter of time before Mat and Wen joined in.

janeth

12-07-2003, 06:31 PM

I think maybe mikmik has been siting on minstrel coach.

minstrel is always right
minstrel is always right
minstrel is always right

Did he give you a type to listen to mikmik?

minstrel

12-07-2003, 07:05 PM

minstrel is always right
minstrel is always right
minstrel is always right

I rather like the sound of that... just keep repeating that phrase, Janeth - I wonder if I can get my sons doing that too? ;-)

janeth

12-07-2003, 07:14 PM

Just give them a copy of the type you gave mik

mikmik

12-07-2003, 09:16 PM

minstrel gets a rescue from mikmik this time:
Thank you Mik... thank goodness you're back - Janeth has been picking on me... it was just a matter of time before Mat and Wen joined in.

Must be terrible!
Janeth, do you like jello?
janeth is suspiscious!
I think maybe mikmik has been siting on minstrel coach.

Sitting, reclining, sleeping... In fact, I pay by the month; RENT!
I just got evicted from my 'cranial consultant' (my psychiatrisr) here in Kelowna.

And, yes, whatever you said about a-h-h....GOOGLE, I agree, unless you didn't want me to.
(shhh - we got in trouble going off topic over here...I think! http://webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=9465&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

janeth

12-07-2003, 10:00 PM

Yes this is Brittany side of the forum here and I'm telling on both of you.

But I eat the jello no matter what it has to say.

rocky1

12-08-2003, 11:54 AM

I would have to concurr with Minstrel 100% on all counts on this one.

The term "Nuze" in their title doesn't support a great deal of professionalism on the part of the source. It projects adolescent ~ "I'm trying to be cute in my site title," ~ attitude.

Although, I can't state with any authority, that the US doesn't have any control over foreign domains, I can state that I've never encountered one offered on application for domain name here in the US. We have the usual choices of .com, .net, .org, .edu, .biz, .gov, and we are limited to .us in the country of origin race. It has likewise been my experience that if you try and plug something they don't offer from the list into the application, it'll spit you out real quick!

As for comments on the UN itself, I too think they probably have enough problems on their hands without worrying about the Internet. There are likely those that think they should control the Internet within the body of the UN, however I would have to question whether they have any authority to control it. Is it owned by the US Government? If so wouldn't take over be considered a hostile act toward the US, unless it was surrendered, which I'm sure the government here, would have the same concerns regarding freedom of speech under UN authority? By the same respect, I don't honestly believe the Internet is "owned and operated" by the Government. (They can't even control it.) Thus, I would have to conclude it is owned and operated privately, although the Government no doubt does utilize it, wherein the UN certainly has no authority to assume control of it.

Looking at it from a realistic point of view, who exactly is the governing body of the internet? I honestly don't know! I can tell you W3C would like to be; but who is W3C? As for ownership... no one entity, agency, company owns all of the transmission lines, satellites, servers, etc. It's all individually owned and inter-connected to form a global network, and that would be difficult if not impossible to take over, let alone control.

If there's any validity in this report I would assume that it ends at certain members of the UN having maybe discussed the possibility of an Internet take over to serve their goals, nothing more.

ron sheldrick

12-12-2003, 06:15 AM

Whether this is true or not. The internet is the property of the HUMAN RACE...not those who Allegedly Govern us (well dictate to us). Control would take away our freedom. That isn't to say that certain 'nasty' parts of the net shouldn't be managed ( some should be banned completely), because they should...but total control by any official body smacks of '1984' and we don't want that !!!

janeth

12-12-2003, 09:41 AM

The problem is most goverments only want you to think your free but really want to control you.

I'm sure the goverment would love to control everything we do online and tax us for doing it.

janeth

12-21-2003, 10:44 AM

This is for mikmik, Rocky and minstrel

You where all wrong

http://www.whois.sc/news/2003-12/un-icann.html

How do you say your where right Janeth

UN Internet coming soon?
December 8th, 2003
By John Zaracostas

GENEVA -- The United States, backed by the European Union, Japan and Canada, has turned back a bid by developing nations to place the Internet under the control of the United Nations or its member governments.

But governments, the private sector and others will be asked to
establish a mechanism under U.N. auspices to study the governance of the Internet and make recommendations by 2005.

The move came in preparatory talks for the World Summit on the Information Society, opening Wednesday in Geneva. More than 200 delegates from more than 100 countries attended the talks.

The draft declaration to be issued at the end of the conference Friday also includes strong references to freedom of the press and freedom of information online, despite protests by Vietnam and China, which pushed for more restrictions.

More than 60 heads of state and government and about 12,000
delegates are expected to participate in the conference, aimed at
advancing the management and worldwide use of the Internet, especially in meeting needs such as health and education in developing nations.

Major differences remain between developed countries and African countries led by Senegal over the creation of a "global digital solidarity fund." Talks on the issue will continue today and tomorrow.

Ambassador David A. Gross, the chief of the U.S. delegation,
applauded the decision on control of the Internet.

"For the first time, we see governments internationally recognizing that which we have talked about for many years -- that the Internet is a responsibility not only of governments, but also primarily of the private sector, civil society and others both in the developed and the developing countries," he said.

"So we see now a consensus around the U.S. position, which is that multistakeholders all play an important role in the process."

The nations agreed Saturday to ask U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to set up a working group on Internet governance "in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full participation of governments, the private sector and civil society ... to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, by 2005."

The decision was welcomed by Paul Twomey, president and chief
executive officer of the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which coordinates such matters as servers and domain names.

"This has been a victory for the pro-business model," he said. "I think this language is actually very pleasing. ..."

"We think the action plan reflects the sort of argument we've been making for the last months. The partnership of the private sector and civil society has actually helped build the Internet, and we think that's the right sort of partnership for going forward."

Civil society refers to foundations and private organizations
independent of government or business.

Senior diplomats familiar with the confidential talks said the compromise stemmed from the firm stance taken by the United States and compromise language offered by Canada and the Swiss chairman of the talks, Marc Furrer. The latter is the director of Switzerland's Federal Office of Communications.

"The Swiss were good at cooling things down," said one diplomat who participated in the talks. "At times, things got quite feisty between China, Brazil, South Africa, the U.S. and others."

Given the dramatic growth of the medium, developing countries have been pushing for a greater role in managing and setting policy for the Internet. But the United States and its supporters have argued that government interference could retard growth of the Internet.

Many developing countries remain skeptical.
"We feel as the system gets more complex, we don't want the whole question of Internet governance to be concentrated around the existing ICANN, which is closely linked to the U.S. Department of Commerce," a senior Brazilian diplomat said.

Carlos Achiary, national director of Information Technology
Argentina, said many governments are frustrated because the Internet is having a tremendous effect in their countries, but they have no place to submit their requests, complaints or suggestions.

"The key point is, can a government work with an organization like ICANN? How a government deals with ICANN is not the same for the United States as for Mali. There should be an entity where all governments have the same rights somewhere inside the U.N."

But in the end, one Latin American ambassador said, "No one wanted to challenge the real power of the private sector of the rich countries."

minstrel

12-21-2003, 12:26 PM

I see your news story about the UN talking about stuff - that's what they do: they talk about stuff. It's been a while since they actually agreed about anything or did anything...

So the internet is US controlled and the UN wants to change that?

(1) that is increasingly less true - "dot com" is no longer the only address, for one thing - The US has nothing to do with "dot ca" names, just as one example.
(2) anything the UN wants to actually do is extremely unlikely to happen - it's pretty clear by now that the UN has lost virtually all credibility and all the power they once had to actually make a decision and do something meaningful on the world scene - it's basically become like a book club now - they meet once in a while, make a lot of meaningless speeches, and then go home and try to sober up...

Okay, let's see where we are.. I believe we are in the IT forum, not the "Break from Reality" room, so I think he has a very good chance of being right, and I agree with his reasoning.

Although, I can't state with any authority, that the US doesn't have any control over foreign domains, I can state that I've never encountered one offered on application for domain name here in the US... As for comments on the UN itself, I too think they probably have enough problems on their hands without worrying about the Internet. There are likely those that think they should control the Internet within the body of the UN, however I would have to question whether they have any authority to control it.... If there's any validity in this report I would assume that it ends at certain members of the UN having maybe discussed the possibility of an Internet take over to serve their goals

minstrel is always right
minstrel is always right
minstrel is always right

The United States, backed by the European Union, Japan and Canada, has turned back a bid by developing nations to place the Internet under the control of the United Nations or its member governments... But governments, the private sector and others will be asked to establish a mechanism under U.N. auspices to study the governance of the Internet and make recommendations by 2005. More than 60 heads of state and government and about 12,000 delegates are expected to participate in the conference, aimed at advancing the management and worldwide use of the Internet, especially in meeting needs such as health and education in developing nations... The nations agreed Saturday to ask U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to set up a working group on Internet governance "in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full participation of governments, the private sector and civil society ... to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, by 2005."... But in the end, one Latin American ambassador said, "No one wanted to challenge the real power of the private sector of the rich countries."
So... more of the same? Let's get 60 heads of state together along with 12,000 delegates and talk about this for the next 20 years, while in the meantime people continue to starve to death, to have their civil rights violated, and to be slaughtered - this will give all those UN delegates something to do while they're busy ignoring all that.

"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled."
-- Barnett Cocks

janeth

12-21-2003, 12:40 PM

Minstrel you left out your first sentence

I don't know about the rest of you but sites with names that end in "z" or contain words like "nuze" don't fill me with confidence as to the accuracy of their content (or intent for that matter).

minstrel

12-21-2003, 12:56 PM

Minstrel you left out your first sentence. I don't know about the rest of you but sites with names that end in "z" or contain words like "nuze" don't fill me with confidence as to the accuracy of their content (or intent for that matter).
That's true. You were right about that - the UN is evidently talking about it - and will no doubt continue to do so.

so... are you ready for this?

Janeth was right.. :o)

ldyguique

12-21-2003, 02:41 PM

I was very new to WPW at the time that the UN Conference was going on and reading about it in the news, etc., and didn't realize that this thread existed -- the Chicago Conference about Search Engines was happening during the same week, and most of the focus on this site was over that and the Google Dance, etc.

The UN Summit in Geneva was actually a fairly important conference for a number of reasons and will not really be going away as there are some fundamental issues that deeply affect the true globalization of the world -- haves vs havenots, industrialized nations vs emerging nations. The UN has become the forum for emerging African nations to at least whine and bellyache--not to minimalize some very real and pressing issues that Africa faces.

One of the strangest issues of the internet is that nations afflicted with poverty and all of its attendant companions of disease, starvation, and civil war have little or no infrastructure for being online. Yet, they perceive that they are being left out and left behind. Which they are. It does require electricity and telephone lines at the very least -- in otherwords, it requires a level of urbanization.

It also requires literacy, literacy in any language, and many of the smaller ethnic groups do not have a translated language that is part of the computer world. There is a profound issue of whether or not bringing literacy to the Third World will require that they learn English, Spanish, or Fremch as these are the primary languages of the net.

China, which not only has a huge proportion of the world's population, has over a 100 ethnic languages; however, it learned at least 2,000 years ago a method of bridging this divide -- Mandarin. It's considering starting it's own internet as much of what is relevant to the Western world isn't relevant to them; so, why bother to translate.

The internet is a dagger to the heart of many countries and cultures that didn't even have a centralized government 40 years ago, let alone a government based on any Western principles that include free exchange of information. This is not an easy topic for them to grapple with and has profound possibilities.

It's quite possible that what we'll see as the next wave for the internet in non-urbanized regions will be conducted through the cellphone. Just as some of us bypassed 8-track tapes -- went from vinyl discs to cassette tapes, in the ever-changing world of media format; they may bypass the computer as their means of interpersonal distance communication -- both voice and text. This holds possibilities and adds to the angst of their leaders as cellphone communications don't stop at the borders anymore than the internet does.

If it does include computers in the more urbanized areas, it is likely to include older-vintage computers with an open source OS platform as this is a far cheaper method of buying into the computerized world.

This entire topic will blossom and grow over the next decade. Just as the internet for all practical purposes in terms of growth is less than a decade old for the west, it's going to be a huge issue for globalization in any true sense during the next decade.

A last thought. While the UN Summit Conference was going on, I was keeping abreast of the issues and reading news articles and even read about the post-conference expose` that the conference security badges contained so-called smartchips that tracked each attendee's whereabouts. Three journalists obtained these conference badges with minimal security during the conference and then examined them closely following the conference.

I can find NONE of those news articles today on Google and they are less than 10 days old.

janeth

12-21-2003, 04:03 PM

How would China start there own Internet?

Also do you think it should be the job of the US to make sure that the rest of the world has internet?

ldyguique

12-21-2003, 04:52 PM

Janeth -- I reposted this over in Break as I think the topic is a very important one and that forum seems the most active at this time. Although, in truth, it DOES belong in here; however, I doubt that we will successfully juggle between them.

If you'd like to repost your questions there, I'd be willing to answer -- it might get the thread started.

rocky1

12-22-2003, 02:12 AM

Psssst....... Minstrel! I think we been had Dude!!!

Did you read the last line of that article Janneth posted up there?

But in the end, one Latin American ambassador said, "No one wanted to challenge the real power of the private sector of the rich countries."

What you want to bet it was Janeth????

rocky1

12-22-2003, 02:32 AM

As for comments on the UN itself, I too think they probably have enough problems on their hands without worrying about the Internet. There are likely those that think they should control the Internet within the body of the UN, however I would have to question whether they have any authority to control it. Is it owned by the US Government? If so wouldn't take over be considered a hostile act toward the US, unless it was surrendered, which I'm sure the government here, would have the same concerns regarding freedom of speech under UN authority? By the same respect, I don't honestly believe the Internet is "owned and operated" by the Government. (They can't even control it.) Thus, I would have to conclude it is owned and operated privately, although the Government no doubt does utilize it, wherein the UN certainly has no authority to assume control of it.

Looking at it from a realistic point of view, who exactly is the governing body of the internet? I honestly don't know! I can tell you W3C would like to be; but who is W3C? As for ownership... no one entity, agency, company owns all of the transmission lines, satellites, servers, etc. It's all individually owned and inter-connected to form a global network, and that would be difficult if not impossible to take over, let alone control.

The above points having been pointed out! I'll say... Okay Janeth, you this one over on us! You were right.

However... if you read those points I highlighted above and then reread the article you posted, I think you will see there was a few right points had over here on my end too.

I understand the reasons behind their suggestions, but ldyguique makes several valid points, most of those countries that would complain don't have the basic infrastructure in place to participate in it to begin with, and if they did, the literacy issues are going to create major problems as well.

Further, comments from other countries regarding their success with ICANN doesn't surprise me. The last time I tried to find any information through ICANN, "THE Supposed Body of Control", all they could tell me was... the e-mail message I was chasing originated somewhere in the far east, that they had no control outside the US, and were not able to determine the owner of an IP address in a foreign country.

janeth

12-22-2003, 06:00 AM

Hi Rocky,
The Goverment is moving slow but they are starting to get into it now with the new Spam law this could be just a start.

Then all you need is another Bill Clinton in there that would turn control over with out a blink of an eye.

ldyguique

12-22-2003, 06:29 AM

A. China has over 2 billion ppl. They have Universities and are quickly catching up on technology and have been doing their own development of both improved hardware and software tailored to China's needs. I see no reason that they can't develop an internet that uses Mandarin Chinese as the base language. It may be a cellphone-based or wireless access as some of the infrastructure for electricity and phones is still behind the times.

As Moore's law kicks in with higher and higher amounts of memory on smaller chips, it's just a matter of time before a truly useful webtv-like or RIM/mailmachine device is developed that can provide internet access wirelessly for surfing, email, chatting, have storage capabilities through some form of USB ports (similar to the keychain drive,) etc.

And, no, I do not believe that it's the US's responsibility to provide communications technology to the rest of the world. Nor do I think that it is desirable for those other nations. There are many cultures and stages of development on this planet; it is absolutely absurd that we take the technology of a major urban city and attempt to apply it over a remote rural population with a completely different religion, social, and cultural mores.

However, since the US is a bunch of moneygrubbers, it is likely that we will be involved in wireless technology that will benefit others.

ldyguique

12-22-2003, 06:39 AM

I would never have believed that landline development would stop in the U.S., based on what I knew five years ago. Telcos couldn't keep up with the deman of adding more and more telephone lines as many households went online and started wanted a 2nd or 3rd phoneline for their household. We've had a proliferation of metro areas having gone to 10-digit and 11-digit dialing in order to place a phonecall due to a combination of cellphone numbers and expanded internet useage.

Today, more and more people are either switching to wireless technology (cellphone AND computers) and/or cable connection and cellphones. Even DSL with its linesharing schema (two signals over the same line that allows for both digital internet connection and voice on the same line) has allowed for a diminishment of 2nd phonelines. I talk with many customers who do not have a landline at all anymore.

1) What changes do you envision for webdesigners that will capitalize on cellphone/internet useage?

2) Do you envision having to create a mix of pages for "how" one connects? a) cellphone; b) dialup; c) highspeed?

3) Is this issue equal or more important than browser compatibility?

minstrel

12-22-2003, 09:29 AM

all you need is another Bill Clinton in there that would turn control over with out a blink of an eye.
I think, if you remember the speeches from those days, it was actually Al Gore who invented the internet, so he would be the only one with the authority to turn it over to the UN.

janeth

12-22-2003, 12:10 PM

I'm sorry minstrel you are correct,

Maybe we should let him know what is going on.

ron sheldrick

12-23-2003, 11:24 AM

When official bodies or governments take over the control of anything what happens? The price goes up and the service goes down.
The internet is THE No 1 comunication channel on Planet earth, it allows people from all corners of the earth to communicate and share ideas.
Admitedly there are certain parts, the nasty parts, that need to be monitored, censored and even closed down where necessary.
We that live in the free world (well so-called) have the right to freedom of speech. For those that do not have our freedom, the internet allows them to share experience (even anonomously), educate us and hopefully help them to achieve their freedom. Official control would stop that free flow of information and ideas and allow the internet to be used as a control & political tool, that is why we should never let it happen.
Well that's my 2 cents worth.

janeth

12-23-2003, 12:04 PM

If I read that right who ever is the President in 2005 could turn the control over to the UN.

It is just a matter of time before the Goverment tries to make money off of it.

godzilla

12-23-2003, 06:23 PM

This is a debate! :-)

But now I feel like adding a bit of the oil into it.

I personally do not think that there is any chance that US or any goverment for that matter will be able to take controll over Internet. Why???
Here is an example from other field of industry:

Most of the books in US are copyright protected and cost at least 30$CAN(in Montreal).
The same books translated in russian never cost more than 8$CAN(in Montreal still)
The price of the same book in russia is around 1$CAN

And now any one able to control/apply this copyright laws???And think about how chip the labor/materilas are over there...

The same will be with internet, some contries will NEVER agree on the Internet control thus providing free of control domain hosting. PLUS, the same countries will greatly slow down the talks in UN: personally I see Russia as one of them.

Finally, even if(very unprobabale though) there is a strong movement towards UN taking control of internet what they are going to do with the nations that are not part of UN??? As usual, give them freedom to do what they want? If yes, then what control are we talking about?

I think that Janeth should stop fighting with Minstrel :-) Join your efforts and just search for some facts, then maybe we will se who wins this debate. Specially that at least in this forum Janeth seems to be fighting on her own...

minstrel

12-23-2003, 07:37 PM

I think that Janeth should stop fighting with Minstrel :-) Join your efforts and just search for some facts, then maybe we will se who wins this debate. Specially that at least in this forum Janeth seems to be fighting on her own...
Just in case... we're not really fighting, Godzilla... we just both enjoy debating, and we often end up on opposite sides of the debate, especially when it comes to Google, where clearly Janeth is wrong :o)

How did your exams go at Concordia? Has anyone uncovered that empty wine bottle stash in the biology department yet? ;o)

MekhongKurt

12-23-2003, 07:45 PM

This is a fascinating thread to me, in part because there are [unsubstantiated, so far] rumors here in Thailand that the national government here is actively meddling in the Internet, such as by blocking access to certain sites.

Although I consider myself to be very much an internationalist and in some ways like the fundamental concept of a United Nations as a place for conflict resolution, the history of the UN is not encouraging in much of any regard -- and I sure wouldn't want to see it (or any other government or official group) "control" or somehow "be in charge" of the Internet. Sure, *somebody* has to be a clearing house for domain registration and the like, but that's just one aspect of the web -- and one governments and the U.N. alike ought to stay out of entirely.

Consider some of the on-the-ground realities in certain countries. In Burma, for instance, one has to have governmental permission to have a *fax machine* -- and not to have that permission while having a fax machine is a criminal offence under Burmese law. Now, if the Burmese or any other government wants to have the right to go after someone who uses a fax machine -- or the Internet -- to, say, send a death threat, I would say every government already has that right, and it's a reasonable one, IMHO. Ditto the passing of classified materials, hate messages, etc.

But if I'm reading this stuff right, there are some who want to control the technology itself, a la Burma's control of fax machines, and that's where I draw the line.

Then there's the wearisome argument about the have's and the have-not's. Why is it some feel Country A is "responsible" for Country B's home-brewed problems? My own homeland, the U.S., has it's share of domestic problems, but I sure don't blame any other country for them, except when it is clearly demonstrable another country is behind some problem. Should, say, Sweden, as one of the "have" nations, somehow be brought to account for problems in, say, Tonga?

It's not that I think we should ignore all problems of other countries; natural disasters, particularly those that occur in poorer countries, of course merit intervention by others with whatever help those other countries can provide. To take just one example, nearly 30 years ago a huge earthquake in northeast China killed hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed countless homes and buildings. Had China asked for help from my country (we were just beginning to establish a relationship, though it was a long, long way from anything resembling cozy), as one U.S. citizen I would not have had any problem with the U.S. helping out; that's just plain human decency, and damn the politics.

But back to the U.N. It has become little more than a setting for one interminable jawfest after another, and what actions it does take are suspect, given the very structure -- think "Security Council." And it is wasteful. I have an acquaintance here who is involved with a U.N. aid agency. He says his single hardest job, an ongoing one, is trying to hang onto the funds allocated to him instead of having to squander them to pay for U.N. representatives using an "inspection tour" or "study tour" as an excuse for a paid holiday -- not to mention paid-*for* one -- in Thailand. Its bureaucracy is badly bloated and riddled with inefficiency, some say even with corruption.

No, the U.N. sure isn't the lot I'd like to see in charge of the Internet, not by a long shot.

Keimos

12-23-2003, 07:49 PM

How can the internet be truly free?

Any forum that you are a member of has its own social rules that limit freedom of expression.

This in itself is a form of control because your comments are restricted by the people who have set up and who run the forum. I am a member of a number of forums puely because I believe that shared knowledge is an education in itself. Negative comments can be as effective as positive comments and I do not agree with abusive comments, but there are times you have to say " You're Ugly" and there is reallt no way around the fact.

I do not believe that any country or group of countries would hand over power of control to any individual organisation because the diversity of our cultures makes this virtually impossible.

I also think that as a community internet users can influence the thoughts of the idots that run our countries.

I would like to end this on a quick prediction and would like to see what you think?

" The Internet will be divided into segments where you will have the free or pirate sites, corporate sites and governments sites that we as surfers will have no idea about until the ISP's tell us because of the restrictions imposed upon them."

Spam laws are already in effect, as is the collection of email addresses ( other than the spam artists - give them credit they are inventive and must be earning otherwise it would not continue).

We are already in the world of control. it is just a matter of who controls and how draconian they are going to be.

Keimos, Liberty, Democracy and Life!!!!!!!!!!!!!

newyorksalsero

12-23-2003, 07:52 PM

I really can't believe that so many people involved with developing for the net are in the dark as to how the internet came about. I usually read my newsletter and take what bits and pieces are useful to run my day to day operations, but I have found the need with this particular topic to add my two cents.

In the late 1960's ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency)held a conference with several ARPA funded graduate students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to meet and share ideas. It was during this conference that ARPA rolles out the blueprint for networking the main computer systems of about a dozen ARPA funded Universities and Research Institutes. Shortly after this conference Arpa proceeded to implement what quickly became the ARPAnet, the gandparent of the today's Internet.

One of ARPA's primary goal was to allow multiple users to send and receive information at the same time over the same communication paths. The technique developed for this was packet switching in which digital data was sent in small packets. The network was designed to operate without centralized control. This meant that if a portion of the network should fail, the remaining working portions still would be able to route packets over alternate paths. This was known as Transmission Control Protocol(TCP).

In parallel with the early evolution of the Internet, organizations worldwide were implementing their own networks for intra and inter organization communications. A huge variety of of networking hardware and software appeared. To get these to intercommunicate Arpa developed the Internet Protocol(IP)truly creating a "network of networks" the current architecture of the internet. The combined protocols is now known as TCP/IP.

Initially use of the internet was limited to Universities and Research Institutions, then the military became a big user. Eventually, the government allowed access to the internet for commercial purposes.

Even though the internet was developed over three decades ago, the introduction of the World Wide Web is a recent event. In 1990, Tim Berners-Lee of CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) developed the World Wide Web and several communication protocols that form its backbone.

In October 1994, Tim Berners-Lee founded an organization called the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that is devoted to developing nonproprietary, interoperable technologies for the Worl Wide Web. One of the W3C primary goals is to make the web universally accessible- regardless of disabilities, languages or culture.

What I haven't mentioned thus far is that most of the backbone for the Internet is located in the United States. It was developed by the United States for the United States. TCP/IP was developed for the military in case of nuclear war. The United States is kind enough to share the internet with the rest of the world, but will not nor will it ever give up controll of the internet. It is to important a tool for them to give up!

godzilla

12-23-2003, 08:14 PM

What I haven't mentioned thus far is that most of the backbone for the Internet is located in the United States.
Well, as we all now money rulles the world and if, at some point, Hosting becomes impossible or to hard in US half o the companies will go to europe or other countries of the world with chipper technology and workforce. Also, we should not forget that any goverment, specially the one considering itself democratic will ever go against major capital holders: bussiness is the life for the countries like US.

The United States is kind enough to share the internet with the rest of the world, but will not nor will it ever give up controll of the internet. It is to important a tool for them to give up!
Share???Kind enough??? US??? are we really talking about US??? I do not think that US ever imagined that Internet will be that big and that important! Otherwise, they would never give the possibility to others to profit from it.
As fro sharing, well, I do not think that sharing is the word to use: the internet technology is out there and free fro any one! It is not shared it is simply used by everyone who can afford it.
As for the fact that the major part of it in US(hardware speaking), China will be pleased to provide to any one willing cheap and yet qualified support(labor) and even chipper prices on management of hosting facilities. Therefore, if US creates a serious obstacle for hosting private sector will turn to new places and new technologies: this huge many making machine that Internet has become is now impossible to stop or control.

On other tone:

Just in case... we're not really fighting, Godzilla...
Minstrel, I now feel like a small child... did you really think that I suspect you fighting with any one??? In any case it is so fun to read trough the debates that you have with janeth that I would never want you to ever agree on anything with her ;-).
As for my exams, I have no idea yet. Everything seems to be fine untill you get a grade: as you remeber the teachers in Concordia are so slow that the grades come out only in the middle of january. Though, I think this time everything is fine and it feels just great to be back here in the forums!

Sualdam

12-23-2003, 08:14 PM

I really can't believe that so many people involved with developing for the net are in the dark as to how the internet came about...

...It was developed by the United States for the United States. TCP/IP was developed for the military in case of nuclear war. The United States is kind enough to share the internet with the rest of the world, but will not nor will it ever give up controll of the internet. It is to important a tool for them to give up!

I can't believe those two statements occurred in the same piece.

So you are saying the US owns the Internet already and no one else has any influence over it? Nor will they ever?

I await the sound of jackboots in my street any time now, then ;)

Sualdam

12-23-2003, 08:20 PM

godzilla

12-23-2003, 08:28 PM

Just thinking...

The telephone
Railways
Internal combustion engine
Jet Engine

All non-American inventions.

I DEMAND that America stops using them right now. If not, we (that is, people with more than 250 years of history) will levy a HUGE tax and tell them how they should use them.

;)

I agree with you, Sualdam!
They should pay for it! For everything that they use and abuse and that is not their invention!

The only correction to be made the telephone was invented by: Alexander Graham Bell = Canadian. This does not take away the fact that US should also pay for it or stop using it, but the term of "more than 250 years of history" would not be relevant here.

minstrel

12-23-2003, 08:31 PM

Just in case... we're not really fighting, Godzilla...
Minstrel, I now feel like a small child... did you really think that I suspect you fighting with any one??? In any case it is so fun to read through the debates that you have with Janeth that I would never want you to ever agree on anything with her ;-).
I did notice the smileys on the end of your comments and therefore assumed it was said humorously, but someone a while back in another thread did actually think we were bickering... hence the "just in case" preceding my reassurance...

As for my exams, I have no idea yet. Everything seems to be fine until you get a grade: as you remember the teachers in Concordia are so slow that the grades come out only in the middle of January. Though, I think this time everything is fine and it feels just great to be back here in the forums!
Now that I've been on both sides of that academic hill, believe me it's no fun spending your week or so off at Christmas grading exams and posting the marks... but having said that I do sympathize with students, especially those who have to deal with professors who don't seem to care and/or who act like they're doing a giant favor to a student to even listen to him or her - seemingly oblivious to the fact that without students there would be no one there to pay the professor's salary...

Sualdam

12-23-2003, 08:32 PM

godzilla

12-23-2003, 08:56 PM

I said 'non-American' inventions - I always thought Canadians liked to be called 'non-American'...

...or is that they like to be confused with Americans...?

...or is it that they're as confused as Americans...?

I always get that mixed up :)

PS. Wasn't AGB Scottish?

Note that Canada is as Young as US and I have interpreted you referal to the "250 years of history as to all the countries that are younger that the "Old world"(that is europe), especially given your "location information". Also, note that all other inventions that you have refred to have been created by european inventors which again lead me to the conclusion that you are talking about Europe excusivly.

But, in no way I was hinting on being "confused with" or simply "confused like" Americans, that's why I saied "They should pay for it".

As for Bell, he is known as the CANADIAN who has invented the telephone and the fact that he is Scotish-born does not make any difference (I'm for instance Russian-born and still consider my self as Canadian).

P.S Aren't we off topic now???

janeth

12-23-2003, 09:08 PM

godzilla
I guess you want minstrel to go threw his whole life being wrong

Quote
Minstrel, I now feel like a small child... did you really think that I suspect you fighting with any one??? In any case it is so fun to read through the debates that you have with Janeth that I would never want you to ever agree on anything with her ;-).

Just so we understand

Minstrel said

I don't know about the rest of you but sites with names that end in "z" or contain words like "nuze" don't fill me with confidence as to the accuracy of their content (or intent for that matter).

and then he said

Janeth was right.. :o)

Owens88

12-23-2003, 09:23 PM

Would Spam and Virii count ?

minstrel

12-23-2003, 10:00 PM

Minstrel said

Janeth was right.. :o)
Yes, but I now think I may have been wrong when I said that - the more I think about it, the more I suspect that I was right all along, and by "I was right" I, of course, mean "Janeth was not right"...

;o)

spiderbait

12-23-2003, 10:01 PM

Hmmm... this is a fascinating topic, but the hour is late, it's almost Christmas and I'm loathe to alienate people by speaking unpopular thoughts (or at least unfamiliar ones which have the same effect on some readers) without spending a great deal of effort explaining and supporting them.

Alas, I don't have the energy to tackle this right now. But suffice it to say that I am disappointed to hear so much negativity about the UN, regardless of what each of us might think we actually know of its track record (volumes to be spoken on this at a later date). There are many unspoken successes of this organization and let us not forget that it is founded on ideals and ideals are always difficult to achieve. The UN is still an infant in the great scheme of things, particularly in light of the tasks it's set before itself.

I'm surprised too by the generic fear of the word "control" and the dire predictions about what such "control" might look like (further volumes could be spoken about this too), let's consider that international air travel (for example)seems to be functioning pretty smoothly, all things considered and it exists under what most of us would consider to be essential "controls" in order to maintain safety, usability, access, etcetera, in other words, a "regulatory environment" that in fact has a UN component... but I digress, I said I wasn't going to get into it.

Anyway, if people are still itching to actually debate the topic of whether there should be an international regulatory model for ensuring freedom of access and interoperability of the internet, then perhaps we can revisit this topic in the new year when I'll have time to collect my thoughts. All this darned shopping has scattered my wits.

But, bear in mind that the article quoted by Janeth concludes with the news that the Secretary General is going to try to come up with recommendations that could (emphasis on "could") be adopted (emphasis on voluntary nature of "adopted" as opposed to "forced") by all the current players involved in the present ad hoc arrangement for managing the internet. Such recommendations need not be feared in advance or scorned and shunned as being Orwellian simply on the basis of preconceptions or misinformation - particularly if as the article suggests, they might be embraced and even welcomed by everyone involved.

So please, let's consider this without hyperbole.... After Christmas :-)

HO, HO, HO everyone,

minstrel

12-23-2003, 10:15 PM

So please, let's consider this without hyperbole...
The name "United Nations" itself is hyperbole... or maybe I mean an oxymoron...

In any case, it has sadly degenerated from its birth as the League of Nations into something pathetic and laughable - as only one example, look who they now have as their watchdog for human rights violations... and when was the last time you can remember them ever actually doing anything helpful to the world at large? It has become a place where rhetoric and blustering has replaced principles and action. And while the delegates bluster and argue, people suffer...

So now they want to debate how the internet should be run... does anyone really believe that the millions of people in disadvantaged countries who are living in violence in refugee camps or dying of starvation or AIDS give a hoot about the internet? I think if the UN has an interest in regaining any credibility at all they should stop wasting their time with "who will control the internet" and start paying attention to the things they are supposed to be paying attention to. Until then, in my opinion they are nothing more than another hypocritical and fundamentally dishonest debating club.

TrafficProducer

12-24-2003, 05:48 AM

OK! You can say and do anything you like so long as you don't say and do anything WE, (the UN), don't like..

:) By the way, there could be a SMALL charge for this service for $1000.00 a year, plus Tax. (The UN need a big new car to drive around in and they need to raise some cash).

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sure, right there in Article 19 it says that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." It also says that everyone has the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Even if the UN did control the Internet we would be assured of our freedom to seek, receive and impart information, right?

Not so fast. You need to read a little further. Just read Article 29 Section 3. Here, I'll print it for you:

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

ldyguique

12-24-2003, 06:50 AM

The United States was the first country formed postulating as both a belief system and legal system that included the basic freedoms that are now part of the United Nations. The British Empire and its Commonwealth nations followed. Europe followed in fits and starts between its various wars. Nearly all nations that espouse freedom of ideas and speech have only done so during the past 50 years or less. Some who attended the UN Summit, most notably, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who wouldn't know freedom (for others) of any type if it were piled 3 feet high in the middle of the floor and he tripped and fell into it.

However, if one really wants some insight into just how fast the world is changing with regards to intellectual freedoms, a good read would be two Arabic Internet News sites (English versions) -- http://www.arabicnews.com/ and http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage.

Very few people would consider anything Islamic or Arabic to be involved with the basic freedoms of the Internet. However, if one takes the time to read up, it's quite surprising that there have been strides in all of the freedoms throughout the world of Islam. Is the job done? No! However, is it further along than anyone would have thought, based on western news coverage? Yes -- take a look.

The Internet is changing the world. Not only are the airwaves without borders, there is more two-way communication in all ways in and out (what started with radio, telephones, then television, is now firmly part of the cellphone and internet technology base).

Cathcart

12-24-2003, 09:21 AM

Then all you need is another Bill Clinton in there that would turn control over with out a blink of an eye.

I just love a good debate, :).

But did you mean MR. Bill Clinton or MRS. ?

janeth

12-24-2003, 09:30 AM

We all know that Mrs.Clinton wore the panths in that house.

Mr.Clinton could not keep his on.

spiderbait

12-24-2003, 11:54 AM

Biases come in all shapes, sizes and ages. As do cynicisms.

For example, I've met teenagers that adopt the cynical views towards government and society that they've learned from the adults around them. Contrarily, I've also met teenagers that adopt those same attitudes because they want to contrast and shock the views of the adults in their lives. And those are just the cynical teenagers. Cynicism in adults is far more common.

Regardless of the reasons, and they are myriad, there are many cynics - each one unique in their perceptions and the conviction of their beliefs or anti-beliefs.

When considering the UN, there seem to be a disproportionate number of cynics who carry an anti-UN bias. These reasons must also be manyfold, but the effect is the same. They take away energy and life and hope from the the ideals which the UN seeks to achieve. They label the UN with the same anti-establishment epithets that are otherwise reserved only for governments and politicians.

Perhaps it is because the role of the UN is so vast, so unconventional and so as-yet-unformed that these parrallels are drawn. Perhaps it is a form of frustrated anger at the appearance of failure in an institution that seemed at one time to offer such promise. Perhaps it is because the successes of the organization are not touted nearly as much as its failures. Perhaps it is because the balance sheet of the organization's worth is so complex and so huge that no one person, even those within the UN itself, can truly wrap their heads around it enough to deliver a comprehensive accounting of its value vs. its cost. Or perhaps even, it is because the UN seems to operate at such a distance from the lives of most of us that we can't comprehend it as a useful or viable instrument. Perhaps we need to criticize that which we don't fully comprehend. Or perhaps we need the ability to believe in something good if we are to be able to believe in the UN.

Whatever the cause, the UN suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous detractors.

Now, I'd be the first to say that the UN isn't perfect, that it is flawed, that it has failed to meet all of its goals. But I have worked with and studied the UN enough to believe that it is more than just the sum of its failures. I have met and worked alongside committed people, UN employees and volunteers in countless countries around the globe, to know that the passion and vision for making the world a better place is still alive and well. I have seen firsthand the evidence of the good work which the UN produces in millions of people's lives on a daily basis - through food programs, refugee protections and services, child protection, conflict resolution, advancement of women, and on and on. I could not hope to list them all here without writing a book.

Of course the UN is not everything I would personally have it to be. Of course the structure of the Security Council vs. the General Assembly provides an imbalance of authority and a tendency towards self-interest and abuse of power. Of course many initiatives undertaken have proven too idealistic or too unrealistic to be of real use.

All these things and more are true.

But it seems important to remember that the UN is one of the noblest and grandest experiments in the history of human evolution - A genuine attempt to unite the people of the planet with a common vision of rights and values.

So, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Do these admitted shortcomings make the vision of the UN less valuable? On what time scale should we measure ultimate success and failure? Has democracy solved all our problems yet? How old is that concept? Does anyone seriously 'trash' democracy as invalid simply because it's not functioning at its best? Does it make sense to disavow your entire family because they bicker and squabble during christmas dinner? Personally, I think not. If you believe in something you try to make it work.

Criticism without constructive purpose is only damaging and counterproductive. It is borne of cynicism and it biases us against hope.

I have a bias. I believe in the essential goodness of people and I believe in the essential equality of all people. I believe we can do more with our societies and our governments and our people - more to make the world a better place for all of us. And I believe we need a vehicle to take us along that route. Flawed and imperfect though it may be at this point, I believe in a future that embraces and upholds the ultimate goals of the UN. And I see many reasons to believe that the UN is slowly accomplishing those lofty goals.

I am biased towards optimisim and belief.

Sualdam

12-24-2003, 01:32 PM

minstrel

12-24-2003, 03:13 PM

In my experience, cynicism is usually based on experience - I think most of us children start out optimistic as young children...

As for cynicism about the UN, and probably about politics in general, I think they've earned that. If my criticism doesn't seem constructive, it's not because I don't see a need for something like the UN - it's because I don't see any will in the UN to bring it back from the depths of the degradation of honour and integrity to which the members have let it sink. I'm certainly not a blind supporter of Bush's policies, but look at the lack of will demonstrated by the UN to do anything constructive about Iraq other than issue one ultimatum after another - does anyone truly believe that they were being taken seriously? Whether Bush was right or wrong to invade Iraq is another issue entirely, but I cannot blame him even slightly for turning his back on the UN and ignoring their interminable empty rhetoric.

And my point in this thread is that now they want to talk about the internet, as if somehow that will make an ounce of difference to people who are suffering and dying all over the world - forget the internet - try to find a way to combat corruption, cruelty, and crime - feed the hungry - and do something somewhere, anything, to try to relieve some of the pain in the world - in other words, for a change do something that actually MATTERS - and THEN you can talk about the internet if you still think it's important...

Sualdam

12-24-2003, 03:38 PM

Whether Bush was right or wrong to invade Iraq is another issue entirely, but I cannot blame him even slightly for turning his back on the UN and ignoring their interminable empty rhetoric.

Yes, but he didn't turn his back for that reason.

He turned his back because the best interests of America weren't being served.

And it isn't just George Bush. This has happened with successive presidents who've turned their backs on previous agreements and treaties when America's best interests have been under threat.

It is one of those phases developing countries have to go through. Later on comes the ability to look critically in the mirror and find fault with what you see.

Back to topic (I think): The Internet doesn't belong to America.

ldyguique

12-24-2003, 03:43 PM

The U.S. Government does NOT own the Internet. While it has been a major player in the creation of the internet, it privitized the Domain Name Systems in 1998. While Network Solutions was originally named the sole and exclusive Company for DNS registration in 1998 for five Top Level Domains (the original five: .com, .net, .gov, .edu, .int), there are now 10, and there are approximately 100 ICANN-licensed registrars
http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html.

PLUS, the plethora of country codes for Top Level Domains http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm.

All of this within five years.

Control of Domain Name Systems:
In the early stages of the development of the WWW, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was given the task of managing the major internet backbone-the NSFNET. NSF's original purpose was to promote research and education at the University level.(Webopedia) The NSF was quickly overwhelmed with this task and passed this job onto the private and commercial sector. In 1993, NSF granted exclusive rights to Network Solutions Incorporated (NSI) for the registration and management of the top level domains .com, .org, .net, and .edu.(NSF-InterNic)

Essentially, NSI was granted a monopoly of the public open domains. This monopoly gave NSI and the United States government significant control of the internet. This agreement between NSI and the United States remained until April of 1999 at which time the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers announced that five additional companies would be selected to participate in an initial two month test period of a new shared registration service.(ICANN) Additional plans are in the works to allow 29 companies to compete for Domain Name registration rights. This plan is the first step in achieving President Clinton's goals of the privatization of the management of Domains while providing competition for domain name services.(US Department Of Commerce News)

One of the major criticisms of the Domain Name System has been that the United States government and NSI have had too much control. Other nations have had to rely on country code domains or purchase generic top level domains through NSI. This attempt to open up the registry to competing organizations helps to decentralize some of the control that NSI and the United States have held for several years. Even though the U.S. has maintained this level of control, it by no means can be said that it owns the internet. The internet does not have a central point of authority or control and therefore cannot be said to be owned by any individual group. This autonomy offers great freedoms yet can also be a source of concern. http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/commercialism/educators-guide.html

The U.S. Government does NOT own "the" backbone -- telecoms do.

The Internet is a global network of computer networks that exchange information via telephone, cable television, wireless, and satellite communication technologies. If your computer is connected to the Internet, it is a host on the Internet and has the ability to both accept and send information to other computers on the Internet.

Internet backbone and Internet Service Provider (ISP)
While no one owns or controls the Internet, the Internet backbone is made up of large networks operated by major telecommunications companies such as GTE, MCI, Qwest, Sprint, UUNet, and ANS. Global, regional and local Internet Service Providers or ISPs (including universities) use these backbone networks to interconnect their own networks. These ISPs provide Internet access to businesses and individuals who connect their computers through telephone (at KU, via dial-in) or cable television lines, directly to a dedicated network cable (at KU, the Ethernet), or even through wireless technology.
http://www.ku.edu/acs/internet-overview.shtml

An Alternative Internet has sprung up, operated through OpenNIC. They register through their Top Level Domains for: .glue, .indy, .geek, .null, .oss, and .parody and Bulletin Boards through .bbs. They were the first to have .biz which produced conflicts when Internet opened up the 2nd group of five top level domains that included .biz. They appear to have relinquished it http://www.opennic.unrated.net/.

The OpenNIC is a user owned and controlled Network Information Center offering a democratic, non-national, alternative to the traditional Top-Level Domain registries.

Users of the OpenNIC DNS servers, in addition to resolving host names in the Legacy U.S. Government DNS, can resolve host names in the OpenNIC operated namespaces as well as in the namespaces with which we have peering agreements (at this time those are AlterNIC and The Pacific Root).

Membership in the OpenNIC is open to every user of the Internet. All decisions are made either by a democratically elected administrator or through a direct ballot of the interested members and all decisions, regardless of how they are made, within OpenNIC are appealable to a vote of the general membership.

So, I would conclude that something as vast as the Internet CANNOT be controlled by any one agency or organization. The major bones of contention that is spawning United Nations debate today won't be the same two years from now, nor in five years, and so on. It is unmanageable in the strictest sense. If the United Nations were successful in wresting away registrar and domain name control from the ICANN in two years and giving it to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) http://www.itu.int/home/, it would simply splinter the internet into yet another Alternate Internet, similar to OpenNIC. The UN would have no control over the backbone, it is solidly in the hands of private (i.e., non-governmental) control.

Sualdam

12-24-2003, 03:47 PM

minstrel

12-24-2003, 04:53 PM

I really don't want this thread to turn into a pro-US vs. anti-US debate, or even a debate about the Iraqi war...

Back to topic (I think): The Internet doesn't belong to America.
But who said the internet belongs to America NOW? I just don't see the evidence for that - (and I really don't want to go through the history of Arpanet again) - they may have at one time had control over domain name registrations but that hasn't been true in some time - they may (although I think that's debatable) have controlled some of the technology but that's less and less true...

The topic as I understood it wasn't whether the internet belongs to America - it was the story about the UN wanting to assume control over regulating the internet. I still think (1) that's a bad idea, and (2) even if it were a good idea, the chances of getting the UN to ever agree on policy are slim to none.

Sualdam

12-24-2003, 04:58 PM

But who said the internet belongs to America NOW?
That guy on page 2.

Pay attention, Minstrel :) You were too busy seeing how many polysyllabic words you could get in a single post ;)

minstrel

12-24-2003, 05:13 PM

But who said the internet belongs to America NOW?
That guy on page 2.
Oh, yeah - that post by newyorksalsero. But that claim was so patently ludicrous that I erased it from RAM... ;o)

Sorry - I thought you were trying to argue that it belongs to the US now and shouldn't...

Pay attention, Minstrel :) You were too busy seeing how many polysyllabic words you could get in a single post ;)
Ahh... sorry about that too... I actually talk that way when I'm in debating or academic mode... I guess it can be irritating to some people... but you gotta love me anyway, right? :o)

(did somebody say, "why"? don't make me get ugly!)

ldyguique

12-24-2003, 05:50 PM

Ah. But if, say, control WERE with the UN, then member states would each be responsible for their 'patch', as it were.

That being the case, a single entity COULD in theory be responsible for the whole thing.

I think the problem people have is separating a single country from a single organisation made up from representatives from many countries.

The two things are almost the same.

Oh, c'mon, Sualdam, that is semantical hairsplitting :)

Plus, I forgot about Internet2, which was started in 1996 by Universities, some major Corporations, and NSF. This is still alive and well.

Michigan State and Wayne State universities are among the 204 U.S. colleges that are part of the nonprofit consortium, also dubbed Internet2.

The consortium is working with 70 corporations, such as Ford Motor Co. and AT&T, and about 40 organizations and federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation.

On Decmeber 19, 2003 -- Taiwan added a new network to Internet2 --

The Taiwan network, called TANet2, now has a 2.5 Gbps (gigabits per second) connection to the Pacific Wave International exchange point at the Pacific Northwest Gigapop in Seattle. Connections of 1Gbps and 622 Mbps will also be extended from Seattle to Chicago's Starlight facility.

Plus, there is "The Quilt," yet another smaller network that is spinning off in its own internet orbit as a subgroup to Internet2:

About The Quilt
The Quilt gathers more than 20 leading research and education networking
organizations in the United States to promote consistent, reliable,
interoperable and efficient advanced networking services that extend to the
broadest possible community; and to represent common interests in the
development and delivery of advanced network services. Participants in The
Quilt provide network service for more than 200 Internet2 universities and
thousands of other educational institutions. Internet2, a university-led
research and development consortium, provides organizational support for The
Quilt. For more information, see: http://www.thequilt.net/.

The Arab world has been busy during the past five years or so, creating their own networking consortiums, high tech universities, etc.

Euro-Mediterranean Virtual University Projected for 2002
Regional, Education, 5/23/2001 http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010523/2001052327.html

Moroccan hospital to be connected to 16-hospital mediterranean web
Morocco-Regional, Health, 10/26/2002 http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021026/2002102621.html

HI-TEC: Nigeria could take Internet City lead from Emirates
Economic prosperity, increased foreign investment and a potentially viable ecosystem for e-learning and knowledge sharing: these are just some of the benefits delivered by what has been described as the most ambitious engineering, business and political project in the Middle East – the Dubai Internet City.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/features/fe1418122003.html

Throughout Asia, there are similar explosions in use of networking and the internet.

The internet is far more like the Andromeda Strain than anything that any single organization can control. Very few in the UN membership have a good understanding of what the net is now nor how fast it is growing and changing as technological barriers are pushed further out.

The world is moving faster at coming up to the challenges than the UN will be able to capitalize on. The more countries that invest in their own internet future will become progressively more resistant to rocking the proverbial boat. Expand it, but don't control it will be the operative philosophy as few trust "others" to know what is best for them.

Sualdam

12-24-2003, 06:05 PM

Oh, c'mon, Sualdam, that is semantical hairsplitting :)
I didn't think it was - and then you provided a whole list of alternatives that effectively achieve just what I said ;)

My point was that it would be possible for a single entity - be it a country or an organisation - to assume control of the Internet.

I think we all agree that that's bad. But there's no 'can't ever happen' about it - so we need to be aware of the danger.

I say this for the purpose of debate - not to devalue anything you said - but statements like "Very few in the UN membership have a good understanding of what the net is now nor how fast it is growing and changing as technological barriers are pushed further out are dangerous because the whole point of the UN (or, more specifically, any organisation composed of numerous individuals) is to act as an organisation - not as a collection of individuals. Thus, the ignorance of the individual is masked by the overall knowledge of the group.

If (not directed at anyone in particular) you put aside 'UN bashing' for a moment, you have to admit that although the UN might not do things we all agree with, it doesn't make world-shaping decisions based on absolutely scientifically incorrect data.

The same applies to any other global or semi-global organisation. So there IS a potential threat.

My point there is that relying on UN incompetence to cause them to fail in assuming more control is a dangerous strategy.

(And I know that no one has actually said this - I'm just trying to make a point based on the general drift of the discussion).

:)

ldyguique

12-24-2003, 06:28 PM

Just to clarify a point, I'm NOT UN-bashing. I'm far more in agreement with spiderbait than not. I've never lost all of my idealism with regards to the idea of a global organization for airing of grievances and to mount concerted efforts to aid humanity in its myriad forms. I believe that the current world government configuration is very young with many nation-states less than 50 years old. This will continue to grow in number as more nations are created out of strong ethnic minority groups from within existing boundaries and across existing boundaries where ethnic groups have been splintered, such as the Kurds between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.

I won't be around in a 100 years when these young countries and the young UN emerge into a more mature and stable form. I'm hoping that the groundwork laid today will bring exactly that.

Sualdam

12-24-2003, 06:32 PM

I know what you mean.

As I said, that comment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. It's just that the UN's foibles had been pointed out somewhat, and I wanted to distinguish between a foible and a catastrophic '****-up' (as we say in the UK).

:)

ldyguique

12-24-2003, 06:54 PM

I really don't see how what I said could be construed as agreement -- that a single entity (government or organization) could take control over the Internet. The Internet is now in at least 3 parts: Internet, Internet2, and OpemNic Internet.

I believe that China will create its own Internet, based on Mandarin and their own cultural goals within three years. Similarly, I believe that the World of Islam will build its own Internet within five years, using Arabic script and Islamic cultural/religious values. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Christians attempt to launch their own version of the Internet for similar reasons; however, I think that is the least likely to succeed. However, it might be possible that a "Family Values," type of Internet might develop with stringent controls on Porn, spam, and unsavory advertising practices.

I forsee that additional alternative internets is more likely than the UN "taking control." Not because I despise the UN or deem it as a foolish agency, but because I believe that it needs to represent all nations and could never come to an agreement over something as complex as "the Internet," which is in a nonstop phase of change.

I think that these various internets will likely be available to many who want to reach them; although, they will be a more controlled environment than the Internet that currently exists as "The Wild Frontier."

Sualdam

12-24-2003, 07:58 PM

I've scrutinised what I said and can't see where I said or implied that you agree with anything I said.

The part I think you mean is where I said that your list of examples supported my opinion that it doesn't matter whether it is a country or a conglomerate of countries seeking to exercise control, it still becomes control. I didn't say you agreed with me, but I expressed an opinion.

There are many states seeking to control their people who detest the idea of a free Internet. They'd welcome being able to control it more fully.

Broadening this, one of the main concerns of Internet users is that even democratic countries introduce laws that the people see as control mechanisms. Sure, everything starts out with the best intentions, but if these mini-Internets are maintained by groups having certain agendas then the content is bound to become polarised. Most of your examples had some specific purpose, whereas the point of the Internet as it currently stands is that it is free from control or polarisation of any kind. Free from censorship, if you like.

Your China example illustrates my point. There's no way a Chinese Internet would be free. They try to control access as it is, so any such entity would be censored in the extreme.

That's why I believe the examples you gave support my theory.

(Note that I'm not adding anything new there, I'm just trying to clarify my view).

ldyguique

12-24-2003, 08:51 PM

<laughing>
Ok -- now, we're in agreement.

I tend to feel that the world with all of its perspectives and cultures is a lomg way from uncontrolled anything, if ever.

Too many people are willing to take the slightest loophole and waltz right through it as though it's a wide-open barndoor. Ethics and morals are sadly lacking in many people, especially when money is involved. Some grow and change; most of that type don't. They prey on everyone else who heeds the rules or has an inner gyroscope to keep them within their societal norms for ethics and morality (let alone the outer control exercised by many governments, from town councils all the way up to national governments. I keep mentioning to ppl here in the States that "I'll know we have true freedom of speech when one can't be fired for insubordination." So, one could add "employers" to the previous list of controllers.

Freedoms are touted far more than exercised. It's as though they are a goal, a goal of intention for tolerating differences in others. While we do enjoy a good many freedoms in the States that were hard won, there are still many things that are nearly in permanent conflict, which mitigate their effectiveness.

For the most part, Americans are pack animals. As long as they are touting the "party line" of their group or association, they feel they can say it long and loud -- to the point of overriding opposing views that they've proved their point. Afterall, if a group of people believe one way, isn't it the right way? However, when outside of their pack, they tend to cave in and go with nicespeak or goalongspeak.

Immigrants always delight me because once they learn enough of the language, they are VERY outspoken. They don't care where they say it or to whom -- afterall, THIS IS THE LAND OF THE FREE!! a place that they frequently had to pay great price to reach. They are the ones who keep reinfusing the dream.

Old people frequently develop a similar trait. They can be outrageously blunt. I'm becoming more this way, especially during the past few years. It's not that I've not been blunt before, it's that I only did it with a smaller more select group. I've lost most of my ability to chit-chat. I'm either silent or speaking directly and matter-of-factly.

In my case, silence doesn't necessarily equal consent. Not everyone needs to hear what I think.

Somewhere along the way, I started asking a return question of people who ask for my opinion . . .are you SURE you want to hear what I have to say? This is fair warning that it may be in disagreement. My kids have learned to carefully consider their decision on whether or not to say, <gulp> "Yes."

<laugh> And, forums keep asking me for my opinion!

ron sheldrick

12-25-2003, 04:26 AM

I think you have to consider why the UN wants control of the Internet. Well, basically because they( the member states) want total control of everything and everyone. It will never happen because the only things they ever take 100% action on (note I didn't say agree on) are smallfry.
I agree with Minstrel that they should concentrate on REAL issues, but disagree in terms of the internet ,as it is and should be used, by us, as a world changing medium. The reach of the internet means that we (the poeple of the world), (the ones that vote in our governments...well at least in democracies)can communicate globally....that is what governments are really scared of (us knowing the real truth...not the BS they feed us)...you see communication is the basis of human life and currently the internet is the only part of the media that governments don't control....imagine if through reasoned discussion and use of people power we "the people" took real action to help the oppressed, feed the hungry...cure the sick.....then how would our governments justify their existence. The internet is potentially the most world changing vehicle since time began.

mikmik

12-25-2003, 04:30 AM

Idyguique first said
I believe that China will create its own Internet, based on Mandarin and their own cultural goals within three years. Similarly, I believe that the World of Islam will build its own Internet within five years, using Arabic script and Islamic cultural/religious values. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Christians attempt to launch their own version of the Internet for similar reasons; however, I think that is the least likely to succeed. However, it might be possible that a "Family Values," type of Internet might develop with stringent controls on Porn, spam, and unsavory advertising practices.
then sauldam wrote:
Your China example illustrates my point. There's no way a Chinese Internet would be free. They try to control access as it is, so any such entity would be censored in the extreme.
but also you state
Then surely that's all the more reason for people to at least use the facts when they're passing an opinion?
What facts support your assumtion?
The world is a far different place than even twenty years ago, and predictions are proving more and more uncertain on a yearly timescale.
I fail to see how anybody, any group, any country, any organization, etc., etc. could even remotely come close to dreaming of controlling something the likes and scope of the internet.

The universal(universal=figure of speech/generalization) availability of technology, and virtually limitless (see above re:generalization/FOS)exchange of information has profoundly altered, if not completely
transformed the communication landscape for humanity in toto.

If Monopolistic control of something as desireable as the internet, say drug commerce - which has been called the only true instance of a free market ever seen - was ever possible, then we would have seen examples of total control of an enviornment or situation somewhere before.

I think it is ludicrous in the extreme (thems fightin words, if sauldam didn't know my hot headed self from before lol) to assume such now in a much wilder and uncontrollable situation as we have obtained at present.

I base my opinion on history, i.e. as above staement by me, it hasn't been done.

There are also the technical and intellectual resources of guerilla tactics and exemplified splinterization of resources, sources, and location shown both by ldyguique's Internet examples, and also terrorist strategy.

It is much more likely to die an entropic death of chaos than be unified by common rules or governance.

I am an optimist like spiderbait (as I have so eloquently [LOL] stated before on other threads), an believe a state of mutual agreement can be eventually achieved, but (re: same earlier posts) only when the majority of people don't have reason to disagree i.e. THEY ARE EQUAL ECONOMICALLY (standard of living), PHYSICALLY (health), AND SPIRITUALLY (value creation and cooperation over selfish gain and destruction).

We've got a l-o-o-o-n-n-g way to go on that one. I beleive it will happen, but not soon enough.

In my opinion! :o>

mikmik

12-25-2003, 04:46 AM

ron sheldrick =
The internet is potentially the most world changing vehicle since time began.

I couldn't agree more!

First ron said =
I think you have to consider why the UN wants control of the Internet. Well, basically because they( the member states) want total control of everything and everyone.

I couldn't agree less!

If people's humanitarian nature didn't outweigh our lust for power, we wouldn't HAVE any freedom to begin with.
Did the US get founded because of aspirations to dominate?
I find people in general to be good. And because destruction is so much easier to obtain, it takes a lot of GOOD to be winning the way it is. Sensationalism in the media aside, people will only put up with BS for so long, and that includes letting despots preside.

rocky1

12-29-2003, 03:17 PM

Would appear this has turned into a real live issue of debate, and not just a Janeth was right and she told us so thread, for Menstril and I to have to eat most of our words in!

Given comments here since my last post...

Biases come in all shapes, sizes and ages. As do cynicisms............

Very well stated Jade, I do truly commend you for your optimism and beliefs in the UN for what it was supposed to be, what it could be if focused, and what it should be. You are likely very much correct, that their accomplishments receive far less attention than their failures, and so thus we do not fully recognize the good they have accomplished in the world. However....

....As for cynicism about the UN, and probably about politics in general, I think they've earned that.....

.......And my point in this thread is that now they want to talk about the internet, as if somehow that will make an ounce of difference to people who are suffering and dying all over the world - forget the internet - try to find a way to combat corruption, cruelty, and crime - feed the hungry - and do something somewhere, anything, to try to relieve some of the pain in the world - in other words, for a change do something that actually MATTERS - and THEN you can talk about the internet if you still think it's important...

The good doctor has many valid points in debate as well. The UN still has an ungodly number of problems to resolve in this world before they need worry about who controls the net. I honestly don't have a problem with an International Task Force on Internet Policy, however the UN is not the place for it.

One could certainly argue that we would again fall into the Have's/Have Not's debate were such controlled outside the UN, but as important as the Internet is... I honestly don't believe that it ranks up there with the 'Elimination of Starvation' as a whole, or the 'dissemination of Inalienable Human Rights around the world', on the list of concerns the UN needs to be addressing.

http://www.icann.org/index.html

Lady G ~ as always, you're an inspiration! Your knowledge appears to have no end, and as always leads to further enlightment. (I am proud to have been implied your Jewish Mother!) And, thus in review of the knowledge you have bestowed upon us, I offer up further links found therein -

WIPO (http://www.wipo.org/) - I would think this a likely foundation of the UN discussion as a whole folks!

WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization

WIPO is an intergovernmental organization based in Geneva, Switzerland responsible for the promotion of the protection of intellectual rights throughout the world. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations.

Or, at least that would be my interpretation of, as worded, "an organization that protected Intellectual Rights throughout the world", given earlier suggestions of concern over the advancement of technology in less fortunate and undeveloped countries. So thus, yes; it would appear the wheels are already in motion boys and girls, have been for quite some time and it's only surfacing!

Also worthy of reading up on (and visiting) in reference to this matter, in the ICANN Acronym Dictionary (http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm), or "Glossary" page if you prefer, are their definitions of the ALAC (http://alac.icann.org/), the GAC (http://www.gac-icann.org/web/index.shtml), and the ISOC (http://www.isoc.org/). It's all very enlightening in respect to the debate we are currently engaged in.

And, in closing I must quote our friend Mikmik!

If people's humanitarian nature didn't outweigh our lust for power, we wouldn't HAVE any freedom to begin with....
...I find people in general to be good. And, because destruction is so much easier to obtain, it takes a lot of GOOD to be winning the way it is.

Very well said Mik! Very well said!!

ScottNorton

12-31-2003, 10:52 PM