US Resists UN Push For Control Over Internet 266
sl4shd0rk writes "At present, several non-profit U.S. bodies oversee the Internet's specifications as well as DNS. The Unitied Nations, however, has expressed an interest in transferring control of the Internet from the United States. The UN's Dr. Toure says any change to the governance of the internet must be supported by all countries. The U.S. has refused, arguing that 'existing multi-stakeholder institutions, incorporating industry and civil society' will continue to oversee the 'health and growth of the interenet and all its benefits.' According to earlier reports, the push is backed not only by Russia, but China, Brazil and India as well."
Re:Another conspiracy (Score:3, Interesting)
by UN one world government. Google Obama Agenda 21 for details.
It's hilarious to see the right wing nutters getting their panties in a bunch over the Obama / Agenda 21 conspiracy, since Agenda 21 was established in 1992.
UN control would be worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should the US remain in charge? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were other countries, I'd ask myself why any one country should be "in charge" of things like DNS.
Having any one country "in charge" greatly increases the temptation to further "balkanize" the DNS system, where ".com" means something in "most of the world" but something else in countries that force their ISPs to use an in-country, government-controlled DNS provider. By having an international body handle things like this, countries that don't get their way but who at least respect the process will be less likely to run their own DNS.
Re:As much as I dislike... (Score:5, Interesting)
Being a Brazilian I say ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do NOT handle ANY control to the brazilian government .
The first thing they will do is take down everything that will speak against their major corrupt politicianS (with big Plural) .
And the Brazilian LAW FORBIDS anonymity.
Brazil govt: PLEASE GO AWAY
There is several reasons why we buy: iphone (designed in US), use Facebook (made in US) and use Google (made in us).
And one of the reasons is that the US law and business way is more 'clear'.
(if you think I am wrong..do business in Brazil and you are going to see the red-tape/bribe Hell)
Russia and China?? Serious?? the same homies that are supporting the crazy lunatics?
The US president can be 'bad' but they are not MEAN like others.
Keep US control is the LESSER evil.
Re:UN control would be worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, there is no reason whatoever to hand control of the internet to the UN. Literally none. The internet is intended to be a network of networks. There's no reason why that wouldn't include a network of national networks of networks, and lots of reasons why not. Unless, of course, you've got one world government.
Re:Give it some time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't accept the lesser of two evils, promote a better solution
Here is something that would go a long way: reduce the barriers to entry for peering with ISPs. The requirements many ISPs have for peering make it impossible for a small, community-run network to become part of the Internet; such networks generally wind up paying for service from a telecom monopoly.
A global network can be governed by its users (or at least those who have the equipment and expertise needed to participate); Fidonet comes to mind here.
IS there a lesser of two evils here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking honestly, as an American here.
The US government could fuck up a wet dream to the point one would long for the sensation of having one's genitals removed with belt sander.
And the UN is no different. Just multinational.
While both were founded with the right idea, they've both gone GREIVIOUSLY astray, to the point that they're generally more harmful than helpful.
HOWEVER, the US government DOES, occasionally do things "correctly".
I really, REALLY wish I could say the same thing about the UN.
At this point, the US stewardship of the Internet isn't the most desirable outcome. But it's a damn sight better than handing it over to an (at best) wildly ineffectual and horrifically subverted organization like the UN.
Handing over control of free speech and open access to information to people who have every intention of demolishing both? Are you fucking nuts?
I hate the bloated panopticon monster my government has become, and I seriously think that it needs to be pared back, by armed conflict if necessary. But I'd have the politicians here where we can get at them and remove them, than some asshat in a bunker in China where we'd have to start a war to remove them.
Why such anti-UN sentiment (Score:3, Interesting)
I am always surprised at now negative Americans (specifically those from the United Stated) are about the UN. Remember the UN has been in charge of international telephony standards for years (the ITU is a UN agency), and on the whole international telephony has worked OK.
If you aren't American, and even if you are a friend of America, American control over key parts of the Internet is a concern. An important utility is controlled by a foreign power. How would US citizens feel if their water or electricity supply was under the control of the British government? We are a democracy and have been good friends of the US for a long time, but I bet US cititizens would be agitating for those utilities to be under US control.