UN at odds over internet's future


I think not
#1
A UN group charged with deciding how the net should be run has failed to reach a decision.

The group's report suggests four possible futures for net governance that range from no change to complete overhaul.

The proposals will go forward to a key UN net and society conference due to take place in November.

The report comes as the US says it plans to keep its role as overseer of the net's core administrative body.

Tough choice

The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was set up after delegates to the UN's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) failed to agree on how the net should be run.

Many of those attending the 2003 WSIS meeting in Geneva were happy with the current system in which the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) oversees the running of the net's addressing system.

Others, particularly delegates from developing nations, resent Icann's role and the fact that the US has kept control of it.

Now the WGIG has issued its report about net governance and has tabled four possible futures for what should be done about policy issues, such as spam and hi-tech crime, that fall outside Icann's narrow technical remit.

Option One - create a UN body known as the Global Internet Council that draws its members from governments and "other stakeholders" and takes over the US oversight role of Icann.

Option Two - no changes apart from strengthening Icann's Governmental Advisory Committee to become a forum for official debate on net issues.

Option Three - relegate Icann to a narrow technical role and set up an International Internet Council that sits outside the UN. US loses oversight of Icann.

Option Four - create three new bodies. One to take over from Icann and look after the net's addressing system. One to be a debating chamber for governments, businesses and the public; and one to co-ordinate work on "internet-related public policy issues".

The one common aspect of all four proposals is the creation of some sort of talking shop that will give governments and others a say in how the net develops.

The four proposals will be sent forward to the second World Summit on the Information Society which is due to take place in Tunisia in November 2005 where delegates will pick their favourite option.

Whatever decision the conference reaches could provoke a clash with the US which in early July renewed its claim to oversee Icann's work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4692743.stm
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#2
Oh, lord help us. Not another UN body. We might as well pack it in now.
 
Curiosity
#3
The U.N. see their control of the internet as another source of revenue

While they discuss the ethics and communications issues on a "high plane" when most of them represent countries who don't have telephones except in government offices, they do look forward to taxing all of us for our use of the global information highway.

They also fear it.

The more people get to know each other internationally through communication on forums such as this, the less likely we will be followers of government mandates because we are busy doing our homework and asking questions about other nations with people we read on a daily basis.
 
EastSideScotian
#4
The UN is worrying about the Internet? The UN needs to be reformed big time, they cant even Handle issues on Genocide and World Aid, what makes them think they can handle the Internet.

This is why the UN is Bull shit
 
Researcher87
#5
Now that comment is B.S.

Out of all the disasters going on in the world. All the ones that receive little attention in the media, who are the groups that are helping out in that area.

Now I will give you a hint, it starts with a U, now there are three options with that that come off the top of my head, and the second letter is N.

Oh, the other two went right out, and what does that spell, U.N.
 
Researcher87
#6
Does that mean a U.N body should be created to monitor the Internet, no. That's just stupid it is just a waste of resources.
 
EastSideScotian
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Researcher87

Now that comment is B.S.

Out of all the disasters going on in the world. All the ones that receive little attention in the media, who are the groups that are helping out in that area.

Now I will give you a hint, it starts with a U, now there are three options with that that come off the top of my head, and the second letter is N.

Oh, the other two went right out, and what does that spell, U.N.

Oh really because they are helping, they arent solveing or finishing anything. They always run out of Aid and funding for world issues, in places liek Affrica and South America. Also thats a horseshit remark...all the places that recive little media coverage get UN aid, well all the ones in the Media are having issues with UN support, explain that one slick, why arent we in the sudan? why isnt Darfur being occupied by a UN force....Oh because the Currupt Darfur sudanese government says they wont allow a UN force.....So the UN i guess wont just go in and INvade....even though they should and can, because thye are the UN....but they are to buracratic for their own good.
 
Toro
#8
If the UN monitors the Internet, does that mean I have to junk my high-speed and go back to 56K?
 
Researcher87
#9
Quote:

Oh really because they are helping, they arent solveing or finishing anything. They always run out of Aid and funding for world issues, in places liek Affrica and South America. Also thats a horseshit remark...all the places that recive little media coverage get UN aid, well all the ones in the Media are having issues with UN support, explain that one slick, why arent we in the sudan? why isnt Darfur being occupied by a UN force....Oh because the Currupt Darfur sudanese government says they wont allow a UN force.....So the UN i guess wont just go in and INvade....even though they should and can, because thye are the UN....but they are to buracratic for their own good.

One word:

Politics.

Do you think the big heads who run the world, the people with the power who run our world nations and sadly with their different political ideologies care what happens in a little dust bowl place in Africa that doesn't have any economic importance to them.

That is why there is no U.N force in Darfur. If the U.S really cared about what was going on, they would have a force there immediately, but of course they can't fight a three-front possibly a fourth front mission.

If the U.N was an organization that didn't have to listen to the competing ideolgies of its nations then there would be a force immediately there, but that's is what happens when you have a democratic forum and all that power in the security council.

And the U.N is there with millions of dollars of aid, that was shortchanged by aid donors who almost made the U.N shut down their operations there. Who do you think run the Darfur camps? Who do you think provide them with food, eventhough limited, the U.N.
 
Sassylassie
#10
Sorry Researcher87 but the UN is useless ask anyone who served under their Mandate. Hello New York we are being fired upon, ha-who are you oh I'm Col. Smith I'm in Somalia and we need clarafication. Sorry Col. our offices are closed until Monday could you call back then. No sir we need to find out if we can return fire? Um I don't know I'm the janitor. Sir the ROE (Rules of engagement) need to be clairfied I need to speak with someone, hundreds could die. Sorry Col but they are all at their houses in the Hamptons, I can't help you as he hangs up the phone.

Africa, Genocide five years later still no mandate. UN, means Useless and notgoing to happen. Money sucking rich trust fund "Boys" doing nothing but getting a paycheck and running up parking tickets in NYC.
 
EastSideScotian
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

If the UN monitors the Internet, does that mean I have to junk my high-speed and go back to 56K?

I think it means Highspeed would be useless because we all know how slow the UN is at getting shit done....


Drum roll


Bad joke
 
I think not
#12
Is the internet broke? I don't think so. What's the "fixing" it needs?
 
EastSideScotian
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Is the internet broke? I don't think so. What's the "fixing" it needs?

Maybe their is some sort of Virus epademic....


Yes another Bad joke....


No its more or less they dont want normal everyday humans to have so much acces to Knowlage and Ideas......Knowlage is Power...and Power over throws the UN
 
Researcher87
#14
Yeah, I would like you to tell that to the U.N aid workers families who have died in Sudan at least 10 in August alone, and tell them that they are pointless and there is no point in trying to save the Sudanese Darfur people even with the lack of resources and protection.

Or the 24 U.N aid workers families who were killed in Iraq as they were trying to bring legitimacy to American occupation three years ago.

And to the 60,000 U.N staff, that does not count U.N blue helmets, so aid workers mostly, nearly 5,000 + Canadians who work all over the world in all 191 countries for human rights, refugees, and other noble causes that their mission is pointless. Because America isn't doing anything for human rights, or refugees in Africa or Sudan, I don't see a refugee camp with a big U.S flag or Canadian flag for that point for that matter.

So unilateralism may be all well and good for people who don't like the U.N, but what has it done. Two wars that have killed nearly 100,000 people and nothing else. I don't see any refugee camps, or feed stations or human rights monitoring?
 
I think not
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Researcher87

Because America isn't doing anything for human rights, or refugees in Africa or Sudan, I don't see a refugee camp with a big U.S flag or Canadian flag for that point for that matter.

The Peace Corps traces its roots and mission to 1960, when then Senator John F. Kennedy challenged students at the University of Michigan to serve their country in the cause of peace by living and working in developing countries. From that inspiration grew an agency of the federal government devoted to world peace and friendship.

Since that time, more than 182,000 Peace Corps Volunteers have been invited by 138 host countries to work on issues ranging from AIDS education to information technology and environmental preservation.

Today's Peace Corps is more vital than ever, working in emerging and essential areas such as information technology and business development, and committing more than 1,000 new Volunteers as a part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Peace Corps Volunteers continue to help countless individuals who want to build a better life for themselves, their children, and their communities.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?...learn.whatispc

You were saying?
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Researcher87 View Post

Yeah, I would like you to tell that to the U.N aid workers families who have died in Sudan at least 10 in August alone, and tell them that they are pointless and there is no point in trying to save the Sudanese Darfur people even with the lack of resources and protection.

Or the 24 U.N aid workers families who were killed in Iraq as they were trying to bring legitimacy to American occupation three years ago.

And to the 60,000 U.N staff, that does not count U.N blue helmets, so aid workers mostly, nearly 5,000 + Canadians who work all over the world in all 191 countries for human rights, refugees, and other noble causes that their mission is pointless. Because America isn't doing anything for human rights, or refugees in Africa or Sudan, I don't see a refugee camp with a big U.S flag or Canadian flag for that point for that matter.

So unilateralism may be all well and good for people who don't like the U.N, but what has it done. Two wars that have killed nearly 100,000 people and nothing else. I don't see any refugee camps, or feed stations or human rights monitoring?

So who's better, the bureaucratic nightmare UN, who does nothing because it's governing bodies (France, Germany, UK, US etc, etc) have rendered it incompetent and impotent OR everyone else who can't or doesn't act? Maybe the UN should stick to humanitarian projects since asking for permission to defend oneself can often be hazerdous to your health.
 
Curiosity
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1


So who's better, the bureaucratic nightmare UN, who does nothing because it's governing bodies (France, Germany, UK, US etc, etc) have rendered it incompetent and impotent OR everyone else who can't or doesn't act? Maybe the UN should stick to humanitarian projects since asking for permission to defend oneself can often be hazerdous to your health.

Do you mean the U.N. General Assembly or the Security Council which is made up of the countries you describe as the "governing body".

I believe the General Assembly would be the group to vote on taxation of the internet - but I don't know
how the U.N. divide up their lawmaking.

[edit] I see by I Think Not's topic post there was a group set up within the U.N. to look into the matter:

Quote: Originally Posted by Ithinknot

The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was set up after delegates to the UN's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) failed to agree on how the net should be run.

I hardly think we need to blame the Security Council for rendering the U.N. as incompetent, they managed to accomplish that feat on their own without the assistance of any one group.

They could try honesty in their dealing and requesting funding and directing that funding to the actual source of need for one thing, if they want to revitalize their credibility.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Do you mean the U.N. General Assembly or the Security Council which is made up of the countries you describe as the "governing body".

I believe the General Assembly would be the group to vote on taxation of the internet - but I don't know how the U.N. divide up their lawmaking.

The General Assembly is a forum. They discuss things, vote and make non-binding recommendations. It provides a consensus of sorts, including all member states. They also have some clout in budgetary matters, along with assessments of member state's fees. At least that's all I can think of at the moment.

The purpose of the Security Council is to maintain peace and security between nations. It is the most powerful body within the UN. The GA and other councils can make recommendations, monitor compliance of anything and everything enforced by the SC, but they have (to my knowledge) no power to act.

So, in the case of genocide, enforcing sanctions, acting on human rights issues etc, etc, I would be referring the SC, which is an institution. Those who govern this institution (as in the people who have the power to act in the name of this institution) are the representatives of the countries I mentioned, who are also the most influential member states within this institution (The Security Council).

Clear enough?

In the area of taxation and the internet, I would think that would be within the realm of WTO, but I'm just taking a wild guess.

Quote:

I hardly think we need to blame the Security Council for rendering the U.N. as incompetent, they managed to accomplish that feat on their own without the assistance of any one group.

They could try honesty in their dealing and requesting funding and directing that funding to the actual source of need for one thing, if they want to revitalize their credibility.

The UN works like any other form of government, not well.
 
Curiosity
#19
Said1

Well said - and it makes much sense...

Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

In the area of taxation and the internet, I would think that would be within the realm of WTO, but I'm just taking a wild guess.

Agreed. The WTO - the group governing trade and commerce would be the one to make the rules, but the U.N. want the taxation money. This was an issue brought up last year too and when it came down to crunch time - it was just another source of funding the U.N. was hoping to receive because the internet
is functioning within primarily countries of wealth. They could not get together on the larger issue
of censorship possibilities - which would take away what little opportunity people have these days in thoughtful and free speech in many countries of the world.

Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

The UN works like any other form of government, not well.

Agreed.
 
Sassylassie
#20
Said1 you don't say much but when you do you make so much sense.

Said1wrote: So who's better, the bureaucratic nightmare UN, who does nothing because it's governing bodies (France, Germany, UK, US etc, etc) have rendered it incompetent and impotent OR everyone else who can't or doesn't act? Maybe the UN should stick to humanitarian projects since asking for permission to defend oneself can often be hazerdous to your health.

Yes my dear I believe you are sooooooooo correct.

P.S. Oh my god is that a spell check button over yonder, God bless Chris. Now if I could only find the smiley facey things.