ICANN Troubles At UN Summit On Internet 610
Internet Ninja writes "The UN/ITU-organized World Summit on the Information Society currently happening in Geneva, and in attendance is Paul Twomey from ICANN, who has been ejected from a preparatory meeting, along with all other non-governmental observers. Obviously Twomey wasn't happy about that, saying: 'At ICANN, anybody can attend meetings, appeal decisions or go to ombudsmen. And here I am outside a UN meeting room where diplomats, most of whom know little about the technical aspects, are deciding in a closed forum how 750 million people should reach the Internet. I am not amused.'" We've previously reported on this meeting, which may help decide governance of the Internet, albeit in the longer-term.
Stupid White Men (Score:3, Informative)
Who is there? (Score:5, Informative)
Top biggest delegates in the World Summit on the Information Society:
1. Malaysia 137
2. Romania 116
3. France 108
4. Canada 101
5. Cuba 88
6. Japan 85
7. Russia 80
8. Iran 79
9. Nigeria 69
10. Gabon 66
They should just make their own internet if they want exclusive control. Ther nothing prohibiting them from doing this.
Re:Can't blame them... (Score:2, Informative)
Could be a good thing (Score:3, Informative)
I think that's an admirable thing, and it's time for some international co-operation regarding persuing SPAMers, Hackers, and other individuals that would use the lack of international legislation to perpetrate their nastiness.
I hope you've all read yesterdays post about security breaches. The author found linkages between no less than 4 countries hosting servers in order to send out SPAM.
Re:enforceability? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the US has ceeded the cross-border allocation of frequencies to the ITU before the UN was established and the ITU has since been incorporated into the UN.
I spoke to Esther Dyson about the conference at lunch today, her version was nothing happened and that the best result that was going to happen...
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:2, Informative)
Point 2 -
Sigh, you know - this U.N bashing gets old very quickly. The U.N is a forum where sovereign governments can get together to attempt joint decision making. Is it fool-proof? hell no.
Are there areas where intergovernmental coordination is useful? hell yes. The ITU (a UN body) makes a decent stab of coordinating radio frequency usage worldwide, the world health organization, the UN high commission on refugees are probably responsible for saving millions of lives.
Is the U.N a branch of the illuminati intent on a single world government? No. But yes there is a place for international rules.
"This will mean censorship of the Internet" - you know that right? When you say censorship, you mean like - what- effective controls on Spam, yes? no? you mean something else?
I think you summarise your issues where you say: "the UN is a little too socialist for my likes". Now, I leave it to you to show which aspects of the U.N charter are socialist.
Here's the charter [un.org] for you... and here is the text of chapter 1:
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but your understanding of the U.N. is completely ignorant and wrong, and I say that as a critic of the U.N. First of all, it's ludicrous to speak of the U.N. as having its own goals and agenda; the Secretary-General has no actual authority, and every decision is made at the whim of the permanent members of the Security Council.
The problem with the U.N. is not that it doesn't respect its members' sovereignty but the exact opposite: that it places members' sovereignty above such goals as peace or justice. That's why the U.N. was completely ineffective in stopping the genocide in Rwanda, why the Clinton administration had to go to NATO to intervene in the Balkans, and why the U.N. vigorously opposed the war in Iraq; in each case, it was terrified of stepping on the toes of sovereign states (even when those states were killing their own or another state's citizens) or offending the sensibilities of its members.
Think of it this way: if you were going to set up one world government, would you set it up so that resolutions could be vetoed by any single member of the Security Council? The idea of the U.N. as the coming of one world government is a canard perpetuated by isolationists and politicians who want to make hay out of jingoism. I am constantly amazed at people who resent the U.N. "taking over the world" yet have nothing to say about the WTO or World Bank, which actually do march into and completely reorganize entire countries (and even manage to make U.S. policy, as Bush's reversal on steel tariffs shows).
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:3, Informative)
The UN was formed in 1945. The Soviets were in Berlin, the US was preparing for an invasion of Japan. In this context, a lot of stuff about the organization of the UN should make more sense. The true power is vested in the Security Council where the super powers can keep each other in check.
The security council is the only body the UN has that can make binding resolutions. The GAs may say that Israel is evil and needs to withdraw back to teh 1967 boundaries every year, but it doesn't mean a thing. The architects of the UN knew this, thats why theres a security council.
The chair of a committee doesn't really do anything, its basically an administrative position with the day to day chores of the Speaker of the House in the US without any of the political power. Membership into committees are elected by the GA body as an entirety, of course with every nation having a vote (all 150+ of them) weirdness starts to happen. Especially when you have large voting blocs (e.g. the mid east).
If by appointed you mean recommended by the Security Council (a vote) and then decided upon by the Generally Assembly (a 2/3 majority vote required) then yes, they are appointed. If you mean individual diplomats, then I might understand you a little bit better, but I fail to see any reason why. No other diplomats are elected, and they routinely sign treaties and other foreign agreements.
The League of Nations was already irrelevant by the time Hitler arrose to power. The US didn't join and a nay vote by any nation would vote down any resolution before the body. This made the body irrelevant in the twenties, nevermind the thirties or forties.
When they need a new building? Well you have FDR to thank for it in this country for the first place. It was his dream, just like it was Wilson's. Without the US there would literally be no UN, because the UN was the US's idea. Will we keep it in the future? Who knows...
They can listen, they just don't (Score:4, Informative)
Oh they realize it all right, they even have a model for it - the International Labor Organization. It was formed as part of a burst of post WWI Wilsonian idealism and has a unique structure for an official internationla organization (and now forms part of the UN system). In addition to the government representatives, each country sends representatives from their business and union organizations - and these folks have full voting rights in the meetings and so can't be thrown out as "observers" can. Of course having set up one organization with a structure like this, the governments of this world have made sure never to do it again - why should the people who are actually involved in an issue area have any say when there is government to government horse trading to do. Much more convenient to have "observers" that they can lock out - which, of course is par for the course considering the track records on free speech and openness of most of the governments doing the talking.
What's your point? (Score:3, Informative)
Internet users: 5.7 million (2002)
Population: 23,092,940 (July 2003 est.)
Area - comparative: slightly larger than New Mexico
(source - CIA World Fact Book)
With 25% of the population connected the small number of ISP's likely isn't an issue.
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:5, Informative)
Germany doesn't have a veto, only the US, UK, Russia, PRC and France have veto in the UNSEC. These nations were chosen so that they could not be targets of one another's aggression; ie they are/were super powers who when pissed off thouroughly would initiate a war the horrors of WWII could hardly touch on.
BTW, there are 15 members of the UNSEC, 5 permanent, 10 non permanent. For any resolution to pass none of the 5 permanent members can vote nay. (the word veto is never mentioned in the UN Constituation)
Re:I assure you that the first victim of this (Score:5, Informative)
Read it here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20031203-113
The men who spoke the "hateful words" will spend the rest of thier lives in prison for speaking "hateful words"..
Re:Typical... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. At no point did the UN security council give authorization for the use of force against Iraq. Have you actually read the text [state.gov] of resolution 1441, and of those that went before it; or have you instead been obediently suckling at the 'fair and balanced' teat of the neo-con media sow? UN resolutions are very specific when the authorize force; the words 'by all means necessary' are often used. There is no such phrase, or one equivalent to it, anywhere in 1441 or prior resolutions.
And if you think that the strong wording in 1441 was sufficient to authorize invasion, then tell me this: why Israel hasn't been invaded, based on the plethora of resolutions since 1967?
And if you think there was a moral case for invading Iraq, tell me this: why is Bush providing support, both diplomatic and military, for a dictator who likes to boil to death [guardian.co.uk] those who oppose him?
Nobody "governs" the Internet (Score:3, Informative)
The only other genuine threat to the Internet also occured in the late 1980s, when the Europe and the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) tried to replace the Internet TCP/IP communicaton protocol standards with something called OSI/TP4/X25. Basically it was an attempt by the world PTT (Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone) monopolies to wrest control of the Internet out of the hands of the US government. The PTT monopolies are especially strong in the 3rd world countries and they dominate the ITU, which sets world telephone standards.
The ITU is a big reason why phone calls to 3rd world countries are so ridiculously expensive. The bureaucracy of the ITU is Kafka-esque: The OSI documents for TP4/X25 are written in uncomprehensible legalese and you must pay through the nose just to peek at them. (This was one reason why OSI failed - TCP/IP was evangelized through the wide distribution of the source code of BSD Unix; OSI had no equivalent.)
If the EU/ITU/UN had taken over the Internet 15-20 years ago with OSI/TP4/X25, today instead of paying $29.95/month for your megabit DSL you would be paying ten times that amount for your X25/ISDN connection at 64kps.
But this is all on the dustbin of history. The war is over and decentralization has won. The modern Internet is a concatenation of millions of independent networks that all agree to talk to each other voluntarily (the word "Internet" comes from the term "inter-network"). World connectivity happens through an untold number of independent bi-lateral contractual agreements between peering ISPs.
The only centralization on the Internet is at the root DNS nameservers. These suffer ICANN only by the grace of their respective independent owners. (The largest owner of root nameservers being the US Department of Commerce.) There is nothing to prevent them from bolting and setting up their a new root DNS, or from anyone else using an alternet root DNS.
The transnational progressives and lefty social engineers can chit-chat all they want at their UN workshops about how they want to govern the Internet. But as a practical matter it is a waste of hot air. Kind of like meeting to create World Peace or end World Hunger. The real world just doesn't work that way.