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.
Sweet irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike ICANN, who of course, have members of the internet at large on their board. Oh, wait a minute...
You had to know this would happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Poor old ICANN... (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, they don't deserve this. They are an NGO with an expertise. Not being interested in their opinion, or even giving them a glimpse of how and why decisions are made is worrying to the extreme.
On the positive side, this UN conference seems pretty unlikely to do anything. Mugabe (the "elected" President of Zimbabwe) has already used it to rail against such horrible (liberal, Western, bourgeois) things such as a free press. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=te
Let us not forget either; it's probably more important to bring clean drinking water and telephones to developing nations than Google and Slashdot.
UN Lacks Authority to Regulate UN (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Typical... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah but what does this has to do with ICANN? Oh, you thought ICANN represents the people, how quaint.
Re:Typical... (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you be pissed?
:-)
Or would you be pissed if you were not an American? and if you are not an American, you should have been pissed already in which can being peed upon twice makes no sense.
Before you take arms in the typical slashdot manner, consider the key lines from the article:
The move underscores the wrath of countries that for years have been unhappy with what they perceive as their voicelessness over how the Internet is run and over U.S. ownership of key Internet resources. It also foretells the level of criticism that both the U.S. government and the Internet Corporation, or ICANN, may face at the UN meeting, one of the largest gatherings ever of high-level government officials, business leaders and nonprofit organizations to discuss the Internet's future. .
I understand the concerns of other nations about their having a say in the way the Internet as we know today is going to shape into. I also understand how a lot of the work went into the original ARPANET and DARPA from the US and the universities. I guess we need an UIO (United Internet Organisation!)...something like that. Can't we frag each other in peace?
Great Description (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't this pretty much describe just about every IT department known to man? PHBs and suits making uneducated decisions on how things will run based on buzzwords, corporate kickbacks, and their own job security while those who DO know what they're doing get ignored or brushed aside.
Welcome to IT, dude.
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidentally what factors are making the UN look at taking over from ICANN?
Re:UN Lacks Authority to Regulate UN (Score:5, Insightful)
they are the same if not worse than iran and china.
UN/US (Score:2, Insightful)
A few major players in the UN may be anti-US, but the effects are negligible; the US doesn't obey the UN/international treaties on issues the gov't feels would have a major negative (or prevent a major positive) impact on the country/economy (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol, Operation Iraqi Freedom, bioweapons).
It's about time! (Score:4, Insightful)
MIT has more public IP addresses than China. Where does that come from?
ICANN is chartered as a non-profit California-based corporation. Why should it be so? Why California, why not Peru or Japan or Spain? Is there something fundamentally Californian about today's Internet?
It's about time that the public resource constituted by Internet addresses and DNS servers be handled by a truly international standards body, just like it's the case for telephone numbering.
Thanks to the US for creating many of the technologies that make the Internet possible. But as is the case with the phone numbering plan, it's time for the Public International Internet to be managed more openly and cooperatively.
Re:We've said screw you before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Goodbye karma!
Re:Typical... (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget people they will govern. At least get input from the people who know how it works. Try and put someone there that has any idea what the internet does. Someone that knows the boundaries of the technology. Not someone that knows the best way to tax people.
F.E.T.E. (Score:5, Insightful)
UN: The communities of the world have decided that it's best we run the internet. We demand control.
USA: Demand? How bout this, you go fuck yourself, and maybe we'll allow the UN to exist for a few more years.
What are they gonna do, take it by force?
I'm no fan of ICANN, but ICANN is better than the UN. Last thing we need is the chinese fire wall on a global scale.
Fuck 'em. The End.
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Where but the UN can countries with tons of human rights violations be on and chair commities to end human rights violations? (Iraq was going to be on it or chair it soon before we removed Saddam from power). Maybe the US should follow their leadership and put serial killers incharge of the courts and molesters in charge of counseling sex-abuse victims.
And I won't go into how the members of the UN aren't elected and are appointed and aren't out to better the world but (usually) to their country. This has already been pointed out by other posters.
Really we shouldn't even WORRY about the UN taking over the internet. If how they handeled Iraq is any indication, then we can just ignore whatever rules they invent forever and unless another country decides to enforce things, nothing will every happen to us.
The League of Nations (doesn't that sound like it's from a comic book?) was destroyed becaused it didn't prevent Hitler from taking power and causing things like WWII (which it was supposed to). The UN failed to stop Saddam from all the things he did to his people and others, and with the rest of their oddball rules and complaints of useless things and hipocritical actions, I don't think they'll be around for long either (or at least they will lose what little power they have left). Instead they charge us dues and tons of money to do next to nothing but waste it on burocracy. And then what happenes when their building is old and needs to be replaced or fixed? They demand that the US builds them a new one FOR FREE, because all that money they collect is needed to swim in (or something). Personally, I hope the UN building is declared unfit for occupancy and they are forced to move to some other country (France, Germany, you guys have any openings?).
PS: I'm sure you get it by now, but I'm a bit of a critic of the UN.
PPS: If by some miracle the UN DOES take over the 'net, I would support building a NEW internet that was controlled by someone else (private institutions like Universities or even the US Government) so the UN can't decide to take it over and we can do things like we do now (or better! Ham radio type licenses to use the new 'net or at least to post to it).
PPPS: I'm out of PSes. :)
Can't control something that doesn't exist... (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason no one can control the Internet is because there is no "Internet," lest we forget the early 1990's when newbies would ask us about the "Internet Company" and you would explain that there is no one company, just a bunch of network providers that are interconnected.
The only reality is that there are lots of computer networks variously located in many sovereign nations that happen to be cooperating at this time (the networks, not necessarily the nations). Just like everything else in the world, it all comes down to where the wires and the servers sit. If I say "fark the UN" on my website hosted out of Texas, I am protected by the US Constitution...which is the law of my land.
Frankly... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, it's probably safe to say that no one in the meeting knew a switch from a hub, or even if it would be feasible for the UN to dictate the shape of the Internet. Somebody from ICANN would probably be the best bet if you'd want to know how the Internet "should" operate. And the fact that Twomey wasn't invited as a delegate, or even a visitor, underlined their obvious ignorance.
Think ICANN's bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously they wouldn't let the ICANN guy in because this meeting is about REPLACING them. While I think ICANN NEEDS replacing, the UN is ever LESS DEMOCRATIC than ICANN, even LESS accountable, and even more corrupt.
Be careful, United Nations... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We've said screw you before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I assure you that the first victim of this (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not ture at all.. you should travel a little.. What if you try to show something as dangerous as a picture of a woman's chest in the US.. or even worst.. an actually woman's chest!! You might get thrown in jail... Hey kids might be hurt by female anatomy! The US has just different rules than the others... Some are afraid of Coca-Cola&friends taking over the world, other are afraid of being hurt by seing breasts, frankly it just a matter of finding who is more ridiculous!
Re:Forget Them... (Score:2, Insightful)
You and the person that you replied to are severely brain damaged. To answer both:
- France, Germany, et al are no less motivated by special interests than the US. France was making money off Iraq under Hussein, and it's France that is controlling most of the EU's latest moves (just the way they want it). That's the truth and although I don't like it I don't blame them one bit.
- The US doesn't control the UN: it doesn't need to. It operates outside of it when convenient and has the political and financial muscle (leverage) to walk away without any problems. It's a bully, I like it and I don't, and again big whoop.
The UN is a foreign body (no pun intended) when it comes to technology. It moves slowly, blows money senselessly, and feels it can dictate policy to growing countries just because it helps the screwed up ones. The UN is the last governing body which should regulate information because it's BUILT on special interests. Keep the UN out of regulating information....be it Internet, newswire, or television. Let them distribute food aid and boo hoo about wall building.
Re:We've said screw you before... (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet was created by the US, in the US. The UN now wants to take control of something they did nothing to create. Now you understand why the UN (and Europe) has such a rotten reputation in the US.
Goodbye karma!
It's very interesting to see how mods go based on the time of day. Right now, about 5pm PST, most of Europe is asleep and the mods on this thread are distinctly anti-UN. Were this story posted a few hours later - when most of the US is asleep and Europeans have just woken up, the moderation would be decidedly anti-American.
Re:Who is there? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
> US lost its veto (along with the others
> in the security council). I'm sure that
> would encourage even more cooperation
> from the US in UN.
I'm just saying that the 1 in 9 thing doesn't make sense. You should need a majority to stop things (5 out of 9), or even a decent minority (3 out of 9). But one 1 out of 9 is rediculous. Especially when countries are allowed to vote on things that directly effect them. For example, if the UN were to talk about military action against Germany, it can never happen because Germany can use their 1 vote to veto it and stop anything. It makes no sense.
> Any country that objects to anothers
> ill-doings is free to punish the bad
> guy (if so, you had 9/11 coming), or
> all countries try to resolve the
> issues peacefully?
No, I agree that things should be resolved peacefully. You said that in response to my human rights violations example. I like to resolve things peacefully, but look at the examples I gave. Again, it's just nonsensical to put a country like Iraq in charge of the human rights counsel. I have no problem with there being a human rights counsel, I just think that it should be lead by a country that has a good human rights record (the US (although you'll probably argue that, take that as "the US at least compared to many other places")), or a county that isn't that bad. Instead it was going to be headed by a country whose leader filled mass graves and used biological weapons on his own people.
The idea of the UN is good. The execution currently has MAJOR problems. Today's UN is ineffective and needs to be replaced/overhauled.
Now let me ask you something. By your logic as long as there is a hair of good in something, we should keep it. So if every car on the road had a 50% chance of exploding on any given day, but they got 100 mpg, should every one drive one because they get you where you need to go and are good for the planet? It's hyperboly, but that's what your logic was saying.
> I suppose it's easy to say "ditch the UN"
> when you live in the worlds most powerful
> country, but if you have the ability, put
> yourself in the shoes of someone living
> somewhere else in the world and think
> about that for a while.
Someone like an Iraqi who the UN flat out abandoned for more than a decade or two? The UN was supposed to keep Saddam from getting and using biological weapons and other things, but the UN kept apeasing him or ignoring him or say "Stop doing that or else" over and over without any "or else" ever happening. They let him use the "Oil for Food" program to develop MORE weapons and not feed his people. The result? He got richer, more powerful, and more deadly. The Iraqis got poorer, their lives got worse (if they weren't outright killed), and they lived under a facious dictator. Yeah, the UN served they real well.
MBCook - Arguing with Liberals for over 20 years (although obviously not on
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Typical... (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't be. There's a 10-ton clue that this kind of crap was going to be the order of the day: I-T-U.
The ITU as an organization exists to promote the interests of state-owned telecommunications monopolies, which today are the province of repressive and dysfunctional governments. It is directly opposed to democracy, to open standards, and to anything that allows the internet to grow organically or in response to interests and technological developments that come from the ground up.
I know of ordinarily-intelligent people with good net cred who are involved in this expense-account-blather-fest, and their crotches are so extravagantly tumescent at being taken seriously by people wearing expensive suits who ride black limos with diplomatic plates that they've totally lost the plot, signing their souls away to the devil. For Pete's sake, how low have we sunk when ICANN stands on the hilltop as our shining paragon of openness?
The ITU has been trying to take over the internet ever since it hit the bigtime around 1994 (up intil then, they just dissed it). Just wait - once they take over, they'll close the standards process, charge huge licensing fees for anyone who talks TCP/IP, and do whatever they have to in order to ensure that "disruptive" technologies like tunneling no longer work.
And then we'll have to start all over again and build a new internet, leaving them behind again, mark my words. What a huge flerkin waste of time.
Re:F.E.T.E. (Score:3, Insightful)
What is anybody going to do? The internet is not controlled by a single entity, the internet is merely the largest collection of individual networks which inter-connect with each other, by means of consensus based standards. Not even the USA federal authorities control the internet, least no more than the power they can hold over the companies which operate internet connected networks in the USA itself.
There's plenty of internet outside of the USA, and new DNS roots could be setup reasonably quickly if ever there were some odd reason to do so.
Re:Typical... (Score:1, Insightful)
UN == US, I fail to see what difference this makes.
I find that a rather far-fetched claim, in light of the USA's abject failure to win any form of UN approval or backing for their illegal invasion of Iraq.
The future I can see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black; subsitute US for UN and it that sentence still makes perfect sense. At least the UN works (ignoring the security council here) by the concensus of the majority, unlike the nation who has the guy who almost got a concensus of those who can be bothered voting that make up an only just majority of in charge.
Wake up, inspite of the wishes of its people the US is not an enlightened beacon for democracy and civil rights. The way that many Americans believe that they are puts me in mind of the fanatical support the Chinese government gets from its people. Its all a bit boring really.
Re:We've said screw you before... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ummmmm no (Score:3, Insightful)
Same thing for the network at large. No one says your IP based network has to connect to the internet, or obey the same rules. An example of one that doesn't would be Internet 2. It's a network in the US that allows only research instutions (schools, research labs, etc) to connect to it. Normal Internet traffic never passes over it. Run by Indiana University primarly.
You aren't required to play by ICANN's rules on the Internet, nor are you required to be a part of the Internet to have a large IP based network.
I think the real problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem from this is then that so many people, including many of the UN diplomats, feel that they ARE a world government, and should be allowed to impose their will. Like claims that the US and crew went against the UN on the war with Iraq. Well that implies that:
1) The UN told the US et al not to go to war. (They didn't, the US would have vetoed anyhow)
2) That they had the authority to do so. (They don't)
3) That they could do anything about it if the US disobeyed. (They can't)
Well that's not the case. What happened was the US failed to convince the other nations to commit to a war with Iraq (via the UN) and so went ahead with a war without their support. Since the UN isn't an international government, there's nothing they could do.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets just get some balance here (Score:4, Insightful)
So they're trying to facilitate all these aspects. I now everyone is a bit worried about issue 1, governance. Fair enough. But every other issue they are discussing is good. And if they can address them in a global manner they may well improve the digital world.
Back to issue 1, just forget for a minute any preconceptions you have about how crap you think the UN is, or how lame dipomats are and read and think about what the meeting is for:
1) The fact that ICANN runs the Internet's address system is not necessarily good. They are a private company, why should they be in charge of all the addresses? Should MIT *really* have more IP addresses than China?
2) If you're talking about human rights violations, why isn't having the UN excerting some pressure on nations where connections are firewalled to *not* monitor Internet connections good? (they may not be out to impose chinese firewalls on the rest of the world, perhaps they don't want china to run the firewall they do)
3) Of all the people who are supposedly at the meeting (including Tim B-L, Nicholas Negroponte, Esther Dyson) don't you think it's a bit weird that there's such a fuss because they kicked out the ICANN guy. I don't think this is a major conspiracy, it's just a conflict of interest having them there.
The UN might be spineless, and this whole meeting will probably amount to nothing, but I don't think everyone should be rubbishing it so much. The UN isn't out to make life tough for everyone, and they do have some admirable goals.
Re:Screw em all. Use OpenNIC (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a REALLY good idea, but it's never going to catch on, sadly. I'm not speaking to flame, it's the honest truth. Because no big players will take any chances going on OpenNIC only, and so long as everyone keeps using both OpenNIC and ICANN addresses, no one's going to bother using their DNS servers that take 5x as long to resolve addresses.
Ah, the holy Rwanda criminals, I say, journalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
The UN was intended to be a League of Nations that worked. The League of Nations didn't act to stop WWII before it was too late, the US isn't going to let the UN not act to prevent WWIII before it is too late, even if it means acting along. (though other countries to agree with the US)
I don't know if the Iraq decision was right or not, but what the UN did was wrong, leading everyone to belive they would do something and then doing nothing. Proves the UN is worthless.
Re:Behind the scenes (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't France try to sue Ebay in the US courts because they refused to block Nazi paraphrenalia from being sold? Ebay had already, I believe, pulled the items from ebay.fr, but France insisted Ebay find a way to block them from French citizens on ebay.com as well. The US courts, if I recall correctly, threw the case out because Ebay was based in the US and protected by the first amendment.
Let the UN do whatever the fuck they want. You'll just see more of this happening. Oh, China wants us to censor some American-based websites peddling these obscene ideas of democracy or Taiwanese independence? Tough shit. First amendment rules, baby.
What if the rest of the world doesn't care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can the US afford, at this point, to be left taliking with itself? Really? How would all the American companies exproting jobs, plants and projects talk to their slavas, I mean, contractors across the world? By phone? No, that is regulated by the same body discussing the Internet now...Are the US interested in an American only network? I don't think so - there is too much money to be made keeping the communication lines open.
So, get over it. The rest of the world does not give a flying fuck that American citizens paid for the American network (because they haven't paid for the infrastructure elsewhere). If a global network exists, there is nothing wrong that a global body controls it and not some company taken out of the White House's hat...
Cool. But get your own postal system. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Screw em all. Use OpenNIC (Score:2, Insightful)
UN passes retarded resolutions concerning the internet which are designed to club the US over the head.
The US ignores these resolutions entirely seeing them for what they are.
Life continues as normal but eurosnobs have something to feel indignant about.
Re:F.E.T.E. (Score:5, Insightful)
Suddenly if you don't use the UN DNS, you'll be cutting yourself off of half the world's customers.
Much better article about this by Andy Oram (Score:4, Insightful)
is available at his blog on O'Reilly [oreillynet.com]. It points out that there is supposed to be no organization with power over the internet and that ICANN has always claimed just to be a sort of "technical facilitator". It mentions the Open Root Server Coalition [open-rsc.org] and although it doesn't mention the OpenNIC [unrated.net] guys, it's worth having a look at their more serious project.
I notice a lot of fighting in the comments about whether the UN sucks or not and whether they're worse than ICANN. Simple fact of the matter is that neither of these bodies (or any body that isn't truly democratic) should have any control over OUR internet. Fighting over which master we bow to is a bit ridiculous.
Re:We've said screw you before... (Score:2, Insightful)
So let me guess, you're going to take your routers and servers and go home if things don't go your way? Childish stuff.
Give it up. The Internet is now global. Any claim the US once had to sole Internet ownership and control was lost long ago. US interests should not override the interests of other nations.
Shitdrummer
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that it was GWB + co. leading people to believe that the US must invade Iraq, because the UN was doing nothing to stop Iraq from unleashing its huge stockpiles of WMD on the world.
The 12 years of sanctions were exactly what the UK and USA wanted, no matter how many Iraqi civilians were hurt by them. If the UN was doing nothing, it was because any steps it proposed were voted down by the US and UK.
Here's something I find interesting:
Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - Feb. 24, 2001
What did you expect the UN to have done? Authorise an invasion?Re:F.E.T.E. (Score:2, Insightful)
UN: The communities of the world have decided that it's best we run the internet. We demand control.
USA: Demand? How bout this, you go fuck yourself, and maybe we'll allow the UN to exist for a few more years.
What are they gonna do, take it by force?
I thought that here on
I thought we all agreed that this type of behavior is no good for anyone except the huge evil monopoly?
I guess it's different when you're part of that huge evil monopoly.
Shitdrummer
Re:UN Lacks Authority to Regulate the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Abiding by decisions made by ICANN (Or IETF or IEEE for that matter) is completely voluntary. But then again, so is being connected to the Internet in the first place. The Internet has always worked on the system of "We'll all get together and agree on a standard. If you don't like the standard, convince others that your idea is better. If you don't agree, we don't have to route your packets." And it should remain that way. Does that mean people in the nations that worked on making the Internet what it is today get more say than nations being hooked up currently do? Of course! But then again, with nigh on forty years of experience in making this thing work, they should!
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
No they don't. Are you misunderstanding what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is saying or are you just lying. To make such a broad statement you need to be able to point out which part of the Charter supports you.
Article 19. of the UDHR states that
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Where does it say unless it interferes with a stated goal of the UN
In fact the last article of the UDHR states that
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Exactly the opposite of what you say.
Re:not good for the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, but the ITU is unlikely to be it. It's mainly composed of representatives from telecomunnication monopolies, usually state-owned, which are severely bureaucratic and support entrenched Telco interests. The ITU dithered for years over the ISO OSI as foreign telcos fought to maintain the status quo (such as promoting CONS over CLNS because the former was what the Telcos understood and gave them more control at the expense of the end users' flexibility and performance). The Internet basically happened because people got tired of waiting for OSI and decided to use what was available, IP.
Now those same interest see their chance (after much bungling by ICANN) to get their bureaucratic talons back in control. Expect new levies on international bandwidth usage to "spur Third World Internet adoption" from the same people who dragged their heels on providing the service in the first place because there was no perceived need (at the outragous prices they demanded). Frying pan, meet fire.
Re:Who is there? (Score:2, Insightful)
What in the HELL are you talking about? Who is they? Would you perhaps mean anyone who is not from the USA?
We already have an Internet, it isn't yours. You boys from the USA need to grow up and learn to play with the older, wiser rest of the world.
Sheesh, what an absurd level of arrogance comes out of that country!
Re:UN Lacks Authority to Regulate UN (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the rest of what you're saying regarding how a number of regimes want to block and censor the internet, I think you've been watching too much fox news. The vast majority of UN members want the internet to be as free and as accessible as possible because it is such a catalyst for economic growth. The views of Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia regarding internet censorship are definitely in the minority.
Flawed Reasoning (Score:2, Insightful)
The rest of the world ALREADY has its "own" internet. For mutual benefit it is connected to that of the US. Despite the fervent sweep of nationalism in the US, it had better realize pretty soon that it actually can't survive on its own, and pissing off everyone else is not so great of a plan. International commerce drives the economy everywhere, including the US. You don't really _want_ the rest of the world to disconnect from "your" internet, because you'd be screwed.
The UN or not the UN... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, about the War in Iraq, the US and the UN, and the existance of a resolution allowing intervention. Who cares? Why should it be important? I find it amusing that people say it would be OK for the USA to invade Iraq under a UN mandate, but if they go solo it's "not democratic". Laughable. The Security Council *is* the UN as far as this matters are concern. Saying that having the blessing of 9 countries in the world, all there because they either won WW2 and/or have mass destruction weapons, constitutes a wordly mandate that bestows dignity on the receiver is absurd. The members of the Security Council are there because of military power. The US as that, and plenty of it. Ergo, the US does what the US wants, period. At this point I don't even care if it was right or wrong: if it was in the interest of the USA, well, why the hell not? Having a UN resolution means *nothing*. The UN itself, based as it is on a dictatorship of countries, means very, very little. All countries act on their self-interest first, the exception is that the USA actually takes actions.
In the end, the power remains in the hand of who has the means to use the weapons they have (be it warheads or multinationals). It hasn't change a bit from the same rules we had 1000 years ago, and sometimes I think that the UN only exists as a mean to make this fact less visible by hiding it with words like "rights", "law" and "democracy".
Re:Cool. But get your own postal system. (Score:4, Insightful)
You (U.S.A) don't run the Internet, you don't decide the rules, and you don't own it. You share all those responsibilities with all the other users.
This isn't about everyone else in the world ganging up to steal something from the U.S., it's about governments trying to define common rules and approaches for the Internet.
Re:You had to know this would happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's absolutely right, but there's nothing inherently wrong with being motivated by self interest. The danger comes when one individual tries to forcibly impose that self interest on another.
This is why government must be strictly limited in scope, power, and expense (as the founders of the US intended). Individuals in government are motivated by self interest just like every other individual -- the difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
Put another way, government is the most dangerous force that could ever possibly exist. There could be no greater threat to peace than a group of individuals who hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end.