"I once ran for POTUS and, after reading the article Explaining Why They Didn't Inhale, I'm wondering why nobody ever asked me if I smoked marijuana..."
Posted on 11/10/2003 3:26:49 PM PST by Mark Felton
An attempt by developing countries to put management of the internet under United Nations auspices is likely to be shelved at next month's world information summit in Geneva - but the issue is now firmly on the international agenda, summit sources say.
It will be one of the main bones of contention this week as government negotiators and non-governmental organisations descend on Geneva for the final round of preparatory talks on the draft declaration and plan of action due to be endorsed by heads of state and government at the summit on December 10-12.
However, UN officials say they see no compromise emerging. They expect governments to decide instead to continue talks on internet governance with the aim of reaching accord by 2005, when the second stage of the two-part summit is due to take place in Tunisia.
"They're no longer going to try to agree on this," a UN official said last week.
Poorer nations such as Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia, as well as some richer ones, are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago.
The critics argue that the internet is a public resource that should be managed by national governments and, at an international level, by an intergovernmental body such as the International Telecommunications Union, the UN agency that is organising the information summit.
However, the US and the European Commission are staunchly defending the Icann model, which is based on minimal regulation and commercial principles. Icann members are predominantly drawn from industrialised countries and the established internet community.
Defenders of the status quo say handing over power to governments could threaten the untrammelled flow of information and ideas that many see as the very essence of the borderless internet.
But these arguments appear to be losing force against the emergence of new challenges such as unwanted advertising ("spam"), privacy and security worries, hate speech and child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.
The question of internet governance, which erupted at a relatively late stage in the preparatory summit negotiations, is just one of many issues negotiators must try to resolve this week. Rich and poor countries are also at odds over creation of a "digital solidarity fund" that would finance investment to bridge the "digital divide" in access to information and communications technologies.
Other unresolved disputes concern the balance between intellectual property protection and access to information, the role of the media, and acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.
All the more reason to keep as many Dem's out of office as possible! THEY would promote it! Oh, wait, I believe it has already been put into motion by a former Democratic President through dealings with China.
If the internet goes to UN control just grasp your wallet firmly! However in about 10 more years you may be defending the attachment of your hand if you hold on to it too tightly.
The UN taking over the internet would have to!
But seriously, the internet has been an instrument of freeing people - from lies and propaganda, and the world socialists probably can't stand it.
.rop
I think shutting us up is precisely the goal of the UN. They saw how close we came to getting Clinton ousted, and how we were able to stop the Sore/Loserman grab for Florida and the Presidency, and they can't stand it if somehow we were to either succeed here again or inspire others to take up the cause of American conservatism.
But these arguments appear to be losing force against the emergence of new challenges such as unwanted advertising ("spam"), privacy and security worries, hate speech and child pornography, which have convinced many governments of the need for international regulation and enforcement.
It doesn't take much to convince governments that they ought to have control of anything. The problem is, sites like this one would undoubtedly face government scrutiny under the UN's ideal policy. We can't have dissenting voices being heard, after all.
It's a great justification to cover up that many countries fear the internet.
Cuba, China, Iran, and so on, they all fear the internet - they fear their citizens being able to communicate and organize away from prying eyes. The internet of the '90s and '00s is the taverns and churches of colonial America in the 1760s and 1770s, where resistance to the British was organized.
They fear the internet being used to communicate religious or political beliefs different than the official state religion or political system.
They do everything they can to block a lot their citizens' from seeing a lot of stuff on the internet, but without control (through the UN) they are limited.
Notice, the western world is against this (US, Europe, etc.) - they have open societies and nothing to worry about from the internet.
Imagine countries like China, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. voting on what they consider to be hate speech (i.e. many of the things we discuss and hold dearly here at FR).
I can see websites like FR being driven underground.
Those that fear reasoned thought are those that are evil.
"I once ran for POTUS and, after reading the article Explaining Why They Didn't Inhale, I'm wondering why nobody ever asked me if I smoked marijuana..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.