Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month.
"The Internet is likely to face a grave threat" at the summit, Coleman said in a statement on Monday. "If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on."
If ratified, Coleman's resolution would assure the Bush administration and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of political support on Capitol Hill during the negotiations at the World Summit on the Information Society. Similar support has already come from both senior Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.
At the heart of this international political spat is the unique influence that the U.S. federal government enjoys over Internet addresses and the master database of top-level domain names--a legacy of the Internet's origins years ago. The Bush administration recently raised objections to the proposed addition of .xxx as a red-light district for pornographers, for instance, a veto power that no other government is able to wield.
During a series of meetings organized by the United Nations, ministers from dozens of other countries have raised objections and demanded more influence. Suggestions that have been made include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access," and folding ICANN into the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. agency. As far back as 1999, U.N. agencies have mulled imposing taxes on Internet e-mail.
Coleman's resolution endorses the principles--effectively maintaining the status quo--that the Bush administration announced in June. But he ventured even further by warning that if governance functions were handed to bureaucrats from oppressive nations, the Internet would become "an instrument of censorship and political suppression." Business groups have raised similar objections, warning of censorship from nations such as China, Iran and Syria.
In December 2004, Coleman called for the resignation of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, saying that his subcommittee's investigations had unearthed evidence of far-ranging fraud inside the sprawling bureaucracy. A former chief prosecutor in Minnesota, Coleman is chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which has been investigating the oil-for-food scandal.
Talkback
If the US is not willing to allow the U.N to have some control over the internet, then the very least it could do is propose another way in which the wider world can exert some influence over the way it is run. Allowing one country full control over a global community is by no means an example of the much praised system of Democracy!
The U.N. is unable to control it's own members and has very little influence over what member nations do. Look at Darfur, bias against Israel, Annan under investigation, and his son also under investigetion.
The U.N. has MORE than it an handle at the present.
If you want to ruin the internet then turn it over to them.
The only reason the UN wants in on the control of the internet is to TAX and control it. Look at there record, it is much worst then the US Government, and at best criminal. They have proposed 'strict controls' over domain names, and even have gone as far as proposing Domain name standards and ethics, (as defined by them). I do not want them to decide if I can have a .com .net or .org. Many sites could lose there domains because of the proposed UN standards which calls for inclusion of all, and exclusion of any form of discrimination, (as defined by the UN, not free market). Religious groups that do not allow other points of view would lose there domain names under the standards, what about blogs? The UN doesn’t believe in free speech, only ‘Non-Offense Non-Aggressive speech’, They have are in the process of changing Ownership rights of Photographers and Image creators, removing the standard ‘Ownership by Creator’, and allow other to assume all the rights, (if a picture or video is published before it is ‘copy written’ the shower owns the rights, the person whom did the work.). Are the thought police really what we want or need?
Notwithstanding that the UN is probably not competent to manage the Internet, I'm surprised that Oldater is not speaking out against the control of the Internet by a single global power which does not appear to hold itself accountable to the rest of the world's interests in respect of all software matters. Highly undemocratic for a nation seeking to impose its will (version of democracy) on the world, even if the world does not agree.
It is not a big step to world domination.
For the US this issue has everything to do with national interest, and a strong sense of property rights and control over assets created almost entirely in the US and under the original auspices of defense interests.
There also is a strong component of the freedom of speech and an even stronger component of the entreprenaurial spirit in the use of the WWW in commerce.
The incredible phenomena and structure of this world wide communication must be very appealing to the UN from the standpoint of the ability to tax and generate revenue with no attendent infrastructure expense of its own.
Well, I would agree that making the domain database (what they really mean by 'control of the Internet') an international effort is a good thing. But, the UN? C'mon, could you come up with a more dysfunctial bureaucracy? OK, besides the Bush administration...
Really, it's not going to serve anyone to simply toss control from one troop of baboons to another. At least in the current arrangement, we have someone to villify when we don't like it. Hand it to the UN, and we won't even have that.
If it is to be done right, the domain registry is going to need to first be recognized as an international resource that operates only be cooperation of its users and it technical operation is tantamount and governments simply need to cede the notion of "control" of it. We need a highly independent registrar that is chartered to operate outside the influence of international politics and business interests (if that's possible), something more along the lines of postal and telecommunications unions that manage international post and phone service...
No single nation, organization, entitiy or whatever should have (mostly) control of the Internet. Period.
The Internet needs to be decentralized and divers in order to stay the Internet we all depand on. As well as to protect itself against undesired events (which seem to include certain nations, organizations, entities, commercial lobbying, national political lobbying or whatever nowedays).
The last thing the Internet needs is: all animals are equal but some are more equal then others.
The internet has thrived under US control with a relatively few number of incidents. Programs under UN control have rarely faired so well. The UN wants control so they tax common internet activities and make it generally less appealing. I can't see what good going from a small bureaucracy like ICANN to the largest one on the planet will do. Especially their goal is taxation and taking domain names because they don't like the site contents.
Who created the Internet? It is my recolection that it was designed and implemented by US government and educational institutions. Asking the US to hand over control to an international body is like an inventor givining away control over his invention so that other people can manipulate as they see fit. You may say that retaining control of the internet isn't very democratic but neither is the censorship of information. What really makes me laugh is the fact that nations are talking about creating their own version of the internet and breaking away from the current internet. The shock effect to a nation's economy for such an action would be monumental.
Is the Internet an international media? Is its purpose the advancement of human interests.
Or...
Is the Internet a US media with the sole purpose being the advancement of US national interests?
The current status of the internet has been arrived at through the hard work of many people, from many different countries. It is currently used to promote commercial interests across physical borders, and to connect people regardless of race, creed, religion, physical location. It is used by scientists internationally for all sorts of research. It is even used for SETI an other distributed projects.
No single nation should have dominance. This is not a matter of ownership. It is a matter of unbiased, democratic regulation of a world-wide resource.
Any single nation controlling this resource is likely to use such monopolistic control for nationalistic agendas. The Internet, as a digital transport media, is beyond that and needs to be managed without regard for nationalist prejudices.
Creation, ownership and current management rights are not valid claims to maintain the status quo.
Should the Internet be managed for the advancement of human interests or American interests?
World Wide Web?!?
Or is it the United States Web that the world gets to "borrow"?
But then, the US government wouldn't be able to take it's ball and go home if the rest of world didn't play along, right?
Oh, no! Not sharing!
Sheesh!
The UN actually doesn't levy taxes of any kind. When UN groups talk about 'taxing the internet' what they're talking about is putting in place international agreements and frameworks that enable countries to tax internet usage (by their citizens). Without international agreements this would be impossible to organise.
The US is unable to control it's own economy and has very little influence over what its corporationss do. Look at Iraq, bias against Middle Eastern and Asian countries, Bush under pressure, and Rove, his right hand man under investigation.
The US has MORE than it an handle at the present.
If you want to ruin the internet then leave it with them.
The only reason the US wants control of the internet is to TAX and control it. Look at their record, it is much worst then the UN, and at best criminal. They have proposed 'censorship' over domain names, and even have gone as far as proposing Domain name standards and ethics, (as defined by them). I do not want them to decide if I can have a .com .net or .org. Many sites could lose there domains because of the proposed US standards which calls for censorship and exclusion of any domain considered a threat, (as defined by the US, not free market). Religious groups that do not allow other points of view would lose their domain names under the standards, what about blogs? The US doesn’t believe in free speech, only ‘Pro-US speech’, They are in the process of changing Ownership rights of Photographers and Image creators, removing the standard ‘Ownership by Creator’, and allow other to assume all the rights, (if a picture or video is published in the US before it is ‘copy written’ the publisher owns the rights, NOT the person who did the work.). Are the thought police really what we want or need?
Just a few points:
The "Internet" was originated in the US, but it's development is an international effort. The best example being the World-Wide-Web. Do you know who Tim Berners-Lee is? He is British and is the originator of the WWW. No single organisation or country should have control over what is an international effort.
As far as Taxes go, where did the UN state they intended to Tax people to use the internet? The statement says:
" Suggestions that have been made include new mandates for "consumer protection," the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access," ....."
These are suggestions made by ministers from other countries. These are not UN objectives. Get your facts straight!
"...sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on."
Somehow this seems propagandist to me. Currently we have very little privacy on the internet and it is also a place where the violation of intellectual property is thriving. And this is under US control. I don't believe any single entity should have complete control and certainly not the US!
As for this bit "The Bush administration recently raised objections to the proposed addition of .xxx as a red-light district for pornographers, for instance, a veto power that no other government is able to wield." - how free and Democratic is that? More like hypocritic than democratic!
First of all America is the one who doesn't care about other countires interests when making decisions. Also why should one country have power over every countries citizens. A council made up of representatives from all the free countries should have this power. If you feel that the UN is not doing its job correctly than I beg of you look at the American Government. Wow their are more issues, corruption and fraud than I could spend my life listing. Put yourself in the shoes of a Chinese citizen. Why should your internet site be in control of a country and person in which their religion and political views are so factually different than your own. Don't you think that you would want someone who cares about your interests or even knows what they are in control of your internet. I doubt that George W. Bush knows what a Chinese citizens interests are. And rightly so, it isn't his job to know this. Which is my point and case. America should focus more on its own soils and American citizens. Leave other coutries alone. Stop being the world police as your country is the one that needs policing.
Perhaps we should let the US have their own Internet and the rest of the world another - it would cut down massively on the amount of spam currently in circulation...
This reminds me of the farscape project, when John came back from space and the US jumped down his throat to keep any and all tech and info he has acquired "US eyes only". FFS, this is just another way for the US to manifest its destiny ( no pun intended). Te point of it is , while ths US is known as "freedom-mc-free-free", all of its actions in the past indicate otherwise. Its really disgusting to see how greedy this damn country has become. Lemme just point out one example that has completely turned my stomach against the US, during the geneva convention, when talks about the treatment of POWs was outlined, and it came time to sign and agree, many countries did, but the US, however, did not.It agreed that their POWs should not be maltreated,but it did not sign and agree when it came time for them reciprocate with US's POWs. Meaning that the US has the right to do as they friggin please with their POWs , and they won't be held accountable under the geneva convention's laws, yet god forbid that they get wind that one of their soldiers is being mistreated in by a country that did sign.
The UN may not be perfect, but at least none of its conforming countries would ever have elected that cowpuncher GWB, yet alone RE-ELECT him.
Really, what concerns me is having regressive countries such as China or North Korea have their say. The thought of a UN council is even worse. We'd likely see more censorship and political grandstanding.
This is a valid point and it's a good reason not to make internet governance international. Think what you will about American foreign policy, but at the very least we have a vibrant private sector and a strong tradition of free speech.
The people who feel otherwise, I think its reflexive anti-americanism.
I think the Internet is better compared with international waters then some national airspace and should be governed as such.
Picture a ship moving from one harbour to some other overseas harbour. Now under which rules, regulations, customs, laws, etc, etc should that ship travel? One, several, depanding on location, what? And why?
Really, what concerns me is regressive countries such as the US having control. The thought of a US Govt Department is even worse. We'd likely see more censorship and political grandstanding.
This is a valid point and it's a good reason not to leave internet governance in the hands of one country. Think what you will about the UN, but at the very least they have a a strong tradition of free speech.
The people who feel otherwise, I think its rampant US nationalism.
Turn the internet over to the UN? We already know that the UN is a very corrupt origination and turning the internet over to the UN would be like turning the drug enforcement agency (DEA) over to the mafia or a country that exports drugs and having them police the drug traffic. We have already seen how they governed the oil for food program, so one must ask why would the UN want control over the internet. China just put a man prison for handing out bibles. What happens if I email a bible to someone in china? An then there are other nations and if you not of their faith they want to kill you, what happens when you go to site of your faith and the Un says you can’t. Now however, this would allow countries like Columbia to advertise heroin instead of those Viagra junk mails then the UN could take a cut from the drug trade. All the other companies that the United States has helped fund, when the UN sees that would be better off with them they will want it also and so on. After WW1 the League of Nations was formed well it only took less than 20 years to find out it didn’t work and after WW2 the league was dismantled and the united nations was formed and the reality is it’s now working ether. The UN can not police themselves what makes anyone think they can police the whole world?
The Internet does advance human interest under US control. Is it not plainly obvious to everyone that countries liek Zimbabwe, China, or Pakistan want international control of the internet merely to censor it?
Let's face the fact that more than half of the UN member nations are under the control of governments that do not believe in the free market, let alone free speech.