5 ms·

This is the third article I've read from various sources underlying the importance of the upcoming Dubai meeting. To me it sounds a heckuva lot worse than SOPA/

This is the third article I've read from various sources underlying the importance of the upcoming Dubai meeting. To me it sounds a heckuva lot worse than SOPA/PIPA was in the states. I tire of breathless articles, but unfortunately we are living in a time where multiple interested parties are all trying to use their political power to control what we see, read, think, and share. Hopefully this ITU/UN move will get the international press attention that it looks to me like it deserves. On a tangential note, Google reports a record number of requests from governments to remove things from their search results. Not just places we normally associate with censorship, but lots of supposedly more "liberal" western democracies as well. Control over the net is simply too powerful of an incentive for governments to maintain the principle of keeping their hands clear.

jbooth 14y ago
Well, if UN laws had much practical effect, then we'd have peace in the middle east and Africa right now, and we don't. A UN resolution means zip-all for US law, French law, Chinese law, etc. So by definition it can't be as bad as SOPA/PIPA in the us or ACTA in europe. However it might give some cover to those who are pursuing those types of policies. If this resolution is being pushed mostly by Russia/China, I'd look at it the same way I look at arab league censures of Israel. It's more indicative of the countries that voted for it than some abstract concept of "the UN", and won't have much effect on reality.
- abruzzi 14y ago
  Except that if as the article suggests, ICANN is replaced by a UN agency, UN law would become, in some ways, directly enforceable by that agency (at least insofar as the replacement agency has the ability to enforce.)
  - jbooth 14y ago
    There's no such thing as UN law. There are treaties between nations, frequently brokered at the UN, and there are UN resolutions, which are more like "this statement was not vetoed by anyone" than they are rulings of law. Any devolution of ICANN's powers to the UN (which, if not massively fucked up, is probably healthier for the internet than keeping it under one country) would likely be an administrative handover. I seriously doubt it would be done on the basis that the G77 voting as a block could take control of the net. For an analogy, look at the way the UN peacekeepers typically handle things. They go someplace where there's peacekeeping.. and then they sit there. They don't do anything and avoid taking a side at all costs. If either side says they're not welcome anymore, they're gone. The UN isn't a government, it's a really big conference room.
    - SkyMarshal 14y ago
      The objective of some is to turn it into a world government. This is just one more little step in that direction. Having the Internet controlled primarily by the US and US-friendly organizations may not be ideal, but it would be better than having it controlled by a China, Russia, Mid-east dominated body.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
        To be fair, the UNSC has the UK, US and France as permanent members, who can veto resolutions.
        elssar 14y ago
        But this isn't a Security Council resolution. Their veto status means nothing in this conference.
      - jbooth 14y ago
        "The objective of some" is another way of saying "I have no justification for this but want to say it anyways." Useless conspiracy theorizing and straw-manning. The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.
        SkyMarshal 14y ago
        I did name names, right there in my post. So did the article. But clearly I should have known better than to have used 'world government', too much of a loaded, and lazy, term. But I do think there is a push to increase the UN's power in the world, to the point where some or all of it is binding. If I don't trust the motives and agendas of some of the regimes behind that push, so sue me? The US isn't exactly a paragon these days, and our political system somewhat corrupted by the influence of highly-concentrated wealth, but I also see signs of a long-overdue self-corrective reaction to that, enabled in large part by the open Internet. Is such a reaction possible in other more restrictive, more authoritarian regimes? Doesn't look like it, and ones like China are doing all they can make sure it stays that way, but who knows. We shall see...
  - huxley 14y ago
    I couldn't find any mention of ICANN or control over DNS in any of the leaked documents I looked through. It seems like the article authors or the leakers are "reading between the lines" but I'd be happier to have a link and a reference number so I could read the proposal in context.
    - elidourado 14y ago
      ICANN and DNS will be dealt with at conferences in 2013 and 2014. WCIT is mostly about charging for international Internet traffic termination, making the ITU-T's recommendations( which compete with the IETF's and others') mandatory, and getting the ITU's foot in the Internet-regulation door.
  - brown9-2 14y ago
    *at least insofar as the replacement agency has the ability to enforce. Which is still almost zero.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Er good? No more of this US attitude where they own all the .com's
- redwood 14y ago
  I think instead of looking at conflict zones, you should look at treaties with real effects. Drugs control treaties, for example, are enforced by the UN under US guidance. Every country has banned cannabis (for example) as a result, even countries where such a ban is laughable, where the stuff is endemic and traditional. This leads to problems. Admittedly it's not just the UN. Also it should be said the UN sets norms for the world to follow which in many areas are extremely valuable.
einhverfr 14y ago
I dunno. My first response was "In other words four proposals to allow countries to do what they are already doing, and one to remove one country from administering large parts of the internet...." I don't think it is all that bad. It's not like China needs the UN's permission to censor......

jbooth 14y ago

Well, if UN laws had much practical effect, then we'd have peace in the middle east and Africa right now, and we don't. A UN resolution means zip-all for US law, French law, Chinese law, etc. So by definition it can't be as bad as SOPA/PIPA in the us or ACTA in europe. However it might give some cover to those who are pursuing those types of policies. If this resolution is being pushed mostly by Russia/China, I'd look at it the same way I look at arab league censures of Israel. It's more indicative of the countries that voted for it than some abstract concept of "the UN", and won't have much effect on reality.

abruzzi 14y ago
Except that if as the article suggests, ICANN is replaced by a UN agency, UN law would become, in some ways, directly enforceable by that agency (at least insofar as the replacement agency has the ability to enforce.)
- jbooth 14y ago
  There's no such thing as UN law. There are treaties between nations, frequently brokered at the UN, and there are UN resolutions, which are more like "this statement was not vetoed by anyone" than they are rulings of law. Any devolution of ICANN's powers to the UN (which, if not massively fucked up, is probably healthier for the internet than keeping it under one country) would likely be an administrative handover. I seriously doubt it would be done on the basis that the G77 voting as a block could take control of the net. For an analogy, look at the way the UN peacekeepers typically handle things. They go someplace where there's peacekeeping.. and then they sit there. They don't do anything and avoid taking a side at all costs. If either side says they're not welcome anymore, they're gone. The UN isn't a government, it's a really big conference room.
  - SkyMarshal 14y ago
    The objective of some is to turn it into a world government. This is just one more little step in that direction. Having the Internet controlled primarily by the US and US-friendly organizations may not be ideal, but it would be better than having it controlled by a China, Russia, Mid-east dominated body.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      To be fair, the UNSC has the UK, US and France as permanent members, who can veto resolutions.
      - elssar 14y ago
        But this isn't a Security Council resolution. Their veto status means nothing in this conference.
    - jbooth 14y ago
      "The objective of some" is another way of saying "I have no justification for this but want to say it anyways." Useless conspiracy theorizing and straw-manning. The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.
      - SkyMarshal 14y ago
        I did name names, right there in my post. So did the article. But clearly I should have known better than to have used 'world government', too much of a loaded, and lazy, term. But I do think there is a push to increase the UN's power in the world, to the point where some or all of it is binding. If I don't trust the motives and agendas of some of the regimes behind that push, so sue me? The US isn't exactly a paragon these days, and our political system somewhat corrupted by the influence of highly-concentrated wealth, but I also see signs of a long-overdue self-corrective reaction to that, enabled in large part by the open Internet. Is such a reaction possible in other more restrictive, more authoritarian regimes? Doesn't look like it, and ones like China are doing all they can make sure it stays that way, but who knows. We shall see...
- huxley 14y ago
  I couldn't find any mention of ICANN or control over DNS in any of the leaked documents I looked through. It seems like the article authors or the leakers are "reading between the lines" but I'd be happier to have a link and a reference number so I could read the proposal in context.
  - elidourado 14y ago
    ICANN and DNS will be dealt with at conferences in 2013 and 2014. WCIT is mostly about charging for international Internet traffic termination, making the ITU-T's recommendations( which compete with the IETF's and others') mandatory, and getting the ITU's foot in the Internet-regulation door.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  *at least insofar as the replacement agency has the ability to enforce. Which is still almost zero.
- rmc 14y ago
  Er good? No more of this US attitude where they own all the .com's
redwood 14y ago
I think instead of looking at conflict zones, you should look at treaties with real effects. Drugs control treaties, for example, are enforced by the UN under US guidance. Every country has banned cannabis (for example) as a result, even countries where such a ban is laughable, where the stuff is endemic and traditional. This leads to problems. Admittedly it's not just the UN. Also it should be said the UN sets norms for the world to follow which in many areas are extremely valuable.

einhverfr 14y ago

I dunno. My first response was "In other words four proposals to allow countries to do what they are already doing, and one to remove one country from administering large parts of the internet...." I don't think it is all that bad. It's not like China needs the UN's permission to censor......