Say what you mean, and mean what you say
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 4 users and 22 guests online.
PollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 85% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 2% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 2% Something else (specify) 8% Total votes: 59
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Should the United Nations manage the Internet? Submitted by tfar on Mon, 2006-03-20 10:41.
SOLOists may not be aware that one of the three regional meetings of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ) for 2006 is being held in Wellington NZ this month. ICANN is a private Corporation that manages the URL naming system that makes management of the Internet Domain Name system possible. Country codes are normally handled by regional groups such as ICANN NZ. It must be doing a reasonable job one would think if the outstanding success of the Internet as a communications medium since ICANN was formed in 1988 is anything to go by. However some people, notably those from Governments that dont like issues of personal freedom and liberty to be too widely discussed are lobbying very hard for control of the Top Level Domain system to be wrested away from ICANN and vested with a suitable United Nations controlled committee. The UN has for some years stated that Governments should intervene in the Internet to maximise economic and social benefits and serve the national priorities of those Governments. It's not only bastions of human rights such as China and the remnants of the Socialist states of Europe that are promoting this view. European Union countries that one would think would have historical reasons to steer clear of ideas that restrict principles of freedom of expression have also asked that management of domain names be removed from ICANN and given to the UN who will then be able to moderate it for "culturally appropriate content." The US government has consistently refused to intervene in the management of domain names, and therefore, because ICANN is not subject to the political concerns of any country, the internet remains a relatively free and open medium for information. No government or inter-government organisation could achieve that independence. Even though the US has maintained this policy it cannot be considered totally trustworthy as recent demands for information from Internet Service Providers by the US Government has shown. Internet search companies Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL couldn't get the access logs out fast enough when approached by Federal Agencies supposedly looking for the inside information on potential child porn searchers. Only Google to its credit withstood the onslaught for any length of time until recently bludgened into submission and forced to release some of its data. Do SOLOists believe that the United Nations would honour principles of Freedom and Liberty in managing Internet systems? Can Kofi Annan and his successor be trusted to ensure the independent thoughts of Internet users would not be curtailed? Would the members of the UN Security Council allow sites like Solopassion to exist? These are all issues that no doubt will be seriously considered by the likes of that icon of Internet heroes, Dr Vinton Cerf - Chairman of ICANN and father of the Internet, inventor of the Internet Protocol and a proponent of maintaining the unregulated independence of ICANN over the next week or so. I wonder if Helen Clarke will be there? Has anyone else noticed that she appears to attend every event, public and private that happens in NZ these days. Does she get invited or are they just desperate for attendees?
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
The UN is a joke.
My confidence in the UN handling a matter where we want democracy to be applied, is near zero. This is based on the UN's track record and the issues seen with free speech and so many of its members.
Yes, people will bash the US and its record, but consider the current state of the internet, there is no doubt that you can post almost anything, so the US on the internet has the required track record.
Certainly the US isn't perfectly democratic, but it is one of the best around, eg the various constituational ammendments.
You can complain about various other US failings, but compare it to say Argentina, Mexico, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Nigeria, Zimbabwae, Fiji, etc and it is in a different league.
Considering the recent UN report and the Maori, certainly NZ is not perfect (from whichver viewpoint you are looking) but I'd like to see many countries match what NZ is doing.
Ok, it's not a trick
Ok, it's not a trick question.
The recent implementation, by ICANN, of a .xxx domain for porn sites is quite interesting. Yes, it may appear that this is a good way to corral all of that nasty behaviour into one safe place but it's not a big leap to see that the state may take the opportunity to *require* such sites to be .xxx suffixed. Wedge. Thin end.
The danger of having anything more than a loosely arranged body to administer the net is that you provide the state with an easy target for regulation. Keep it loose. Keep it distributed. Keep moving. Make the bastards shoot at shadows. Stay free.
The Death of the Internet
Check out this recent and great blog peice, an interview, on this very issue. Of course, on principle the answer is: "Fuck no. Live free or die. Long live lady liberty. And so on..."
But here is a more technical discussion:
The Death of the Internet
http://www.arizonawatch.com/archives/deathoftheinternet/
Excerpt:
Ideally, ICANN should consist of a Board of Directors comprised of representatives from the large network operators who comprise the Internet (by definition, a network of networks), which could include government reps from those countries who have state run networks.
That’s been my solution since 1995 – makes perfect sense, but I’ve never seen anyone else propose it. In 1995, the old school Internet people were worried about the commercialization of the Internet. They said it would destroy the network. It changed it, but for the better, largely because it wasn’t hampered by government controls. It’s the bungling lawmakers who are the enemy, not the market....
It should be governed by the networks that comprise the Internet and exist as a clearinghouse for the orderly management of the resources that all networks need to both share and have standardized for the Internet to function. That was [ICANN's] original role, the role it still serves today, and the only role it should serve in the future. Any other suggested role for it makes it a political body, and that will be the death of the Internet.
never
The day the UN gains control of the internet is the day that a world government becomes all the more probable. ICANN works fine - because it is independent. Anyway, because of their corruption and general pointlessness the UN shouldn't exist, so why would they be allowed to manage the internet? They should never be allowed!
This must be fought
Once the UN has control of domain names, it will move on to control, regulation and censorship of the internet.
Is this a trick question?
Is this a trick question?
Hmmm
I believe the proper philosophical answer to this question is...
...FUCK NO!
The UN is predominately a
The UN is predominately composed of dictator/socialist nations, which is why the US needs to get out of the UN as well as kick their headqaurters out of the US. The only thing that the UN honors is statism. Thomas Jefferson was correct in saying,"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none..." I wouldn't trust my calculator to the UN.
"Do SOLOists believe that
"Do SOLOists believe that the United Nations would honour principles of Freedom and Liberty in managing Internet systems? Can Kofi Annan and his successor be trusted to ensure the independent thoughts of Internet users would not be curtailed? Would the members of the UN Security Council allow sites like Solopassion to exist?"
I don't think we'll ever be able to escape the desire of this or that group to institute central planning for this or that part of the economy. The UN is full of such people. I honestly don't think that UN control is likely, but if it were to take place freedom on the internet would no longer exist. For example, I'm quite sure that in such a scenario the internet sites that recently republished the Muhammad cartoons would be subject to multicultural political correctness standards and would be censored.
- Jason