Papewaio
11-15-2005, 00:05
UN showdown over control of net (http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17244379%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html)
Third-world nations have turned their attention to the net despite the pressing challenges of poverty and civil war.
Backed by the EU, they want control taken from the US and handed to the UN. At stake is the US Department of Commerce's grip on the internet through its agreement with the Los Angeles-based ICANN, a private company it contracted to run the domain names system.
ICANN operates the domain name and root server system through an agreement with the US Department of Commerce that expires next year.
...
A preparatory meeting in Geneva last month turned into a circus after delegates disrupted talks by banging on tables to interrupt speakers.
Delegates representing business interests were refused permission to speak in some sessions after government delegates from developing countries objected.
The summit will deal with a long shopping list from a range of countries, some of which have few internet users.
Countries from the middle east, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, are concerned about content on the web, and US control.
The Saudis want more supervision of the internet.
African nations have banded together to seek more financial support for developing countries that have been left behind in the online race, while Russia and the former Soviet states are concerned about US control.
So they are rude and don't allow others to talk, they want others to pay for their infrastructure, they want to restrict access to the internet and they then want to control the internet despite it working quite fine until now.
I say bugger them. If prefer the altruistic system which is largely free of direct government control. Nor do I agree with the idea that governments that have poor human rights records should be controlling the internet... if anything can cause positive social change that is the exchange of information free of government lensing.
Nor do I see the point of financial support for the internet when far more basic infrastructure such as farms, roads and clean water is required first and foremost. I would like to see remote schools given access to the internet to help children, but that should be up to government, public and private charities to fund. It should not have any bearing on who looks after the root servers. It is like saying that because Europe has motorways an impoverished nation without cars should have them too.
Third-world nations have turned their attention to the net despite the pressing challenges of poverty and civil war.
Backed by the EU, they want control taken from the US and handed to the UN. At stake is the US Department of Commerce's grip on the internet through its agreement with the Los Angeles-based ICANN, a private company it contracted to run the domain names system.
ICANN operates the domain name and root server system through an agreement with the US Department of Commerce that expires next year.
...
A preparatory meeting in Geneva last month turned into a circus after delegates disrupted talks by banging on tables to interrupt speakers.
Delegates representing business interests were refused permission to speak in some sessions after government delegates from developing countries objected.
The summit will deal with a long shopping list from a range of countries, some of which have few internet users.
Countries from the middle east, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, are concerned about content on the web, and US control.
The Saudis want more supervision of the internet.
African nations have banded together to seek more financial support for developing countries that have been left behind in the online race, while Russia and the former Soviet states are concerned about US control.
So they are rude and don't allow others to talk, they want others to pay for their infrastructure, they want to restrict access to the internet and they then want to control the internet despite it working quite fine until now.
I say bugger them. If prefer the altruistic system which is largely free of direct government control. Nor do I agree with the idea that governments that have poor human rights records should be controlling the internet... if anything can cause positive social change that is the exchange of information free of government lensing.
Nor do I see the point of financial support for the internet when far more basic infrastructure such as farms, roads and clean water is required first and foremost. I would like to see remote schools given access to the internet to help children, but that should be up to government, public and private charities to fund. It should not have any bearing on who looks after the root servers. It is like saying that because Europe has motorways an impoverished nation without cars should have them too.