Do We Really Want Intellectual Ventures And Disney 'Governing' The Internet?

from the don't-think-so dept

Wed, May 2nd 2012 11:20am — Mike Masnick

The United Nations recently announced the lateset members to its "multistakeholder advisory group" on the issue of "internet governance." As they state, there are 56 members in the group, 33 of which are new. Considering that this is a group that is supposedly planning to act as stakeholders for "governing" the internet, you would hope that it would actually be representative of, you know, internet users. In fact, the press release from the UN states:

"The Advisory Group members are from all stakeholder groups and all regions, representing Governments, the private sector, civil society, academia and technical communities."

But when you look down the actual list, a different story appears. It looks like the list is pretty much dominated by government "IP" officials, as well as people from telcos, and then people in the domain name registration field. And then there's an exec from the world's largest patent trolling firm, Intellectual Ventures. Oh, and the VP of Global Public Policy Europe for Disney. Because I'm sure we're all comfortable letting Disney determine how the internet should be governed. Are these really the people we want "governing" the internet? There is at least someone from ISOC (the Internet Society), but I'm having a hard time seeing this as a group of people who should actually represent the public in terms of "governing" the internet.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: internet governance, internet society, united nations
Companies: disney, intellectual ventures

55 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 11:26am

Well, when you view the internet as a dark ages event like the wild west instead of as a progressive tool, they're going to look out for their own interests instead of the people who pay their rent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:25pm
  
  Re:
  If they don't want it to be the Wild West, they need to stop acting like Wyatt Earp and stop shooting down new technologies and websites without trials.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TDR, 2 May 2012 @ 5:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, no, they're Johnny Ringo, not Wyatt Earp. And TPB would be Doc Holliday.
    
    Doc/TPB: I'm your huckleberry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:28am

Do We Really Want Intellectual Ventures And Disney 'Governing' The Internet?

They already govern the people through purchased control of the "highest offices". And like television, mail, telephone, radio, telegraph, smoke signals and many others, the Internet is just an advertising and sales medium.

So who cares? Look! Shiny object ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- arcan, 2 May 2012 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  so you have ADOS as well. it stands for Attention Deficit OooooH SHINY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Just think yourself lucky you don't have GLaDoS!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
arcan, 2 May 2012 @ 11:33am

i think there should be a simple test to judge whether you can govern the internet. you must be able to completely disassemble and reassemble the average desktop in under 3 minutes. this test should be secret so they don't train for it. if you can't you are therefore unfit to regulate technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baldaur Regis (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re:
  Excellent idea. A simpler test would be to put the applicants in a room with a computer and tell them "you must be able to completely disassemble and reassemble the internet in under 3 minutes." Those who laugh out loud immediately would be hired. The remainder would have their attempts filmed and posted on YouTube.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The remainder would have their attempts filmed and posted on YouTube.
    
    It's already there!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Baldaur Regis (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      +10 for the find!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta** (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 11:39am

How it begins...
This is how it all begins. The New World Order is beginning to take its place among the nations. The One World Government is starting with the powerful in America and is reaching out to rule all of the nations. Not one government anywhere can defend its people or its property. Soon, we shall all be slaves. America is coming to rule all of the nations. The biggest nations will fall first, and the smaller ones after.

"Intellectual Property" is the smoke screen that comes before the attack. Nobody will be safe. Have a nice day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:45am
  
  Re: How it begins...
  The One World Government is starting with the powerful in America
  
  And who owns the One World Government?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Shmerl, 2 May 2012 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re: How it begins...
    One ring to rule them all?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: How it begins...
      One corp to find them
      One corp to bring them all
      and in the darkness bind them.
      
      Walt Disney, inscription on coffin.
      
      /s
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - A Nother Eejit, 2 May 2012 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: How it begins...
        And he turned into a flaming reel of non-safety film if caught outside a dimly lit screening room.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AzureSky (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: How it begins...
        funny but, walt wasnt the evil one, if you look at how disney has acted since his death and even during his life after he was out of direct control, he would be sick.
        
        he said for example many times he always wanted the price to get into disney parks to be affordable for any American family, if you go check the prices now days, 1 person getting full access is more then a family would cost in his day...even considering inflation.
        
        walt wasnt a fuzzy nice guy, but he wasnt as psychopathic as his successors have been.
        
        he was also a bit of an anti-govt nut from what i have read, he didnt trust the govt,and in some of the designs of his structures and parks it shows, built like bunkers(thick metal doors and such)
        
        just saying, walt isnt the problem anymore then old mr walton was with walmart(he was an honest nice guy by all accounts, unlike his kids who made walmart into what it is today)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 11:51am
  
  Re: How it begins...
  "Soon, we shall all be slaves."
  Soon? Don't you mean "since December 23, 1913 we've been slaves"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re: How it begins...
  All your Intellectual Property are belong to us...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re: How it begins...
  Good news for you wing nut, Dollar Days is having a dale on extra heavy duty tin foil. Perhaps you can taking advantage of the special shipping offer where they'll drop it from a black helicopter right outside the basement door of your Mom's house. You're welcome!!!
  
  http://www.dollardays.com/i407899-wholesale-american-wrap-extra-heavy-aluminum-foil-12 -x-25.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- varagix, 2 May 2012 @ 11:34pm
  
  Re: How it begins...
  Anyone else find this post oddly optimistic? I mean believing that not only will our government -not- bankrupt itself, possibly dragging a number of other actors (industries, citizenry, dependent nations) with it, but to also believe that it will rule the world?
  
  Seriously, what's the NWO's plan? Make the rest of the western world dependent on US currency, crash its value, then bum rush the rest of the world with the US military before our servicemen's inflation-adjusted salaries are due?
  
  Why not just nuke them: it'd be faster and the political fallout would be much less. Granted the -nuclear- fallout would be much higher...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:40am

and all the common sense comments and/or complaining wont change a thing! the public are totally discounted from anything and everything until it comes to shelling out cash! all other sectors are not only represented, they completely take over, dictating what is only in their best interests, provided there is no costs involved! bunch of selfish, self centered hypocrites!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:05pm

Why not just sign up to be a "resource person", as have many members associated with "civil societies" (e.g., EFF)?

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/resource-person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:13pm

Control is based on two things...
First control the means to get good and services that are needed...Done.

Second control the information that is given to the people to shape the thoughts and their needs...Getting close.

As all good controlists we start with the slogan of Forward.

Their words : http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2012/05/02/what-barack-obamas-forward-slogan-really -means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2012 @ 2:58am
  
  Re: Control is based on two things...
  "Second control the information that is given to the people to shape the thoughts and their needs...Getting close."
  
  They had that one down, with the media companies and all, well, until the internet showed up and fucked up their plans
  
  THE INTERNET
  our last best hope.......in a universe far far away.... im kidding.....well, the last bit, anyway
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC Cobra, 2 May 2012 @ 12:17pm

My nominations
I nominate Mike Masnick as a member of this council. Also Rick Falkinge, Glyn Moody, that guy who invented the Internet, also Al Gore, Leigh Beadon, Ron Wyden, a rep from EFF too. Who else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: My nominations
  Ah-HEEEM! -_-
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:19pm

there's a difference between financially interested parties and stakeholders
how hard is it to understand the difference?

on one hand you have:
people focused on making money

on the other hand you have:
people responsible for (service) being maintained, long term, etc.

how hard is it to understand that these groups are absolutely not ever necessarily correlated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re: there's a difference between financially interested parties and stakeholders
  there's a financial interest in freeloading and monetizing content that you don't have rights to Derpsley
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:20pm

This is another one of those committees that are designed to produce easy pay-back jobs; money, prestege (sounds good on a resume), staff, expense account and isn't expected to produce anything serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:21pm

This is another one of those committees that are designed to produce easy pay-back jobs; money, prestege (sounds good on a resume), staff, expense account and isn't expected to produce anything serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:22pm

And yet another reason why the UN is a lost cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:27pm

No, we want the internet to stay free of corporate and government chains. It's useful because it's non-corporate and non-government, as soon as that is no longer true, it looses it's value to many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re: Ready.... Fight!
  (to play devil's advocate--I don't believe this argument)
  
  Well, one could argue that streets, power-lines, water-pipes, television broadcast frequencies, and telephone lines are all corporate controlled and government controlled and they still maintain quite a modicum of utility (no pun) for quite a few people.
  
  So the internet will join its other utility brethren in the chains and shackles mediocrity and inept corporate whoring--what's wrong with that? Is it right that the internet gets to remain free while everything else is regulated and whored to death??
  
  So remember, don't ask "why lock it up?"; ask "why isn't it locked up like everything else?"
  
  /super-mega-troll(?)
  
  Oh, almost forgot: freetard pirate fag noobs pudgy kittens apologist raporist magnificent bastards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Ready.... Fight!
    Not enough nuance....
    
    and
    
    NEEDS MORE COWBELL....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:42pm

This is what happens when we say no to ACTA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:44pm

The entire reason government exists is to serve itself and to make others serve its own interests. Government is just a collectively created division of a few large business interests, it's what enforces the private interests of the few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:52pm

The..
"Government IP officials" are merely employees of the entertainment industry who are "working" for the government. The whole thing is simply a corporate attempt to block "piracy", which is simply impossible. I am pretty sure that there are zero people in the group who have the slightest interest in the rights of consumers; all consumers are assumed to be thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:00pm

They couldn't stop the printing press
They won't stop the Internet either.

See:
http://www.nosafeharbor.com/

See part 3 Intellectual Property.
Subsection: History of Copyright.

She shared the concern of the Catholic Church over the printing press. The public�s ability to quickly distribute information en masse was dangerous to her ambitions to restore Catholicism, in particular their ability to distribute heretic material. (Political material, in this day and age, was not distinguishable from religious material.) Seeing how France had failed miserably in banning the printing press, even under threat of hanging, she realized another solution was needed. One that involved the printing industry in a way that would benefit them as well.

She devised a monopoly where the London printing guild would get a complete monopoly on all printing in England, in exchange for her censors determining what was fit to print beforehand. It was a very lucrative monopoly for the guild, who would be working hard to maintain the monopoly and the favor of the Queen�s censors. This merger of corporate and governmental powers turned out to be effective in suppressing free speech and political-religious dissent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baldaur Regis (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:47pm
  
  Re: They couldn't stop the printing press
  "She shared the concern of the Catholic Church over the printing press."
  
  "She breathlessly shared the concern of the Catholic Church over the printing press, her hand idly caressing the brass platens, feeling the throbbing potential of the massive machine beside her."
  
  History just sounds so much better rewritten in the Daily Mail style. I don't know, maybe I'm spending too much time here following links.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:06pm

If I look at the list I see even more scary people:
A person from childnet (Protection of children on www... I can only assume she will be a hardliner)

A person from Chinese government (representing the worlds most monitored internet)

A person from EBU (mostly TV-broadcaster in europe. No doubt close friends of the film industry in the fight against piracy)

A person from Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property (lawyers for hire in certain countries. Primary speciality is protection of IP)

What is truely lacking is people with knowledge about human rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Kulawiec, 2 May 2012 @ 1:18pm

They've got to be kidding
I just read the list, and recognized one name -- Wendy Seltzer (whose blog is worth following, by the way). She's a lawyer and has done outstanding work on behalf of netizens.

But I don't see any network engineers, system administrators, security researchers, software developers, RFC authors, academic researchers -- you know, the people who actually built and run and study the Internet. I do see quite a few bureaucrats, politicians, and industry insiders.

So, ummm, no. In fact: hell no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PlagueSD (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:33pm

The Internet is a "communications" medium. The big companies want to change it to a "broadcast" medium so they can continue thier propaganda and control of the "media"

Once Government can "take down" anything they want we lose our 1st amendment right of free speech...Next is going to be the Gestapo marching down our streets!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:47pm

Honestly Mike, I would have them than you, because in your world fair use would apply to everything, artists would get nothing, hold no rights, and we would all live in an IP socialist state. I can't see that being a very good ending to the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, but he promised coke and hookers so SHUT THE FUCK UP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re:
  awwww you poor, little, starving artists..
  
  Quick! Let's cripple and destroy one of the greatest inventions man has ever built for the sake of a few, poor artists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It isn't either or. You can still have the internet, you can still make new stuff, you can still share it, give it away, whatever it is you want.
    
    Just stop thinking you have some grand right to do it to everyone else's stuff, and you will be fine. Make your own.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You can still keep your works locked up for life + 70 years.
      
      Just stop thinking you have some grand right to do it to everyone else's stuff automatically, and you will be fine. Oh wait...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How appropriate that your random avatar should resemble the Swastika this time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 2 May 2012 @ 5:42pm
  
  Re:
  Oouuuu .... we no like socialists.
  Fascists are much better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DC, 2 May 2012 @ 6:05pm
  
  Re:
  You all must have been up late last night. Usually at least one troll or shill shows up within minutes of a post.
  
  Them = perpetual control = no use by the public ever.
  
  Not them = let popular and even unpopular culture be free to enter the general culture at some reasonable point.
  
  Nothing socialist in option 2. Option 1 is definitely fascist.
  
  Yes, it is a false dichotomy, but closer to reality than yours.
  
  I'm pretty sure there is never anything honest in your engagement here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:16pm

IV shouldn't even be allowed to exist, it doesn't produce anything and all it does is troll. How the heck do they even deserve representation. Those who contribute something to the rest of society deserve representation, patent trolls do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 11:50pm

Clusterfuck
Looked at the list and it doesn't appear as if that group can agree on much at all. IP lawyers and repressive regimes, niiiiice.

Yes there are a few names including IV and Disney that absolutely do not belong on the list. Actually anyone involved in IP law doesn't belong on any internet governance panel. The telcos should be there and the cable companies and probably Intel and HP or even Apple before Disney and IV.

Then again, maybe a lot more technology people should start writing IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UN Lover (not!), 2 May 2012 @ 11:52pm

UN Human Rights Council and internet freedom
Well, it looks like the UN's "multistakeholder advisory group" on the issue of "internet governance" will be about freedom and fairness on the internet to exactly the same degree that the UN Human Rights Council is about human rights!

If Kaddafi, Assad, Erdojan, North Korea and China can each have a vote equal to Canada when deciding about human rights for the world, they why can't Disney, Iran and the Chinese government assure freedom on the internet? What a absolutely lovely idea, all working together for shared values!

Don't forget, by the way, that it was US President Barak Obama who made the staunch decision for the US to rejoin the wonderful UN Human Rights Council. A wise decision by a man of great morality.

May
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Locutus (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 2:07pm

Mickey Rat
I've dealt with all stripes of humans in a half-century of being dragged behind the pickup truck of life. By far the most evil, most conniving, greediest, lowest scum-dwelling bastards were Disney whags, usually fueled by cocaine and the loving attention of sniveling, adoring young boys. Disney consumes any actual talent and dedication the way flesh-eating virus eats skin, without regard for any long-term mutual benefit...it's all about this week's profits, and to hell with everything else! Mickey makes for an excellent RAT; I only have pity for misguided parents who pound the worship of Disney into their young children, in lieu of anything in the world that may be substantial or enlightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Locutus (profile), 28 May 2012 @ 4:58pm

Can't disagree too much with you, AzureSky, and wouldn't even dream of defending the current hierarchy to you. Walt was a PR genius, no doubt, so his rep remains relatively untarnished. My own experiences came thirty years after Walt's death, true...as is everything you say and imply about the modern Disneyreich. Thanks for clarifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]