The Threat Of A UN Internet Takeover Is Only 'Vague' Because The UN Shares No Details
from the backroom-deals-are-a-problem dept
We've talked for a little while now about the fears that the UN's ITU (International Telecommunication Union) is seeking to effectively "take over" the internet. In the last few weeks, this has received some (welcome) new attention, including from US officials who worry about what an ITU-managed internet would look like (hint: it would be a lot less open). Of course, now there's some backlash, with some people pointing out that the actual threats here are "vague." First of all, that's not necessarily true. It's not difficult to actually put together a decent list of possible threats.But what this really highlights is the true problem here, which is that whatever happens here is happening behind the scenes, in backrooms, without public scrutiny. And, if we're talking about regulating the internet that the public uses so much, that seems like a pretty big problem. Just as we've seen with ACTA, TPP, SOPA and lots of other things, a big part of the problem is the near total lack of transparency in what's being discussed around these ideas.
In an attempt to deal with this, Jerry Brito and Eli Dourado have hacked together and launched a new site to collect, host and distribute leaked information about the ITU's plans. With perfect timing, the first documents from the ITU, including some proposed language for International Telecommunications Regulations have leaked. Taking a quick skim, there doesn't appear to be that much of interest in the initial document leak (I reserve the right to change my opinion once I've had more time to read through it in detail...), but it's an important starting point. These documents and details need to be public and need to be discussed in public, rather than allowing internet governance be determined in a series of backroom deals.
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: acta, internet governance, itu, sopa, tpp, transparency, united nations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is a matter of scale, the Internet is too large and widespread for any one organization/nation to control. These idiotic organizations would never be willing to share the power with one another, so they'll never be able to provide the united front they would need to get control of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Under the auspices of the UN the US would be forced to pick a side and chances are it would oppose censorship and tight control as would the rest of the west, while china iran etc would want control they wouldnt want US control and would rather not have control then let the US make choices for them. It would remove it from the day to day politics of the US and the US lobby groups would have a lot less influence.
International control would in fact be best, primarily, due to disagreement, they'd never get around to actually doing the stuff that is currently being done in every country because the US is pushing for it or because some countries leaders are dictatorial control freaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any good will the US government had, it has frittered away with senseless claims of 'do this' while it does pretty much the same thing it is bitching about.
Part of the whole problem was brought to light with the Bradley Manning and Wikileaks affair. What is being put out for public consumption and what is being done behind closed doors rings a resonant bell with this only this time it is the US on the outside looking in. Wonder of wonders it somehow now has a problem with the methods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're all welcome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on Mike, this has got to be the longest running April Fool's joke out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1 yr of civil unrest/rebellion/government crackdown in Syria led to appx 10,000 dead people on all sides
6 months in Libya with US help led to 30,000 dead
Population of Libya - just over 6.3 million
Population of Syria - just over 20.4 million
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is not the whole "UN" agreeing on something. This is a very specific group -- the ITU -- which has a clear agenda, and the issue is very, very real. I've seen more info which I'll be sharing shortly that shows why we should be very worried about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Failure to Describe Internet Systems.
The language carries the implication that numbers are scarce, and implies that there can be such as thing as "number-hoarding." As a matter of mathematics, that is not true. There are an infinite number of integers. Normal practices of "collision avoidance" involve both parties heading off in the general direction of infinity. Orderly procedures are in train to switch the internet over to to IPv6, with 128-bit addresses. When the internet was set up, large blocks of 32-bit IPv4 were reserved for unassigned use, such as virtual addressing. Means have been defined for islands of IPv4 to continue to exist within a IPv6 sea. Over time, of course, the islands will become smaller, but they can continue to exist indefinitely.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/10182719172/tell-un-to-keep-its-hands-off -peoples-internet.shtml#c607
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4 #Addressing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Failure to Describe Internet Systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/oukin-uk-internet-governance-congress-idUKBRE84U18A 20120531
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]