"I am very much afraid of a fragmented internet if there is no agreement."
Brokering the peace
The UN has been wrestling over who should run the internet for a number of years. It was one of the issues which divided nations at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva two years ago.
The second phase of the UN conference is due to take place in Tunisia from the 16 to 18 November.
There is a problem as many parts of the world don't like the fact that one country is linked to the organism that technically rules the internet
Viviane Reding, European Commissioner
Currently a California-based group called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) is the nearest thing to a ruling body. The private company was set up by the US Department of Commerce to oversee the domain name and addressing systems, such as country domain suffixes. It manages how net browsers and e-mail programs direct traffic.
Icann was to gain its independence from the Department of Commerce by September 2006. But in July the US said it would "maintain its historic role in authorising changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file".
America's determination to remain the ultimate purveyor of the internet has angered other countries which believe it is time to come up with a new way of regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century.
In the face of opposition from countries such as China, Iran and Brazil, and several African nations, the US is now isolated ahead of November's UN summit.
The row threatens to overshadow talks on other issues such as bringing more people online and tackling spam e-mail.
Global forum
America's traditional ally, Europe, has been left trying to find a way of brokering the peace.
"There is a problem as many parts of the world don't like the fact that one country is linked to the organism that technically rules the internet," said Commissioner Reding. "Many countries would like a multilateral approach."
On the table are European proposals for some kind of international forum to discuss principles for running the internet. The EU does not intend to scrap Icann. It would continue in its current technical role.
Instead Europe is suggesting a way of allowing countries to express their position on internet issues, though the details on how this would happen are vague.
"We have no intention to regulate the internet," said Commissioner Reding, reassuring the US that the EU was not proposing setting up a new global body.
Rather she talked of a "model of cooperation", of an international forum to discuss the internet.
Her carefully chosen form of words may help assuage a Bush administration which is vehemently opposed to any kind of international body to govern the internet.
"I am sure we will find a solution in interests of the internet," said Mrs Reding. "We think we could have an agreement on what's on the table."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4327928.stm
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on October 15, 2005]
Note: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1...

You know why places like China are against it? Because they want to restrict information, and control their populations. The "Internet 2" that they are creating, is going to be controlled by a select group of global corporate interests, and Universities. They have already started charching university students for illegal downloads through this system. It is the consolidation of the net into UN and Global Corporate interests. Once the system is in place, sites like this will have a hard time existing.
The worst thing of all would be if they actually got it.
With that said I'm still wondering who the heck is responsible for allowing child pornography. I just don't know how these sites exist. Does the blame lie on the private corporations that run it? Help me understand this.
Kevin
---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
Let me clear one thing up for you: Pedophiles are responsible for child pornography.
What does that have to do with the UN desire to take over the internet? Remember the UN "peacekeeper" actions in Africa - child prostitution for food?
Does the blame lie with Canada? Help me understand this.
Frank
NGO new medias are the ultimate solutions to freedom of press. Their financing will however always be a real problem and they may also become fronts for the well funded special interest groups. These new medias also depend on the Net as it stands today, i.e. widely open and accessible by all. I can certainly imagine that commercial interests will try to gain control to this access, just like they have done to everything else. I doubt it will be through a new Internet but through more firewalls, content filters and bandwidth throttlers at the point of access.
---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"
---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"
<br />
It's a US venture, not China or the UN. Of course, most people don't think it's a conspiracy, merely a different set of high-speed connections. Either it will be opened up or it will be ignored by most of the world; The existing internet isn't going anywhere, and neither is this site. <p>---<br>Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.
The only scandal I remember over the BBC reporting on WMD in IRAQ concerned the comments made to a BBC reporter by a weapons specialist, Dr Kelly, who subsequently committed suicide. On the basis of these comments the reporter claimed that the govt. had "sexed up" the information they had on WMD. The Hutton inquiry was held to investigate that scandal, and the result was that the BBC chairman, it's chief executive and the reporter all resigned. I wonder if the same result would occur today if the same inquiry were held.
Sorry that this post is off topic but if this is not the scandal you were referring to perhaps you could give me a reference to the other one.
Frank