Net Power Struggle Nears Climax

Posted on Thursday, October 13 at 10:52 by jensonj
"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...

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:36 pm
    The U.S. should keep control of the Internet. After all, Al Gore invented it and he is certainly full of the wisdom that the rest of the world needs, right? If the U.S. cannot keep control of it, I say just dismantle it and the rest of the world can start their own. Then, it could be called the "Idiotnet". Mr. A

  2. Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:08 pm
    Comment (1) proves the arrogance stated by the BBC.

  3. Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:52 pm
    The BBC? Now, thats a REAL neutral news source. Mr. A

  4. Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:56 pm
    Whatever. What they are putting in place, is much worse than the US controlling the net now anyways. Its not the US government that is in control, but an independant group, which is funded by the government.
    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.

  5. Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:28 am
    Another Usless Nations-sponsored act of idiocy, eh?

    The worst thing of all would be if they actually got it.

  6. Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:49 am
    I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush and the people controlling his strings and fake speech writers. But to be honest you must admit there is allot of freedom on the net and what information is out there. Under a more government controled internet we could see exactly what was said above, more control of information to the public. I don't know I like that idea.

    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

  7. Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:02 pm
    This probably my biggest lefty pet peeve. They all against internet US protectionism but are against free trade and they support economic protectionism.

  8. Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:19 pm
    So, you're for Internet Censorship, and against Fair trade in a free market?

    ---
    "If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

  9. Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:24 am
    Kevin, at some point you will have to make your own decisions, based upon what you know to be true. However, based upon the lousy syntax of your post above, it is unclear just what you are agreeing or disagreeing about.

    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.

  10. Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:23 am
    As a matter of fact Mr A., the BBC is indeed as neutral a source of news (TV and radio) that I have found. Perhaps you have a few specific examples to the contrary.

    Frank

  11. Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:11 pm
    Note that the BBC had this gag order scandal on the WMD story in Iraq. They have apparently brought in substantial reforms to make sure that this will not ever reoccur. IMHO as long as the BBC will remain funded by the government, it will remain subject to their influence. I can ensure you we see a lot of that at the SRC whether in Quebec or hors-Quebec; the hors-Quebec case is absolutely blatant.

    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"

  12. Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:15 pm
    Meant to add that these commercial interests will likely try to build these "gated communities" on the Net by selling and nurturing fear. The microcosm thing on the Net from what goes on in the physical world... I can see the day where people will have Internet "guns" and will be able to blast off the other cyberspace parties that they do not agree with.

    ---
    "We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

  13. by avatar Jesse
    Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:53 pm
    Actually, "Internet 2" already exists in the US(and possibly elsewhere), and it is a high-speed replacement for the Internet, controlled by a select group of corporations and Universities. Here's their homepage: <a href="http://www.internet2.edu/">http://www.internet2.edu/</a><br />
    <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.

  14. Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:15 am
    gaulois.
    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



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news