All your IP belong to us

November 10, 2003 7:29 PM

An attempt by developing countries to put management of the Internet under United Nations auspices is likely to be shelved at next month's world information summit in Geneva - but the issue is now firmly on the international agenda.
posted by Mick (14 comments total)

fixed first link
posted by trondant at 7:34 PM on November 10, 2003

*speechless*
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:48 PM on November 10, 2003

Ahh yes wont it be wonderful when a pissant radical religious regime makes you take down your weblog because its 'heresy'

This is not to be confused with the dismissal from the US military because you critized the president.
posted by MrLint at 8:41 PM on November 10, 2003

Ask anyone who actually has to deal with the UN bureaucracy, and they'll probably tell you that it's the least effective, least competent, least responsive, and least efficient organization they've ever worked with. So I can see why we'd want to give them control over the internet.
posted by gd779 at 8:57 PM on November 10, 2003

[Watches as Kofi Anan is bitten on the ass by a clue. Sees no reaction. Nods to self.]
posted by skyscraper at 11:46 PM on November 10, 2003

Sheesh. What is it with Americans and the UN?
posted by salmacis at 12:47 AM on November 11, 2003

The Internet is an international network, so it makes sense it would be governed over by an international organisation. And, hey, why not the UN? While they're occasionally inefficient and confused, at least they're not a bunch of bloody fascists ...
posted by bwerdmuller at 2:16 AM on November 11, 2003

salmacis: they need an outside enemy.
posted by signal at 4:20 AM on November 11, 2003

Sheesh. What is it with Americans and the UN?

We're used to competence, efficiency, and effectiveness?

I'm not just repeating stereotypes here. In my current job, I actually do have to deal with the UN bureaucracy from time to time. And my colleagues have to deal with it frequently. It really is as bad as I've said.
posted by gd779 at 4:42 AM on November 11, 2003

UN: go to hell. Or France, perhaps. Soon.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:53 AM on November 11, 2003

While they're occasionally inefficient and confused, at least they're not a bunch of bloody fascists ...

Get real. Actual flesh-and-blood dictatorships, whose human rights records make George Bush look like an amateur warmonger, make up a significant part of the UN. The UN has 191 member states. Less than 110 of them can even be considered to be democracies.

The article mentions that China and Saudi Arabia are among the countries requesting that Internet regulation, including restrictions on certain types of speech, be handed over to the UN. Those countries currently punish people who publish content like MeFi with imprisonment and torture. Do you honestly believe that ICANN is more fascist than the people currently setting policy for those countries?
posted by fuzz at 6:13 AM on November 11, 2003

No. I was being flippant and irritable, and apologise. I can only assume that ParisParamus was in the same mood.

On the subject of free speech though, I think it's worth considering that those regimes probably punish people who produce free-thinking content anyway, regardless of which body governs the medium. Putting the UN in control would at the very least properly internationalise the Internet, which is a measure that I think is sorely needed.
posted by bwerdmuller at 6:56 AM on November 11, 2003

I think that would be ok. Once they've finished "Internationalizing" the Internet, we can just make another one and let them have the old one.
posted by Netsloth at 7:25 AM on November 11, 2003

We're used to competence, efficiency, and effectiveness?

Ahahhahhahhahhahhaaaahhaa... stoppit, you're killing me...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:25 AM on November 11, 2003