United Nations to Seek Control of the Internet

[Pouria]

just away for them to get money from the people who will be able to pay the higher cost of using the internet , a way to censor the information available and who and how it is accessed, and to make the use of the internet an elite status, pricing out the common folk so only the privileged few can access the wealth of information.

next they will add a travelers tax so if i fly from Canada to Egypt i have to pay a communication tax to be able to share any knowledge or speak to anyone because i came from a different country.

[Pouria]

The fact that they can even discuss this as a possibility shows how powerful they are.

they are trying to limit our ability to communicate to the masses in a unscripted, uncontrolled way.

the major news networks are already controlled and filtered when needed.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Ironic that while the UN was created to curb tremendous atrocities like the holocaust, if there was an internet back then, chances are there would've been no holcaust.

Then again, what exactly has the UN done to prevent the atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tibet, and various African countries? Not to mention Palestine.

Oh right. The UN has always been an ultra-corrupt and powerless puppet. What was i thinking?

[Jägermeister]

Even if they do have control of it, they'll just make empty threats and stand idly by as things go on as they always did.

[DarthNinja]

Merely another attempted step towards a one world government and the New World Order.

[surtur]

the only thing that will come of this is a internet within the internet. the UN can control the Internet but everyone else will control the inner web the freedom web.

people as a collective are smarter then the elitists.

and will find a way to get the message of freedom and all the information to the people.

as it is now hacker groups strike fear into major corporations/governments because they are a collective against one.

what i was saying is what these Elitists (the UN) think is it will be easy to control the information thus easy to control the people they do not realise that there are houndreds of thousands of people capable and willing plus much smarter then these (elitists) that can carry on without them. no matter what rules or new technology are enforced.

[Mr. Ambien]

Merely another attempted step towards a one world government and the New World Order.

[Dral]

they won't be able to control the internet. Everything hinges on nude women. Once they propose to do something that makes free porn cease to be, there will be an uprising like no other

[key2thecup]

GOOGLE has launched its counterattack campaign against UN internet suppression...

https://www.google.com/takeaction/

[Pouria]

GOOGLE has launched its counterattack campaign against UN internet suppression...

https://www.google.com/takeaction/

[Pouria]

Tech Companies Rally Against UN Internet Oversight

Posted August 17th, 2012 by BfA Staff

A coalition of technology firms has called on the Democratic and Republican parties to include a plank in the official platforms that calls for a free and open Internet.

The Telecommunications Industry Association, which includes companies like Sprint, Intel, Nokia, and Microsoft, released the following statement:

"On behalf of the information and communications industry, we urge you to adopt as part of the [Democratic or Republican] Party Platform, language embracing a free and open Internet," the group wrote in letters to the parties. "It is in the interest of all Americans, and people across the globe, to prevent those who wish to stifle the spread of democratic values or economic progress from interfering with the opportunities the Internet provides."

[Pouria]

US gov’t, Web titans go to battle against UN Internet power grab: Everything you need to know

May 31, 2012 By Andrew Couts

The US government and a variety of technology giants are working in concert to prevent the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union from taking over control of the Internet. Here, a brief guide to the battle that could determine the future of the Web.

The global fight for the open Internet has heated up this week with lawmakers, top Obama administration officials, and Internet industry giants moving in unprecedented unanimity to push back against a proposal to effectively hand over control of the Internet to the United Nations and thus its member states.

Unlike domestic political battles concerning the Internet, like the fight over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or the controversy over cybersecurity legislation currently before Congress, this struggle pits the United States against countries like China and Russia, who wish to seize control of Internet regulation from the variety of US-backed nonprofit organizations that currently oversee its structure, rules, and upkeep, and place that power in the hands of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a UN agency.

What is the proposal?

Unfortunately, at the moment, there are more questions than answers. But here’s what we know so far. In December, 193 UN member states will meet in Dubai for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). There, revisions to a 1988 ITU treaty may be proposed — no one’s saying for certain just yet — that would allow the ITU to take over as the sole regulatory body for the Internet. That means it would have far greater control over cybersecurity, data privacy, Web technology standards, and the Web address system. It would also give member states the ability charge Internet companies for international traffic. (More on this later.)

Presently, these responsibilities, known collectively as “Internet governance,” lay with a number of nonprofit institutions, like the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which handles the underlying infrastructure of the Internet, and establishes top-level domains (TLDs), like .com, .net, or .ca; and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which develops Internet standards.

Who wants the ITU in charge?

The full list of countries in support of such proposals has not been announced (after all, much could change between now and December). But those who are publicly in favor include China, Russia, Brazil, India, most countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, and “many other” countries in the developing world, according to reports. Other countries that have expressed dissatisfaction with the current system include Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Ghana, Bolivia, and Venezula, which means they are likely on the list of supporters as well.

Why do they support such proposals?

Because the organizations currently in control of the Internet often operate on behalf of the US government and its allies, which an increasing number of countries believe is unjust, since the Internet is an international network. And since the ITU already regulates many aspects of international communication (like setting the rates for long-distance calls and establishing what are and are not true “4G” wireless speeds) and is a truly international body, those in favor of such a power shift believe the ITU is the perfect organization to take over.

Basically, other countries want more power over the Web. And the ITU would give them that power.

Who’s against these proposals?

The US government and US-based businesses are by far the most vocal opponents. This includes Members of Congress, the Obama administration, and a wide swath of the technology industry’s largest and most powerful companies, including Google, AT&T, Microsoft, Verizon, Cisco, and others.

Why are they against it?

The opposition’s concerns boil down to a few key points: freedom of speech, the stifling of innovation, and money.

Giving the ITU control over the Internet means giving more control to governments, like China, Iran, Russian, which are notorious for greatly limiting the types of information available to their citizens online, and imposing censorship — especially of political speech — on their people.

“Does anyone here today believe that these countries’ proposals would encourage the continued proliferation of an open and freedom-enhancing internet?,” said FCC Chairman Robert McDowell during a House Energy and Communications Committee hearing on Thursday that addressed the possible ITU proposal.

“The threats are real and not imagined, although they admittedly sound like works of fiction sometimes,” McDowell added.

US Ambassador Phil Verveer, who serves as a deputy assistant secretary for the Obama State Department and will be directly involved in the WCIT negotiations, added further weight to this sentiment, saying that, if the proposals to give the ITU power over the Internet are adopted, it “could limit the Internet as an open and innovative platform by potentially allowing governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows.”

On May 2, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (of which Ambassador Verveer is a part), summed up the concerns surrounding an ITU-controlled Internet in a blog post thusly: “Governmental proposals to replace the Internet’s decentralized and open system must be resisted. Centralized control over the Internet through a top-down government approach would put political dealmakers, rather than innovators and experts, in charge of the future of the Internet. This would slow the pace of innovation, hamper global economic development, and lead to an era of unprecedented control over what people can say and do online. Centralized control would threaten the ability of the world’s citizens to freely connect and express themselves by placing decision-making power in the hands of global leaders who have demonstrated a clear lack of respect for the right of free speech.”

Another concern is that the ITU’s negotiations are often held in secret, without input from the public at large. Vinton Cerf, considered to be one of the founding fathers of the Internet for his co-creation of TCP/IP and now a vice president and chief Internet evangelist at Google, also spoke at Thursday’s hearing as an expert witness, and recently warned of such consequences in a New York Times op-ed.

“The decisions taken in Dubai in December have the potential to put government handcuffs on the Net,” he wrote. “To prevent that — and keep the Internet open and free for the next generations — we need to prevent a fundamental shift in how the Internet is governed.”

During the House Committee hearing, Cerf added: “The open Internet has never been at higher risk than it is now. A new international battle is brewing — a battle that will determine the future of the Internet.”

In terms of money, critics warn that giving the ITU and its members power over Internet regulation could result in a variety of new taxes and other costs imposed on service providers, including companies like Google and Facebook, which could eventually result in higher costs for consumers. Furthermore, restriction on the free flow of information could also inhibit business on an international scale.

“The free flow of information, including the free flow of commercial information, is something that has added… measurably to the world’s wealth,” said Verveer. He added: “There have been some suggestions made by some countries that we ought to have a per-click charge, if you will; that content providers ought to contribute to the cost of translation companies for concluding traffic. There are a variety of reasons why that seems to us not to be a good idea at all. But you can see where what could turn out to be a marginal imposition on the Internet would in fact interfere with the commercial value of it. And we’re very anxious to avoid that.”

How do the opponents plan to fight back?

The plan is for the US government to build a coalition of allies that can fight back against the proposal. But that’s down the road. At the moment, however, a bipartisan coalition of House members, including Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA); Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA); Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA); Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI); and Rep. Greg Walden, (R-OR) have introduced a House resolution (pdf) that urges the Obama administration to remain vigilantly against possible proposals for an ITU takeover. Although, at this point, it seems a near impossibility that any interests in the US will back down from this fight.

It’s about to get interesting, folks. Stay tuned.

Update: Access has launched a new petition telling the ITU that “the Internet belongs to us,” not to the UN, nor the world’s governments.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/us-govt-web-titans-go-to-battle-against-un-internet-power-grab-everything-you-need-to-know/#ixzz2E4mc61kO

[Pouria]

EU against UN internet control

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20445637

European Parliament warns against UN internet control

ITU secretary-general Dr Hamadoun Toure has said any changes must be agreed on by all countriesContinue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Google attacks net treaty talks

• Russia blacklist law takes effect

• US resists losing control of net

The UN should not be allowed to take over control of the internet, Euro MPs have warned.

International governments are set to agree a new information and communications treaty next month.

Reports in the Russian press have suggested the Kremlin and others wanted control of key internet systems passed to a UN agency.

Internet control currently lies largely with US-based groups such as Icann, which regulates the web address system.

The European Parliament has said the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) was "not the appropriate body" to have authority.

The ITU has said a new treaty was needed to ensure "the free flow of information around the world, promoting affordable and equitable access for all and laying the foundation for ongoing innovation and market growth".

The UN agency is hosting the conference to draw up the treaty between 3 and 14 December in Dubai.

Members of the European Parliament backed a resolution which urgedmember states to reject changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) which would "negatively impact the internet, its architecture, operations, content and security, business relations, internet governance and the free flow of information online".

'Equal rights'

The ITRs are designed to ensure interoperability of telecoms equipment and services across the world. The last major revision was in 1988.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Whatever one single country does not accept will not pass”

Dr Hamadoun ToureSecretary-general, ITU

The negotiation process surrounding a new treaty has been criticised for being conducted largely out of the public's eye.

However, a site called Wcitleaks, run by researchers at George Mason University, has published several documents relating to the new treaty.

Among them was a proposal from Russia suggesting that the US should have less control over the internet's operation.

"Member states shall have equal rights to manage the internet, including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources and to support for the operation and development of basic internet infrastructure," it said in a document submitted on 17 November.

'Limited access'

The European Parliament's objection follows loud opposition from search giant Google, which has invited concerned internet users to sign a petition.

"The International Telecommunication Union is bringing together regulators from around the world to renegotiate a decades-old communications treaty," the company wrote.

The ITU conference will be held in Dubai next month

"Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech - or even allow them to cut off internet access.

"Other proposals would require services like YouTube, Facebook, and Skype to pay new tolls in order to reach people across borders. This could limit access to information - particularly in emerging markets."

ITU secretary-general Dr Hamadoun Toure has signalled that if there were any serious disagreements he would try to avoid putting an issue to a majority vote.

"We never vote because voting means winners and losers and you can't afford that," he told the BBC in July.

"Whatever one single country does not accept will not pass."

[Pouria]

ITU's new proposal for internet control will not pass as US and the EU PMs are against it and ITU's secretary general has already said that it won't pass if even one country is against it. So for this proposal to pass, it has to be a unanimous vote.

[Jai604]

What a ???? joke.

A bunch of old farts who don't even know how to google crap from fascist countries want to control the internet?

Gimme a break.

[DarthNinja]

[Special Ed]

Meh UN is pretty much a joke. It's only good accomplishing some basic communications but they have failed to stop genocide far too many times for my liking.

[Hobble]

Hopefully Canada is against this. Voted against Palestinian state, voted against Israel nuclear transparency... Are we going to go 0/3?