Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

United Nations to Seek Control of the Internet


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
57 replies to this topic

#31 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

The UN stopped being relevant ever since a large majority of the countries are dictatorships, have censorship and abuses human rights.


I'm surprised it still exists.

#32 Doubled23

Doubled23

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:58 AM

And my friends wonder why i hate the U.N.

#33 Kamero89

Kamero89

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:10 AM

lol I love how a bunch of 60 year olds get to decide this. Either way, it just won't work.

#34 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 06:49 AM

They have been working on the definition of genocide for 60+ years. Don't see this really being an issue because the only thing they agree on is disagreeing.

Edited by Mountain Man, 27 November 2012 - 06:51 AM.

virtus junxit mors non separabit.

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....


#35 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,223 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:12 AM

It's okay, I'm sure Russia or China will just veto it anyways.
At least thats how everything else ends up.

Edited by Jägermeister, 27 November 2012 - 08:13 AM.

Jagermeister.jpg


#36 PlayStation

PlayStation

    XBox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,296 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:17 AM

The UN stopped being relevant ever since a large majority of the countries are dictatorships, have censorship and abuses human rights.


Seems perfect for this plan though eh?
Posted Image


"Real Men" :bigblush:

#37 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,942 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:26 AM

I like how the US is made to look like a hero in this scenario when they've been going after international peer networks for years.

'Sure, we'll let you operate tax-free, but say goodbye to torrents.'


In the end they have to realize that all forms of digital media will remain free and open, whether they like it or not.
Posted Image

#38 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:24 PM


The UN holds hush-hush talks on regulating the Internet, behind closed doors in a repressive country

The CBC’s web site has a story posted today under the headline, “Should the UN govern the Internet?”


Being somewhat immune to irony, the odds are the folks at CBC meant it as a serious question. Sort of like a thoughtful debate over the issue “Should Canada reintroduce slavery?” Here’s Peter Mansbridge with our non-partisan panel: Chantal, what say you?*

In both instances, of course, there really isn’t a debate to be had. The answer is, “Of course not, are you nuts?” Nonetheless, the United Nations is going ahead with a conference at which it will entertain discussion on a push by some members to shift authority over online activities to its own eager regulators.

I’m not going to pretend I have the technical knowledge to delve into anything to do with the Internet, beyond how to buy stuff, write blogs and find interesting sites. Even though I work on it all day, my personal knowledge would have to be considered somewhere between scant and rudimentary. But so nonsensical is the very premise of the UN debate that even those with the most limited of knowledge can easily grasp its repugnance. Consider, for instance, just a few of the surface facts surrounding the conference:

1. It is being held in secret. As in, a conference that could lead to greater censorship and less access to the web is already so committed to secrecy and government control that it won’t let anyone hear what its members have to say.

2. The country that is “said to be” leading the push for greater control is (wait for it) … Russia. Yes, Russia, that bastion of free speech, which just tossed two members of an all-girl punk band into jail for daring to sing a song judge to be disrespectful of the Orthodox Church and the country’s president, Vladimir Putin. Just by coincidence, a Russian court today ordered that all websites must remove video clips of the group, feline Riot, or face being blocked.

3. The reason Russia is just “said to be” leading the internet crusade is because the whole process is so hush-hush that no one seems quite sure which members are the driving force. The International Telecommunications Union, the outdated UN body that would likely be responsible for regulatory control, has a lengthy membership that includes the usual mix of democratic and decidedly undemocratic countries. As with the UN itself, however, it’s safe to say that the non-democrats heavily outweigh the democrats. Which means that, should the ITU gain more control, it could easily establish a governing panel made up of Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria and China, with Russia in the chair.

4. The conference itself is being held in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, just by coincidence, recently passed a law making it illegal to use the web to criticize the country or its rulers. According to Human Rights Watch:


The UAE president, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, issued Federal Legal Decree No. 5/ 2012 on combating cybercrimes on November 12, 2012. The decree’s vaguely worded provisions provide a legal basis to prosecute and jail people who use information technology to, among other things, criticize senior officials, argue for political reform, or organize unlicensed demonstrations. Although some provisions are aimed at preventing the proliferation of racist or sectarian views online, the principal effect of the law is severe restrictions on the rights to free expression and free association and assembly.
…The new decree addresses information technology, which it classifies as “websites, any information network, or information technology means,” and places severe restrictions on the use of blogs and social networking sites, as well as text messages and emails. Given that it will be applied together with provisions of the criminal code and media law that criminalize alleged insults to the country’s rulers, the cybercrime law marks a significant step backward when it comes to free speech, Human Rights Watch said.


Good place to hold a forum on internet freedom, right? The fact the UN could be so thoroughly lunkheaded in choosing a locale indicates just how sensitive it would be in policing the abuse of basic freedoms.
Google, not surprisingly, is alarmed at the very suggestion of greater UN control and is urging people to sign an online petitionin protest. It notes that only governments are members of the ITU, meaning the web would become 100% government controlled.


“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.”


Proposals being considered, according to The Heritage Foundation, would establish a “right” of national governments to know the exact routing of traffic, and to identify subscribers when delivering traffic; recognize an equal right for every country in the allocation of domain names, in place of the non-political Internet governance system; and urge governments to mandate a “sender pays” system for Internet payments, letting them decide how Internet service is paid for and displacing the system of voluntarily negotiated agreements.

It says that each recommendation would have to be enacted separately in each country, adding: “there is no shortage of authoritarian regimes that would gladly accept UN endorsement of their policies. Moreover, there’s no assurance that non-binding standards won’t later become binding.”

If the UN wasn’t already such a discredited organization, it would be worth noting how inappropriate it is that it should be acting as cover for a group of countries seeking to reduce public freedoms and increase the ability of repressive regimes to add to the power of thought police to control and punish critics for the simple act of expressing a dissenting point of view. Unfortunately, that’s become exactly what we do expect of the UN, which is a sad thing to say for anyone who ever held out hope for it as an means of enhancing freedom, as opposed to extinguishing it.

http://fullcomment.n...essive-country/


Edited by key2thecup, 02 December 2012 - 02:26 PM.

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!

INFJ


#39 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:06 PM


This will never work and company giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc. would be all against this policy, not to mention all the other smaller companies. It will screw up their business and companies won't allow it. The government can't control the internet since it is pretty much impossible to control.

Posted Image


#40 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:13 PM

I like how the US is made to look like a hero in this scenario when they've been going after international peer networks for years.

'Sure, we'll let you operate tax-free, but say goodbye to torrents.'


In the end they have to realize that all forms of digital media will remain free and open, whether they like it or not.



Hackers will find a way, they always do. No one can control the internet, not even UN.

Posted Image


#41 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:21 PM

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.


There won't be a wealth of information if only a small population have access to it. The beauty of internet is the fact that its open and free and connects to billions of people worldwide. There is no point in having internet if the billions of users have now been reduced to millions. There is more information online when billions of people share their knowledge vs. only millions.

Posted Image


#42 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:28 PM

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.


Controlling news media VS. the internet is similar to putting a leash on a puppy vs. a dinosaur. You really think the 2 billion internet users will sit around and do nothing? They can try to stop it but they will fail big time. In fact hackers are trying to launch satellites to outer space in order to circumvent the internet censorship in countries like China and Iran. Not to mention company giants will all be against this. It will never work, but UN can keep having all these pointless closed door meetings with other nations on how to control the internet.

Posted Image


#43 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,942 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:29 PM

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?
Posted Image

#44 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,223 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

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.

Jagermeister.jpg


#45 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,835 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 02 December 2012 - 06:13 PM

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

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#46 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:01 PM

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.

Release The KraKassian
Kassianthe_Krakensm.jpg


#47 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:58 PM

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

:lol:

#48 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,026 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:27 AM

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


This.

The US has tried in the past to bring in stupid legislation to control the internet, it won't work.

Actually Vig don't Kill Dral, I believe him to mafia enough that I have dealt with him myself. 


#49 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:33 PM

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





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

Edited by key2thecup, 03 December 2012 - 10:34 PM.

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!

INFJ


#50 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:54 AM

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


https://www.youtube....ayer_detailpage


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


The American government is against this too.
http://www.theregist...8/internet_tax/





Americans stand against UN internet-tax plan

  • Posted Image
  • Posted Image

Can't find any reds, so socialists will have to do

By Bill RayGet more from this author

Posted in Networks, 8th June 2012 19:25 GMT


Comment The idea of taxing internet traffic has got the twitterverse into a tizzy. Apparently socialists monsters want pay for their carriage, and the UN has cooked up a secret plan to get the money.
Having failed to find evidence that blue-helmeted geeks are poised to invade cyberspace, the US internet community is now up in arms about ITU plans for a mandated tax on web traffic, backed up by evidence laid out by CNET – and ignoring the fact that the evidence doesn't in any way support the claims.


"The European proposal ... would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents", huffs CNET, under a threateningly black version of the UN logo.
But the documents linked to only permit companies operating networks to negotiate with content providers for a contribution to the cost of carriage, with nothing mandated and no governments involved at all.
This is the old debate about net neutrality, with ideological proponents arguing that all content should be delivered equally, while sceptics point out that YouTube (being carried over Google's private 'net) already arrives faster any other video service, making a mockery of the idea that all packets are treated equally.
The UK has a particularly useful example in the form of the BBC's iPlayer video-on-demand service. iPlayer provides TV free to anyone in the UK, the cost being covered by the licence fee Brits pay annually for the right to own a TV set.
But the licence not only covers the creation of content, but also its delivery, and while that is normally in the form of radio transmissions it can now equally be over ADSL wires, and the UK ISPs want to know why they shouldn't get some licence-fee cash.
He who does not pay the piper

That's an extreme example, but the question of whether those who profit from the content should contribute to the cost of delivering it is one of business, not ideology or politics, and the proposal before the ITU simply permits that possibility. The idea that allowing carriers to negotiate deals with content providers will cut developing countries off the internet is fanciful, to say the least.
The first document presented by CNET – a proposal for debate leaked to Wcitleaks – does indeed talk of "respecting the principle of sending party network pays". The second document contains nothing so interesting, but is so long and dull that few people will notice. The principle is mentioned in the context of commercial negotiations between companies, and there's no mention of any mandated payments, but the idea is mooted.
The principle of caller-party-pays is common in telecommunications outside the USA; in Europe we don't pay to receive phone calls and the principle has served developing nations well over the last hundred years or so.
Ergo: a poor country builds a phone network, and collects the termination fees from incoming calls to pay back the investment. CNET points out these fees cost the US $5.4bn in 1996, without mentioning that American almost certainly made more than that on the same basis. But with the internet things are different: a poor country building internet infrastructure must pay foreign peers to carry its traffic.
The meter is running

CNET's assertion that the proposal "would spell an end to the Internet's long-standing, successful design based on unmetered 'peered' traffic" would only be true if peering was indeed unmetered. But when the peers are unbalanced - as foreign surfers consume US content - then money changes hands, and almost all of it flows towards the USA.
So bad is that problem that the ITU's General Secretary has stated that countries which don't speak English will do better in the internet economy as they don't consume so much US content.
ETNO, the body behind the leaked proposals, says it was referring to potential deals on quality of service. Such deals would allow an ISP to negotiate a deal with, say, NetFlix, to provide guaranteed bandwidth to its customers in exchange for a cut of the subscription fee.
Such deals are anathema to the ideologically dogmatic, who feel it necessary to talk of Balkanisation and "a radical re-engineering of the Internet ecosystem and allow[ing] governments to monitor or restrict their citizens' online activities" whenever the UN's telecommunications arm is mentioned.
Quite why the US and the Obama administration feel it necessary to repeatedly attack the ITU in this way is a mystery. Perhaps they really believe the internet is under threat from the UN, or perhaps it's just an election year – and as the internet is still something about which Americans can feel justifiably proud, there's no harm in being cast as its protector. ®




Posted Image


#51 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:58 AM

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."

Posted Image


#52 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:05 AM












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.digitaltr.../#ixzz2E4mc61kO


Posted Image


#53 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:15 AM

EU against UN internet control

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-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

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."


Edited by Pouria, 04 December 2012 - 03:16 AM.

Posted Image


#54 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:22 AM

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.

Posted Image


#55 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:38 PM

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.

RIP LB RR PD


#56 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,835 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:10 PM

:lol:

:rolleyes:

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#57 Special Ed

Special Ed

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,564 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:41 PM

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.

If you like looking at statistics to determine who's better, you're just a casual fan.

2.41 season GAA isn't very impressive. Let's not get into playoffs and his SV%.

Cory Schneider is the next Patrick Roy.


#58 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,713 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:56 PM

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




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.