Comments on: Should the United Nations run the Internet?

That was the topic du jour during a U.N. conference on the future of cyberspace, a gathering CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh notes bordered on the surreal.

[stevezd]

Should the United Nations run the Internet?

Stay out of my Home (and my life). The Internet is a link to my home, and one of my connections to the (whole) world. My take is: keep your nose out of my buisness - even thought I have nothing to hide. I want to (freely) communicate with the rest of the world - I do not need another faceless, fear filled person, telling me how to use my internet connection. If the UN needs something to do - How about doing something about the Hungry and homeless prople all over the world? How about doing something to stop wars and terrorism?
...just my take,
...Steve

[intexx]

The UN isn't what you might think it is

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd36.htm

Preaching to the choir

OK, so having the UN run the Internet would be a step
backwards, not forwards. But ex-Wired reporters
opinionating on an Internet news site in English to
cyberlibertarian readers is preaching to the choir -- save
your bits.

The threat isn't going to go away. What would not be a
waste of breath would be to come up with tactics to block a
UN hostile takeover (just say "no") or some way to address
the real concerns of some fraction of those backing the
UN's power grab so that the movement dissipates.

What paranoia

ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization
IFC, International Finance Corporation
IMO, International Maritime Organization
ITU, Internationan Telecommunications Union
UPU, Universal Postal Union
WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization
WMO, World Meteorological Organization

Have you ever heard about these organisations?
They are all very successful in their fields,
and much of international commerce and
cooperation would be difficult without them.

Do you know what they all have in common? They
are all autonomous bodies of the United Nations.
Nearly all international commerce is regulated
through UN-setup organizations, and they do it
really well too. Note the word "autonomous".
What that means is that the UN general assembly
don't have a word in their operation. No, Syria
just doesn't have much of a say in anything
here.

I am _so_ tired of right wing americans' talk of
the black helicopters of the UN. You have
totally misunderstood what the UN even _is_.
There are certain areas of international trade
and communications that every country in the
world needs to agree on. The internet is of
cource one of them, just like the postal
service, the phone companies, shipping, banking,
etc., etc.

To me it seems you just can't handle giving over
control to a foreigner (Imaging the internet
being led by a Frenchman? Disaster!).

Moral High Ground?

"All this raises the question whether these are nations that
should decide the rules for a worldwide Internet."

This makes me laugh... in light of the U.S.'s illegal war, and
breaking of the Geneva conventions through torture and
detentions... maybe the rest of the world should raise the same
question.

js

[declan00]

a fair point...

It's a fair point. You're correct to point out the Bush administration's "anti-terrorism" abuses of civil liberties (I've written about some of them here as well).

But fortunately, the U.S. has antibodies that are at work to protect its citizens, and the reason the Bush administration's misdeeds are so notable is that such abuses here have been not as bad as in other countries.

And no matter how you look at it, we're still a heck of a lot more free than in Cuba, Iran, etc.

China -- fourth largest national Internet resource base

"China has been allocated about 45 million global Internet
addresses, less than the combined total of Stanford University
and IBM. That's hardly reasonable nowadays."

Not reasonable, maybe, but also completely misleading and
irrelevant. If IPv4 address space were in short supply, things
might be otherwise -- but they aren't! If a time comes when they
become scarce, say in 10-20 years, *everything* will be
different.

In the mean time, the important measure is not what has been
"allocated" through administrative processes, but rather what is
"routed" or "in production" -- and therefore represents actual
user access or online content. On this measure, China was
already the fourth largest network economy by the end of 2003,
behind only the US, Japan, and Germany, and ahead of Australia,
the UK, Canada, South Korea, etc., etc.

When one of China's few (but huge) ISPs need more IP addresses,
they are always available in quantities limited only by common
sense through a transparent application processs from APNIC,
the Australia-based Regional Internet Registry for all of Asia.
However, global demand for public, routed IP addresses is
largely driven by provider diversity -- i.e., by the establishment
of new ISPs and network-operating online content providers.
Unless/until Chinese authorities actually permit the emergence
of an independent ISP sector (all but forbidden today), China will
probably continue to lag behind less populous but more ISP-
friendly countries in the area of "Internet production" (i.e., the
accumulation of Internet users and online content that are
marked by publicly visible IP addresses).

PS: When these addresses were allocated, Stanford *had*
more Internet users than China. Today, Stanford routes less than
one-half million IP addresses, compared to China's 37+ million.
The vast majority of IBM's IP address allocation supported the
very large IBM Global Netserk Services division, which also
supported more global users and content than China until fairly
recently. These IP addresses then became part of AT&T's even
larger global ISP service, and now apparently will go to SBC's
rapidly expanding service platform. The press often notes that
Wal-Mart's annual revenues exceed that of many national
economies, so the idea that some global ISPs support more
Internet users than some other national telecom carriers should
not come as a surprise...

TV

[OmniMass]

If they take over the Internet do we get placement in the new directory system for the domain names that we have now?