Comments on: The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace
The United Nations' Houlin Zhao says the organization should be given more influence over the Internet.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Disease-detecting device vibrates with potential
December 2, 2009 5:21 PM PST
- Wicked online cash grab out of Tiger Woods scandal
December 2, 2009 4:37 PM PST
- Wireless operators stop whining about ads
December 2, 2009 4:14 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
China has absorbed and digested trillions of dollars worth of spending, and hundreds of billions in R & D, from the US and other Western nations, and never stopped to either pay, or to even say "thank you", even for the zero interest loans it still receives as a "developing" country. This is almost as true about India. The ITU-T - and Chinese diplomatic - assault on ICANN is about harming the US, and positioning copied Chinese and Indian "technology standards" to be officially certified so that more Asian hardware and software can be sold that "meets standards".
If you believe that the US should be insulted and hindered, so that China can be its rival, and its military adversary, then you should support the ITU's claim to somehow speak for humanity.
If you think that the current Internet should be free of even the possibility that it will become a hostage to the whims of one or more governments that simply want to harm or hinder the US, then you should oppose this initiative.
A simple solution to the ITU power grab is to ask ALL candidates to replace Dr. Zhou when his term of office ends in less than two years to come up with written proposals - a book is about the right level of substance - that include vision and justification. That way the next vote for the head of the ITU, and of the ITU-T, can be have something roughly approaching a mandate. Dr. Zhou is a wonderful man, someone that I like and respect, but this platform was not the one that he presented when he offered himself as a candidate for election, and, to the best of my knowledge, not one author has ever made a compelling case that China's treatment of its country acquisitions nor its treatment of Internet users is a model superior to the current system. Let candidates with Internet expertise and credentials from countries that were net givers (vs. net takers, or free riders) of Internet technology run for office on transparent platforms in two years, and let the UN prove can offer something of value to the world that is even a tiny fraction of the value of all the technology that the US has given freely and unselfconsciously, not only to its Coalition Partners, but also to its rivals, and millions (billions?) of people who would find it easier to imagine killing an American than thanking them for giving them so many technological and social innovations.
China has absorbed and digested trillions of dollars worth of spending, and hundreds of billions in R & D, from the US and other Western nations, and never stopped to either pay, or to even say "thank you", even for the zero interest loans it still receives as a "developing" country. This is almost as true about India. The ITU-T - and Chinese diplomatic - assault on ICANN is about harming the US, and positioning copied Chinese and Indian "technology standards" to be officially certified so that more Asian hardware and software can be sold that "meets standards".
If you believe that the US should be insulted and hindered, so that China can be its rival, and its military adversary, then you should support the ITU's claim to somehow speak for humanity.
If you think that the current Internet should be free of even the possibility that it will become a hostage to the whims of one or more governments that simply want to harm or hinder the US, then you should oppose this initiative.
A simple solution to the ITU power grab is to ask ALL candidates to replace Dr. Zhou when his term of office ends in less than two years to come up with written proposals - a book is about the right level of substance - that include vision and justification. That way the next vote for the head of the ITU, and of the ITU-T, can be have something roughly approaching a mandate. Dr. Zhou is a wonderful man, someone that I like and respect, but this platform was not the one that he presented when he offered himself as a candidate for election, and, to the best of my knowledge, not one author has ever made a compelling case that China's treatment of its country acquisitions nor its treatment of Internet users is a model superior to the current system. Let candidates with Internet expertise and credentials from countries that were net givers (vs. net takers, or free riders) of Internet technology run for office on transparent platforms in two years, and let the UN prove can offer something of value to the world that is even a tiny fraction of the value of all the technology that the US has given freely and unselfconsciously, not only to its Coalition Partners, but also to its rivals, and millions (billions?) of people who would find it easier to imagine killing an American than thanking them for giving them so many technological and social innovations.
When the Internet began, it was called ARPANET and it was based on the concept of packet switching, as opposed to circuit switching like telephone systems. Also, the idea was to create a 'de-centralized' network that could not be destroyed by dropping a bomb on a mainframe computer, making the ARPANET indestructible. De-centralization also created a network that CANNOT BE REGULATED except by the masses who use the network.
Today the Internet is regulated more by flaming than by any government intervention.
Some lessons:
- media companies have been trying to stop the phenomenon of P2P file sharing. They can never stop people from sharing these files, because of the structure of the Internet. If media companies succeeds in shutting down one P2P program, people simply begin another one with a different name with a new host. A P2P file sharing utility is very easy for most programmers to create (as little as 15 lines of code).
- Canada's CRTC wanted to do the same thing by regulating the Internet for Canadians back in the 1990's. They failed and have never tried again.
- phone companies have been trying to prevent the use of VOIP or Voice Over Internet Protocol for years. Instead, they have been forced to embrace VOIP, or face major new competition.
- China is trying to restrict access to certain web sites they feel are inappropriate, but they've only managed to create a black market Internet which profits criminals.
What we need is a new form of governance to regulate the Internet. As mentioned above, the masses are best at regulating the Internet. So we need to form a Democratic Meritocracy style of governance (let's call it Internet Government (IG) for now), where the most talented people in each field rise to the top in the IG. People who rise to the top do so, not of their own doing, but by being 'selected', not 'elected' for the position.
Linux is governed by a Meritocracy system with open-source software products. Today, they've become the biggest threat to companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia and others who operate in dictatorial, closed-source, non-sharing environments. They wonder, how do we compete with concepts, like open-source or Meritocracy? You don't, because it's all new territory with new concepts.
We can use the Internet to have people vote for a 'Selection Committee'. The Selection Committee will determine who is the most qualified for each field and will offer that person the job. If they accept, then they serve a term and submit their record of success in the IG as reasons to be 're-selected'. If they didn't do very well, they are replaced by someone more qualified.
Governing anything that is de-centralized requires governance that is de-centralized, or it doesn't stand a chance of success.
This doesn't mean we don't need, ITU, ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the World Wide Web Consortium and others to help regulate the Internet - we do. It only means that they should not be THE regulators. These organizations have a great deal to offer in expertise and experience. With their help the Democratic Meritocracy of the IG could work.
Thanks for reading this.
I agree with you a decentralized goberment and meritocracy resembles open source community model.
And It applies to more than only the tech scenario... It could be applied to many things including goberning countries, states, towns.
Relying on the most capable people based on proved experiences and results should be the way to go.
Maybe even the UN could apply that way of working to its own internal issues. Instead of trying to impose a model that the entire world knows it haven't worked.
When the Internet began, it was called ARPANET and it was based on the concept of packet switching, as opposed to circuit switching like telephone systems. Also, the idea was to create a 'de-centralized' network that could not be destroyed by dropping a bomb on a mainframe computer, making the ARPANET indestructible. De-centralization also created a network that CANNOT BE REGULATED except by the masses who use the network.
Today the Internet is regulated more by flaming than by any government intervention.
Some lessons:
- media companies have been trying to stop the phenomenon of P2P file sharing. They can never stop people from sharing these files, because of the structure of the Internet. If media companies succeeds in shutting down one P2P program, people simply begin another one with a different name with a new host. A P2P file sharing utility is very easy for most programmers to create (as little as 15 lines of code).
- Canada's CRTC wanted to do the same thing by regulating the Internet for Canadians back in the 1990's. They failed and have never tried again.
- phone companies have been trying to prevent the use of VOIP or Voice Over Internet Protocol for years. Instead, they have been forced to embrace VOIP, or face major new competition.
- China is trying to restrict access to certain web sites they feel are inappropriate, but they've only managed to create a black market Internet which profits criminals.
What we need is a new form of governance to regulate the Internet. As mentioned above, the masses are best at regulating the Internet. So we need to form a Democratic Meritocracy style of governance (let's call it Internet Government (IG) for now), where the most talented people in each field rise to the top in the IG. People who rise to the top do so, not of their own doing, but by being 'selected', not 'elected' for the position.
Linux is governed by a Meritocracy system with open-source software products. Today, they've become the biggest threat to companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia and others who operate in dictatorial, closed-source, non-sharing environments. They wonder, how do we compete with concepts, like open-source or Meritocracy? You don't, because it's all new territory with new concepts.
We can use the Internet to have people vote for a 'Selection Committee'. The Selection Committee will determine who is the most qualified for each field and will offer that person the job. If they accept, then they serve a term and submit their record of success in the IG as reasons to be 're-selected'. If they didn't do very well, they are replaced by someone more qualified.
Governing anything that is de-centralized requires governance that is de-centralized, or it doesn't stand a chance of success.
This doesn't mean we don't need, ITU, ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the World Wide Web Consortium and others to help regulate the Internet - we do. It only means that they should not be THE regulators. These organizations have a great deal to offer in expertise and experience. With their help the Democratic Meritocracy of the IG could work.
Thanks for reading this.
I agree with you a decentralized goberment and meritocracy resembles open source community model.
And It applies to more than only the tech scenario... It could be applied to many things including goberning countries, states, towns.
Relying on the most capable people based on proved experiences and results should be the way to go.
Maybe even the UN could apply that way of working to its own internal issues. Instead of trying to impose a model that the entire world knows it haven't worked.
this story consist of knee-jerk responses to the term "UN" in the
usual ways the UN is presented in the U.S. media (rather than
based on any actual knowledge of how they work. I might just as
easily say that having root server operations effectively open to
control by a U.S. government department is a mistake given that
administration's proven incompetence. (Oil for food the most
significant scandal here? What about Weapons of Mass
Destruction?) But the reality is that the ITU, while a UN body, is
not "the UN" and it'd be nice if the editors of a supposedly
serious journalism site could keep the discussion focussed on
what's actually happening.
I think the bottom line is that the ITU won't get to "control the
internet", and that's a good thing. But I also think Houlin Zhao is
correct that there will be changes to the governance structure
that establishes ICANN through a contract with the U.S.
government, as this is a non-transparent process clearly at odds
with the aspirations of the "Internet" to be a global medium.
More interesting is what happens if the kind of attitude reflected
in comments here (summarized as "We invented the Internet,
there's nothing wrong with our mates in ICANN, and the U.N.
can eat my shorts") continues to be promoted at the
international level. There would be a good incentive for
establishment of alternative domain systems (particularly in
languages other than English) and root servers. i.e. a US Internet
coordinating system, and a "rest-of-the-world" one. While most
U.S. tech people express horror that this would "break the global
internet", the Internet is not really global while it's being
governed under its current structure. And in any case, there is
already widespread de-peering happening even within countries
like New Zealand. The network of Intranets is already emerging
is the structure for global networks.
So here's a question for you: In a game of chicken between (say)
a South&South-East Asian controlled domain name system, and
a US/UK/Japan one, who will win? My feeling is that China would
feel that it could survive without being able to access the ICANN
internet, but it would be *very* bad news for the US & UK
economies if their multinationals are not able to easily access
the Chinese market.
Of course, the current US administration has shown it is more
interested in control than doing what is economically sensible,
so I don't see this one ending well. Nothing like the sound of
empires gently crumbling in the morning...
and disaster aid, it works adequately well. But in anything
involving international disagreements, the UN is a total wimp.
Knee Jerk reaction?....no, just simple observation.
The UN is not able to achieve even it's most basic goals in
international diplomacy. Koffe Annan is a walking joke, and his
son is a thief. But that works at the UN.
Anyone can post on these TalkBack sections of News.com. They're intentionally unmoderated. If you wish to try to correct what you perceive to be misunderstandings, I'd encourage you to do so instead of asking the authorities to step in.
The biggest problem is that you'd take a free medium , and turn it over to control of governments who consider free speech "merely a political issue". I think it's safe to say most take free speech seriously. Do you? China & Iran certainly don't, and they're behind this 100%, which should tell you enough right there.
btw, there'll never be a "game of chicken", and even if there were several major internets, no country, short of a WW3/4 type scenario would block theirs while there's money to be made.
Good day
this story consist of knee-jerk responses to the term "UN" in the
usual ways the UN is presented in the U.S. media (rather than
based on any actual knowledge of how they work. I might just as
easily say that having root server operations effectively open to
control by a U.S. government department is a mistake given that
administration's proven incompetence. (Oil for food the most
significant scandal here? What about Weapons of Mass
Destruction?) But the reality is that the ITU, while a UN body, is
not "the UN" and it'd be nice if the editors of a supposedly
serious journalism site could keep the discussion focussed on
what's actually happening.
I think the bottom line is that the ITU won't get to "control the
internet", and that's a good thing. But I also think Houlin Zhao is
correct that there will be changes to the governance structure
that establishes ICANN through a contract with the U.S.
government, as this is a non-transparent process clearly at odds
with the aspirations of the "Internet" to be a global medium.
More interesting is what happens if the kind of attitude reflected
in comments here (summarized as "We invented the Internet,
there's nothing wrong with our mates in ICANN, and the U.N.
can eat my shorts") continues to be promoted at the
international level. There would be a good incentive for
establishment of alternative domain systems (particularly in
languages other than English) and root servers. i.e. a US Internet
coordinating system, and a "rest-of-the-world" one. While most
U.S. tech people express horror that this would "break the global
internet", the Internet is not really global while it's being
governed under its current structure. And in any case, there is
already widespread de-peering happening even within countries
like New Zealand. The network of Intranets is already emerging
is the structure for global networks.
So here's a question for you: In a game of chicken between (say)
a South&South-East Asian controlled domain name system, and
a US/UK/Japan one, who will win? My feeling is that China would
feel that it could survive without being able to access the ICANN
internet, but it would be *very* bad news for the US & UK
economies if their multinationals are not able to easily access
the Chinese market.
Of course, the current US administration has shown it is more
interested in control than doing what is economically sensible,
so I don't see this one ending well. Nothing like the sound of
empires gently crumbling in the morning...
and disaster aid, it works adequately well. But in anything
involving international disagreements, the UN is a total wimp.
Knee Jerk reaction?....no, just simple observation.
The UN is not able to achieve even it's most basic goals in
international diplomacy. Koffe Annan is a walking joke, and his
son is a thief. But that works at the UN.
Anyone can post on these TalkBack sections of News.com. They're intentionally unmoderated. If you wish to try to correct what you perceive to be misunderstandings, I'd encourage you to do so instead of asking the authorities to step in.
The biggest problem is that you'd take a free medium , and turn it over to control of governments who consider free speech "merely a political issue". I think it's safe to say most take free speech seriously. Do you? China & Iran certainly don't, and they're behind this 100%, which should tell you enough right there.
btw, there'll never be a "game of chicken", and even if there were several major internets, no country, short of a WW3/4 type scenario would block theirs while there's money to be made.
Good day
Why trying to make an attempt to control over Internet users who just sit on their chairs and don't do anything? They are far different and alien to the real-life law enforcers, policemen, soldiers, lawyers, politicans, drug-smuggling gangs, violent gangs, agents, plotters, cabals, and others who are delivering lies, forces, mind controls, bullying/killing/intimidating techniques, harassment, violence, and orders to keep their livehoods going.
Probably, it will never be Internet goverance in future. Internet goverance installed for what purpose? To be more specific. Information suppressing deliberately used to continually keep feeding into those cheaters' securities? Internet goverance can't sort and manage all of the trillion documents. Otherwise, anyone who is anxiously discussing about a subject is exposing himself to be on the Internet record. Someone can print a document and put it in a safe place. So, what does a government think? They must be very careful about what to handle their public discussion and announcement. They have to regret that because anyone, who is using Internet, can keep tracks on their daily performances and jobs paid by taxpayers.
Obviously, there are a lot of leaders who are not doing their jobs at all and miserly failing to meet taxpayers' expection and hope. They are nothing but secretive cabals who are serving themselves by taking a lot of the average people's money and blood.
Because of the 9/11 plot and Iraq war, it is now too late for the governments to eagerly participate in role playing. Internet, itself, turned out to be unexpectedly created to unite the people from all over the world far surpassing marketing and exchanging-idea modes. Now, it is exploitable as some bloggers realize in their creation of their political bashing paradises.
U.N. should stop whining and tinkering over Internet. It better starts helping U.S. government cleaning up its Middle East mess. Criticizing Mexico and U.S. government for too many illegal immigrants in U.S is strongly recommended. That is not all, scolding at Mexico for its highly corrupted economic policy which criminally and illegally persuaded millions of Mexicans to flee at their own risks is considered a big plus.
It looks like Internet is veering the globalizing governments to become the world peacemaker. Internet is nothing than a body of million readers who own, borrow, and use computers as some, if not all, pay the monthly/annual subscriptions for their Internet access. It will be free from humans' help anytime, as soon as, the cost of computers and host servicing/providing/maintaining hit rock-bottom attributing to potential availability of artificial intelligence which tends to advance.
Well, we can't listen to, read about, worship over, live on, and follow the famous people (politicans, athletes, famous writers, directors, actors/actresses, popes, etc.) forever. We need to move on, lead our ordinary lives, and take care of ourselves - in order to promote our own genuine happiness. Certainly, it was the government's work and implication which gave birth to Internet's existence - at everyone's (taxpayers') expense, but sorry to realize that Internet's function was becoming not what the governments hoped for. Attention is now slowly diverting from the famous leaders and their propaganda, which is paid by us, onto Internet.
Unfortunately, Internet is here to stay, regardless if it is regulated or not. Althought that China already developed its reputation for its rigid manipulation on Internet censorship, I am skeptical that it could stay that way forever. It has to go sometime.
I think that a single blogger's website is, each, far more interesting and appreciated than all of arousal porn websites combined. These non-porn websites make a very terrific educating tool. Many individuals are greatly benefitted and seeing the upside down world much better because of the countless and controversial posts.
It is time for many officials to make major adjustable changes in their lives, rather than pulling billions of us into their selfish worlds which overly depend on nuclear harassment/war-related racketeering to boost their securities exclusively, far apart from ours. Only a very, very tiny number of prominent and powerful people, not necessarily us the whole world, who seek for a solution in order to keep their self-esteems sailing and flying as kites and hand-made sailboats which can stop anytime when a Mother-Nature wind can no longer provide its own Earth windmaking force forever and infinitely. It is time for those children to pick up their toys and go to their houses because a beautiful sunset's light is gently dimming.
Why trying to make an attempt to control over Internet users who just sit on their chairs and don't do anything? They are far different and alien to the real-life law enforcers, policemen, soldiers, lawyers, politicans, drug-smuggling gangs, violent gangs, agents, plotters, cabals, and others who are delivering lies, forces, mind controls, bullying/killing/intimidating techniques, harassment, violence, and orders to keep their livehoods going.
Probably, it will never be Internet goverance in future. Internet goverance installed for what purpose? To be more specific. Information suppressing deliberately used to continually keep feeding into those cheaters' securities? Internet goverance can't sort and manage all of the trillion documents. Otherwise, anyone who is anxiously discussing about a subject is exposing himself to be on the Internet record. Someone can print a document and put it in a safe place. So, what does a government think? They must be very careful about what to handle their public discussion and announcement. They have to regret that because anyone, who is using Internet, can keep tracks on their daily performances and jobs paid by taxpayers.
Obviously, there are a lot of leaders who are not doing their jobs at all and miserly failing to meet taxpayers' expection and hope. They are nothing but secretive cabals who are serving themselves by taking a lot of the average people's money and blood.
Because of the 9/11 plot and Iraq war, it is now too late for the governments to eagerly participate in role playing. Internet, itself, turned out to be unexpectedly created to unite the people from all over the world far surpassing marketing and exchanging-idea modes. Now, it is exploitable as some bloggers realize in their creation of their political bashing paradises.
U.N. should stop whining and tinkering over Internet. It better starts helping U.S. government cleaning up its Middle East mess. Criticizing Mexico and U.S. government for too many illegal immigrants in U.S is strongly recommended. That is not all, scolding at Mexico for its highly corrupted economic policy which criminally and illegally persuaded millions of Mexicans to flee at their own risks is considered a big plus.
It looks like Internet is veering the globalizing governments to become the world peacemaker. Internet is nothing than a body of million readers who own, borrow, and use computers as some, if not all, pay the monthly/annual subscriptions for their Internet access. It will be free from humans' help anytime, as soon as, the cost of computers and host servicing/providing/maintaining hit rock-bottom attributing to potential availability of artificial intelligence which tends to advance.
Well, we can't listen to, read about, worship over, live on, and follow the famous people (politicans, athletes, famous writers, directors, actors/actresses, popes, etc.) forever. We need to move on, lead our ordinary lives, and take care of ourselves - in order to promote our own genuine happiness. Certainly, it was the government's work and implication which gave birth to Internet's existence - at everyone's (taxpayers') expense, but sorry to realize that Internet's function was becoming not what the governments hoped for. Attention is now slowly diverting from the famous leaders and their propaganda, which is paid by us, onto Internet.
Unfortunately, Internet is here to stay, regardless if it is regulated or not. Althought that China already developed its reputation for its rigid manipulation on Internet censorship, I am skeptical that it could stay that way forever. It has to go sometime.
I think that a single blogger's website is, each, far more interesting and appreciated than all of arousal porn websites combined. These non-porn websites make a very terrific educating tool. Many individuals are greatly benefitted and seeing the upside down world much better because of the countless and controversial posts.
It is time for many officials to make major adjustable changes in their lives, rather than pulling billions of us into their selfish worlds which overly depend on nuclear harassment/war-related racketeering to boost their securities exclusively, far apart from ours. Only a very, very tiny number of prominent and powerful people, not necessarily us the whole world, who seek for a solution in order to keep their self-esteems sailing and flying as kites and hand-made sailboats which can stop anytime when a Mother-Nature wind can no longer provide its own Earth windmaking force forever and infinitely. It is time for those children to pick up their toys and go to their houses because a beautiful sunset's light is gently dimming.
UN control will end the internet as we know it.
UN control will end the internet as we know it.
This is as bad an idea as has ever been thought of. Add a stifling beauracracy to a fast moving technology, and the internet will never evolve as it should.
It's obvious fixing spam/gambling/porn problems is cover talk. Other than lacking the ability to control/censor the internet the way they'd like, what exactly is so wrong with the way it is now?
The ITU should ****.
This is as bad an idea as has ever been thought of. Add a stifling beauracracy to a fast moving technology, and the internet will never evolve as it should.
It's obvious fixing spam/gambling/porn problems is cover talk. Other than lacking the ability to control/censor the internet the way they'd like, what exactly is so wrong with the way it is now?
The ITU should ****.
an alternative to what became the Internet.
They lost. They need to go away.
Thank you.
an alternative to what became the Internet.
They lost. They need to go away.
Thank you.
- Hi, I'm Kofi And I'm Here To Help
- by Stating March 30, 2005 9:43 AM PST
- Give me a blank check for starters and let me do my stuff. Next year I will ask the first world countries, particulalry the U.S. for even more, because of course whatever they contribute is never enough, and they are shirking their responsibility. Oh, don't worry about financial controls, everyone here is honest.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (60 Comments)