Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Nov 2005 18:50 UTC
Internet & Networking If a certain US senator and a certain EU commissioner are to be believed, the internet is five days away from total collapse as governments are finally forced into a corner and told to agree on a framework for future Internet governance. Both are wrong, but there is a very real risk that an enormous political argument resulting in lifelong ill-will centred around the internet could developed unchecked at the WSIS Summit. The fact that it hasn’t already is effectively down to one man: Mr Khan. He was chosen as chair of Sub-Committee A during the WSIS process, and his remit includes all the most difficult and contentious elements - not just internet governance but also how the world will deal with issues such as spam and cybercrime.
Thread beginning with comment 60150
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tummy
Member since:
2005-09-14

You think an organisation that puts Sudan in charge of human rights is the kind of international governmental body that should be governing the internet?

fascinating...

Reply Parent Score: 3

OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

Exactly! The UN has already proven to be extremely corrupted. Oil for Food anyone?

I had no clue what the UN would do, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that they would do two things:
1. Try to impose taxes on emails.
2. Setup censorship on the Internet.

For those that think the UN should have control, why? How should it be run differently? Also, do you believe the UN should take control over all of the oil fields, since the world relies on oil so heavily as well?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"The UN has already proven to be extremely corrupted."

No the UN as proven to be the most uncorrupted democracy in existance , if one take everything they did since there creations entirely , the UN is not without flaw and not without problem , but the biggest road Block for UN 2.0 is the US.

The UN whas created to stop ALL war at all cost since it whas working so great some Country ( the US mostly ) pushed to make it mostly into a Governemental body.

The UN as no legal power to push taxes on anyone , they cant even make the US pay there own share of what they said they would pay for the UN to be able to operate properly.

"I think it would be reasonable to assume that they would do two things: "

No , its not reasonnable to assume that they would do what scared little US cowards say they would and no you do not think.

"For those that think the UN should have control, why?"

Because the UN is already whats controlling all global communication now.

"How should it be run differently?"

Make it possible for illegal things to be stopped globally as opposed to only stopped for a few seconds.

"Also, do you believe the UN should take control over all of the oil fields"

as Opposed to the US ? Hell yes !

"since the world relies on oil so heavily as well?"

The UN unlike the US work for everyone that include the people in the US as opposed to working to make everyone else suffer at the privilege of only some US people.

Reply Parent Score: 4

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Sudan is hardly in charge - they are 1 of 53 member states, and a lot of them are just as bad. Cuba, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia... None of the 15 African states should be very proud about their human rights records. If anyone is in charge it would be Indonesia, the current chair.

The US itself is hardly a champion of human rights. Torturing prisoners and imprisoning people for years without any trials... Even if you agree with these policies, it is hard to call them good for human rights.

To see all 53 states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNCHR

Reply Parent Score: 3

protagonist Member since:
2005-07-06

"The US itself is hardly a champion of human rights. Torturing prisoners and imprisoning people for years without any trials... Even if you agree with these policies, it is hard to call them good for human rights. "

You ever been to war?

Reply Parent Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Who should they put in charge of the human rights council? The US? HA HA HA HA HA.. I guess you have been ignoring Dick Cheny's little opinion on torture, and the leaked report about the secret US prisons over seas, and Lindsey Graham's amendment to the defense appropriations bill that will remove any ambiguity of the habius statues about prisoners held on foreign soil.

The US is no better than the Sudan on Human Rights.. they just do their business more publicly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"You think an organisation that puts Sudan in charge of human rights is the kind of international governmental body that should be governing the internet? "

You think a government that has places like Guantanamo Bay should be governing the internet?

Reply Parent Score: 1

EliGottlieb Member since:
2005-10-30

You're confusing incompetance (the UN) with malice (USA).

Reply Parent Score: 1