UN panel convenes Feb. 2012- regulatory mgt.oversight/structure of Internet at stake?

[Trajan]

Geneva Feb 27. the ‘ diplomats’ will begin hammering out details to be coded into a treaty organized International Telecommunication Union (ITU), that will move mgt. and a large measure of control from ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ) which has basically managed the joint since 1988, they allocate IP addresses, determines traceability of domain name holders (WHOIS) resolves trademark disputes etc. etc….

Has there been some rush of complaints I am not aware of? Why change or fix what aint broken and worse even if it were, why give any authority to manage or control to ITU-UN?

Here are some of the areas they are interested in particularly;

• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering."

• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

source for above...UN and the Internet

All the above and whatever else they can think of will lead only one place- where all top down gov/UN reg’s lead- a deterioration and ‘specialization ‘of standards, affecting everything from anonymity, privacy protection/protocols, ability or inability to wiretap, ability to filter content, how spectrum is used……..to say nothing of the cronyism this will enable.

Why on earth would anyone want to move to a TOP DOWN governance/mgt. style when we have a well oiled well known and effective bottom up collaborative international team effort via engineers, academics, user groups and NGO’s in a "multi-stakeholder" governance model?

And it bears to keep in mind- this treaty only needs a majority vote of the 193 members to pass and once implemented these treaties are not open to ‘vetos’ etc. it is what it is and whatever the simple majority say it is.


Obama has yet to appoint anyone to lead a panel to negotiate this into oblivion….



On a personal note; I remember oh, 5-6 years ago when this first surfaced as a ‘thoughtful idea’ that ‘probably would not go anywhere’, being told quite vociferously that I was a just a UN ‘hater’, or, American firster, I wanted the US to have the last say in internet governance etc. etc ..and when I made the case for the slippery slope, it was ‘partisan’ noise…..well, here we are.

 

[Ropey]

Geneva Feb 27. the ‘ diplomats’ will begin hammering out details to be coded into a treaty organized International Telecommunication Union (ITU), that will move mgt. and a large measure of control from ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ) which has basically managed the joint since 1988, they allocate IP addresses, determines traceability of domain name holders (WHOIS) resolves trademark disputes etc. etc….

Has there been some rush of complaints I am not aware of? Why change or fix what aint broken and worse even if it were, why give any authority to manage or control to ITU-UN?

Here are some of the areas they are interested in particularly;

• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering."

• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

source for above...UN and the Internet

All the above and whatever else they can think of will lead only one place- where all top down gov/UN reg’s lead- a deterioration and ‘specialization ‘of standards, affecting everything from anonymity, privacy protection/protocols, ability or inability to wiretap, ability to filter content, how spectrum is used……..to say nothing of the cronyism this will enable.

Why on earth would anyone want to move to a TOP DOWN governance/mgt. style when we have a well oiled well known and effective bottom up collaborative international team effort via engineers, academics, user groups and NGO’s in a "multi-stakeholder" governance model?

And it bears to keep in mind- this treaty only needs a majority vote of the 193 members to pass and once implemented these treaties are not open to ‘vetos’ etc. it is what it is and whatever the simple majority say it is.


Obama has yet to appoint anyone to lead a panel to negotiate this into oblivion….



On a personal note; I remember oh, 5-6 years ago when this first surfaced as a ‘thoughtful idea’ that ‘probably would not go anywhere’, being told quite vociferously that I was a just a UN ‘hater’, or, American firster, I wanted the US to have the last say in internet governance etc. etc ..and when I made the case for the slippery slope, it was ‘partisan’ noise…..well, here we are.

There is a strong move to globally 'shape' the economics of the Internet and control the throughput. I don't see the UN in longevity anymore. It's clearly not functioning and this is another reason to get out sooner rather than later.

 

[Oddball]

Looks like there's too much of that "freedom" thingy going on over them interwebz for the global control freaks to just leave be.

 

[Ropey]

Looks like there's too much of that "freedom" thingy going on over them interwebz for the global control freaks to just leave be.

America IS the last bastion.

 

[Trajan]

Looks like there's too much of that "freedom" thingy going on over them interwebz for the global control freaks to just leave be.

I have reported this post to Attackwatch





or is it, Truth Front?


Vanyas Validations?


Truth Out,thats it!!

 

[paulitician]

It's always about controlling the People for the Big Government Globalists huh? But why do so many kneel and submit to them?


On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet's flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

Since the Net's inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net's phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.

Read More:
Robert McDowell: The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

 

[Trajan]

merged

 

[paulitician]

Freedom & Liberty terrifies Big Government Globalists. And that's why they're making sure the People don't have very much of it. More people need to start standing up to them. They're slowly but steadily taking the Peoples' Freedoms away. There needs to be more outrage, or there is no hope.