By John Zaracostas
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

GENEVA — The United States, backed by the European Union, Japan and Canada, has turned back a bid by developing nations to place the Internet under the control of the United Nations or its member governments.

But governments, the private sector and others will be asked to establish a mechanism under U.N. auspices to study the governance of the Internet and make recommendations by 2005.

The move came in preparatory talks for the World Summit on the Information Society, opening Wednesday in Geneva. More than 200 delegates from more than 100 countries attended the talks.

The draft declaration to be issued at the end of the conference Friday also includes strong references to freedom of the press and freedom of information online, despite protests by Vietnam and China, which pushed for more restrictions.

More than 60 heads of state and government and about 12,000 delegates are expected to participate in the conference, aimed at advancing the management and worldwide use of the Internet, especially in meeting needs such as health and education in developing nations.

Major differences remain between developed countries and African countries led by Senegal over the creation of a "global digital solidarity fund." Talks on the issue will continue today and tomorrow.

Ambassador David A. Gross, the chief of the U.S. delegation, applauded the decision on control of the Internet.

"For the first time, we see governments internationally recognizing that which we have talked about for many years — that the Internet is a responsibility not only of governments, but also primarily of the private sector, civil society and others both in the developed and the developing countries," he said.

"So we see now a consensus around the U.S. position, which is that multistakeholders all play an important role in the process."

The nations agreed Saturday to ask U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to set up a working group on Internet governance "in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full participation of governments, the private sector and civil society ... to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, by 2005."

The decision was welcomed by Paul Twomey, president and chief executive officer of the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which coordinates such matters as servers and domain names.

"This has been a victory for the pro-business model," he said. "I think this language is actually very pleasing. ..."

"We think the action plan reflects the sort of argument we've been making for the last months. The partnership of the private sector and civil society has actually helped build the Internet, and we think that's the right sort of partnership for going forward."

Civil society refers to foundations and private organizations independent of government or business.

Senior diplomats familiar with the confidential talks said the compromise stemmed from the firm stance taken by the United States and compromise language offered by Canada and the Swiss chairman of the talks, Marc Furrer. The latter is the director of Switzerland's Federal Office of Communications.

"The Swiss were good at cooling things down," said one diplomat who participated in the talks. "At times, things got quite feisty between China, Brazil, South Africa, the U.S. and others."

Given the dramatic growth of the medium, developing countries have been pushing for a greater role in managing and setting policy for the Internet. But the United States and its supporters have argued that government interference could retard growth of the Internet.

Many developing countries remain skeptical. "We feel as the system gets more complex, we don't want the whole question of Internet governance to be concentrated around the existing ICANN, which is closely linked to the U.S. Department of Commerce," a senior Brazilian diplomat said.

Carlos Achiary, national director of Information Technology Argentina, said many governments are frustrated because the Internet is having a tremendous effect in their countries, but they have no place to submit their requests, complaints or suggestions.

"The key point is, can a government work with an organization like ICANN? How a government deals with ICANN is not the same for the United States as for Mali. There should be an entity where all governments have the same rights somewhere inside the U.N."

But in the end, one Latin American ambassador said, "No one wanted to challenge the real power of the private sector of the rich countries."

Link:
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031208-125717-6682r.htm

It's a good job the rest of the world gets a say in this. If it was China alone we'd all be in some pretty deep doodoo. At least the US and others didn't push for too much control. Although I think they really would like to if they could get away with it.

I feel sorry for the smaller countries. They have to shout to be heard. Hopefully their own talented individuals will steal some of the western worlds thunder and create more open markets instead of big US or European corporations dominating the online marketplace.

It scares me that they are even contemplating some world wide internet government *shivers*.

I believe the internet will have the power eventually to change everything for the better, for everyone, but if a government like China's gets any say in it (so they can supress and control it), the internet will turn into a very bad thing indeed. But if that happened; if there was even a wiff of anyone controlling the information flow I'm wondering how many people would continue to use it. So, fine, it wouldn't do them much good to try to control it, but if no-one uses it you've got no more internet, which would be a complete disaster for everyone except established powers.

Information should be free; and the internet should be free from controls.

Figures the broke@ss countries want the UN to take control, which translates to a global welfare state, as the wealthier countries have to foot the bill.

The bigger crime is these back@ssward countries HATE the civilized Western nations, yet want their food, money, etc. then turn around & p!ss in our eye.
(gets down off political soapbox & appologizes to the keepers of this site for the language)

UN or any governmental control over the Internet is a monumentally BAD idea. Shifting political pressures will have the notoriously short sighted politicians gumming up the works in no time.

You want Big Brother? You got Big Brother. This is another example of allowing an illegal organization, the U.N., to administer rights, rules, and regualtions that supercede the rules of the U.S.

You think I'm paranoid? Then read this:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/12-01-2003/insider/court.htm

Folks, we are moving towards the New World Order. And leading the way are our governement and business sectors, including, but not limited to the RIAA and the MPAA.

If we don't fight back now, in 2004, we will be too far gone to gain back the liberties we once had.

If you think I'm wrong, do the research yourself. Look into how many of our guaranteed human rights have been stripped in the past few years. Look at the globalization of our country. Look at how peacful protestors (in Miami and Seattle) are beaten down by police for Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Look at the way the RIAA, a business, is allowed to disregard the Fourth Amendment in its' witch hunt for scapegoats.

After looking at it all, if you aren't scared for your future, then friends, you are blind or unwilling to admit the truth.

It's up to us. We hold the key to our future. Not Mitch Bainwol. Not George Bush. Not Tony Blair. And certainly not the United Nations. We do. The citizens of the United States of America.

The UN would have controled the internet fairly, but fair is a subjective term. While it would have been almost cencorship-free (the US would probably scream about terrorism occasionally, but who listens to them anymore?) it would also have reflected the american-european viewpoint (worship of the almighty dollar or euro and so the new internet laws would have included stricted copyright controls.

The internet need government control, WHY?!

Honestly, no New World Order stuff.

At this point in time, until th Internet becomes more widespread in developing countries, it probably isn't necessary that the UN have control over the Internet. Developing countries are wasting their time with this. We need to figure out a plan that will get massive amounts of our aid directly to the peoples of developing countries, not their leaders, because they take it for themselves. Hard to trust those governments about the Internet when they squander their grant money.

:-:~ Phantom

Control and Internet do not belong in the same sentence, no matter how good the intentions.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

Our governments get us killed out in wars...rob of us of our hard earned money..take away our freedoms every day. Other countries like China are far worse than us.

And we should even contemplate this because of why exactly??

F*ck the other countries...Im not having my freedoms on the internet rescinded in any way just to appease some backward culture..our own government is f*cked up as it is. Look at Clinton and how he sold our jobs for cheap labor.

exactly stupid democrats want us to be socialists paying for everything thing in the whole world for all the lazy ppl that wont get a job and earn it themselves

I'm not exactly sure if this was a good thing or not. Could be I suppose. I'm no advocate for control mechanisms of course. But we all know someone else will take a stab at it. Did the lesser of the evils just get shot down or did the worse.....

hbkfan - You're right. It is happening and people won't acknowledge it.

"exactly stupid democrats want us to be socialists paying for everything thing in the whole world for all the lazy ppl that wont get a job and earn it themselves"

that is the dumbest sh*t i've heard here

There is no way in hell I will allow any country or organization control over the internet. I know that there already is some control, but no way will I let the UN get control just because some poor a$$ countrys, who can't even afford food, want to control the internet. How the internet works right now is how it should stay. The internet should stay decentralized.

There is only one thing I would support the UN in right now. More IP's. the current amount of IP's isn't enough, if we had more, then at least we wouldn't have to worry about that.

F*** China, they already have enough control over there own damn people.

Why are governments so power hungry?

Same reason why the RIAA is.

The only thing getting in their way is US.

Strength in numbers my friend.

"Exactly stupid democrats want us to be socialists paying for everything thing in the whole world for all the lazy ppl that wont get a job and earn it themselves"

Darkened03, I don't know why I even bother to put up with crap like this. Democrats are not socialists and don't even come close to what socialism is about. You want to know what socialism is? Take a trip to Scandinavia and you will see socialism in action.

Coincidentally, you'll also see that just about everyone in those countries is well off. That doesn't mean I am an advocate of socialism; in fact, I favor capitalism because I am an entrepreneur.

By the way, there is also a difference between "communism" and "socialism". Communism is total government control over the economy- and Democrats don't advocate that, no matter how much you think they do.

Socialism is partial government control. Corporations are owned by the government, but there are still plenty of small businesses.

Small businesses, by the way, prop up the US economy. We ourselves also are not pure capitalist. We have what is called a mixed-market economy. If we didn't have even this, there might be hundreds more Enrons and WorldComs.

Stop blaming the Democratic Party for what you see as an economic problem. Democrats do want people to work hard and they certainly don't want to dole out welfare if the people on the recieving end have a job available.

You should, instead, worry about the RIAA, which is stunning people with subpoenas and taking away our rights. Republicans are abridging your rights. And, don't forget- The Patriot Act. Concieved by Republicans, passed with their overwhelming support. Liberal democrats are the only ones who oppose the Patriot Act.

I'm in favor of protecting our rights and freedoms without simply blanketing the blame on one group (except the RIAA, of course). I will point out, however, that the right is not immune to criticism.

:-:~ Phantom

Not all democrats are socialist there are some in the party who are socialist. Dean is very close to being one,however this article isn't about democrats or repulicans its about the UN.

Personally I think the UN is a failure on some of the things it has tried to do like world peace for example. Anaan is one of the worst presidents of the UN ever and they gave him Nobel Peace prize, thats just as asinine as giving Arafat the Peace prize.

The thing I am tired of is the UN almost always trying to undermine the united states. I got an idea how about the US stops paying the 83-87 percent of the UN budget. I don't remember the exact number. Let the other member countries pay that range and we'll pay their 13-17 percent.

Also no one party has control over what happens to the economy nor does the president. Also not all republicans are for the patriot act.

I am a registered republican but I suppport which issue I feel is right be it republican or democrat.

republicans even

If you want a dark glimpse of the world everyone should play Deus Ex Invisible war that is a truly frightening look at the future.

"Government control" LOL!! Folks, they can't even pave f*ckin roads! Relax. They're inept, incompetant and they really don't care. Just as long as they get some kind of budget increase. Look at 9/11. I rest my case.

Please everyone, let's use the proper, correct spellings. Demo-craps. Re-puke-icans. Thanks.

OMFG. Why does the government feel it has to control EVERYTHING. I don't want the government controlling what's in my TV (ie: HDTV laws). Last time I checked the internet was public domain. Hehe and now the government is going to go back up and claim the moon. Why is the world run by greedy ignorant bastards who feel they have to control everything? What happened to freedom? I can't even think freely anymore much less live freely.

And exactly how and what are they going to control about it???

The best thing about the internet is that it is people's playground of freedom...at least it once was.

Boycott the government...oh...wait. :-S

"Republicans are abridging your rights. And, don't forget- The Patriot Act. Concieved by Republicans, passed with their overwhelming support. Liberal democrats are the only ones who oppose the Patriot Act."


Not that I totally disagree with you but so are liberal democrats. Its interesting to note that liberals hush free speech, freedom of religon regardless of how offensive it is to others, as well as the need to defend our citizens. Bottom line...its hypocritical to advocate "FREE SPEECH" but turn around and dictates what acceptable to say and what isnt. When someone says otherwise..he or she is a hillybill redneck Christian bible thumper.

I am of asian descent and a atheist and I grew up in a ghetto neighborhood in Chicago. I grew up watching bums bitching about not getting panhandled while my folks broke their backs trying to run a business and over half of their income went to tax waste...especially welfare while crackheads go the nearest currency exchange only to get more "work" aka dope/crack.

I am not totally in the right wing either since I dont agree with some of the hardcore republicans views either but I find quite a number of liberals just as offensive to me personally whilst most republicans in my experience has always been truthful which is refreshing for a change.

Bnpayne78- Dean is not socialist. If you don't know the definition of socialism, look it up.

By the way- the opposite of what you say about the UN is true. The US keeps undermining the UN.

Because we have the biggest military force in the world, because we host the UN in New York, and because we're the only ones WHO CAN, we pay most of the UN's bills. Which is fine. So why not utilize the international body?

Because President Bush would rather pre-emptively invade nations on the excuse of looking for "weapons of mass destruction", that's why. The UN is not a problem. Bush is.

As for the UN controlling the internet- that's simply not feasible because developing countries could decide how information is distributed, and that could infringe on our constitutional rights, as well as people in Canada, Europe, and Japan.

:-:~ Phantom

"Not that I totally disagree with you but so are liberal democrats. Its interesting to note that liberals hush free speech, freedom of religon regardless of how offensive it is to others, as well as the need to defend our citizens. Bottom line...its hypocritical to advocate "FREE SPEECH" but turn around and dictates what acceptable to say and what isnt. When someone says otherwise..he or she is a hillybill redneck Christian bible thumper."

IndieWarriors:
Give me examples of exactly what liberal democrats have done to abridge constitutional rights.

They haven't! What a joke. The ACLU is made up of liberal democrats. Liberals are for the expansion of personal rights, not their abridgement.

REPUBLICANS will hush freedom of religion! President Bush wants America to be Christianized. The Christian Coalition is right-wing. If anyone is going to stifle freedom of religion- it's anyone BUT liberal democrats. I have never heard a bigger untruth.

So are the charges about freedom of speech. Liberals are against the Patriot Act and other infringements upon our constitutional rights. We have an ACLU because we're so concerned about it.

Clearly, you don't know too much about American politics or what liberals stand for. I suggest you check out my website, http://nwprogressive.homestead.com/.

:-:~ Phantom

democrat or republican, who cares.....How about we just vote out the criminals and idiots? So lets get rid of about 90 percent.

Phantom

As much as I hate racists, they have the right to make their statements regardless of whether we accept them or not.

Speaking of religon..where was the liberal uproar when islamic extremists took over 3000 american lives in ny, pa, and dc?

I find it strange that if a anal sucking christian bible thumper says or does something...liberals are ready to pounce at the first strike...other religous extremists...*look the other way*

Like I said..I see flaws on both ends...clearly you dont know much about politics either.

Welfare is a joke. Even when I was unemployed...I worked my ass off to support myself in the most degrading jobs while others use the race card to get what they want. As a minority..its shameful.

Sorry you cant see things in my perspective.

In addition, liberal media is a joke as well. So far on television and film, Im constantly reminded where my place in this society is.

In the music world, non-existant.

In the political world..Im a hyphenated american with privledges.

Worst of all, when it comes to race, they pretend to be open-minded when in reality its mockery. Dont kid yourself.

I personally dont care about it anymore like I used to because the diverse people around me are honest and never associated the color of my skin in any shape or form in our relationships. THATS what matters to me but I have peeve about hypocritical political groups and try to define what its like for me. Puhlease.

dave

99.9% is more the accurate percentage

i vote phantomghost.
mine cancels yours-have a nice day furthering the bleeding heart agenda.
useal the records! why not?
libs think dean has something hide?
in short-you are wrong.

~time flies~

zeitgheist
Date: December 8, 2003 @ 4:57 PM
i vote phantomghost.
mine cancels yours-have a nice day furthering the bleeding heart agenda.
useal the records! why not?
libs think dean has something hide?
in short-you are wrong.

~time flies~


Typical melodramatic reaction *lol*
Gee I didnt see that coming

The patriot act, and all of these other rapes of justice are really just peripheral to the real subject at hand, namely terrorism, and the so called "war on terror".

I believe that this entire war on terrorism is nothing more than a convoluted farce, and I thoroughly believe that if the American people would just do a modicum of research into the matter, they will come to the same conclusion that I have.

The problem arises from misdirection (care of the war in Iraq). You see, what happened here? Instead of talking about the war in Afghanistan, and more to the point 9/11 and whether or not we should have even gone there, we're now involved in whether or not this Iraqi war is legal (or even moral). But, we need to begin at the beginning, with 9/11, as it is the source and at the very heart of whether we should have even gone into Afghanistan, let alone Iraq.

So what happened on 9/11? Does anyone KNOW what happened that dark, terrible day, that changed the entire world and set back human rights the world over? The answer is no. We don't know.

But, you say there was an investigation into 9/11? No. What was investigated was whether or not we (our intelligence agencies) could have PREVENTED the events of 9/11 (and interestingly enough 28 pages worth of THAT report has been withheld from the American people by the president and the vice president. No, not the administration. I mean Bush and Cheney, and I mean directly). But where is the other report? The report that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was Bin Laden who was solely responsible for the attacks? He was convicted in a matter of days, implicating Afghanistan (somehow, and NOT Saudi Arabia where the rest of Bin Laden’s family, and terrorist ties are from). But if it was proven that it was Bin Laden that was behind these attacks, the it seems to me that a report of that investigation should have been released to the American people (more importantly to the families of those who died that day) within days. Certainly it should have been released before we went to war with another country over the matter!

Hopefully I've raised some questions in your mind. Questions that we all should have asked long ago. The answers are right here on the web. I caution you to be careful, as you know, some sources are just not credible. Just relying on the credible sources however I think you'll find they paint a much different picture of this "war on terror", than the one the administration painted for you. The truth is right there in the media, all you have to do is connect the stories.

Then after you've answered some of the "why" for yourself. Maybe you'll ask "why" of this administration. And, hopefully we'll all finally get ALL of the answers.

I started my research here: http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=934107&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1

and quite by accident, as I was just looking for a report (which I naively expected must exist) as to what actually happened on 9/11. Now, this information is solidly backed by legitimate sources, which the author gives, while asking that the reader verify these sources for himself.

No matter what you believe (Whether or not the Israeli government had direct involvement in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks), one thing can not be so easily disputed. And that is that Mosad (An Israeli spy ring)agents DID have prior knowledge that the EVENT (the significance of this term will be apparent to you shortly after you begin reading the section called "THE DANCING ISRAELIS") DID have prior knowledge as to when and where the events of 9/11 would transpire. So the question is ... did we?

sorry, I'm having a hard time getting the link to work. Try this

one.http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=934107&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=1&vc=1&t=0

If that doesn't work you can go to libertyforum.org and run a search on "Shocking!!! Israel Did 911 - The Irrefutable Evidence"

ok .. the first link I gave DOES work, you just have to cut the < br > off the end of the link once the url is in your address bar, as usual.

The second will also work, but when you click and drag, start from www (leave out the http://)

Well is an interesting argument going on here, but I have to agree with indiewarriors. Both parties are corrupt, and you have to judge members on an individual basis, not the the ideology they follow.

Democrats that are abridging our rights..hmm what about Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was one fo the senators to introduce the ART(Artists Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2003) Bill?

The ART bill will make it a criminal offense to record a movie in a theater and distribute that one copy(over the internet as well). If convicted you face up to 3 years in jail, fines, or both. And the "victim" of your recording has to submit a paper detailing the offender and how much damage was done finanicially. As well any devices used to share or record the movie would be confiscated and destroyed if convicted.

Then what about Rep. John Conyers who was one of introducers of H.R. 2517, the Piracy Deterrence Education Act of 2003. This would make it a federal crime to record a movie in a theater and force the Department of Justice to set up an education arm to "educate" the public about the evils of filesharing.

As for welfare, while it is a very noble effort , the system has fallen short in many areas. My father has been supporting himself, my mother myself and three children for 9 years without a raise(its actually been 15 years, but the youngest is 9). The cost of living has gone up as well as taxes and a variety of other financial issues. He works 12 hour swing shifts, often with only a day of break between working 8 days in a row.

And then I see people who live off welfare,who are capable, while my dad has probably shortened his lifespan trying to support his family. Not to say that everyone on welfare doesn't deserve it, but there are certainly cases where the system has been abused, enough that I think something has to be done. But I don't have all the answers, so thats just my 2 bits.

Suikio

Pirateking, when 9/11 happened, I told myself, "My God, the government is going to cancel out the Bill of Rights and EVERYTHING Orwell spoke of is going to come true. A fearful society under constant scrutiny and survelliance." I was right. I wish I hadn't been right.