UN mulls internet regulation options

[TLSS_N]

WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls.​

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would to attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an "takeover" of the internet.

India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.

However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.

"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.

Debate on the creation of a new inter-governmental body stemmed from a UN Economic and Social Council resolution 2010/2 of 19 July.

The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."

Much debate concerned the meaning of "enhanced cooperation" and whether a new inter-governmental body was required. Participants also debated the roles of existing organisations - such as the Internet Governance Forum, ICANN and the ITU.

The IGF - an organisation that informs the UN but makes no decisions - is running close to the end of a five-year mandate, due to expire at ?the end of the year.

The likes of ISOC, ICANN and more recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) have recently expressed concerns [PDF] that a working panel to decide on the future of the IGF has been limited to representatives from member-states.

"Australia is a very strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum," the unidentified Australian UN representative said at the New York meeting this week. "That is very much due to the multi-stake-holder approach of the IGF. It is an inclusive process."

Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said that Australian Government welcomed the resolution of the Second Committee of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) to extend the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for a further five years.

The DBCDE said it would like to see the organisation retain an open and participatory membership.

"Australia has always supported the participation of civil society and the private sector in the IGF and regards their participation as being integral to the IGF's success," a spokesman told iTnews.

source

thanks Brazil... really!

 

[emigre]

I doubt this will amount to anything. If the internet is to be regulated it would be by individual states.

 

[TLSS_N]

I doubt this will amount to anything. If the internet is to be regulated it would be by individual states.

eh,I just tell you about the news, If it happens, it's because people didn't stand up to fight it.

 

[RiderLeangle]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Was there something I was missing in there involving internet or something?...

 

[Law]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Was there something I was missing in there involving internet or something?...

If they want to do this because they want to take down wikileaks, they effectively want to destroy the idea of free speech on the Internet.


edit: but this isn't the American congress, anyway. This is the UN.

 

[Oveneise]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Was there something I was missing in there involving internet or something?...

If they want to do this because they want to take down wikileaks, they effectively want to destroy the idea of free speech on the Internet.


edit: but this isn't the American congress, anyway. This is the UN.

Its not just the US thats pissed at WikiLeaks, pretty much every nation out there is infuriated with it. And its more like anarchy than free speech, just saying.

 

[Matthew]

Meh, probably not amount to anything.









Wikileak FTW

 

[Heran Bago]

The UN is useless, I sure they will all agree that something needs to be done about this newfangled internet, and then write a strongly worded letter to the internet.

 

[Pliskron]

Is this the same UN that has Cuba and North Korea on their human rights commission? I think the US and other countries should defund the corrupt rotten to the core UN bureaucracy.

 

[chrisrlink]

yeah the whole world is corrupt

 

[GundamXXX]

Bwhahaha

Regulate the internet!

Thats like trying to say "We are going to regulate outer space! ph33r us!"

Seriously if they do this riots will evolve and I will be on the frontline.
Clear laws on policing the internet? How are you going to achieve that? Who are you going to sue in case of pirating? The user or the provider? In both cases it will be impossible because a server might be in a country that doesnt care and the user might be in a country that has different laws

This will not happen, if it does.....lets end this here in case CIA is watching us ;x

 

[GundamXXX]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Was there something I was missing in there involving internet or something?...

If they want to do this because they want to take down wikileaks, they effectively want to destroy the idea of free speech on the Internet.


edit: but this isn't the American congress, anyway. This is the UN.

Its not just the US thats pissed at WikiLeaks, pretty much every nation out there is infuriated with it. And its more like anarchy than free speech, just saying.

Anarchy is caused by those who cannot accept something. I can accept Wikileaks thus its freedom of speech. The US (and loads of other nations) cant accept Wikileaks as something right thus for them its anarchy. Its all relevant to the eye of the beholder, hence you can never have a clear judgement on anything.

I for one think the Right to bear arms is terrorism, people use it to strike fear into people. Idiots (from my perspective they are idiots) think its constitutional....
In the end I think we as people have to stand up against the morons who run our countries.
I know one thing, when I am able to I will definatly go into politics going against old men and their idiotic ways.

 

[TrolleyDave]

Its not just the US thats pissed at WikiLeaks, pretty much every nation out there is infuriated with it. And its more like anarchy than free speech, just saying.

How is it more like anarchy than free speech? Free speech is the right to tell the truth free from persecution or prosecution.

 

[431unknown]

Its not just the US thats pissed at WikiLeaks, pretty much every nation out there is infuriated with it. And its more like anarchy than free speech, just saying.

How is it more like anarchy than free speech? Free speech is the right to tell the truth free from persecution or prosecution.

Pretty soon we won't have any rights any more, they are constantly stripped from us day by day. Thankfully from I heard on the radio on my way to work the U.S. is not in on this one,yet.

 

[Deleted User]

How will pirates earn a living now. The internet after paying the ISP should always be free.

 

[TrolleyDave]

Pretty soon we won't have any rights any more, they are constantly stripped from us day by day. Thankfully from I heard on the radio on my way to work the U.S. is not in on this one,yet.

Couldn't agree more. What's even scarier are those that defend the stripping of peoples rights under various guises and confusing what other rights actually are.

America has it's own persecution of Wikileaks going on though so they don't really need this effort.