I'm going to start out by disclosing that I tried to go read everything already said about this on the site, but all of the links said those pages are longer found.

That said, I'm happy to be here but consequently have only a vague idea of what I'm supposed to be talking about. My internet bill is already late from last month, so if any of this has to do with access costing more, I say 'no'.

(Also, the YAYsports! link in the announcement for this Jam goes to Vodkapundit.)

It's bad enough our own government still has a hand (well, maybe just a finger) in the internet.

However, the WWW already is an international project. The Internet was created by the Pentagon and used (mostly) by universities around the world until 1991. What happened then, and what made the Internet into the Web, was the creation of the browser – by a couple guys in Switzerland. Suddenly everybody could use the internet, and most anyone with a connection now does.

Maybe there's a role for the UN in promoting internet usage, by providing cheap computers or free wireless zones where none exist. Maybe they could work an "Oil for Laptops" deal with Iran. Or send diplomats in bespoke suits to North Korea, to show the locals our amazing "TV typewriters."

But there is absolutely no need – and a great deal of danger – in turning over control to the UN.

Too many UN committees are already Dictators' Clubs. We have Syria and Sudan lecturing us on human rights. Do we really want China's view on free speech to be made the internet norm? Burma's? Saudi Arabia's?

Maybe we DO need the UN to straighten out these bad links problems. Yay, who do you think should sit on the UN's Subcommittee For Sorting Out All Things Not Quite Kosher?

Steve-

Funny you should mention China's view. I've been studying up on the various statements and speeches presented at the WIS and streamed for all to witness. (The UN resembles Nazi Germany with regards to documenting everything for future generations to use as evidence against them).

The best line from China was... let's see... China: "And those endangering national security"

Last time we heard a line like that, a guy stood in front of a tank.

I also had a problem with the links, fyi.

The UN's insistence on 'controlling' the internet is strange. Right now the fight is on, against business, against institutions, and other such people running scared, to keep the internet decentralized.

Tobias, that's an excellent point.

Fact is, on one level, this is a silly debate. For the most part, the internet simply isn't governable. You can set some simple rules, allowing computers to talk to one another, but the rest is up to the users. And guess what? That's precisely what we have already.

Why mess with success?

Steve,

I'd do it, but I'm completely unqualified for almost everything except having a blog.

(Links are now fixed... sorry about that!)

Ever wonder what happened to that tank guy, Laurence? Maybe someday the UN will strike him from Google at China's insistence.

To continue beating up on the UN and China, feel free to comb the WSIS site for the presentation by the representative of the Taiwanese government or their ITU.

It's an impressive feat to disenfranchise and dehumanize twenty-two million people in one fell swoop. Especially when they're part of one of the most technologically advanced and digitally aware societies our species has yet to produce.

Okay, so they build skyscrapers that people think cause earthquakes. Nobody's perfect.

YAY, that's why we love blogs! And probably why dictatorships hate them.

It is not just groups like China. In Europe France is attracting copyright protestors because of its desire to have all traffic filtered against 'bad' things. What happens when in addition to fighting US companies and RIAA associated organizations, but whole governmental bodies are slowing things down as well?

I agree with you Steve - what exactly does the UN want? Are they trying to stop me from doing things like this?

http://www.yaysports.com/images/kofi-anann.gif

Taiwan has also helped build an international computer network that might someday shake Beijing to the ground, Laurence.

Nobody's perfect - but that's quite a feat.

Steve-

Ever wonder what happened to that tank guy, Laurence? Maybe someday the UN will strike him from Google at China's insistence.

He's hiding with Jet Guy and Sub Guy.

"And guess what? That's precisely what we have already."

Exactly, the moment you change that, you no longer have an 'internet,' you have something resembling an internet that does some of the same things the internet did, but you wouldn't have the same social overtones the internet as it exists does as well.

You might claim not to know the UN, YAY - but you sure know Photoshop!

"They came for the blogs, and I didn't protest because I didn't have a blog. Then they came for Photoshop..."

You can fill in the rest yourselves.

Well I think we all agree the UN should have no control over the net - how mad would PJM get if we just started talking about something else altogether?

We have some great features on cheerleaders at YAYsports!.

Here's the other big side effect. This blogj chronicles Yahoo's selling out human rights to other governments. More things like that worry me as well, not just losing my precious inter-webby thingey.

I think Tobias is on to something here. Change the form of the internet, and you change its function.

So just what would a UNternet look like?

OK - to play devil's advocate for a moment - how about specific control, like of domain names or jurisdiction in copyright infringment suits?

Steve-

YAY, that's why we love blogs! And probably why dictatorships hate them.

Hrm... dictatorships... were there any at the WSIS Conference? (Besides the host country itself?)

Well, go ahead and give Iran's speech a listen-to. The technomullah made four points on the reason for the need for global governance. The fourth point was the "defense of human rights."

Based on previous speeches at world bodies by Iran, I think we're all well aware of what that means. Not human rights, but the obliteration of a portion of humanity, whether physically or digitally. Starting with the incessant call for sanctions against a certain country that runs a TLD of .il. Wiping them off of the digital map, so to speak.

Well, if we all agree - here's a question, what responsibility do internet corporations, founded using the principles of decentralization and access to information, have to resisting more controlling governments?

Tobias, you've really done your homework.

Does the UN need to take over the internet, when companies like Yahoo! and Microsoft are already providing e-censorship to countries like China?

Moderator-

OK - to play devil's advocate for a moment - how about specific control, like of domain names or jurisdiction in copyright infringment suits?

The UN has done a fine job of acting as an artiber in cases where a celebrity's vanity domain name has been released from bloodthirsty cyberimperialists.

I'm not sure I'd trust it with more than that. I've got an example from the WSIS conference that extends a longstanding failure of the UN from a conflict in the real world to a conflict in the invisible spectrum and the virtual world...

Moderator comes to save the day.

Personal experience - very recently, I've had my personal name domain registered by someone else for malicious purposes, as well as my name used/imitated in email addresses. There's no regulation over that stuff, but there needs to be. I don't know where/if the UN comes into play on that, but something needs to be done.

Well, here's the good news: Yahoo! and MS aren't peddling their censorware in this country, because of the stink it would raise.

On the other hand, they're gleefully selling out their own interests in other countries.

Blogs can - and have - raised a stink about these practices, but to no effect. Frankly, I'm not sure people here much care what goes on Over There, until they fly airliners into American skyscrapers.

"So just what would a UNternet look like?"

There's an interesting exercise. There would be lots of heavy firewalling, filtering, and patrolling of sites. Lots more prosecution. If we think the RIAA attacking clueless grandmas with lawsuits, what will happen when one is removed to a different country to stand trial against a UN lawsuit? I shudder to think about the abuses that could happen there...

"Does the UN need to take over the internet, when companies like Yahoo! and Microsoft are already providing e-censorship to countries like China?"

Right, the UN taking over the internet wouldn't be so much a day and night thing, but it could be a progression of a lot of what we're already seeing. Corporations already play under different rule sets for different countries, so we're getting a sneak peek at the UNternet already.

And now you know why you get a big smiley face instead of my actual face. In a surprising bit of coincidence, my actual face looks exactly like that.

"Something needs to be done" is usually the first step down the road to Hell.

Domain squatting and such is certainly a pain for those on the wrong end of it - but I'm not sure an international cure wouldn't be worse than the disease.

Steve-

Does the UN need to take over the internet, when companies like Yahoo! and Microsoft are already providing e-censorship to countries like China?

Maybe the UN should start by demonstrating it can manage and maintain the content of its own web servers first?

The home page... the cyberwelcomemat... the gateway to the digital home of the UN lists a Copyright Notice of 2004.

There's 24 days left in the year. Will it still say 2004 in 2006, or will they finally get around to changing it to 2005?

Yay-

And now you know why you get a big smiley face instead of my actual face. In a surprising bit of coincidence, my actual face looks exactly like that.

Let's see you keep that smile during... a colonoscopy!

Tobias, I hadn't thought about the RIAA from that angle.

The RIAA is fighting a rear-gaurd action against a music-distribution model that takes away much of their profit and control. Much the same could be said about information in general, and the UN/China/Yahoo!.

What do you guys think Kofi Puffs would taste like? I'm guessing kind of "oat-ish", with a little "cinnamon-ness".

Can the UN even hold a copyright, Laurence? Or is it usurping yet another national power?!?

I kid, of course. Or at least that's what I'll tell the men in the black helicopters.

"The UN has done a fine job of acting as an artiber in cases where a celebrity's vanity domain name has been released from bloodthirsty cyberimperialists."

That's an interesting point.

"I'm not sure I'd trust it with more than that."

The problem is that if one does hand it the the power to meddle in these affairs, even if just a little bit, as most political entities are, it will grow and seek after more.

Is there a non-UN system for arbitrating top level domains? I know this is a major one (they even seem to have a blog), do we need another?

Moderator-

jurisdiction in copyright infringment suits

I have a question from the audience... which set of copyright loaw are you refering to?

Each country has its own. How will the UN be able to judge between them? Can an organization that believes Indonesia and Tuvalu have equal voice in the UNGA be able to effectively weigh with set of case law trumps the other?

Or will we result in an International Copyright Law penned by Kofi and Kojo Incorporated?

Good luck, considering that there's been half a dozen Terrorism Conferences without a definition of terrorism yet.

I dunno, YAY. What does hubris taste like?

Laurence, I wasn't referring to any specific copyright laws, and that's part of the question - jurisdiction and what law applies. Setting aside how long it would take to create - would it be helpful to have one set of copyright laws across the whole internet?

Steve hang on, I have to go to dictionary.com

Just to hammer on the terrorism angle again...

The Talking Points of the WSIS: bullet point 44 has all members agreed that the Mythical World Internet Governance Body With Impressive Acronym work against terrorism.

Which, as we all know, has no working definition at the UN. Thanks, in part, to the host country of the WSIS. (insert inspid giggle here)

This one is to both Laurence and Tobias.

In order to impose order on the internet, we'd need a sturdy set of international laws, to be enforced by a sturdy international body.

That's not workable. Nor is it desirable.

What we have today is a functional anarchy, even if toes (like YAY's) do get stepped on from time to time.

Also, something I'd like to add to my last post.

About ten years ago, the US tried to regulate internet speech, with a hideous indecency law, the CDA. Fortunately, we have a court system that can nullify bad laws like that one - and did. What does the UN have? Empty promises to do better next time.

Oh wait, now we have to define what exactly we're talking about. That's cause for issues :-)

That's a great point. Thanks anonymous reader. That's why I made the point that if the UN will be enforcing copyright against 'the internet' in general you'll end up with worse than grandmas vs the RIAA, but you or me vs some angry country.

The thing is, in order for everyone to agree on a copyright law for the internet, it will have to be the least amount of freedom, as it would be hard to get a group to agree to have less control. Once they have it it's hard to let go of granting/changing rights. So whoever has the worse copyright law will be what a UNternet would obliged to stoop too, don't you think? That's why having countries negotiate it out from the top will drag it down.

Steve doesn't like me. sad face ---------------> :(

"What we have today is a functional anarchy, even if toes (like YAY's) do get stepped on from time to time."

Exactly, I agree :-)

Tobias,

For what it's worth on the domain issue - in some legal circles (thus giving a clue to my identity) this whole issue is seen as ICANN v. UN. The rest they see as being so undoable as not to be a "clear and present danger" to the current system.

What Tobias was saying is similar to the "internationalization" of libel law.

People almost never sue for libel or slander in this country, because our standards of proof are so high. But as soon as the same thing gets printed in the UK, somebody is going to have a lawsuit on their hands. The UK sets the bar pretty low for libel and slander.

Applied globally to the internet, we could have a "race to the bottom," with countries competing over who could win the most money - like Alabama personal-injury juries.

I like you lots, YAY. But I'm going to have to insist that you wear the paper bag.

Well, Moderator - ICANN has done a pretty good job with the internet. It's not like this whole webby thing is some gigantic failure only the UN can save. Like, you know, Rwanda.

I cannot urge strongly enough the need for people to check out the various archived speeches at the WSIS. The 500-word summaries presented by AP and Reuters and other wire services fail to address many of the specific points made at the conference.

Or the more loony moments.

Yeah, people have probably wodnered why it took me so long for this one. On this archive page, check out the 13 minute speech by a certain President of a non-state with a dead guy buried in the parking lot out back.

After much off-topic rambling and posturing, which is nothing new when he appears at various discussions and debates, 10:30 minutes into the speech he's talking about "Occpied Palestinian Spectrum."

It comes as a shock to me now that spectrum can be "occupied." Is that particular chunk of spectrum "holy spectrum?" When control is handed over from an American corporation to some kind of global body with a long history of discrimination against a member it helped create, can it be trusted not to extend the conflict into this new arena as well.

The fact that such an individual is able to stand up and rant off-topic in such a forum in a manner than's more deranged than Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe destroys any credibility for such an event, whether it is a well-intentioned attempt to bring global ITUs together or not.

Steve what's that mean? If it means taking everything to a higher level of repsectibility, I'll wear the paper bag.

Is this whole thing an issue? I mean that for real - do any of the four of us in here WANT the UN to have regulation over the net at all? In any way?

Laurence - if I'm reading you right, this argument goes to a place most folks would never have imagined. The Arab States, through a UN proxy, waging digital war on Israel.

Maybe that's some kind of impossible nightmare scenario, but it's certainly worth considering. Over a drink or two, in a perfect world.

"For what it's worth on the domain issue - in some legal circles (thus giving a clue to my identity) this whole issue is seen as ICANN v. UN. The rest they see as being so undoable as not to be a "clear and present danger" to the current system."

And although ICANN has its own set of issues, it's a body that an individual can reach and affect through legal frameworks, the UN is much harder to effect, and ICANN is running the internet okay right now, though some are seeking to correct some issues. Why tinker with what's working?

That smile... looks so familiar...

You know, I'm beginning to think that YAYsports is nothing more than a plant fro mthe Wal-Mart Corporation.

If there's one thing I fear more than the UN taking over the dangnabbed flibberdygibble Internet, it's China Wal-Mart.

YAY, if this country had done some lasting harm to the internet - say, if the CDA had been allowed to stand - then maybe I'd be looking to someone else to set things right. Maybe I'd move my server to the UK or someplace.

But, no, I don't think I'd ever look to the UN to protect my freedoms, digital or otherwise.

"Is this whole thing an issue? I mean that for real - do any of the four of us in here WANT the UN to have regulation over the net at all? In any way?"

I think it ended up being a pretty one sided debate about it :-)

Lawrence I'm beginning to think someone at Pajamas HQ is asking someone else at Pajamas HQ why I was let into this thing, probably with use of the f-word. Are we allowed to swear in here?

Well. Since we've settled the important issue, how about one of internet etiquette: Is it wrong to blogjam to an endless loop of "Strawberry Letter 23" by Brothers Johnson, and without pants?

By the way, if it ever gets bad enough to worry about the UN vs ICANN and what we'll do, there are alternatives it ICANN. And it looks like a truly internet type solution to our worries can be found here.

Steve-

Laurence - if I'm reading you right, this argument goes to a place most folks would never have imagined. The Arab States, through a UN proxy, waging digital war on Israel.

Maybe that's some kind of impossible nightmare scenario, but it's certainly worth considering. Over a drink or two, in a perfect world.

I would have suggested the Yemeni speech, but the translation got screwed up. The English was stomped by the Chinese feed. (See? The Chinese are already taking voer the Internet!)

You may want to check out the Syrian speech at the WSIS. In addition to praising Tunisia for hosting many previous meetings of organizations for solving world problems and such (Which terrorist group had their base of operations in Tunisia?), a parting shot of "Lasting and just peace, return of basic rights."

Here's the relevant quote from the Open Nic (an open source ICANN type org) here:

Unlike ICANN, however, OpenNIC is designed to operate in a democratic fashion. As OpenNIC founder Robin Bandy told NewsFactor, "Anyone who can register domains can vote ... the same way InterNIC (the predecessor of ICANN) used to work."

OpenNIC tries to coexist peacefully with other registrars, but it has had some problems with ICANN. Recently, for example, ICANN approved a ".biz" TLD, ignoring the fact that an alternative registrar called The Pacific Root had supported a ".biz" TLD for some time.

That looks like a nice route around.

I'm quoting here from the article Tobias linked to:

One such alternative is called OpenNIC. Like ICANN, OpenNIC governs registration for domains under its purview. OpenNIC registrars maintain the technical information required for users to query DNS servers with the name of a domain and then receive the proper IP address in response.

Unlike ICANN, however, OpenNIC is designed to operate in a democratic fashion. As OpenNIC founder Robin Bandy told NewsFactor, "Anyone who can register domains can vote ... the same way InterNIC (the predecessor of ICANN) used to work."

Question for you, Tobias. How do "we" or the internet or whomever, go about switching over to this new system? Does it work alongside ICANN, in conjunction with, as a rival to?

You'll pardon me if I don't understand all the technical issues.

YAY-

Lawrence I'm beginning to think someone at Pajamas HQ is asking someone else at Pajamas HQ why I was let into this thing, probably with use of the f-word. Are we allowed to swear in here?

I assume we have to keep it clean, even though assuming... nevermind.

And do not reveal the secret "Heh. Indeed." handshake, either.

(Off-topic: BREAKING NEWS: The UN is now free to hire Sami Al-Arian to run their global itnernet governance bureaucracy. Florida just acquitted him.)

Here's a question to educate the layman like, um, someone who isn't me.

If the UN got everything it wanted, what's he worst thing that would happen to your blog?

If I understood the more technical details I would be making about double what I make now, but I think they have their own 'top level' servers that pick up the domain name and pass them on. I guess ICANN isn't the only game in town.

Here is Open Nic's site.

Steve-

Well. Since we've settled the important issue, how about one of internet etiquette: Is it wrong to blogjam to an endless loop of "Strawberry Letter 23" by Brothers Johnson, and without pants?

I believe not. Nor am I allowed to shamelessly plug IMAO, the other PJM site I'm a part of. (Can I have my insulin back now, Frank J.?)

Also breaking:

BRUSSELS, Belgium - European publishers warned Tuesday that they cannot keep allowing Internet search engines such as Google Inc. to make money from their content. "The new models of Google and others revers