American politicians claimed that a United Nations takeover of the web should be stopped. A few days ago Democratic and Republican government officials pointed out that a UN summit in December could lead to a virtual takeover of the web if Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Saudi Arabian proposals are adopted.
A Michigan Republican was first to say that these were terrible ideas, because they could allow the governments to control and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international information flows.
Then a member of the Federal Communications Commission also became worried about the United Nations bringing in Internet-based taxes to fund the build-out of Internet infrastructure all over the world. Such US giants as Google, Facebook, and Netflix appear to be the prime sources of funding.
Finally, California Democrat in whose district Facebook's headquarters are located, claimed that many countries don't share their view of the web and how it works. Perhaps, she meant that the web was supposed to run so that American companies become rich and controls are decided by whichever lobby group bribes Congressmen enough campaign funds.
The summit called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is planned to review a set of telecommunications regulations set in 1988. The United States claimed that it will give such countries as Russia and China an opportunity to propose the United Nations to establish a new "data security" regime or develop an alternative to ICANN.
Meanwhile, experts point out that the United Nations has been trying to take over control of the web for a while now, while giving the American government too much control over other countries affairs. The matter is that the more autocratic countries may draft technical standards to implement the methods of tracing the source of online communications and deprive Internet users of the ability to remain anonymous.
Google's chief Internet evangelist, the co-developer of the TCP/IP protocol, admitted that the ITU idea might result in “top-down control dictated by governments”, which would impact free expression, security, and other important issues.
At some point, it’s right. But on the other hand, why should countries which don't trust the United States be forced to do what they are told?
A Michigan Republican was first to say that these were terrible ideas, because they could allow the governments to control and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international information flows.
Then a member of the Federal Communications Commission also became worried about the United Nations bringing in Internet-based taxes to fund the build-out of Internet infrastructure all over the world. Such US giants as Google, Facebook, and Netflix appear to be the prime sources of funding.
Finally, California Democrat in whose district Facebook's headquarters are located, claimed that many countries don't share their view of the web and how it works. Perhaps, she meant that the web was supposed to run so that American companies become rich and controls are decided by whichever lobby group bribes Congressmen enough campaign funds.
The summit called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is planned to review a set of telecommunications regulations set in 1988. The United States claimed that it will give such countries as Russia and China an opportunity to propose the United Nations to establish a new "data security" regime or develop an alternative to ICANN.
Meanwhile, experts point out that the United Nations has been trying to take over control of the web for a while now, while giving the American government too much control over other countries affairs. The matter is that the more autocratic countries may draft technical standards to implement the methods of tracing the source of online communications and deprive Internet users of the ability to remain anonymous.
Google's chief Internet evangelist, the co-developer of the TCP/IP protocol, admitted that the ITU idea might result in “top-down control dictated by governments”, which would impact free expression, security, and other important issues.
At some point, it’s right. But on the other hand, why should countries which don't trust the United States be forced to do what they are told?
No comments:
Post a Comment