This is the third article I've read from various sources underlying the importance of the upcoming Dubai meeting. To me it sounds a heckuva lot worse than SOPA/PIPA was in the states. I tire of breathless articles, but unfortunately we are living in a time where multiple interested parties are all trying to use their political power to control what we see, read, think, and share. Hopefully this ITU/UN move will get the international press attention that it looks to me like it deserves.<p>On a tangential note, Google reports a record number of requests from governments to remove things from their search results. Not just places we normally associate with censorship, but lots of supposedly more "liberal" western democracies as well. Control over the net is simply too powerful of an incentive for governments to maintain the principle of keeping their hands clear.
How ironic they do not listen to the great U.N. Commissioner Pravin Lal.<p>"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Does anyone sincerely believe this obscure UN body stands a snowball's chance in hell of actually snatching authority from Icann? The only reason the US response has been lackluster is because the threat is <i>insignificant</i>.<p>It's also quite surprising to see Crovitz's WSJ editorial referred to as an "article". It's classic unsubstantiated fear mongering, typical of the editorial section of that paper.
It seems to me like this article confuses one member country proposing something as that proposal being accepted. Members at a meeting are free to propose all sorts of wacky stuff - that is why they are meeting to discuss the merits of the proposals.<p>Also -<p><i>China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state"</i><p>Isn't this already the case? Who has authority for communication infrastructure within a country if not the government of that country? Or is the insinuation that the government would seize <i>ownership</i> of the infrastructure?
I am less concerned about the machinations of a bunch of second tier states trying to put the internet genie back in a bottle via largely toothless legislation, than I am concerned it will get used as a thin end of a wedge for those in the US who want some data autarchy imposed here at home.<p>My belief is that the reason there is a lack of pushback by the US is because the elements most in line with this ignorant proposal are those at the helm.
Personally, I think we should encourage using Tor for all internet use.<p>It seems crazy, but if lots of people start using it, and more people provide relays, then it will be faster AND less likely to be blocked.<p>EDIT: Actually, I2P, since it's P2P and fully anonymous.
Does this blog post add anything to original Wall Street Journal article?<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577470532859210296.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...</a>
I don't have time to read such a long document now. Can someone who has tell us if there is really something worrisome here, or if this whole fuss is just more noise from the same crowd that thinks bike lanes are a UN plot to strip us of our rights. (I'm not making that up: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-projects-seeing-un-plot.html?pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-p...</a>)
"Well, we can't have all these people communicating directly with one-an-other now can we? Next thing you know they'll be exchanging ideas and experiences or organizing things on their own! Better regulate it".
Who are the U.N. supposedly going to grab power from then? Why shouldn't ICANN be under the ITU? How is the ITU "obscure"? Do they do a bad job of regulating telecomms at the moment?<p>Launch of wcitleaks
<a href="http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-launching-wcitleaks-org" rel="nofollow">http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-launching-...</a><p>another article I found interesting
<a href="http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-say-threats-from-net.php" rel="nofollow">http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-s...</a>
On the other hand, astonishing reading the blog post:<p>"First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way"- in short, to legitimize full government control."<p>It's ok if the US censors sites and takes down websites by changing DNS data, but it's not not ok for other countries - and I do not express any opinion about China in this - to request this to do?
Blogspam.<p>Rewrite of <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577470532859210296.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...</a>
Just wanted to let everyone here know that you can access the documents directly on our site at wcitleaks.org, or follow @wcitleaks on Twitter for updates.
I agree with the need for discussions like this to take place in the open so that people can be informed about what their representatives in government are discussing. International treaties are very important.<p>However, both this article and the WSJ seem to take the quotes very much out of context. For example:<p>'What it shows is breathtaking. First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way" - in short, to legitimize full government control.'<p>I could only find a similar quote in the alternate version of the document linked: <a href="http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/CWG-WCIT12_TD-62E.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/CWG-WCIT12_TD-62E.pdf</a> and only in a section discussing network security and cross-border network attacks:<p>---<p>"a) Member-States have the responsibility and right to protect the network security of the information and communication infrastructure within their state, to promote the international cooperation to fight against network attacks and disruptions.<p>b) Member-States have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory use ICTs in a rational way and endeavour to ensure the effective functioning of ICTs, in secure and trustworthy conditions.<p>c) User information in information and communication network should be respected and protected. Member-states have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory protect the security of user information."<p>---<p>Which in the context where it appears seems to be a discussion on a Chinese proposal about the need for countries to have policies and procedures to deal with cross-border network attacks. In any case, it seems like there are calls for clarification and some discussion that it is unnecessary, especially this portion:<p>---<p>"We believe the proposed text in C 59 imposing new treaty rights and obligations on Member States regarding domestic network security is both unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope of the ITRs. The United States looks forward to a further explanation from China with regard to the proposed amendments, and we note that we may have further reaction at that time. Source C 75 (USA)"<p>"The intention of the proposal is to refer only to network security and not content, that is, to the security of the infrastructure. The intention is to encourage Member States to cooperate to improve infrastructure security. Further, article 8 should concern only dissemination of information and a new article should be envisaged for security matter. (China)"<p>"Portions of the proposal (e.g. rights at national level) are already covered by the Preamble and should not be added here. Provisions regarding responsibilities of Member States excessively expand the scope of the ITRs. (USA)"<p>---<p>In those contexts, the statement seems much less nefarious, and as the US representative mentions, probably unnecessary.<p>I don't have the time to source the other quotes and summaries but I can't help but think that the articles are poorly researched at best.
Irrelevant.<p>What will happen though, the US has peaked in power, will censor more sites through DNS, Asia and Europe will be fed up at some point and the internet (DNS) will break up. In the long run power will balance itself with the amount of people in countries and economic power.
Just another reason to adopt Namecoin as an alternate DNS provider. Lots of work still needs to be done though for it to be easy enough to use by the average user.