Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

UN panel fails to agree on how to govern internet

Filed under
Web

A group set up by the United Nations to come up with a global plan for managing the internet said today that it has been unable to agree on who should do the job or how it should be done.

The Working Group on internet Governance instead came up with four rival models for overseeing the Web and sorting out technical and public policy questions.

In a report to be submitted to the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November, the group also proposed creation of a permanent forum to carry on the debate.

To understand the problem, "you must recognise that the internet was set up largely by academicians for limited use, but has grown beyond anyone's wildest expectations, with nearly one billion users today," Markus Kummer, the working group's executive coordinator, said in a telephone interview.

At issue for the world body is who runs the internet and how it can better serve the world.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has long pressed industry, government and private interest groups to try to narrow the "digital divide" and ensure that people in poor nations have greater access to the internet.

The internet is now loosely managed by various groups. The internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), for example, manages the domain name system and is under the control of the US government.

Helping set technical standards are the International Telecommunication Union, an international organisation; the private-sector-led internet Engineering Task Force, and the academia-oriented W3C.

Among the governance options put forward by the group were a continuation of the current system, creation of a world body to address public policy issues stemming from the work of ICANN, and creation of a body to address a broader range of public policy issues.

The fourth option is to create three bodies, one to address policy issues, one for oversight and one for global coordination.

The group also recommended a co-ordinated global effort to combat spam, or junk emails, and urged that law enforcement authorities respect the right to freedom of expression when they crack down on internet-related crimes.

Source.

re: sadly

I'm not surprised. Seems big business has /all/ the governing bodies' ears. All those horrific future movies depicting the government being run (or actually being) big businesses is coming true! Big Grin

The scariest of which is how much influence M$ has over our own government here in the US. (shudders)

----
You talk the talk, but do you waddle the waddle?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more