# Un wants the net. don't risk an UNfree net
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 6, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410 "2003-12-06T18:16:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/1 "2003-12-06T18:16:14Z")
[http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/36227](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/36227)
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36852-2003Dec4.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36852-2003Dec4.html)
[http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5113744.html](http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5113744.html)
Why should the American goverment give control of the internet to the UN? The UN does not even have protection of Free Speech. However it does have members whom would love nothing more then to censor the internet. Such \_lands of milk and honey_\ for Free Speech loving folks such as China and Cuba are amoung the top supporters of a UN controlled internet.
sure the UN has this:
> [@](#):
>
> _the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights_\*\*
> Article 19.
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.\*\*
however they also have this:
> [@](#):
>
> _the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights_\*\*Article 29, section 3:
>
> (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.\*\*
which negates any protection of Free Speech pretty much becouse a right that you can only use when the goverment agrees with your use is not a right at all. I love freedom and therefore do not think Freedom of Speech on the Internet should not be risked.
---
### Author:  [@St.Urho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/St.Urho)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/2 "2003-12-06T21:31:12Z")
Since when does the U.S. Government have control of the Internet?
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/3 "2003-12-06T21:49:03Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Why should the American goverment give control of the internet to the UN?
Why should we debate a straw man?
The U.S. government is not controlling or offering control of anything. A private U.S. based company currently handles naming conventions. There is no international recognition or standardization for rules regarding things such as taxation (such as already exist for postal and telephone communications and services). Various bodies would like to see an international agreement on the normalization of those latter activities and _some_ participants have expressed a desire to see the naming powers moved to the regulatory group. The U.S. representative intends to oppose this latter suggestion.
So, th U.S. government does not _have_ control.
The U.S. government _opposes_ the suggestion that certain functions be moved from private to government control.
Your OP is misleading.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/4 "2003-12-06T21:52:28Z")
ICANN administers addresses and names under contract from the United States Government ([cite](http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5078371.html?tag=nl)).
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/5 "2003-12-06T22:03:11Z")
However, barring evidence of oversight, particularly _intrusive_ oversight, establishing U.S. government _control_ is a bit of a stretch. (And the OP also claimed that the Feds were offering to give it away to the U.N., while it appears that they are opposing that action.)
---
### Author:  [@ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ed)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/6 "2003-12-06T22:23:05Z")
Well, I think it’s fair to call ICANN private for all practical intents and purposes (for the reasons **tomndebb** mentioned), but ICANN is only able to do what it does _because_ of it’s agreement with the government. It’s a hair worth splitting only because this is precisely the bone most countries are picking in this issue: that the US government essentially has undue influence on ICANN because of this relationship.
(Which I think is BS, if that matters.)
**tomndebb** is certainly correct in that the US gov’t absolutely does not support such a move: in fact, the countries with most of the actual control of the Internet currently (US, UK, many European nations, etc) thoroughly oppose the idea. It’s the countries who aren’t happy with the existence of the Internet and it’s impact on their control of information who seem to be raising the biggest stink so far (such as Cuba and China).
It probably won’t happen. However, it is a wake up call, because it shows that governments the world over are starting to want a piece of the Internet Pie. So to speak.
---
### Author:  [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/7 "2003-12-06T23:04:33Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tomndebb \*
> \*\*However, barring evidence of oversight, particularly _intrusive_ oversight, establishing U.S. government _control_ is a bit of a stretch. (And the OP also claimed that the Feds were offering to give it away to the U.N., while it appears that they are opposing that action.) \*\*
Now when did I ever say anything about the US goverment offering control? However the planned World Summit on the Infomation Society is supposed to discuss this. Who knows what might happen from there.
While maybe control is too strong of a word, the goverment does control whom handles the top level domain name servers. He who has control of the only phone book makes the calls as it were.
---
### Author:  [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/8 "2003-12-06T23:38:38Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _ **ed** wrote:_
> It probably won’t happen. However, it is a wake up call, because it shows that governments the world over are starting to want a piece of the Internet Pie. So to speak.
Understandably so. The Internet has grown from a hobby to a critical infrastructure underlying commerce and industry. It is reasonable for many countries to be wary of having critical administration of Internet operation to be under even the potential influence of the US government (or any other, for that matter).
Frankly, I have some concerns with a for-profit organization like Verisign administering the .com and .net domains. But generally, I think ICANN has done a pretty good job, and am unaware of the particular criticisms that developing countries have raised. Content control and taxation issues should not drive this change.
On the other hand, the ITU is hardly a body worthy of paranoia. Sure, it is a “specialized agency” of the UN, but it actually pre-dates the UN, and would not be subject to the Human Rights declarations referenced in the OP. It isn’t part of the General Assembly, the Security Council, or the International Court of Justice. The ITU has its own governing body, budgets, standards, and guidelines.
Suggesting that the UN wants the Internet is simply misleading. It would be more accurate to say that some parties have expressed concern with the potential influence the US could (or does) have over ICANN, and that the administration might better be handled by the ITU.
On the face of it, it seems reasonable to consider. Unaware of the issues that would necessitate such a change, I would not support it. But I’ll keep an open mind.
> [@](#):
>
> _ **netscape 6** wrote:_
> While maybe control is too strong of a word, the goverment does control whom handles the top level domain name servers. He who has control of the only phone book makes the calls as it were.
Sort of. The real power of ICANN is controlling the IP addressing scheme. IP address administration is a critical operation of the Internet Protocol - the core technology that drives the Internet (under control of IETF, btw).
Top level domain administration happens to be a basic technological underpinning of the World Wide Web and some other popular applications (often confused with the Internet, but they are simply the most popular applications riding the Internet). It would not be particularly difficult for a group of users to completely bypass the “official” DNS system. You can, for example, access the SDMB without ever using the DNS system (less user friendly, granted, but possible nonetheless).
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/9 "2003-12-06T23:50:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by netscape 6 \*
> \*\*
> Now when did I ever say anything about the US goverment offering control?
> \*\*
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by netscape 6 \*
> \*\*
> [Why should the American goverment give control of the internet to the UN?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4318925&highlight=protection#post4318925)_\*
---
### Author:  [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2003, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/10 "2003-12-07T00:02:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by AZCowboy \*
> \*\*Understandably so. The Internet has grown from a hobby to a critical infrastructure underlying commerce and industry. It is reasonable for many countries to be wary of having critical administration of Internet operation to be under even the potential influence of the US government (or any other, for that matter).
>
> Frankly, I have some concerns with a for-profit organization like Verisign administering the .com and .net domains. But generally, I think ICANN has done a pretty good job, and am unaware of the particular criticisms that developing countries have raised. Content control and taxation issues should not drive this change.
>
> On the other hand, the ITU is hardly a body worthy of paranoia. Sure, it is a “specialized agency” of the UN, but it actually pre-dates the UN, and would not be subject to the Human Rights declarations referenced in the OP. It isn’t part of the General Assembly, the Security Council, or the International Court of Justice. The ITU has its own governing body, budgets, standards, and guidelines.
>
> Suggesting that the UN wants the Internet is simply misleading. It would be more accurate to say that some parties have expressed concern with the potential influence the US could (or does) have over ICANN, and that the administration might better be handled by the ITU.
>
> On the face of it, it seems reasonable to consider. Unaware of the issues that would necessitate such a change, I would not support it. But I’ll keep an open mind.
> Sort of. The real power of ICANN is controlling the IP addressing scheme. IP address administration is a critical operation of the Internet Protocol - the core technology that drives the Internet (under control of IETF, btw).
>
> Top level domain administration happens to be a basic technological underpinning of the World Wide Web and some other popular applications (often confused with the Internet, but they are simply the most popular applications riding the Internet). It would not be particularly difficult for a group of users to completely bypass the “official” DNS system. You can, for example, access the SDMB without ever using the DNS system (less user friendly, granted, but possible nonetheless). \*\*
I see. I feel a little like chicken little now. Thanks AZCowboy for showing me the sky is not falling.
---
### Author:  [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-wants-the-net-dont-risk-an-unfree-net/217410/11 "2003-12-07T00:07:32Z")
SimonX offering and being asked (and negotiated for are different things.)