http://phys.org/news/2012-05-internet.html
As a followup to a previous story about congressional hearings regarding a proposal to turn over control of the internet to the United Nations International Telecommunications Union, we are happy to report that extensive public pressure has ensured that there remains a bipartisan consensus against allowing this transfer of power over the Internet.
“There’s a strong, bipartisan consensus within the (US) administration and Congress that we must resist efforts from some countries to impose a top-down governance of the Internet,” Representative Henry Waxman told the hearing.
Congresswoman Doris Matsui added that “any international authority over the Internet is troublesome, particularly if that effort is being led by countries where censorship is the norm.”
A top State Department official, in prepared remarks, reaffirmed the opposition of the Obama administration to UN governance of the Internet.
“In all bilateral encounters and multilateral meetings, the United States consistently opposes the extension of intergovernmental controls over the Internet,” said Philip Verveer, deputy assistant secretary of state and coordinator for IT policy, saying this would lead to “very bad outcomes.”
“It inevitably would diminish the dynamism of the Internet,” he said.
Verveer told lawmakers that UN control would possibly “aid in censorship and repression” in some countries.
“Father of the Internet”, Google’s Vint Cerf, said Thursday that proposals to bring the Internet under United Nations’ control “holds profound — and I believe potentially hazardous — implications for the future of the Internet and all of its users”.
The ITU is scheduled to have their annual meeting in December where Russia, China, and other repressive countries will continue to press for this transfer “on behalf of developing countries”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“on behalf of developing countries”.
– Where have we heard that before….?
I thought Al Gore was “father of the internet”?
People who say they oppose censorship often only oppose it when it impinges on their own right to free speech–they’re not so keen on defending free speech by those who disagree with them…so this is good.
Matsui used to be my rep, but I moved a few miles away and now Dan Lungren is my guy. That was worth the move all by itself.
Facebook and Google alone fail miserably at controlling the internet. I can’t imagine how the UN would come out smelling good in the same role.
Thank God. This is the first and likely the last time I will agree with Henry Waxman.
But was this in his own words, or was it plagiarized?
Americans to the UN: BUTT OUT!
Henry Waxman gets dewaxed/revelation across the head, just in time to talk common sense for the 1st time in his life.
“There’s a strong, bipartisan consensus within the (US) administration and Congress that we must resist efforts from some countries to impose a top-down governance of the Internet,” Representative Henry Waxman told the hearing.
It’s got to be a miracle!
sarc off.
For this to be debated in the United States Congress is disturbing. If I’m not mistaken, for this to have happened, it would have needed a sponsor. I would love to know who that idiot of a congressman/woman was.
How can Al be the father of the internet, when he’s too busy screwing the rest of us?
To Jen Oates:
“A revolution is only illegal when it is ‘their’ revolution. Never when it is ‘our’ revolution.
Benjamin Franklin
Only N. Korea or Venezuela would have been a worse choice than the UN. But you do have to admire their chutzpah!
Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
“on behalf of developing countries”.
Right up there with “It’s for the children!”
RockyRoad, they’ll be back with this same proposal. Persistence and patience are their most potent tools.
Jason,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hres628/text
Cosponsors were McCaul and Langevin.
Their proposed House Resolution 628 actually is intended to set US policy *against* allowing any administration to support attempts by the ITU and the UN to either take over the Internet, or create an alternative ITUnet.
Katabasis says (May 31, 2012 at 10:51 am): ‘“on behalf of developing countries”.
– Where have we heard that before….?’
At least they’re not saying “It’s for the children.” Yet.
So if handing over control of the internet to the UN is a bad idea, why would we give the UN control of anything? You know, like the IPCC.
Excellent news. Another blow to the Obama admin. Lesson learned: “We the people” are still a force to be reckoned with. 🙂
Now to deep six the other 4 or 5 globalization agendas.
The solution is simple:
put Al Gore in charge of the Internet
[ducks under table as projectiles fly in cyberspace]
This is the first bit of proof of intelligent life in Washington DC.
Smokey on May 31, 2012 at 10:57 am said:
Americans to the UN: BUTT OUT!
I would add an amendment to that statement.
Americans to the UN: GTFO!
We only need top down control of our energy resources, like coal being the first priority.
I can only imagine that a UN-controlled Internet would be lacking certain controversies. For example, I don’t imagine them allowing Wattsupwiththat or Joannenova to continue. After all, it wouldn’t be in the “public interest” to allow it.
Thank goodness for that. The UN seems to be pushing to be The World government. As the might of the corrupt EUSSR moves on with the blessing of the USA I increasingly find myself supporting China and Russia in their attempts to promote individualism. Which is odd as I have always thought them against free speech and people power. I don’t know the public feeling in the USA but we people in Europe (actually the British Isles are not in Europe) are totally pissed off with what the so called political class have delivered.
For what it is worth the Internet Sales Tax bill was introduced by Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and is backed by Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Home Depot, and other companies ….
Even if this hadn’t been a resolution to state opposition to this action, this is an election year, so sometimes things get introduced into congress in order to force certain parties to go on the record with an unfortunate position, even if the sponsor then votes against the issue. For instance, in the US House of Representatives, the Democratic Party refused to introduce the president’s budget for consideration because none of them wanted that albatross hanging around their necks and didn’t want to be on record as voting against their president. So the Republican Party leadership introduced it to force a vote. This kind of gameship happens all the time in Washington.
In this case I am very glad that they seem to have all recognized the danger in this ITU idea.