BellaOnline Forums Travel and Culture Polish Culture This cannot happen !!!!

November 7, 2005

Wall Street Journal
COMMENTARY

Beware a 'Digital Munich'

By NORM COLEMAN
November 7, 2005; Page A21

It sounds like a Tom Clancy plot. An anonymous group of international technocrats holds secretive meetings in Geneva. Their cover story: devising a blueprint to help the developing world more fully participate in the digital revolution. Their real mission: strategizing to take over management of the Internet from the U.S. and enable the United Nations to dominate and politicize the World Wide Web. Does it sound too bizarre to be true? Regrettably, much of what emanates these days from the U.N. does.

The Internet faces a grave threat. We must defend it. We need to preserve this unprecedented communications and informational medium, which fosters freedom and enterprise. We can not allow the U.N. to control the Internet.

The threat is posed by the U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society taking place later this month in Tunisia. At the WSIS preparatory meeting weeks ago, it became apparent that the agenda had been transformed. Instead of discussing how to place $100 laptops in the hands of the world's children, the delegates schemed to transfer Internet control into the hands of intrigue-plagued bureaucracies.

The low point of that planning session was the European Union's shameful endorsement of a plan favored by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba that would terminate the historic U.S. role in Internet government oversight, relegate both private enterprise and non-governmental organizations to the sidelines, and place a U.N.-dominated group in charge of the Internet's operation and future. The EU's declaration was a "political coup," according to London's Guardian newspaper, which predicted that once the world's governments awarded themselves control of the Internet, the U.S. would be able to do little but acquiesce.

I disagree. Such acquiescence would amount to appeasement. We cannot allow Tunis to become a digital Munich.

There is no rational justification for politicizing Internet governance within a U.N. framework. The chairman of the WSIS Internet Governance Subcommittee himself recently affirmed that existing Internet governance arrangements "have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges."

Nor is there a rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. The history of the U.S. government's Internet involvement has been one of relinquishing control. Rooted in a Defense Department project of the 1960s, the Internet was transferred to civilian hands and then opened to commerce by the National Science Foundation in 1995. Three years later, the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers assumed governance responsibility under Department of Commerce oversight. Icann, with its international work force and active Governmental Advisory Committee, is scheduled to be fully privatized next year. Privatization, not politicization, is the right Internet governance regime.

We do not stand alone in our pursuit of that goal. The majority of European telecommunications companies have already dissented from the EU's Geneva announcement, with one executive pronouncing it "a U-turn by the European Union that was as unexpected as it was disturbing."

In addition to resentment of U.S. technological leadership, proponents of politicization are driven by fear -- of access to full and accurate information, and of the opportunity for legitimate political discourse and organization, provided by the Internet. Nations like China, which are behind the U.N. plan to take control, censor their citizens' Web sites, and monitor emails and chat rooms to stifle legitimate political dissent. U.N. control would shield this kind of activity from scrutiny and criticism.

The U.S. must do more to advance the values of an open Internet in our broader trade and diplomatic conversations. We cannot expect U.S. high-tech companies seeking business opportunities in growing markets to defy official policy; yet we cannot stand idly by as some governments seek to make the Internet an instrument of censorship and political suppression. To those nations that seek to wall off their populations from information and dialogue we must say, as Ronald Reagan said in Berlin, "Tear down this wall."

Allowing Internet governance to be politicized under U.N. auspices would raise a variety of dangers. First, it is wantonly irresponsible to tolerate any expansion of the U.N.'s portfolio before that abysmally managed and sometimes-corrupt institution undertakes sweeping, overdue reform. It would be equal folly to let Icann be displaced by the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union, a regulatory redoubt for those state telephone monopolies most threatened by the voice over Internet protocol revolution.

Also, as we expand the global digital economy, the stability and reliability of the Internet becomes a matter of security. Technical minutiae have profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, free expression and access to information, privacy and intellectual-property protection.

Responding to the present danger, I have initiated a Sense of the Senate Resolution that supports the four governance principles articulated by the administration on June 30:

� Preservation of the security and stability of the Internet domain name and addressing system (DNS).

� Recognition of the legitimate interest of governments in managing their own country code top-level domains.

� Support for Icann as the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS.

� Participation in continuing dialogue on Internet governance, with continued support for market-based approaches toward, and private-sector leadership of, its further evolution.


I also intend to seek hearings in advance of the Tunis Summit to explore the implications of multinational politicization of Internet governance. While Tunis marks the end of the WSIS process, it is just the beginning of a long, multinational debate on the values that the Internet will incorporate and foster. Our responsibility is to safeguard the full potential of the new information society that the Internet has brought into being.

Mr. Coleman is a Republican senator from Minnesota.

The UN would require two courses before use.

Bribary and Payoffs 101.

Bribary and payoffs 102 (How to give and Take).

When all else fails we can go back to smoke and mirrors or simply tie two tin cans together with a piece of string.
The UN? These people are incapable of cleaning their dupas after getting off the commode.
Thanks for the smiles today John. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I remember reading an article about this very long ago either on the internet or in the paper. So this was in the Wall Street Journal recently? Interesting.

I cannot fantom the internet not being a free tool to use as we are acustomed to in todays world. Yet who would have thought we would be paying for radio and tv. I think this is a little different though.

Well John, our world is changing around and about our heads. I am sure Mr. coleman is well learned, but, I am still some what confused with his message. Untill an action is enitiated, then a counter move is not possible with out proper information to go on.

I am not sure if the situaton is a destabalization move to counter the Microsoft giant of the Bill Gates and company or what. As a politition, he is well suited for mudding up the stream to the extent that who can see the bottom.

I had first heard some where in the whisper closit conversation of some concerns of band width clutter. Also concerns of individual hacking into sensitive computer systems and some manner of placing controls on computer access use.

But then, that will not hold water in concerns to the basic premise of the computer, they are so darn honest when accessing computer to computer. The entire system is disclosed between the two computers including the regestered owner as long as the two operating systems are the same. Or so it would seem.

I do not know, perhaps some one else will come forward and enlighten us.

Charles

John ,bescheid,rdywenur. No problem here:

di-di-di-dit di-dit , di-di-di-dit di-dit <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I can always add a CW keyboard and rig-blaster to my computer and station. With the hackers and UN I can bypass the internet and still be digital.
<img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/king.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/music.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/beamedup.gif" alt="" />

Is development of a �Digital Munich (see below) producing static that is obscuring reception of some shortwave radio stations, such as Voice of Russia at 7180 khz at 9 PM Eastern time, in New Jersey on my new Grundig digital AM/FM/SW receiver? Carl::

Hmm! Thats the 40 meter band. The frequency is in a part of the band that is the realm of S.S.B. and AM. In the evening hours this area of the frequency is over run with stations that pay no attention to bandwidth or power out. I suspect that any station you are tuned to is being "swamped" by another station. That is one brief explanation. <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Bob, makes sense! Thanks. Carl

Carl, this is serious, so i won't add any humor. The Grundig is a very good radio and I have nothing bad to say about it. However if you are really serious about listening to SW radio than a dedicated receiver is what you need. I am talking about the ICOM R-75, the Yaesu FRG-100B or VR-5000; I think Kenwood also has a communications receiver. The thing is these are NOT cheap inexpensive receivers and their prices start at $500+. These are multi-band, multi-mode (AM, FM, SSB, FSK, PSK and CW). These receivers are super sensitive and have a battery of filters that can narrow a signal down to 500Htz or shift the receiver so that an unwanted signal is not heard. Terminals are provided for any perphery equipment you might want to add and there is also computer interfaces. The inexpensive way of getting one of these receivers is the used or demo type. If you are very serious about SW listening then this is the way to go but, it is not cheap. <img src="/images/graemlins/angel.gif" alt="" />