- Impact
- 26
An article on the Financial Times web site (http://www.ft.com) on November 9 discussed attempts by several developing countries to put control of the Internet under the United Nations. This is apparently due to the fact that some countries, including Brazil, India, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and China, are unhappy with the fact that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), a U.S. based company, is responsible for regulating IP addresses.
These nations want the Internet to be controlled by individual national governments and by the U.N. at the international level. Opponents of the plan say giving this power to governments will stifle the free flow of information on the 'Net and could lead to a nightmarish tangle of different and conflicting laws, a situation that already exists in areas such as spam control, child pornography, hate speech and other issues on which various countries have passed laws. The U.S. and Europe are in favor of the current regulatory model.
There are good arguments on both sides. Standardization of laws and regulations would make it easier for everyone to comply, but there is also a good chance that Internet commerce might be bogged down by new regulations and sovereign nations would lose even more control if it were taken over by an international body.
What do you think? Who should control the 'Net - or should anyone? Some think the Internet should be a "free zone," as it was in its beginnings, a "final frontier" where few laws apply. Others are eager to seize power and tax and regulate online communications to death. Within the U.S., power plays over the 'Net are already raging, as the federal government seeks to preempt state anti-spam laws and states argue for their right to impose taxes on Internet access. Where do you stand?
what does everyone think???
(credit for this article goes to winxpnews.com)
These nations want the Internet to be controlled by individual national governments and by the U.N. at the international level. Opponents of the plan say giving this power to governments will stifle the free flow of information on the 'Net and could lead to a nightmarish tangle of different and conflicting laws, a situation that already exists in areas such as spam control, child pornography, hate speech and other issues on which various countries have passed laws. The U.S. and Europe are in favor of the current regulatory model.
There are good arguments on both sides. Standardization of laws and regulations would make it easier for everyone to comply, but there is also a good chance that Internet commerce might be bogged down by new regulations and sovereign nations would lose even more control if it were taken over by an international body.
What do you think? Who should control the 'Net - or should anyone? Some think the Internet should be a "free zone," as it was in its beginnings, a "final frontier" where few laws apply. Others are eager to seize power and tax and regulate online communications to death. Within the U.S., power plays over the 'Net are already raging, as the federal government seeks to preempt state anti-spam laws and states argue for their right to impose taxes on Internet access. Where do you stand?
what does everyone think???
(credit for this article goes to winxpnews.com)
