This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The MUN Society, AKA The Official MUN Off Topic Thread

1) We won't be intervening in the operation of ICANN.

2) Why will any form of "interference" disrupt intl peace and security?

1 - You are trying to take over ICAAN and place it under the UN, aren't you?

2) No, I meant the UN is out of its jurisdiction, as the internet/ICAAN does not disrupt international peace and security. i.e. under current cicumstances UN cannot step in

Reply 121

Knogle

16

80-20 maybe. 20% for the US because they "invented" the internet and beared the massive setup cost of the infrastructure.

Reply 122

Knogle

16

aiman

1 - You are trying to take over ICAAN and place it under the UN, aren't you?

2) No, I meant the UN is out of its jurisdiction, as the internet/ICAAN does not disrupt international peace and security. i.e. under current cicumstances UN cannot step in

Yes.. but we won't actually be interfering in its operations. It'll just be under the management of the UN, and be one of the UN's organs like the International Seabed Authority.

And it could quite easily be linked to international security. The world is very heavily reliant on the internet these days. If the US for some reason (and this is VERY possible) decides to pull the plug on countries it doesn't like, there'd be turmoil. Countries are at the mercy of the US in the current state of affairs.

Reply 123

Longshoredrift80

10

You can't legally force a private company to hand itself over to UN control.

And this is no business of the SC, they're there for international peace and security, not for taking the internet and placing it in the incompetent hands of the UN, subject to controls from countries such as Iran and China. Because those are the countries who are behind this scheme.

The US does not see why it should be deprived of a veto in these circumstances simply because the company which is involved is a US one, this is not an international dispute or conflict.

The US objects strongly to this whole plan and will not be subject to sujch attempts to be beaten in to submission and to surrender the control of the internet to a UN bureaucracy with a shoddy record on efficiently managing anything and which has been shown in the past to be eminently corruptable.

Reply 124

Nightowl

OP

12

JonathanH

You can't legally force a private company to hand itself over to UN control.

And this is no business of the SC, they're there for international peace and security, not for taking the internet and placing it in the incompetent hands of the UN, subject to controls from countries such as Iran and China. Because those are the countries who are behind this scheme.
and the US does not see why it should be deprived of a veto because the company which is involved is a US one, this is not an international dispute or conflict.

The US objects strongly to this whole plan and will not be subject to sujch attempts to be beaten in to submission.

Actually, it seems to be Singapore in this instance :eek:

Reply 125

Knogle

16

JonathanH

You can't legally force a private company to hand itself over to UN control.

And this is no business of the SC, they're there for international peace and security, not for taking the internet and placing it in the incompetent hands of the US, subject to controls from countries such as Iran and China. Because those are the countries who are behind this scheme.

The US does not see why it should be deprived of a veto in these circumstances simply because the company which is involved is a US one, this is not an international dispute or conflict.

The US objects strongly to this whole plan and will not be subject to sujch attempts to be beaten in to submission and to surrender the control of the internet to a UN bureaucracy with a shoddy record on efficiently managing anything and which has been shown in the past to be eminently corruptable.

I think you meant "placing it in the incompetent hands of the UN". :wink:

Firstly the GA is so darn huge. The opinion of a few extremist countries like Iran will hardly matter.

As much as you'd like to object, what happens if a resolution is really passed?

Reply 126

Knogle

16

Nightowl

Actually, it seems to be Singapore in this instance :eek:

I'd do it even if I was the rep for Mongolia. :p:

Reply 127

aiman

12

I think you meant "placing it in the incompetent hands of the UN".

Firstly the GA is so darn huge. The opinion of a few extremist countries like Iran will hardly matter.

As much as you'd like to object, what happens if a resolution is really passed?

How do you intend for the UN to capture a private company?

And, a resolution passed by the GA and SC (in this case) would not be legally binding anyway.

Reply 128

Agent Smith

11

JonathanH

You can't legally force a private company to hand itself over to UN control.

And this is no business of the SC, they're there for international peace and security, not for taking the internet and placing it in the incompetent hands of the UN, subject to controls from countries such as Iran and China. Because those are the countries who are behind this scheme.

The evidence suggests that the UN can better fend off Chinese interests and so on than, for instance, Google can.

The US objects strongly to this whole plan and will not be subject to sujch attempts to be beaten in to submission and to surrender the control of the internet to a UN bureaucracy with a shoddy record on efficiently managing anything and which has been shown in the past to be eminently corruptable.

If the US has such problems with the UN, the question is begged what they think they're doing in it at all.

OP

~~World Communism.~~

aiman

How do you intend for the UN to capture a private company?

And, a resolution passed by the GA and SC (in this case) would not be legally binding anyway.

That's what i'm questioning, if this is even possible at the first place.

Um, how "private" is ICANN?

Surely the US, particularly the FCC, exercises significant control over it.

Reply 131

Longshoredrift80

10

Agent Smith

The evidence suggests that the UN can better fend off Chinese interests and so on than, for instance, Google can.

...Google has nothing to do with this at all. Google is a private company that can conduct itself however it wants and wouldn't be affected by the changes, exactly the same would happen whoever controlled ICANN. We're discussing the naming and numbering system of the whole internet here, not what one service does. And considering just how many countries in the UN are undemocratic and repressive, suddenly giving every single one a chance to screw around with the internet if they can strike enough deals is playing with fire. In many of these countries the internet is perhaps the sole remaining source of information and news beyond governmental control, take that away and it'll be a new dark age. The US categorically refuses to let that happen.

Agent Smith

If the US has such problems with the UN, the question is begged what they think they're doing in it at all.

Making sure the rest of you don't f**k things up too badly.

Or vice versa.

JonathanH

... Google has nothing to do with this at all. Google is a private company that can conduct itself however it wants and wouldn't be affected by the changed. We're discussing the naming and numbering system of the whole internet here, not what one service does.

So the US is better able to keep unwelcome hands off the internet than the UN?

Making sure the rest of you don't f**k things up to badly.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4782636.stm

Watch and learn.

Reply 134

Agent Smith

11

JonathanH

... Google has nothing to do with this at all. Google is a private company that can conduct itself however it wants and wouldn't be affected by the changed. We're discussing the naming and numbering system of the whole internet here, not what one service does.

So the US is better able to keep unwelcome hands off the internet than the UN?

Making sure the rest of you don't f**k things up to badly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4782636.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4782636.stm

Watch and learn.

Reply 135

Knogle

16

I couldn't care less about Google. The search engine industry has 0 barriers to entry, and any government can create a state-sponsored search engine overnight.

It's ICANN we're talking about - the service that literally runs the internet.

Reply 136

Knogle

16

Might wanna fix that link.

And hmm, this is supposed to be an off-topic MUN thread. :lolz:

Reply 137

Nightowl

OP

12

I fixed it

And this is an interesting use fo rthis thread which I hadn't considered.. people can use it to discuss possible resolutions they might write, which doesnt warrant its own thread!

Reply 138

Knogle

16

Nightowl

I fixed it

And this is an interesting use fo rthis thread which I hadn't considered.. people can use it to discuss possible resolutions they might write, which doesnt warrant its own thread!