When you remember what the United States thinks of the UN, I don't think we need to worry. Fracturing of the internet (which I don't think will happen) would be much more preferable than having that lot run it. A clear win for freedom and capitalism here.

seems the isssue has allready been decided.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69592,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

the increassed access to the net for the poulation of china and iran, and indeed all developing countries is a good thing, as long as there is no censorship by their governments. im still pissed off that google gave in to chinese government requests that searches for such words as 'freedom' and 'democracy', initiated in chinese servers will not work. seems the profits as a result of the massive chinese market are more important that the pricipals of free information exchange which is the best aspect of the net.

Kofi Annan said this week the U.N. had no interest in controlling, regulating, or otherwise interfering with the net. Taxing it(where on earth did the author hear THAT?) certainly is odd, "even by UN standards."

This article sounds more a pretext for U.N.-bashing than anything else.

Good article

Im happy to report online opinion has not yet been blocked in China.

On a related matter the recent story of Yahoo devolging personal emails to the CCP resulting in a chinese journalist being jailed is of great concern.

www.chinadigitaltimes.net/2005/09/group_yahoo_hel_1.php

There are many negatives to the internet such as porn,how to murder,kill,make drugs,rape etc that I wish we could preclude,but to have the corrupt,inept and gutless UN in charge of such a powerful tool,beggars belief.Coffee Drop hasn't a clue,just like his adversary George Dubwua.

Crisis over. The Economist online reports that from next year an international forum will convene to discuss internet issues, but it will have no binding powers. It says that "this is something of a relief, as many of the countries that have called loudest for America to give up its role in the running of the internet are those that are most keen to stop their citizens accessing “undesirable” material. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and a host of other nations are guilty of censoring the content available to web users, their aim being less to protect the population from depraved content than to deter nascent democratic movements. The involvement of such repressive regimes in overseeing the internet would have been at best distasteful to more assiduous guardians of human rights, and at worst seriously damaging to its workings."

Well said. The Tunisia meeting will focus on the so-called "digital divide," although it is not clear that increased net access is critical for poor countries. More important is the sudden spread of mobile phones, which is already having widespread economic benefits.

I totally agree Bennie.

Although I agree with the main point of this article (which on the surface is saying don't censor the internet), it is clear to anyone who can read between the lines that the author is simply trying to discredit the UN and make a point (as false as it may be) that those dirty pinko lefties are at it again.

And if the Liberal party supporting author of this article believes in freedom of speech on the web, then answer this smart ar**...

Where did 'www.johnhowardlies.com' and 'www.liarsforhoward.com' dissapear to? Hey?

Both of those sites revealed the lies of the Liberal government and now they've magically disappeared. Funny isn't it?

So much for freedom of speech!

Mr Man

I haven't checked into johnhowardlies.com for a while (too depressing) - and yes you are right - its gone.

I found the following article on SMH website - from July 2004. There was an investigation into it and the website is no more.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/15/1089694467621.html?from=storyrhs

And this on liarsforhoward:

"AUSTRALIA: Bloggers, spammers face commentary clampdown

Internet electoral content should identify someone authorizing it, says Howard Government; during last year's campaign, Australian Electoral Commission lacked precedent to penalize anonymous political sites..."

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=21838

As you say Mr Man so much for freedom of speech, so much for democracy. Say bye bye.

Alan Anderson grasp of the issue here is weak. Simple UN bashing piece.
The issue is that the web is indeed controlled by US law the servers that control the internet are under US law not international law this is the problem. Also because the servers that control the internet are all in the US they can listen on anybody anytime, and there is a some evidence that this does happen. International laws are often at odds with Countries and the internet is a good example the US controlled internet provides web address for Islamic terror web site and most of these are hosted by US web servers. Current US law allows sexual offenders to gain access to the internet that they might not have under international law. Alan has heard the words UN and jumped on the band wagon rather then looked at the issues of sovereignty and terrorism at least I hope so.

For the record, the idea of taxing the internet did NOT come from the United Nations. Quoting from a 1999 report is a bit suspect anyway as that's six years ago.

The point about community access centres in 1999 was that phone lines did not exist in third world countries. If you remember, we once used modems. Anyway copper still don't exist and probably never will. The third-world runs on mobiles, wireless and satellite.

Yeah, overall a pretty obvious and silly article.

The intereting thing about the Tunisian conference was the $100 laptop to be given to school children in developing countries. A dream maybe, but who knows!

Scout,

Ah yes, I had forgotten about all that.

But I can't help wonder...

What was the reason for the sites not re-emerging?

Was it because the authors decided to keep their anonymity and not continue the sites?

Or was that they weren't allowed to continue at all?

With the diminishing freedom of speech in this country, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the latter.

Mr Man

It is a worry isn't it? I am trying to consider ways to find out what has happened.

It would appear that control of the internet by the UN is the least of our problems, when our current government apparently has such a great deal of influence already.

Long Live OLO and other blogsites.