By Daniel Greenfield ——Bio and Archives--December 25, 2010
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
10) Further alterations to the geographical makeup of ICANN's Board of Directors would mean a considerable shift in power towards the Arab League, which would presumably vote as a bloc far more than preexisting Geographic Regions. 12) Should the League of Arab States gain bloc voting power at ICANN, there is every indication that it will seek to replicate its effective takeover of the United Nations General Assembly, likely in conjunction with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). 15) On October 28, 2010, at OIC-CERT's Second Annual General Meeting, OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu noted the following as a core mission of OIC-CERT: "In view of the phenomena of discrimination, stereotyping and defamation targeting Muslims and their religion known as 'Islamophobia,' we invite the OIC-CERT to use its available professional and technical resources (in line with its objectives stated in terms of reference) in order to cooperate with the 'OIC Islamophobia Observatory' to identify the best ways and means including technical, administrative and legal tools to combat anti-Islamic contents on the internet."The OIC has already effectively used the UN to push its censorship agenda. But the UN is virtually toothless when it comes to the United States. However if the Muslim world can dominate ICANN the way it dominates the UN General Assembly, then free speech on the internet is dead. If this succeeds then 10 years from now, not only will sites like Jihad Watch or Religion of Peace lose their domain names, and most discussion of Islamic terrorism have to 'go on the run' in pop up social media groups that constantly get shut down (already the situation on sites such as Facebook) functioning like rats in the walls. But even the sites of mainstream politicians and newspapers will be targeted. Mandatory filtering by ISP's. The removal of Israel's Il domain, are all possibilities. And if anything I probably haven't gone far enough. The internet will become what the UN General Assembly is, a voice that speaks the Islamic narrative as one and bans any discussion or debate. Or marginalizes it so far that it never gets heard. Is this already underway? Yes.
On September 25, 2010, ICANN's board of directors removed a reference to "terrorism" from the fourth version of its Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG, or DAGv4), after complaints were received from several Arab individuals and organizations. 1) Until 2009, ICANN necessarily complied with applicable United States Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations regarding terrorism, and had no reason to specify such as the subject of a background check. 2) The term "terrorism" was included without any conceivably objectionable modifiers such as "Islamist." 3) The Chairman of the (Pan Arab) Multilingual Internet Group Khaled Fattal declared that the term "terrorism" itself was objectionable because "it will be seen by millions of Muslims and Arabs as racist, prejudicial and profiling." Fattal requested not only its removal, but an apology from ICANN.The two-pronged approach of silencing dissent and unleashing terror is underway. This is why the internationalization of ICANN poses the gravest of threats not just to the thing we call freedom of speech on the internet, but to the entire global organization of knowledge and debate that has come to run through its networks. If ICANN goes IslamCANN then they will have captured the consensus. This is a situation that few are talking about, even though in retrospect it may come to be one of the 5 issues that dramatically changes the world as we know it. Meanwhile the UN is working along its own track.
The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet. Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil. At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks. The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.But that's exactly what it is. A unified set of laws with regard to the internet is not about policing criminal activity. That is already policed under existing laws. It's about criminalizing dissent. Brazil's left wing regime, which just decided to recognize Palestinian Arab terrorists as a state, tried to help Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad get nuclear fuel, is acting as a stalking horse for the takeover of the internet.
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.The appearance of China and Saudi Arabia on this list is not exactly shocking. China wants to tightly control all content that its citizens access. And Saudi Arabia representing the Muslim world wants to control the depiction of Islam worldwide. Between the Muslim world and China and left wing regimes like Brazil, there is a common agenda. Censorship. Control.
US politicians have responded to moves from within the United Nations to form an inter-Government panel to regulate the internet, putting forward a resolution demanding the UN maintain a "hands-off approach". California Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack has put forward a resolution that the United Nations and other international governmental organisations take their hands off the Internet. Introducing House Resolution 1775 [see full text below], Mack argued that "the Internet has progressed and thrived precisely because it has not been subjected to the suffocating effect of a governmental organization's heavy hand. "The attempt of the United Nations to overtake something that is so central to our economy-like the Internet-is offensive and completely out of line," she said. "We have a hard enough time keeping the Federal Communications Commission's hands off the Internet; imagine having to convince governments like Syria, Iran and Venezuela."A Republican congress is better position to oppose this, but the Obama Administration is committed to few things more seriously, than to weakening American power and collaborating with the ascension of the Muslim world. The only real obstacle is likely to come from tech companies such as Google who benefit from open policies and don't want to see the boot of dictatorships come down on them. Not just for ideological reasons, but for profit motives too.
Vint Cerf, widely regarded as the father of the internet, also hit out at the United Nations plan. "Today, I have signed that petition on Google's behalf because we don't believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance," Cerf said on Friday on behalf of Google where he works as its chief internet lobbyist. Cerf said the beauty of the existing governance structure was that it was "bottoms-up" and influenced by a range of stakeholders, including companies and academics. "This model has not only made the Internet very open—a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere—it's also prevented vested interests from taking control," said Cerf.With falling US leverage and the growing dominion of China and the Muslim world-- the ball is now in the court of companies like Google. Of course I haven't touched on the Obama Administration's own attempts to take over the internet. But others have covered that issue more than adequately. Eddie at Something You Might Like sums up the three overall routes. I've written about COICA myself recently in $335,906 is the price of the Constitution. But of these ACTA is probably the scariest. More so than Net Neutrality or COICA, because 1. ACTA is secret. There have been leaks but we don't know what's fully inside. The level of secrecy has been the subject of diplomatic complaints. And Freedom of Information requests have been denied on national security grounds. 2. ACTA is negotiated as part of an international process, which means it's likely to force the US to abide by the standards of countries with less respect for free speech. And that makes it a potentially direct attack on the Constitution. And 3, from Eddie
Worse, since ACTA is structured as a “trade agreement,” it would not need Senate approval like a normal treaty. It’s a bureaucratic takeover of great proportions, aimed largely at the Internet.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.