UN Pushes Plan To Assume Internet Governance Role

no0b writes with an Op-Ed by the FCC Commissioner on a UN plan to gain more control over Internet regulation. From the article: "On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish 'international control over the Internet' through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices. " BoingBoing offers a slightly different perspective; The Register offers a quite different perspective.

Comments

No improvement over the current setup

[xeno314]

The idea would be to have *better* regulation of the Internet, which won't happen with the UN/ITU. Adding culture clashes to the present political clashes and putting countries that actively censor content at the table is just asking for trouble.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[forkfail]

The most appropriate regulation for the 'net would be of two parts:

1. There shall be common standards that may be utilized by anyone without cost.
2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.
2a. You can charge for a connection and by bandwidth, but not for transference of data.
3. There shall not be any more regulation imposed on the 'net.

But... we'll never get this. Why? Because the powers that be can go full time on their efforts to control; the politicians who are bought and the folks doing the buying don't need to take time to go to work - that is their work. Just as the mega-corporations who are fighting for their own control don't have to spend their evenings taking care of the kids.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[forkfail]

Ack - I can't count. Guess that's why I'll never run the 'net *sheepish look*

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Anonymous Coward]

2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.

So if I send a packet out my internet addressed to 10.15.31.205, my ISP is required to forward it? Where do they forward it to? If I set up my company's router to advertise routes to 72.14.0.0/16 (one of Google's blocks), our ISP is required to accept those routes and advertise them downstream? I could go on, but I assume by now you realize this issue is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you are DDOSing a client of mine I can't null route that data because of point 2? Well done, you've just broken all firewalls and ultimately the internet itself.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Anonymous Coward]

The most appropriate regulation for the 'net would be of two parts:

1. There shall be common standards that may be utilized by anyone without cost.
2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.
2a. You can charge for a connection and by bandwidth, but not for transference of data.
3. There shall not be any more regulation imposed on the 'net.

But... we'll never get this. Why? Because the powers that be can go full time on their efforts to control; the politicians who are bought and the folks doing the buying don't need to take time to go to work - that is their work. Just as the mega-corporations who are fighting for their own control don't have to spend their evenings taking care of the kids.

I guess you haven't had much real world Network experience.

1. Common standards? What isn't a common standard? Are you talking about flash? Or are you referring to BGP, OSPF, IS-IS, and TCP/IP?
2. Not all data is worth forwarding. Have you heard of QoS? It achieves its end result by not trying to forward every packet.
2a. Why wouldn't they have the right to charge for transference of data? It's their network. They can charge you whatever they want. If you don't like it, choose a different way to connect to the internet. (Yes, I do realize that there are those who don't have more than one choice for provider. That isn't a problem this rule would fix. This is a problem because of the amount of regulations on telecoms.)
3. Good luck on that. Regulation begets regulation.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Medievalist]

Oh, c'mon, that's covered in RFC1918, isn't it? I didn't even have to look the number up. Step One was observe the standards.

The real problem is 800 lb gorillas who ignore and subvert Internet standards for competitive advantage, and the ITU is not exactly set up to chastise that sort of actor. These are the people who gave us X.500, for chrissakes! If there's anybody less trustworthy than the US government it would be a consortium of telecommunications giants.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right.. and the world's politicians agree there needs to be some appropriate regulation of the net:

1. There shall common standards of decency on the net
2. If you get a packet, you filter it for banned phrases, sites, and other indecent content
3. There shall be more regulation imposed on the 'net.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[justforgetme]

Well yes. But the matter still is that the Internet will need a globally owned controlling
entity if it is going to continue. ATM too much of the control resides on the US.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Anonymous Coward]

Test

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Anonymous Coward]

>2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.

Sounds like you're trying to make a rule specifically allowing DDoS'ing.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[gorzek]

Really? All the US controls is the .com TLD (and some others), a component of DNS. The rest of the world could happily build their own Internet with their own DNS and completely cut out the US, if they were so inclined. It's not as if we control some key piece of infrastructure that no one else could possibly duplicate.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[MobyDisk]

2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.
2a. You can charge for a connection and by bandwidth, but not for transference of data.

I see that you are trying to write network neutrality in here, but it won't work with these rules. I suspect you are trying to make sure that an ISP doesn't charge the user some kind of special premium for a packet that goes to a particular web site or competing ISP. That is a good rule. But it isn't that they can't charge for data: they simply must charge equally for all data. So I propose a revision:

Rule 2: All packets are charged equally, regardless of source, destination, or content.

Otherwise, your rule 2 violates routing rules (some packets must be discarded). Internet backbones wouldn't work with rule 2A since their entire business model is charging per packet. Peering agreements would also be in a gray area of rule 2A since the count the transference of data but don't explicitly charge for it. Those are good things we would not want to interfere with.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[MobyDisk]

First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[justforgetme]

ICANN and IANA

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[justforgetme]

And all the money that has been shoved inot the IETF.
But that is more of a problem of the rest of the world being ignorant tightwads

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[moderatorrater]

Who's your alternative? The UN is toothless, any other single country is either too small or too corrupt. There are problems with the US, god knows, but it's still the best option among the major world players that I can see.

The EU as a whole might be able to do it, but that depends a lot on how well the countries are able to work together to be effective. So far it hasn't been terrible, but as they're going through an existential crisis right now we might want to hold off on giving them control over the internet.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightful?

It's immensely telling that you (and much of /. it seems) fail to realise that there are already culture clashes. The internet is English language / 1st world / Latin alphabet / western educated. The further away from these things you are the more massive the _existing_ culture clash.

You can't see the culture clash because you're all of the above. And bigoted. Or at least, unimaginative and insular.

It will very definitely be "*better*" as the people who want to use it will have a say in how it works.

There is also not a single reason for anyone who is all-of-the-above to complain about it. Whenever there is talk of censorship or restructuring someone spits out the "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it" meme. The same logic applies here. The USA can do what it likes. The worse that will happen is that international USA-centric sites will start hosting slightly different services for USA and UN. Of course, many multinationals already host a different site for each country...

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[msobkow]

ITU standards are a bear to read, understand, and implement, I'll give you that.

But after that, we part ways.

The US has recently and repeatedly demonstrated that the neutrality of the internet is a thing of the past as the USG gives in to pressure from industry lobbyists who demand that sites be taken down on their say-so without any provisioning for due process. They even tried to LEGISLATE such behaviour because it was proving too difficult to comply with international law that requires the home nation's due process be respected before a company's website can be taken off line.

As inbred and outdated as many of the ITU administrators may be, they still do NOT have a history of taking kickbacks from unrelated industries as the US has been doing with SOPA, ACTA, and other bad legislation and policy that they're trying to shove down the world's throat on behalf of the media companies.

Both approaches are not "free" as the internet needs to be. But at least with the ITU I don't need to worry about a website being taken down because Disney, Sony, or some other media company is having a hissy fit.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Xest]

Why are culture clashes a bad thing? to push anything through would need consensus and technically sound solutions to real problems aren't going to be something that are affected by cultural barriers.

Cultural clashes means that there will never be consensus on controversal issues like web censorship, and so it seems far better than the current situation where the US unilaterally takes down foreign websites and companies as a result.

The countries that censor wont have full reign to do what they want, everyone would have to agree which is far superior to the current status quo where a country that censors (the US) has unilateral control over too much and abuses that to push it's own failing economic model of focussing too heavily on IP.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[tverbeek]

I volunteer to run the internet.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

>2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.

Sounds like you're trying to make a rule specifically allowing DDoS'ing.

I wouldn't worry. There is absolutely no danger of the UN accepting that rule.

This is more their way of doing things :
"If you get a packet, you shall contact, in writing and in triplicate, all countries of the UN and those not in the UN, and if any of them objects within 6 months you may not forward the packet"

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[shutdown -p now]

The UN is toothless, any other single country is either too small or too corrupt.

Why is size a requirement in this case? As for "corrupt", US is not exactly in the top spot, corruption-wise, among similar (i.e. first world) countries.

How about we hand it off to, say, Switzerland?

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[moderatorrater]

Why is size a requirement in this case

Leverage. If someone tells Switzerland to fuck off, who cares?

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[rtb61]

The US controls the .com TLD only on the DNS it controls.

At the end of the day the DNS used is currently the end users choice.

Really UN control, should really be about each country doing it's own thing and should only establish treaties over mirroring and through traffic.

How a country uses, abuses, unsecured it's internal internet is up to it. How it deals with traffic entering from or exiting to foreign destinations needs to be covered by treaties, covering legal responsibilities. No country should be able to determine was proper traffic inside another country, however there should be a set of regulations and controls for traffic between countries.

DNS should all be local with treaties covering nothing more than mirroring of other countries DNS addresses. Which means .gov .mil et al get localised by default, want the US than .us is what you are looking for.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[shutdown -p now]

When it comes to matters concerning Internet, it's already staked on voluntarily cooperation of all parties. China - or, for that matter, Luxembourg - can similarly tell US to fuck off, and just run its own root domains. The reason why they don't is because everyone else will be off their net if they do so, not because US specifically has some leverage.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[moderatorrater]

So, we don't need regulation, but who does the unnecessary regulation is vitally important?

Even then, fewer people are going to walk away from the American portion of the internet than the Swiss part of the internet.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Ghaoth]

This situation shouldn't be happening. There should be no bureaucratic control over the Internet, let alone under the auspices of the UN. The UN is one of the most corrupt and inefficient organisations on the planet. It espouses global government under a select elite. I wouldn't trust it to manage my grocery list, let alone the Internet.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? At this point, what has the US govt done that would not have occurred sooner/worse under a UN-based entity?

Please keep in mind that this is the same UN that gives/gave places like Iran and Ghadaffi's Libya places on human rights councils, and the places most actively agitating for UN control are exactly those which unreprentantly engage in mass censorship.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[currently_awake]

Given current levels of US government influence at the global level I doubt we'll see any change.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[NorthWarden]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Verisign currently holds the contract from ICANN to host the .com TLD, and therefore the .com address space is COMPLETELY under US control, as it is run by an American corporation which is totally subject to American law and judgement. Ditto with .net - exactly same deal. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, since it has to be hosted somewhere and there are very few international zones/corporations, but it does mean that the US can, if it so chooses, cause a ruling to be brought against Verisign regarding the .com or .net zone.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[NorthWarden]

Never mind, mod me down. I misread. Sorry!

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[justforgetme]

Well, it is important because you need someone to say: "Fuck off" when some government agency (any government's or any one at all) come through the doors 'demanding' soandso site to be blocked on (unjudged) charges of kiddie porn.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[tehcyder]

This situation shouldn't be happening. There should be no bureaucratic control over the Internet, let alone under the auspices of the UN. The UN is one of the most corrupt and inefficient organisations on the planet. It espouses global government under a select elite. I wouldn't trust it to manage my grocery list, let alone the Internet.

You forgot to mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Illuminati, Freemasonry, the Knights Templar and black helicopters.

4/10 must try harder.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[KingBenny]

will not happen, and the prozac in the tap water isnt making it any better ... can i just quote one of my inspirations here, Jamie Jasta : "those who sow in flames, in ashes they shall reap ..."
this is not going anywhere good

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[Ghaoth]

My apologies. There is only so much time in one lifetime. The list is too long.

Re:No improvement over the current setup

[sjames]

I don't see it working. In order to assert authority over the internet, the U.N. would have to have police powers over the people actually running it, and they don't. The U.N. can't have me arrested if I refuse to do what it wants while I'm in my home country. I can just say no.

It's cool

[Anonymous Coward]

They can have all the non-binding resolution "power" they want.

Re:It's cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Within six months, it will be electronic oldmen running the world.

Re:It's cool

[gorzek]

A new age!

Re:It's cool

[anyGould]

Within six months, it will be electronic oldmen running the world.

We could only be so lucky, that the "old men" of the Internet were put back in charge.

Two bad choices

[vlm]

Two bad choices:

1) Led by the US = megacorps have purchased both political parties so its basically megacorp-net. Expect lots of censorship and control focused around maximizing profits.

2) Led by the UN = most of the UN members are crooks, dictators, religious extremists, military leaders who killed the civilian leaders to gain control, basically the scum of the non-business society so its basically dictator-net. Expect lots of censorship and control around killing all dissenters and forcing one lunatic religions beliefs upon people of other lunatic religious beliefs (or non-beliefs)

Re:Two bad choices

[forkfail]

What I fear is that we'll wind up having to chose our poisons.

Because it looks like there's no way in hell that it will be left in the hands of those who built it, maintain it and understand it.

Re:Two bad choices

[zero.kalvin]

I guess this is my cue, I don't mind taking control for a while!

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our dictatorial overlords that don't give a second thought about patents and copyright law. We can always evade the censorship, anyway.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick the one most likely to result in a leadership that is crippled in from disagreement. The less they do, the better.

Re:Two bad choices

[dragonhunter21]

Hey, now there's an idea- the workers at backbone stations take a global week-long break and let the chips fall as they will. See if they figure out the real owners then.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Insightful if I had mod points. Is it a case of personal selection bias or are most governments becoming more corrupt and incompetent every year now?

Re:Two bad choices

[jmorris42]

> Led by the UN = most of the UN members are crooks, dictators, religious extremists, military leaders...

What is really horrible is that this state of affairs isn't an accident. It was designed that way, to be a Parliment of Tyrants. When the UN was proposed and designed most nation states were unfree hellholes and with the Soviet Block and ChiComs on the rise at the time the trend was not our friend. Yet the design called for one nation state one vote in the General Assembly and with both China and the Soviet Union getting a veto in the Security Council there was zero chance of anything positive ever happening and every chance of great harm. And it was designed that way. Think about it.

So lets turn over control of the Internet to the same bunch of misfits who thought seating Iran to an organization to pontificate on human rights was a good idea. And lets not forget Libya having to get booted out of the Human Rights Council when Kadaffy's body count got so high even the other tyrants were getting embarrased. So oh heck yea, lets turn the Internet over to these thugs, what could possibly go wrong when the Axis of Evil starts writing the RFCs for the Evil Bit and it ain't April Fools.

Re:Two bad choices

[Compaqt]

Yeah. This.

I'm of two minds, too.

On the one hand, we've all seen the situation as it is currently with the US on past Slashdot stories (shutting down websites, taking domains, etc.)

So you start to think, maybe the US shouldn't have control.

The problem is, the UN could be worse.

Re:Two bad choices

[phantomfive]

The way I see it, there is a choice between having it controlled by the US, who despite SOPA, still has some of the strongest protection of free speech anywhere in the world. We have other problems, but you can say basically anything.

On the other side, you have an agency who is partially controlled by Russia and China, who don't respect free speech, and actively favor censoring the internet. At least in the US, politicians will all say they oppose censorship if you ask them. In China, most of them favor it, and actively use it as an opportunity to destroy their political enemies. Do you want someone with that kind of attitude to have any say in what happens on the internet?

The proper function of the UN is not to tell us what to do, it's not to be a governing body of the world. It's designed to be a place where the powerful (and to a lesser degree, the less powerful) countries of the world can get together and discuss things, and if possible, avoid going to war. Furthermore it is mechanism to take action once all parties are agreed. These reasons are why any member of the security council can veto action.

It was designed for that purpose, and it does it well. If you want to make the UN an international leading body, a true world government, then you'll need to change its structure.

Re:Two bad choices

[Githaron]

What I fear is that we'll wind up having to chose our poisons.

When was the last time the US government let us choose anything?

Re:Two bad choices

[electron sponge]

Who is John Galt's IT guy?

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what you will about the corruption and inefficiencies in the U.S. government; I would GLADLY accept U.S. control over the internet instead the U.N. any day.

As bad as the megacorps of the U.S. are, they are NOWHERE near as bad as the "crooks, dictators, religious extremists, military leaders who killed the civilian leaders to gain control" you point out in the U.N.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

i am baffled by why this is modded down. Its pretty much dead on.

Re:Two bad choices

[postbigbang]

Even the US Gov has trouble asserting itself over many of the self-governing bits of the Internet. Yes, ICANN is a tool of the US Gov, but many other elements are both international in membership (IETF) and very much interested in keeping governments out of the underpinnings (IEEE).

The UN, in my belief, is ineffective. So is the US Gov, but once in a while they get it right so long as Congress doesn't get involved.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

i am baffled by why this is modded down. Its pretty much dead on.

The UN has mod points?

Re:Two bad choices

[jesseck]

The problem is, the UN could be worse.

This is what I fear... right now, though dictators can oppress Internet access for their "citizens", people in other nations can speak out against that dictatorship without fear of attack. If we made an "International Body" to oversee the Internet, ran by such dictators, other people can't speak up for the oppressed- it would be censored. The reason networks like Tor can route information is because it is free in some countries, and not in others. This idea, giving control of the Internet to the UN, will effectively kill (for the time being) freedom on the Internet.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Modding, so have to post as AC. As I was reading your post, the thought struck that maybe US politicians, for whom open support of censorship is a career-limiting move, would prefer to have censorship imposed by proxy through the UN, using the "free speech" model favored by the Chinese, Russians, et. al.

Sort of like how the US had no problem using rendition on terrorist suspects when local law made torture "at home" too risky.

Re:Two bad choices

[Tanktalus]

I don't know who you are, or even what your name is, but you already have my vote.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say with the US control, people would have the illusion of freedom of speech, whereas with China, they wound't.

Re:Two bad choices

[LordLimecat]

You know, I heard from someone that theyre doing it right now! Something about "Primaries" and "November 2012"....youll want to google for the details.

Re:Two bad choices

[preaction]

Who run Bartertown?

Re:Two bad choices

[Cragen]

Which is pretty much why Democracy works the best. It is the most ineffective form of government on planet. Lawyers trying to outwit lawyers at every turn. Leaving those of us, living mostly legally, alone most of the time. Oddly the other reason Democracy works is that we (mostly) cheerfully pay taxes and on-time to get this form of government. Seems a fair trade most of the time. Hmm. Nap time. (Get off my lawn! Yawn.)

Re:Two bad choices

[Guppy06]

See if they figure out the real owners then.

The folks with eminent domain rights, unless those backbones operate via telepathy.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the Chinese are honest, which is more than can be said about our politicians. They say one thing but vote differently...

Re:Two bad choices

[zero.kalvin]

My name is I believe I should leave you the fuck alone.

Re:Two bad choices

[DesScorp]

Who is John Galt's IT guy?

Whoever he hires.

Re:Two bad choices

[JustSomeProgrammer]

If I had mod points...

Re:Two bad choices

[Beardo the Bearded]

Yeah, I'd vote for the UN. It took them what, like two years to write a letter to Syria to ask them to stop murdering civilians? They still haven't sorted out Darfur. They'll stand idly by while thousands of people die of thirst EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

How long is it going to take to get consensus to write a letter to ask someone to please stop offending FSM / downloading something / critiquing some government? If I got one I'd frame it and keep it in my office.

Worst case, we can just group together and make up some sect of a religion that finds censorship obscene.

Re:Two bad choices

[Guppy06]

When the UN was proposed and designed most nation states were unfree hellholes and with the Soviet Block and ChiComs on the rise at the time the trend was not our friend.

When the UN was proposed and designed, there were far fewer nation-states than there are today; Africa and much of Asia were represented by their colonial masters in Europe (and/or occupied by the Japanese). And the "ChiComs," as you put it, weren't among them either. Recognition, including a permanent seat on the Security Council, went to the ROC, the government that is now in Taiwan. Transferring that recognition to the PRC is much more recent.

Re:Two bad choices

[mr100percent]

It wasn't founded to support tyranny, but to setup a system for cooperation and world stability. Whether a country was a dictatorship or not was considered "Internal Affairs" and by mutual agreement ignored temporarily to solve the then-bigger issue of regional wars.

Is your criticism really the case anymore? According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972). According to World Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2 percent of the world's population. That's not including the new democracies from Iraq, the Arab Spring, independence of Kosovo, and South Sudan, etc. That's a huge amount of progress.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, lets form comstar!

Re:Two bad choices

[Jawnn]

i am baffled by why this is modded down. Its pretty much dead on.

...and the other surviving member of the John Birch Society pipes up.

Re:Two bad choices

[bhagwad]

As an Indian, I hope the US will continue to have stewardship over the Internet for the foreseeable future. My own government is run by assholes who think "blasphemy" should be censored on the net. And since India has 1/3rd of the world's population and China has another 1/3rds, we're essentially screwed if the UN works on a pure "democracy" basis.

There are a lot of things I hate about the US, but free speech is NOT one of them. The first amendment is one of the most amazing pieces of legislation ever and people like me in India can only drool in envy. But I'm not complaining. Even if I don't personally live in a country where free speech is not...you know...free, at least I can be happy that it EXISTS somewhere on this planet. At least I can be grateful that my ideals are upheld SOMEWHERE.

But give the Internet to the UN, and all that goes out of the window. I don't like the net being run by megacorps. But I like it being run by countries like dictatorial countries like China, India and the Middle East even less.

Re:Two bad choices

[SydShamino]

Aaaaand you neglect to point out that it was made that way for a reason. It's purpose wasn't to be the Justice League, populated only with the good and righteous Free Western World. If we wanted that, we would have made NATO and not the UN.

The purpose of the UN was to get everyone together in the same room and talk. Sometimes that talk has been ugly, but by keeping everyone talking we can keep reminding ourselves that they are human, too, and maybe that kept us from destroying the planet in WWIII. And if something happens that's actually able to unite the UN in response? Well then there's a strong worldwide mandate to take action. It doesn't happen every time it should, but when it happens it works well.

So yes, it's extremely important and I'm extremely happy that the UN included all those unfree hellholes, the Soviet Block, "ChiComs", and even Iran and Libya. It wouldn't have worked any other way, and it's possible neither you nor I would have "worked" either.

Re:Two bad choices

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

There is too much profit potential in regulatory power for neutrality ever to emerge from the political process. If something 'neutral' happens, it will be organically -- perhaps partly through migration to completely unregulated channels (darknets, anonymized and encrypted subnets, etc.).

Re:Two bad choices

[DigiShaman]

You speak as though there would ultimately be some form of accountability for failure. Nope. Not going to happen. There will be a lot of political finger pointing over who "broke it" followed by a zillion government controlled solutions to the problem.

Defective by design. Incompetent by choice. That's that path politicians around the world take. Nothing new.

Re:Two bad choices

[Rene S. Hollan]

What I fear is that we'll wind up having to chose our poisons.

Because it looks like there's no way in hell that it will be left in the hands of those who built it, maintain it and understand it.

Then, when attacked, perhaps they should declare war on those that didn't.

Unless you are willing to die to protect your freedoms, you don't have any. What? You though freedom was cheap?

Re:Two bad choices

[NeutronCowboy]

It was designed for that purpose, and it does it well. If you want to make the UN an international leading body, a true world government, then you'll need to change its structure.

Precisely. The UN, as much good as it does through its mere existence, would be a disaster as the official controlling body of the Internet. It is set up as a talking shop, and designed to allow for compromise along the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, in the area of free speech, that means almost nothing.

Screw SOPA and ACTA - UN control of the Internet might very well be what kicks off the Darknet explosion.

Re:Two bad choices

[ShakaUVM]

Poland had a House of Representatives that effectively ruled by unanimous consent for several hundred years.

It didn't go well for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto

Re:Two bad choices

[Dunbal]

There are a lot of things I hate about the US, but free speech is NOT one of them.

Unfortunately the biggest hater of free speech nowadays seems to be the US...

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

1/3rd of the world's population and China has another 1/3rds, we're essentially screwed if the UN works on a pure "democracy" basis.

No you don't. No it doesn't. And it doesn't work that way.

Glad I could help.

Re:Two bad choices

[gorzek]

The Internet has simply become too big and too important to remain apolitical forever. Think of how much has changed just in the past few years:

* Groups like Anonymous have done real-world damage to businesses and governments by bringing down servers and stealing private information.
* Wikileaks has embarrassed numerous governments by exposing their dirty laundry and even illegal activities.
* Twitter has been instrumental in organizing and spreading resistance movements, particularly during the Arab Spring.
* Bitcoin has allowed underground economies like Silk Road to flourish.
* The proliferation of strong encryption has presented new challenges for law enforcement and government eavesdropping.
* Onion protocols like Tor make it easier for people to hide their illegal/rebellious activities.
* The ease-of-use of BitTorrent and its clients have made copyright infringement easier than ever.

Taken by themselves, each of these things is a nuisance at best. Taken as part of a larger pattern, governments around the world see the Internet as a platform that's simply out of their control. Under the pretense of stopping criminal activity, they would also gladly lock it down to quash dissent. What originally came to prominence as a new engine for business has evolved as a viable platform for organized dissidence as well as criminal activity. The difficulty is in fighting in the latter without stopping the former. I know around here, the preference would be to maximize freedom even if that means criminal elements remain unthwarted and unpunished. Unfortunately, most people understand too little of these issues and most governments are too singularly focused on serving their own interests to see the Internet as a global public good that should be preserved. Instead, it's considered another vector for terrorism, criminality, and disruption, and therefore it must be sanitized to make it into a more suitable vehicle for commerce and propaganda.

Much of the business community would be happy to see the Internet become a "push" medium. Allowing users to generate content and express themselves opens site owners/operators up to more and more liability. I don't think it will ever come to outright banning of particular technologies, but policies, legal precedents, and broader governmental involvement in Internet affairs will result in a chilling effect, to the point that it won't be a good idea to speak your mind about most things, and the number of venues you'll have in which to do that will be limited anyway.

I think we have a long way to go before that happens, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it every step of the way.

Re:Two bad choices

[bhagwad]

Correction - 1/6th of the world's population for each. So 1/3rd overall with both countries combined.

Re:Two bad choices

[Githaron]

While I vote, these days, I wonder if it even matters.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN should be replaced by a league of democracies

Re:Two bad choices

[GLMDesigns]

That is why people are against over regulation. The more you regulate the more companies play the political game. You want more freedom? Have the government do its constitutionally limited roles and be very careful in expanding its scope.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually thinking about basically that. Only the two formative changes would be:
1. None of the persons operating or administrating the hubs would be allowed access to the network. Only hub to hub communication allowed and limited outside communication for purchase orders and billing.
2. There would be at least 3 entities operating seperate overlapping hubs in order to ensure no one entity would have full control, nor charge exorbant prices for access.

Rule #1 would be to ensure rule #2 could not be subverted by agents infiltrating each of the organizations then colluding to either filter content or deny/subvert access through overcharging.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is pretty much why Democracy works the best. It is the most ineffective form of government on planet. Lawyers trying to outwit lawyers at every turn. Leaving those of us, living mostly legally, alone most of the time.

Oddly the other reason Democracy works is that we (mostly) cheerfully pay taxes and on-time to get this form of government. Seems a fair trade most of the time. Hmm. Nap time. (Get off my lawn! Yawn.)

Don't know about where you live but where I do the government just takes what they want for taxes round here I have no option but to pay and if I don't cheerfully comply people with guns show up at my house to take me away...

Re:Two bad choices

[Grishnakh]

The problem with this idea is: how do you determine if a country has a democracy? For instance, back in 2000, Iraq was a democracy, with Saddam Hussein its President. Amazingly, at every election, he won with 100% of the vote, because his people really loved him that much! That's a democracy, right?

So if you're going to start setting rules on what's an acceptable level of democracy, that would probably cut out a lot of countries, including the USA.

Re:Two bad choices

[Grishnakh]

What we need to do is find some small country with a good record, and give them all the control. It's like the benevolent dictator idea. I propose Switzerland. They'd certainly do a far better job of managing the internet than the US has.

Re:Two bad choices

[Grishnakh]

Hold on a second here. Since when did Russia ever propose censoring the internet? Not saying they haven't, but it just isn't something I hear about much with the new Russia (which is completely different than the old Soviet Union). Instead, it seems like these days, if you want to put up a site with highly questionable content and avoid being arrested or shut down by the authorities, the freest place to put it is on a .ru domain. Not that Russia is the freest place to live as a country, but they just don't seem to bother with trying to exert any control over the internet in their borders, or if they do, it must not make the news.

This is completely different from China, of course, with its "Great Firewall", laws banning pornography, active censorship of various sites, etc.

Re:Two bad choices

[olau]

...and with the US, China and the Soviet Union getting a veto in the Security Council there was zero chance of anything positive ever happening

FTFY.

Re:Two bad choices

[Grishnakh]

As an American, I'm also very proud of our First Amendment, but I wish my politicians and other government employees were more serious about following and enforcing it. Note the story today here on /. about some judge forcing some guy to apologize to his ex-wife on Facebook. Freedom of speech also includes being free to say what you want about other people you don't like, and not being forced to make a public apology for it. Also, the creation of "free speech zones" in the past decade have basically nullified the 1st Amendment here.

Reading through this Wikipedia article that discuses freedom of speech by country, the only country mentioned I could find that didn't seem to have any real censorship or speech codes was Denmark. All the others, including the western European nations, frequently have laws against blasphemy just like the Islamic countries, as well as other laws against things like insults, anything that is "against morality", etc. It seems lots of countries, including India, have the "morality" exception in their speech laws or constitution, so they can claim they support free speech, but then the exceptions can be applied to anything the government doesn't like.

Re:Two bad choices

[gstrickler]

Get serious. The UN can't agree on anything stronger than a strongly worded letter. Putting the UN in charge of the Internet would virtually assure there are no rules except those imposed by your own country.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

The late 'Joan Veon' did quite a bit of work researching the UN takeover plans. Never seen this detail of information available anywhere else.

Anyone interested should watch some of her videos (that are still available) which show the structure of these different groups from top to bottom in a detailed way.

Here are some links to get you started in understanding the bigger picture:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=504526035342184251/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vEJdeWvGIZU/
http://www.womensgroup.org/videos.htm/
http://www.youtube.com/embed/7oKs35vrPAQ/
http://www.goldmanbanksters.com/heroes/joan-veon/
http://kingmannafta.com/Veon.aspx/
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29262016/
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v415828EXyCxeTm/

(ignore the random religious stuff offered unless you believe in such, which given the current state of world affairs wouldn't be hard)

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: The bad guys in power don't like getting caught or losing control of the flow of information to the populace. Also, we can't help but put people who's highest level of education is a G.E.D. in charge of our mail servers due to how much we want to charge them and can't help but give up our information to social engineering schemes.

Sorry but the internet should stay free and anything I can do to ensure that I will do, unlike the ones in power, I am thinking of the children and putting their best interests at heart with my actions.

Re:Two bad choices

[shutdown -p now]

Of course, looking at many of those new democracies, it's pretty clear that "democracy" and "human rights" don't always come hand in hand - and, in some regions, tend to be diametrically opposite.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the biggest hater of free speech nowadays seems to be the US...

Spoken like someone who has never left the US.

Re:Two bad choices

[celle]

"Have the government do its constitutionally limited roles and be very careful in expanding its scope."

    Right, didn't we have that in the 1900's?
    There's a reason it's mostly not like that anymore. The US was a shithole for everyone but the rich. Corporations(Rockafeller, Carnegie, etc) did what ever they wanted with government to weak to do anything. At least, when it wasn't completely corrupt(tammany hall). How about reviewing history before spouting already tried BS. Been there, done that. It won't work the way you think it will.
    Now if we could just get rid of the Fed, that era can be closed.

Re:Two bad choices

[phantomfive]

They are under the 'surveillance list' by reporters without borders. It's not like in the US, they don't care about copyright violations because it doesn't hurt them, they are more after political speech.

http://en.rsf.org/web-2-0-versus-control-2-0-18-03-2010,36697: "Turkey and Russia have just been added to the “Under Surveillance” list. In Russia, aside from the control exercised by the Kremlin on most of its media outlets, the Internet has become the freest space for sharing information. Yet its independence is being jeopardized by blogger arrests and prosecutions, as well as by blockings of so-called “extremist” websites."

Re:Two bad choices

[GLMDesigns]

There's a difference between NO regulation and over-regulation. Both are bad. ACTA, SOPA and PIPA are examples of over-regulation.

Re:Two bad choices

[mr100percent]

Democracy is not the same as "Liberal democracy." However, you can be optimistic, we're already seeing international pressure working in countries like Uganda, after the US and Europe forced the government to put aside its 'capital punishment for gays' law.

With countries like Libya, all democracies start off rocky. The first decade of American independence was especially difficult, with famous incidents like Shays' Rebellion making most of the world doubt the US would hold together. Wait until they draw up a constitution (later this year) and start enforcing rule of law after elected officials are put in place.

Re:Two bad choices

[shutdown -p now]

Democracy is not the same as "Liberal democracy."

My point exactly. But this works both ways - just because a country is democratic, we shouldn't cheer them.

With countries like Libya, all democracies start off rocky. The first decade of American independence was especially difficult, with famous incidents like Shays' Rebellion making most of the world doubt the US would hold together. Wait until they draw up a constitution (later this year) and start enforcing rule of law after elected officials are put in place.

We don't know how democracy is going to work out in Libya (and Egypt, Tunisia, and likely Syria soon) since it's a relatively new things. Most Western democracies evolved very gradually, US being a notable exception. More importantly, in all Western democracies, the notions of rule of law and of human rights (in some way or another) preceded full democracy.

However, we have already seen how some of those new Islamic democracies work. Case in point #1 - Iran - a democratic revolution hijacked by Islamists that turned the country into a pseudo-democratic theocratic state. Case in point #2 - Afghanistan after liberation from Taliban - its new constitution, accepted by the majority of citizens in a referendum, declares it an Islamic state, and Sharia the supreme law with which neither any written law nor constitution itself may conflict; furthermore, those provisions of the constitution are declared immutable and not subject to amendments. How this works in practice we've already seen with Abdul Rahman, and later with Shia family laws.

Based on evidence available so far, I'm not at all optimistic about the prospects of those democracies. They may well remain democratic, at least as much as Iran, and quite possibly even more so - but human rights? Not with the rising popularity of fundamentalist Islam in that region.

Re:Two bad choices

[currently_awake]

No. Democracy works because the people believe they can change the world by voting instead of picking up a gun. That's why it doesn't work very well in the third world, because the people expect to be cheated (rigged/unfair elections).

Re:Two bad choices

[currently_awake]

How long will it take to get consensus on censorship? Political deadlock is your friend. Yes the people behind the scenes will get bribed, but it will be patchwork censorship, with plenty of gaps for us to wiggle through instead of a single overbearing overlord. Also the UN doesn't have any men with guns so they can be ignored.

Re:Two bad choices

[Anonymous Coward]

What originally came to prominence as a new engine for business has evolved as a viable platform for organized dissidence as well as criminal activity. The difficulty is in fighting in the latter without stopping the former. I know around here, the preference would be to maximize freedom even if that means criminal elements remain unthwarted and unpunished. Unfortunately, most people understand too little of these issues and most governments are too singularly focused on serving their own interests to see the Internet as a global public good that should be preserved. Instead, it's considered another vector for terrorism, criminality, and disruption, and therefore it must be sanitized to make it into a more suitable vehicle for commerce and propaganda.

The inherent problem with this line of thought is that it is somehow possible for something to be both useful and simultaneously choked to a standstill with red tape.

Consider roads, roads were built to enhance commerce; it drastically increases national GDP to give everyone freedom of movement. However, they also allow drug runners, murders and other 'undesirables' to reach their targets more easily. Would the roads still be a useful and effective vehicle for commerce if you had "Papers, please. Where are you going? Why?" checkpoints at every single intersection? The most useful things in life are useful because they are powerful, they are powerful because they have lots of potentially 'illicit' uses; if you try to stamp out all the illicit uses then the thing becomes useless for its legitimate purpose as well.**

In the case of the Internet, if the Internet became push-only like TV then it would suffer a slow death; the Internet is interesting because it's collaborative/end-to-end, if it loses that then people will slowly gravitate back to TV which is more convenient and relevant due to inherent locality of content, unchallenging nature and requiring far less thought to use.

** [This isn't to say that there can't be any rules, of course, road rules do exist after all. However, the point of road rules is to ensure that people get wherever it is they are going without endangering or obstructing everyone else along the way; this is the opposite of checkpoint (Great Firewall of China) laws which impede flow by design instead of encouraging and speeding it up]

Re:Two bad choices

[mr100percent]

Having a state religion in the Constitution does not mean it will lead to theocracy. Greece has a state religion, and aside from repeatedly denying Muslims the right to build a mosque in Athens, it seems relatively tame. Afghanistan is a poor example; you're dealing with a country with massive illiteracy; once that is alleviated the country will improve.

Re:Two bad choices

[shutdown -p now]

Having a state religion in constitution is not a problem. Having an article in constitution that declares any provision of said constitution and any enacted law that are contrary to Sharia invalid, is a problem.

And, while Afghanistan may be a poor example, Iran is most certainly not uneducated - they've got universities, they're pretty technologically advanced on all counts in general. Doesn't seem to be helping them much. Similarly, Egypt is not quite a backwards hellhole, but look at what they've got themselves elected.

Re:Two bad choices

[nu1x]

> we can just group together and make up some sect of a religion that finds censorship obscene.

In the theocentric societies of the west (mostly anglocentric sphere), this may be just the movement that is plausible, and would actually protect the practitioners.

Good Idea.

Re:Two bad choices

[Dunbal]

Funny, I am not even from the US. I have citizenship in 3 countries, I speak 4 languages, and have lived on 3 different continents. Keep telling yourself that you are a good judge of people.

Re:Two bad choices

[Rakarra]

You speak as though there would ultimately be some form of accountability for failure. Nope. Not going to happen. There will be a lot of political finger pointing over who "broke it" followed by a zillion government controlled solutions to the problem.

I don't think it will quite work that way. Instead, an over-censored and regulated Internet will be declared by those governments "the best of the possible choices." About how you lost a little freedom for security, yada yada.

Re:Two bad choices

[Rakarra]

You also get countries like Iran which are "democracies" in name only.

Re:Two bad choices

[kaffiene]

2) Led by the UN = most of the UN members are crooks, dictators, religious extremists, military leaders who killed the civilian leaders to gain control, basically the scum of the non-business society so its basically dictator-net. Expect lots of censorship and control around killing all dissenters and forcing one lunatic religions beliefs upon people of other lunatic religious beliefs (or non-beliefs)

What. The. Fuck?

Most of the UN members are THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD YOU INBRED MYOPIC FUCK.

And for the fucking record, where I live has a better record on censorship, corruption, press freedom and human rights abuses than the US.

Re:Two bad choices

[gorzek]

I fully agree, but while it may be impractical (read: expensive) to stop people at every road intersection to demand their papers, it doesn't take much to stop Internet traffic from reaching its destination. Governments find this attractive because it is, in theory, possible without being terribly expensive. A country can wall itself off from the greater Internet if it so desires, and police its own Internet pretty effectively.

Since you brought up roads, a good example here might be the nature of cars. Can most people build their own car? Generally, no. Building your own road-legal car is a fairly expensive proposition. But today, anyone can build their own website for next to nothing. In the future, this may not be the case due to regulation. In the same way that the road is only to be populated with properly titled, registered, and maintained cars (driven by people with documented, official licenses), the Internet may someday be regulated in a similar manner: only approved equipment allowed to connect; only verified, documented users allowed to do much of anything. This would be a Bad Thing in my opinion (and probably yours), but technically feasible and legally enforceable when you get right down to it.

It's over.

[Anonymous Coward]

Done. Finished.

Re:It's over.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so naive, the UN running the Internet can't be any worse than the US *cough* ICE domain seizures, SOPA *cough*

Naturally.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of a better way to ensure we remain dutifully tracked to fulfill every Orwellian dystopia prophecy than to hand control of the One Machine over to these vampire squidlike control slurping nw0 megalomaniacs.

Darknets 2.0 plz hurry.

Time to...

[Anonymous Coward]

... rework the web.

Drama queens...

[wulva]

The register seems to have it quite spot on, somebody is being a drama queen and AT&T+friends probably paid for the drama because they want to increase roaming charges.

Re:Drama queens...

[Beelzebud]

It's the same Republican commissioner that is against Net Neutrality.

Why protest?

[operagost]

The average Slashdotter wants global governance of meatspace; why not the internet?

Re:Why protest?

[chispito]

The average Slashdotter wants global governance of meatspace

Huh? Care to elaborate? In my experience, if you pick a random Slashdotter, he is most likely to be an economic socialist/social libertarian. I really don't get a "global government" vibe here.

Re:Why protest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because other people live their lives mainly in meatspace, and Slashdotters live primarily in the internet.

As always it's "control everyone else and leave me alone."

Now, as I prefer the infinite iterated old-man dilemma: "Get off my lawn, and stay off theirs too!"

Re:Why protest?

[Anonymous Coward]

economic socialist

Socialism is inherently statist, and given no resistance statists will apply their 'justice' globally.

You weren’t really confused by the parent, were you?

Re:Why protest?

[roman_mir]

economic socialist

- that's almost an oxymoron.

Re:Why protest?

[St.Creed]

Don't forget you also have revolutionary socialists, theoretical socialists, democratic socialists and salon socialists :)

Re:Why protest?

[TapeCutter]

The average Slashdotter wants global governance of meatspace

Well this average slashdotter is against drug prohibition and against corporal punishment, by any form of governance other than informed free will. However, almost by definition global infrastructure needs to be governed by global organisations. The global communications system in principle needs to be governed at a global level, and to some degree it already is via treaties negotiated at the UN in the past. Whether the UN is the right governing body for this particular issue is an entirely separate question, but right now the UN is the only diplomatic avenue for discussing such mundane global issues such as to who should be the DNS BOFH.

The hard part for anybody managing/governing anything is striking a balance between anarchy and the borg while at the same time not poisoning the roots of the organic governance that created whatever collective benefit you're trying to optimise.

Re:Why protest?

[shutdown -p now]

Socialism is inherently statist

No, it's not.

Re:Why protest?

[shutdown -p now]

Socialist and semi-socialist economies exist, and actually work - some better, some worse, but at least they manage to last for a while

Libertarian economies, on the other hand, are still castles in the sky as far as most countries are concerned. Experiments are few and far between, and usually produce nasty results: when they've tried it in Baltic states, it turned out to be a lot like riding a sports car ("our GDP is skyrocketing! yeeeaah!") without wearing seatbelts - which they've found all too well when they rammed into the global economic crisis heads on. They're still picking the mess from the floor, while their citizens are lining up to work in "socialist" UK and Germany.

Re:Why protest?

[roman_mir]

As I said - calling something an economy that is 'socialised' is almost an oxymoron. Calling it a market is a complete oxymoron.

There are plenty of markets and economies, some are freer than others, Internet is a much freer economy than most 'real' ones.

Chinese economy is much freer than US economy.

US economy of today is near fascist, which is about the same type of oxymoron as 'socialist economy'.

As to what exists today - those are either falling apart or moving away from being socialist towards being economies.

Re:Why protest?

[operagost]

An economic socialist, by definition, wants a high level of government control of the economy.

Putin's elections

[roman_mir]

Putin wants to make sure that there is no way for Russian dissidents to post information about the election fraud. He is angry that people can put videos of fraud online somewhere else, not in Russia and others can view that video.

Putin's party in Russia would NOT win in real elections, but the way it's done, he is getting the votes he needs, because of all the fraud.

Re:Putin's elections

[piggydoggy]

If Putin's party wouldn't win the elections, then the Communists would. Sorry to bust your dreams, but there's no secret yet massive movement of the downtrodden in Russia just waiting elect someone who the West would deem "democratic", i.e. someone who would hold yard sales on Russia's natural resources and infrastructure. Kasparov, Yabloko and the like hold 1-5% support as far as anyone can tell, and are a distant fourth in line as far as potential alternatives to Putin.

Re:Putin's elections

[iONiUM]

You know, I'm very curious about this. I've read a lot of articles, including Wikipedia's, about Russia's current voting incidents. While there is always some mention of possible vote tampering, and some outrage, in general it's more-or-less just passed over as "that's how Russia's system is."

You seem to know more about it than others, perhaps you can link to some articles, or enlighten me as to why this kind of blatant anti-democratic is allowed by the Russian people with little protest, and why it's barely talked about in even western sources.

Re:Putin's elections

[swb]

why this kind of blatant anti-democratic is allowed by the Russian people with little protest

I don't know, 70 plus years of living in a police state where protestors were shipped off to prisons, mental health facilities or killed outright, many of those years as part of the first hand experience of roughly half the population?

Then there's the last 10 years experience with protest, investigatory journalism, corruption..

Re:Putin's elections

[roman_mir]

The problem is State violence against individual. The problem is complete and utter lack of honesty and justice in the judicial system and ability and willingness of the government officials to use pure brutal force against any dissidents.

The examples are plenty, Khodorkovskiy (that's the best written approximation of the Russian name to English that I can master) is just one of them, but there are hundreds of dead journalists, hundreds of dead or severely beaten activists and protesters. It's just that Putin is a product of the ex-KGB system and that's all he knows. Can't teach an old dog new tricks and all that, all he knows is using overwhelming force against any opponent, regardless of how small/insignificant and he knows he needs to put on a huge show, all this PR propaganda stunts, where he is presented as a tough macho leader, as they always like to say: Russia needs a Tsar.

He thinks he is.

Re:Putin's elections

[roman_mir]

I disagree with you on one thing: Yabloko has enough support to take a strong position in government, there is a reason they just did to Yavlinsky what they did. He can't participate in the elections because he was perceived as the real threat and it's true: if there is no Putin right now, the vote will go to Zyuganov, which is terrible.

The only real alternative was in fact Yavlinsky, that's why they took him out early.

It's similar to Ron Paul in USA right now, it's just he is still in the race because in USA they like to run their charades in a little bit different way, it's all about capturing the mindless voter with overwhelming amount of money spent on commercials and with 'wedge issues'.

Re:Putin's elections

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I recall the same things being said about America's voting system. Around 2004, there was this big hoopla that Bush was rigging the election, even the EU was asking to have oversight of the US elections. Bush won that election, fairly and by a landslide. The people who didn't see their candidate win didn't like it, and made a LOT of noise about it.

Being the libertarian that I am (my chosen candidates never win,) I can observe this kind of bullshit and call it for what it is, but in the case of the US I haven't seen any sufficient evidence of rigged elections. Some voter fraud here and there (which democrat supporters have done a lot of, ironically) but not enough to influence the results in any election in my opinion.

I don't know about Russia's system, but I'm not going to be so arrogant (as the EU was) to demand that America take oversight of their elections; if they have voter fraud, that's their problem. Much in the same, I think it is pretty arrogant of the Russians and Chinese to demand that the UN get regulatory powers over the internet.

Re:Putin's elections

[roman_mir]

I don't know about general election fraud, but there is clearly fraud happening in the Republican primaries, it's rigged for Romney with 'winner take all', but beyond that there is actual fraud.

Fraud shown in these: video, another video, some other video.

Re:Putin's elections

[shutdown -p now]

If Putin's party wouldn't win the elections, then the Communists would

Which would still be an improvement. Either they form a coalition government with other opposition parties, which will moderate their policies into something that will actually work; or, at worst, they'll mess up things economically. There's no way they can make things any worse in terms of political repression, not if they themselves are elected on a protest wave against the current authoritarian government - if they try, they'll be kicked out in short order in exact same way.

Communist parties in post-Soviet states are pretty weak, anyway. They were elected in Bulgaria and Moldova, and both countries had survived and went on to something better, but have retained democracy in the process. Russia just has to go through the same kind of growing pains.

Re:Putin's elections

[phantomfive]

Putin was fine up until the time he basically declared himself emperor for life. Not cool.

Re:Putin's elections

[phantomfive]

I talk to my Russian coworker about this kind of thing frequently. He claims that A) most people would vote for Putin because he is the best, and B) that voter fraud in Russia isn't much different than in the US.

For example, he asked me how I felt that there are two million dead voters in America. Russia doesn't have that problem (apparently).

Also note that although we see pictures of people protesting, the vast majority of Russians aren't protesting, and often view those protesters as trouble-makers financed by foreigners.

Another important point is that Russia doesn't have the same free speech protections we have here, so often opposing viewpoints don't get the voicing they deserve, so it isn't surprising they all favor Putin. That is why freedom of speech, that is the freedom to criticize government openly, is essential for democracy. We may not like Fox News, but it's good to have someone who is constantly looking for the bad things our president does.

Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[elrous0]

Oh, you think the U.S. is giving that up just because you say so? Or sign some treaty just because you threaten them with...what?

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[brainboyz]

You do understand mutually assured destruction right? The US could easily give the finger and default on the loans. That alone would instantly tank the world market across the board. Much of China's economy is based on selling cheap shit to other countries, primarily the US. They're not quite to the point of subsisting on their own yet.

It would be disastrous, but it means the loan holders don't have the control one might think.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that thats how government debt works.. They aren't holding savings bonds. You have a $1000 treasury note; it is worth $1000 at maturity. Even if you hold it for a thousand years afterwards, it will still be worth $1000. Holding on to them longer is essentially an interest free loan to the US, and they thank you for doing so. Before maturity, they're worth what the market says they're worth (something a little less than $1000, depending on how long until it matures). But that transfers funds between third parties; no US gov payout occurs.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[rgbrenner]

People and countries that own US debt can not 'call in' their loans. The best they can do is sell them on the open market.. and if they do that the price will decline.. which means they'll have to take a loss.

And the US can't become Greece because we control our currency. If we had more debt than we could ever repay, we could simply print money to pay out debtors. They wouldn't like it, there would be inflation, and other unfavorable consequences, but we would not default and would not need a bailout. This is the option Greece doesn't have, and why they need a bailout.

Truth is, there is little the UN can threaten the US with. We have a veto on the security council, and provide 22% of the UNs budget -- which gives us a lot of power over the UNs agenda.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Tastecicles]

I think China existed a good while before Corporate America was created.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Lord Apathy]

Threaten them (the US) with calling in all the outstanding monitary loans it owes. You know, "sign this, or become the next Greece" sort of thing.

Or what? I'm really interested in hearing the whole story behind this logic? Really, what these countries that the US owe money to going to do? This isn't some redneck trailer in bumfuck alabama you can reposes. Sure, it may bring the US economy down but there are a lot of people who say this would be a good thing. Plus, you can be damn sure the US economy goes down the rest of the world will follow.

China goes pay up and the US goes no. And that is pretty much where it ends.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[TheSync]

Threaten them (the US) with calling in all the outstanding monitary loans it owes. You know, "sign this, or become the next Greece" sort of thing.

US Federal debt is sold in varying maturities, some bonds and TIPS do not mature until 2041.

Also US Federal debt remains one of the few safe places for international investors (such as banks or foreign reserves held by countries trying to stabilize their currency). Global BASEL capital requirements on banks make it particularly beneficial for banks to hold US Federal debt (considered "risk free").

US Federal debt is not purchased because people like the US. It is purchased because it is an economic necessity in an unstable world.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Anonymous Coward]

While the nation of China existed long before the US, the grandfather post was referring to the current Chinese economy. Please try to keep up.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Fned]

Yeah, as an agrarian society...

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's what I keep wondering.

I think Greece is just trolling the EU at this point. "Can we have some more money?"

"Will you pay it back THIS time?"

"... yyyeees."

"Okay, here's a cheque for a couple billion."

Later:

"WHY ARE YOU JUST LYING ON THE BEACH?!?"

"We were a superpower 2500 years ago. Shit job. Have fun with it."

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[SydShamino]

Not with the population they have today, living where they do today. How quickly do you think all those people could return to their native villages and learn subsistence farming? And you think those villages could absorb all those people and share the available food until more can be grown?

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Tastecicles]

in which case it would be as well to apply a little Darwinian pruning. Adapt or die.

Sorry to be blunt, that's the way it is.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Lord Apathy]

Later: "WHY ARE YOU JUST LYING ON THE BEACH?!?" "We were a superpower 2500 years ago. Shit job. Have fun with it."

You know, in a strange way you actually have a very good point there.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Guppy06]

Yes, it did. And then the Opium Wars happened.

Despite its own propaganda, the People's Republic of China is essentially a modern construct. The Chinese Empire you refer to certainly did not "always" have the same borders the PRC has today, any more than did the Russian Empire "always" have the same borders as the Soviet Union.

The Chinese people are currently bound together more by force of will than any cultural affinity; the country doesn't even share a common spoken language. If the state loses enough power to maintain that for any reason, the resulting breakup would resemble the USSR if they're lucky, Yugoslavia if they're not.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[jon3k]

Try it, I dare you.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Bob the Super Hamste]

And then we tell them to go pound sand. Granted we wouldn't ever be able to sell bonds to a foreign nation again and that would make things difficult for a while until we finally decide to get our nations financial house in order but that needs to be done anyway. We would probably no longer be one of the reserve currencies but that would probably be less damaging than not being able to borrow. Not to mention that us doing so would tank probably every other country.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of Chinas shit goes to Europe.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[elrous0]

I like that analogy. Greece: The loser brother-in-law of the EU.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be not only disastrous, it would be fatal to the US as you know it. For one thing, it would mean blatantly ignoring the constitution, which states that repayment of debt takes priority over all other spending.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[phantomfive]

Also US Federal debt remains one of the few safe places for international investors

Change that, "US Federal debt is percieved to be of the few safe places for international investors "

Who knows if it actually is.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Anonymous Coward]

For one thing, it would mean blatantly ignoring the constitution, which states that repayment of debt takes priority over all other spending.

Well, forget it then. They'd never blatantly ignore the constitution.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[Anonymous Coward]

Or rather would provide 22% if US ever paid in full instead of complaining and whining and refusing to pay most of their arrears. Only time US paid without someone having to twist their arm was right after 9/11 when Bush wanted to invade Afghanistan.

Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN

[SydShamino]

Adapting likely means a few hundred million Chinese landing on our shore to find land they can farm.

It amazes me

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the crap facing the world, it amazes me that stuff like this becomes a priority.

However, when this goes ahead, I officially will have my first old-man story: "I remember when the Internet..." sure grandpa =]

One world order

[U8MyData]

This is a very clear indication that we are inching closer and closer to one world order regardless of the fact it will never work. Until governments and religious groups of the world drop fanatical, hysterical, authoritarian rule, this planet will not see the kind of societal framework necessary to exist under one world government. Very scary notion of the UN controlling something so important to free expression as the net is. Distributed responsibility works best. Lets hope we see something like the SOPA incident to prevent this from happening. If not, I am staying home, canceling anything internet and making like a hole in the wall. Sad really. But then again, I will save boat loads of money...

Re:One world order

[timeOday]

I suppose we are inching towards it, unavoidably. As the world "shrinks" due to better communications and transportation, the scope of business and government grows. In the time of the Roman Empire it was almost impossible to maintain an empire that encompassed just the greater Mediterranean region. Just within the recent past - the lifespan of the US - look at how the primary unit of government has transitioned from the city/county, to the state, to the nation. Governance is always lagging commerce. Nowadays, commerce is global, whereas global governance is weak, resulting (predictably) in people jurisdiction-shopping to sue people one place, pay taxes in another, and have their manufacturing done in a third. It's a huge free-rider problem that is crying for legislation. I say none of this to advocate it, only that global government isn't some closed ring of conspirators, it's mainly economics.

Re:One world order

[roman_mir]

Government is damage and business is routing around it. That's why 'people I know' pay taxes where they don't live and don't work and don't shop, they work where they don't live and don't pay taxes and they live where they neither work nor pay taxes. They are also citizens of a number of States where none of the above happens either, just in case.

This is all about efficiency, it is the best thing that communications and transportation provided us with.

Re:One world order

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Businesses don't route around government... the smart ones don't anyway. Smart businesses buy up government, and use government as a tool to further their goals

Businesses who are dumb and only follow free market capitalism just end up being one of many competitors and have to fight every day to survive. If you fail, it's your savings, your life, your future all down the drain.

Businesses who buy up government end up getting sweet deals and become monopolies, with no worries about competition. Even if they fail, they get bailed out and those up top actually still make away with tons of money.

Government is only damage if you're too dumb to use government to your own advantage.

Re:One world order

[roman_mir]

Yeah, that dumb, dumb Apple, they just don't know how to do business because they are routing around government rather than taking it head on or wasting money to buy it.
What a total clueless ignoramus.

Re:One world order

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever the heck are you talking about? Apple is very smart, and they aren't routing around government at all. Apple is very happy with filing all those patents with the government, so that they can use as ammunition in their various patent wars

The dumb ones are those who don't arm themselves with patents and get run over by those who do.

Re:One world order

[timeOday]

You say government is damage to business, but it is no coincidence that the cutting edge of international regulation is not in protecting human rights, not protecting the environment, nor disrupting organized crime... When the US throws its weight around these days, it's twisting arms for the signing of treaties to protect intellectual property.

What is the value of a piece of software, or music, or film, with nobody to enforce the copyright? Nothing. What is the value of an NFL jersey, or Nike shoe, or Luis Vitton handbag, when it's suspected to be "phony"? A fraction. If manufacturers could freely share designs and churn out items without paying royalties, what would be the profit margin on an iPhone? Negligible. Business needs protection more than it needs tax havens. It wants both, but will settle for one in the end.

Re:One world order

[roman_mir]

Yes, it is damage to business. It is damage to the market. The government is stealing freedoms from people and selling power to whoever is paying most, and so those who are paying most, let us call them group A, are being protected. Those are not dealing with the gov't, call them group B, are being damaged.

Who do you believe the market and people that the market consists of benefit more from, those who buy the government or those who are being damaged by it? Those who buy the government buy themselves protection against those who are being damaged, and also there is just collateral damage from all the government buying.

Market is suffering, competition is suffering, individuals in the market are suffering from this. Businesses from group A are destroying the market by government proxy.

Re:One world order

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is damage to business. It is damage to the market. The government is stealing freedoms from people and selling power to whoever is paying most, and so those who are paying most, let us call them group A, are being protected. Those are not dealing with the gov't, call them group B, are being damaged.

Who do you believe the market and people that the market consists of benefit more from, those who buy the government or those who are being damaged by it?

Obviously, it's those who buy the government. You need bargaining power to buy government, and to have bargaining power, you must be producing something of value to trade (the "money" to buy government). So clearly, Group A are the successful, productive people, whereas Group B are just feckless leeches and moochers.

Group B does very little for the market. They offer nothing for trade. Group B only gets to exist on the charity of Group A (who's giving away part of their production to feed group B), and the mercy of the government (who could easily dispose of group B if they wanted to, just for fun... for now they're content with throwing people into prisons, strip searches, spying on them, etc.)

This is the Randean paradise brought to you by the US of A, where those who made it (group A) are not obligated to do anything for the moochers (group B). Damage to group B? Collateral damage? Not group A's problem. If group B wants to get out of their predicament, it's up to them to save themselves. It'll go against the Libertarian ideals that made USA great if somebody intervened on their behalf and changed the way things work for them. Group B has to do it themselves.

You cannot stop criminal use of the internet

[jamonterrell]

I think the whole thing is a misnomer. Neither the US nor the UN *can* control the internet. The more any entity tries to squeeze the internet, the more virtual darknets will appear on it, outside the reach of those entities. That being said, they cannot achieve any of the goals that prevent bad behavior on the internet... The argument is parallel to the one regarding making guns or drugs or other substances illegal. You cannot stop criminals from getting access to these things, you can only stop honest people from getting access to them. You cannot stop criminal use of the internet, only honest use of it.

Re:You cannot stop criminal use of the internet

[nhat11]

Eh the point of regulations is not to stop illegal activies, the point is to reduce it to a controlable size that can be worked with. That's why not everyone is killing and stealing.

Re:You cannot stop criminal use of the internet

[Fned]

Drug and gun laws make things illegal that weren't illegal before, so your argument fails.

Drug laws increase violent crime. Gun laws, in the short term, increase gun violence, and long-term slowly replace it with other forms of violence.

The point of non-neutrality internet regulations is, in fact, to restrict honest use of it. The power to suppress political speech is overwhelmingly more important to any government than the power to briefly annoy copyright violators or whateverthefuck.

Re:You cannot stop criminal use of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Drug laws increase violent crime.

Because law-abiding marketing and distribution is replaced with violent criminals performing the same function.

Gun laws, in the short term, increase gun violence, and long-term slowly replace it with other forms of violence

That essentially means gun control works. The level of violence may be the same, but a less powerful weapon is used.

When Australians dis-armed in 1996, the number of violent crimes was higher during the following 4 years. Of course, not one media conglomerate reported this fact.

the Internet is doomed!

[FudRucker]

pretty soon it will be like a cross between a UN CSPAN and infomercials so your choice will be to buy something imported from a third world state owned sweatshop built with slave labor or watching a bunch of old men argue international politics...

I will be canceling as soon as the keys to the net is turned over to the tyrants, bye bye slashdot

Re:the Internet is doomed!

[nu1x]

What, you are giving up ? If legislation will take you food, will you give up on living ?

Re:Fuck the Useless Nations

[Anonymous Coward]

The current situation over the USA running the net was far better than anything that could come from the UN controlling things.

The USA gave (or tried to give) the world SOPA.
Just sayin'.

The wrong goal

[wanderfowl]

Right now, in the short game, everybody wants the ability to govern the internet, with the assumption that they'll do it right for their constituents/country/special interests, and with the flawed assumption that they'll be on top forever. The problem is that by attempting to run the internet your way and lock everybody into that _right now_, you're making it easier for somebody else who you disagree with more to take your place, leaving them controlling your internet in a way you may not want. You can't build an elaborate censorship, surveillance and control system on the internet and not expect it to be used against you the next time the torch is passed. In the long game, though, what everybody _should_ be wanting is the hardening of the internet against governance, tracking and regulation, by anybody, and de-centralize it enough that it doesn't matter who thinks they're running things. Only then can you ensure that your use-case is still functional, no matter who's "in charge".

Existing UN lawlz

[mynis01]

Nation's don't pay attention to UN resolutions in international conflicts. What makes you think that they would let the UN control the Internet?

Holy crap ...

[gstoddart]

Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end

Holy crap! If China and Russia are in favor of this, it simply can't be allowed to happen.

I can only imagine how badly the internet would be broken by every piss-pot government bureaucrat around the world decides the internet should (or shouldn't) be allowed to work in a given way.

Criticize the government? Banned. Point out that a politician is a philandering, lying bastard? Banned.

There's already actions in the UN to make it a crime to say mean things about religion ... this will only make it worse, and then some. It's my legal right to say that your imaginary friend can mind his own damned business and that I don't wish to be bound by your scripture.

Go with a central control over the internet, and you're in a race to the bottom to appease the most backwards of governments, and pretty much do whatever the copyright lobby wants out of it.

Keep your hands off my fucking internet.

Re:Holy crap ...

[kruhft]

> Keep your hands off my fucking internet.

It's not our internet anymore. It hasn't been for quite a while now.

Re:Holy crap ...

[piggydoggy]

I literally can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. For what it's worth, Russia's internet is likely even free-er than America's for the time being.

Re:Holy crap ...

[Beelzebud]

It's free-er for software piracy and malware developers, but not for speech...

Re:Holy crap ...

[biodata]

Anything Russia and China are in favour of is more likely to happen. Didn't you notice who has economic growth and is currently buying the west? Our bankers screwed up so badly we lost the cold war.

Re:Holy crap ...

[Mashiki]

It's not our internet anymore. It hasn't been for quite a while now.

No it's still my internet, as much as it's your internet, and the GP's internet. The reality is, people don't want tinpot dictators grabbing any power on it at all. And the more people fight against it the better chances they won't be able to.

Re:Holy crap ...

[NeoMorphy]

I'm thinking that anything that Russia and China are in favor of, is bad. If they want it, I'm against it.

Re:Holy crap ...

[NeoMorphy]

Wow, I haven't been modded down in ages!

There should be an achievement award for being modded down by oppressive government agencies censoring the internet! Just a sec, there's someone at the door

Re:Holy crap ...

[phantomfive]

.....As long as you don't get too critical of the Russian government.

Re:Holy crap ...

[nu1x]

Oh yes it is.

Internet would grind to a screeching halt without the oversight by tech-priesthood of yes men who bend to political (of financial, same thing actually) pressure.

If the tech people would become more idealistic, good things would happen to internet.

Re:Holy crap ...

[Rakarra]

I literally can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. For what it's worth, Russia's internet is likely even free-er than America's for the time being.

It's "free" as long as what you want to do is not in the interest of Western nations. At that point the Russian government will look the other way as long as they don't get too much blowback from it.

Who are those who think it needs fixing?

[bughunter]

The answer to the question "Who believes UN governance will result in improvement?" will give a lot of insight into the motives behind transferring control to a UN agency. My immediate suspicions include: the copyright cartels, repressive governments, and telecoms/tier 1's seeking to create international monopolies.

Sure there are technical improvements that arguably can be made at various layers, but does anyone think that the UN can or will do any better at managing them than the current system?

Re:Who are those who think it needs fixing?

[kaffiene]

The answer to the question "Who believes UN governance will result in improvement?" will give a lot of insight into the motives behind transferring control to a UN agency. My immediate suspicions include: the copyright cartels, repressive governments, and telecoms/tier 1's seeking to create international monopolies

How about citizens from the rest of the world who would like the Internet controlled by a body that we actually have some say in?

I mean, just take Europeans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Japanese, Koreans. This sub-group of Internet users collectively outnumber US citizens by a large number. They all add a lot to the Internet. Why should they be dictated to by the US? Why should they be denied a voice in how the most important technology of our age (which is of vital importance to modern business) is run?

Told you so

[Anonymous Coward]

Behind the smokescreen, the ultimate goal of the UN is to consolidate and centralize power into the hands of the few. Like any individual or group interested in holding power over others, they want all the eggs in one basket: their basket.

The absolute worst thing that could happen to humanity is "one world government". What do you think the chances are that this "one world government" will place your rights (the individual) over the rights these people (who are also merely individuals) have assigned to themselves?

Re:Told you so

[Curunir_wolf]

What do you think the chances are that this "one world government" will place your rights (the individual) over the rights these people (who are also merely individuals) have assigned to themselves?

None at all. Case in point, Article 29 of the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights":

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Re:Told you so

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost 2000 years ago someone named John went for a ride in a metaphorical time machine, where he was shown that there would someday be a one world government. You can read about some of the particulars in the last book of the Bible, Revelation 13. Pay special attention to Revelation 13:16-17 where this world government will enact a law, whose enforcement could have never have been accomplished until humanity invented computers and the Internet.

The UN can go pound sand

[DesScorp]

The UN fancies itself as a nascent world government. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US isn't going to go along with putting the Internet in the hands of the same people that made Qaddafi's Libya chair of the Human Rights Commission.

Re:The UN can go pound sand

[anyGould]

The UN fancies itself as a nascent world government. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US isn't going to go along with putting the Internet in the hands of the same people that made Qaddafi's Libya chair of the Human Rights Commission.

Not to burst the bubble, but you guys *still* have those folks you kidnapped in Cuba - the US is somewhat lacking in moral authority at the moment.

People didn't mind the US running the Internet when they did that. And you guys did a decent job of it for a lot of years. And screwing with your own citizenry is fine - they're your people, after all. But these new no-due course shutdowns, against people who aren't actually breaking the law in the country they're in? Go figure that China and Russia want a piece of that action.

Re:The UN can go pound sand

[DesScorp]

So a prison camp for terrorists is "kidnapping" now?

Re:The UN can go pound sand

[anyGould]

So a prison camp for terrorists is "kidnapping" now?

"Prison" implies that they're arrested and charged with a crime. (If they were POWs, they would have been released at the end of hostilities). The US has made it clear that they intend neither to prosecute or release these people - they just want to keep them locked away.

So, you can't (or won't) prove they're guilty of anything, and you won't let them go - sounds a lot closer to "creepy guy plucking kids off the street" than to "democracy in action" to me.

Re:The UN can go pound sand

[olau]

Huh? If it's not kidnapping, then what is it? If these people have done a criminal act, you need to put them through your justice system. If you can't convict them, they're innocent (and have effectively been kidnapped by a foreign government). If they are war combatants, you need to follow the Geneva convention.

Instead your government says, "no, they're special". Down that road lies human misery. If you don't believe that, you, sir, are an ignorant. There is no excuse on earth for letting people rot in a prison, year after year. Just take a look at the Wikipedia article on the camp. It's one huge hole human rights disaster.

Re:The UN can go pound sand

[adavies42]

get back to me when we call in air strikes on the occupy movement

Re:The UN can go pound sand

[Rakarra]

get back to me when we call in air strikes on the occupy movement

As long as their are strikes, why does it matter if they're air or ground based?

No

[Grindalf]

Give a mouse a cookie, it's going to want a glass of milk!

No friggin way

[DarkOx]

The UN is totally dysfunctional in way that makes Washington DC look like a Bastian of efficiency, honesty, and virtue. The problem with the UN is there is also the matter that the UN is made up of members that have little to no respect for basic human freedoms, and that includes places like Western Europe where its say illegal to question certain historic view points. That same organization than has the gal to berate us here in the USA on human rights for say executing adult criminals (18 years old), while they would classify all kinds of behavior as criminal which we would never criminalize in the first place.

No I am not a fan of government but when it comes to Internet governance I would much much rather have the USA (who is entitled to by the way as we build the thing) with its still relatively strong Constitutional protections running the Net, than some international body.

Personally if the rest of the world thinks they should govern the Net I say let them build their own, but as soon as packet touches one of our Edge routers, OUR RULES APPLY.

Re:No friggin way

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN is totally dysfunctional in way that makes Washington DC look like a Bastian of efficiency, honesty, and virtue.

It depends on what you assume the UN's purpose.

I've always thought of it as a meat-space forum, or mailing list. A place where various parties can come together to talk and organize things. I've never thought of it as a ruling body, but simply a place where people can talk to form a rough consensus, and then go back to their home and implement what's been agreed upon.

Re:No friggin way

[DarkOx]

There is your proof. They want you think about it as "a place where various parties can come together to talk and organize things" sounds totally benign doesn't it?

Except that is not at all what the UN does. They have "peace keeping" forces that pick winners and losers in all sorts of conflicts the world over. They operate an economic cartel were they 'decide' who is an is not allowed to sell the products on the world market. They have courts (even if member nations don't always respect their judgements; which btw is usually big nations like us nobody would try to force into compliance)! Oh and they sure collect a whole hell of lot of money for a group that is just about talking and organizing; and if that money is really supposed to be for charity how come it seems to so often end up in the pockets of people running the UN? Other groups like the International Red Cross seems to be able to operate for more than a year or two between any of their leadership being accused of embezzlement.

If you ask me the biggest threat to our National Sovereignty which our Constitutional freedoms are dependent upon is likely the UN, what do we do about? We let them set up shop on our own coast and funnel heaps of money to them! Its time to throw the bums out!

Re:No friggin way

[olau]

The problem with the UN is there is also the matter that the UN is made up of members that have little to no respect for basic human freedoms, and that includes places like Western Europe where its say illegal to question certain historic view points.

Care to elaborate? Maybe you're referring to Germany's laws against nazi symbols? You have to remember that nazists did cause some horrible sufferings, not just to the Germans but to many other countries. Even so, this is a law specific to Germany and I haven't heard any Germans trying to push them to other countries.

That same organization than has the gal to berate us here in the USA on human rights for say executing adult criminals (18 years old), while they would classify all kinds of behavior as criminal which we would never criminalize in the first place.

You are speaking out of your ass here. If you weren't, you would have some examples.

The truth is that the UN, while by design not the most effective organization on earth, is doing a lot of good for the world, including basic human rights issues. Which also happens to include the right to not be killed by your government. I like that you phrase it the other way around, the right for the state to kill its citizens. I can see now how it should be written in the Law of Nation Rights: ...
117. The state has the right to kill one of its citizens if said individual is found to be incompatible with the state. The state has the right to define what incompatible means.

If you would step down from your high horse for a second and realize that perhaps there is no single country in the world with a perfect governance, not even the one you happen to live in (the one in Western Europe I'm living in isn't perfect either), then maybe you'd gain some perspective on these things.

Re:No friggin way

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally if the rest of the world thinks they should govern the Net I say let them build their own, but as soon as packet touches one of our Edge routers, OUR RULES APPLY.

Your statement implies that you believe the Internet was built by the US. It was not. The US built the infrastructure that exists on US soil and operates the core management agencies (ICANN) but that's it. Everyone everywhere else did, in fact, "build there own Internet". Hell, the name is a clue: "Interconnected networks", it's a bunch of separate national networks joined together on by global backbones.

What's being discussed here is "who should be in control of ICANN?"

Re:No friggin way

[Tim C]

Maybe you're referring to Germany's laws against nazi symbols?

I suspect he's referring to the laws against Holocaust denial that exist in a number of European countries. I once read a justification along the lines that by denying that the Holocaust ever happened, you are effectively calling anyone who claims to have survived it a liar. As those people have suffered enough, rather than making them sue for libel/slander (and so have to give evidence, thus forcing them to remember and relive their experiences) the state takes on the prosecution to spare them the experience.

Re:Fuck the Useless Nations

[Anonymous Coward]

And the UN wants to give us religious censorship.
Just sayin'

Cue Dark Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

in 3...2...

Say goodbye to the Internet.

[__aavqan3009]

That is all.

FUD?

[c0lo]

TheReg FA

So the question becomes not if anyone is trying to take over the internet, but who stands to gain by spreading the rumour that such a takeover is on the cards. ITU reps, speaking off the record, are starting to fear some sort of conspiracy themselves: they've adamantly stated that they have neither the desire, nor the budget, nor the mandate, to interfere with governance of the internet, and yet the scare stories just refuse to die.

Re:FUD?

[AlejoHausner]

But just because the ITU says they don't have the mandate, or the budget, and insist that the alleged plan is just a mis-information campaign, why should be believe them? Of course they would deny it. They're just trying to get our guard down, as any sinister anti-American organization would. Just watch: the minute the WSJ stops running editorials like this, the UN will take over! ;-)

Re:FUD?

[c0lo]

Just watch: the minute the WSJ stops running editorials like this, the UN will take over! ;-)

;) Doing my bit to help: here are some posters to go with it

Re:FUD?

[c0lo]

They're just trying to get our guard down, as any sinister anti-American organization would. Just watch: the minute the WSJ stops running editorials like this, the UN will take over! ;-)

Ah, yes, you so right: WSJ - Alert on Hacker Power Play. Among other things hackers will do:

* Hackers are the reason I have to get up for work.
* Hackers are the reason that the newest tweetdeck sucks.
* Hackers stole my bike!
* Hackers are the reason i lose my car keys all the time.
* Hackers are the cause of Global Warming.
* Hackers are the reason I need to pee while standing in line.
* Hackers Are The Reson No One Gets The Truffles.
* Hackers are the reason why NSA director General Keith Alexander is so ugly.
* Hackers is the reason Brady Quinn is a bad guy for speaking out against the patron saint of football.
* Hackers are the reason why my girlfriend is pregnant.
* Hackers are the reason why John McCain leaves his first alert medical bracelet on his nightstand
* Hackers are the reason I can't ever fold those stupid bedsheets with the elastic corners.

Re:FUD?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

;) Doing my bit to help: here are some posters to go with it
What's funny about that last link is the mention of war taxes when all the liberals I know were complaining about the wars not being paid for, so really make up your minds.

Re:FUD?

[c0lo]

;) Doing my bit to help: here are some posters to go with it What's funny about that last link is the mention of war taxes when all the liberals I know were complaining about the wars not being paid for, so really make up your minds.

Please send this message to all the liberals you know and are complaining.

Otherwise, I'd be tempted to think you insinuate I'd be a liberal or I'd complain (or even that I'd pay taxes to IRS).

RTFS, guys

[AdamHaun]

Those of you who are panicked and/or outraged might want to read the Register article, which strongly suggests that none of this is actually happening. In particular, these paragraphs:

The ITU has said, time and time again, that it has no interest in running the internet. Earlier this month the organisation's secretary general pointed out that even if he had a mandate (which he doesn't) he hasn't the budget. ITU budgets are always linked to policy objectives, and taking over the internet is not a policy objective. ...

McDowell claims there's a meeting scheduled for 27 February where the land-grab will be agreed, and that these things will pass into international law in December - as though the US ever moved that fast. He's referring to the WCIT (the World Conference on International Telecommunications), which starts in Geneva next week, but the agenda for that was set months ago and includes no clause to make a grab for cyberspace.

So the question becomes not if anyone is trying to take over the internet, but who stands to gain by spreading the rumour that such a takeover is on the cards. ITU reps, speaking off the record, are starting to fear some sort of conspiracy themselves: they've adamantly stated that they have neither the desire, nor the budget, nor the mandate, to interfere with governance of the internet, and yet the scare stories just refuse to die.

Darknets?

[c0lo]

Darknets 2.0 plz hurry.

In the absence of peering agreements between the major service providers, how are the darknets going to communicate? Using dark energy or what? Are the "internet dark users" going to take over and run the fiber/satellite infrastructure?

Re:Darknets?

[Tastecicles]

the way we did it before service providers took over the tedious task of assigning IPs and charging obscene amounts of money for the privilege: point to point, over telephone lines.

Just because technology's "obsoleted" because something "newer, faster, *better*" comes along, does not mean it should be forgotten. One of these days you might find yourself with no power and no matches. How will you keep your family warm? Rail at the power company? Or get off your duff and learn a technology that's been known for ever: how to make fire by striking two rocks over kindling?

Learn how to use a computer. Learn how to build your own network. Because when TPTB take the Internet and emasculate it, turning it into Encarta 2.0, you'll wonder why you spent stupid money on that thing that just became a very expensive doorstop.

Re:Darknets?

[c0lo]

Learn how to use a computer. Learn how to build your own network.

Sorry, I can't afford that many pigeons to implement RFC1149. And using smoke means more greenhouse gases.

Because when TPTB take the Internet and emasculate it, turning it into Encarta 2.0, you'll wonder why you spent stupid money on that thing that just became a very expensive doorstop.

the way we did it before service providers took over the tedious task of assigning IPs and charging obscene amounts of money for the privilege: point to point, over telephone lines.

Mate, I'm old enough to know how to setup and use a BBS (just haven't had enough time to join /. earlier).

Actually old enough to remember that they used to charge obscene amount of money for the privilege of using telephone lines - otherwise why you reckon the first crackers needed to invent and master the phreaking art?
You reckon they would be so magnanimous to refrain in doing it again after they emasculate the internet?

Re:Darknets?

[currently_awake]

You don't need wires, point to point by directional radio waves is easily done now. Every home router could have several nodes to nearby routers, with a peer to peer control structure. Short of driving around in vans (at massive cost) looking for transmitters (and sending in the goons) this isn't something the government could stop. Control of communications is THE issue of this century, it's the most important challenge facing us. We will win, eventually. It's just a matter of time and cost (money/lives).

Re:Darknets?

[nu1x]

Actually, this is the main idea I think is plausible, that is, a prevalence of a kilometer+ range wireless standard almost universally adopted with a new (improved ?) anon p2p protocol.

The internet would become more segmented by geo boundaries in such case (transcontinental routing would have to be run by someone, therefore providing obvious attack points for centralized govt. goons), but unquestionably more free and resilient than ever.

The Internet deserves the highest level of freedom

[mastakuno]

The court ruled in American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union that "speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to the protection the Court gives to books and newspapers." Notice how television and radio are not included in that list. This is because with every new technology that emerges, the government wants to regulate it because of the powers it holds. The Internet is a very powerful tool for freedom, I hope we can keep it this way. Let's not let what happened to radio and television happen to the Internet.

History.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We founded the colonies, we should control them."

"We founded the Internet, we should control it."

The UN does NOT represent YOU

[FreeUser]

One thing people often forget is that individual citizens are NOT constituents of the UN. The UN does not represent you, your rights, or your interests.

The UN represents GOVERNMENTS, whose interests are often at odds with, or diametrically opposed to, the interests of the people they govern. Indeed, the UN only represents people's intrests when they happen to coincide with the interests of a sufficient number of sufficiently powerful governments, which is quite rare (WHO and the Human Rights folks notwithstanding). Moving authority from a democratically elected government (however dysfunctional, however provincial) to an unelected body that represents government interests over human interests is not a change for the better.

Re:The UN does NOT represent YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, the UN does not represent anyone or anything. The UN is an organisation where countries come to represent themselves and their interrest.

Now, for all of you who say that this will increase censorship because there are countries in the UN that want that, think about it this way. Country A wants to censor its dissidents on the internet, Country B wants the same. However why would Country A wants to censor dissidents of Country B?

They would not have much to gain.

Re:The UN does NOT represent YOU

[c0lo]

The UN does NOT represent YOU

I feel so much better with the US govt representing me!

Re:The UN does NOT represent YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect, I am neither a US citizen or a US resident. The US government doesn't represent me either.

Re:The UN does NOT represent YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent analysis. One small bone to pick: The UN represent States, not (national) governments. To make it work, national governments have taken it upon themselves to pick the state representative, or their UN ambassador. So in reality you are correct: The UN represents the interests of national governments.

However, there is no rule saying this must be the case: It is entirely possible to replace ambassadors with directly elected representatives. In fact, the UN charter allows for up to 5 representatives per State. Of course, as each State only has one vote, so each representative would have 1/5 of a vote.

Doesn't matter - won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one situation where the fractured political parties in the United States can actually be of one mind on something. The Left will block it because they balk at the idea of handing control of the internet over people who are easily swayed by governments with records of human rights abuses, and Right will block it because they hate the UN and will see this as another step in the creation of the New World Order. The US will back out of the ITU before this happens.

Re:Doesn't matter - won't happen

[Grishnakh]

You've got that completely wrong. The Left loves governments with records of human rights abuses, because they're "diverse". Haven't you notice that leftists and liberals, for all their talk about "human rights", "women's rights", etc., are always trying to make friends with Muslims, who have the most atrocious records in the world on those issues? The Left will be happy to hand control of the internet over to countries like Iran. However, the "Left" doesn't actually have any political power whatsoever.

The Right, OTOH, will want to hand control over to some single private corporation (which gives them big campaign contributions), and let them do whatever they want, in the name of "deregulation" and "the free market".

The politicians on the "Left" (who are on the Left in name only) will go right along with this, because they'll get big campaign contributions too. They might make a small show of opposing the Right's move to give a monopoly to a private corporation, but it'll amount to nothing but at election time, they'll tell their constituents "I tried to block this move, I really did, but I was overruled by those politicians on the Right".

Re:Doesn't matter - won't happen

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The Left will block it because they balk at the idea of handing control of the internet over people who are easily swayed by governments with records of human rights abuses

Man I want to live in that world. The left, if you take either the ideology or the international, is the source of at least half the worldwide human rights abuses. Are they going to oppose themselves ? The left is in love with people blocking criticism and the UN is happy to make them believe they're allies, generally by flat-out lying.

and Right will block it because they hate the UN and will see this as another step in the creation of the New World Order.

True, but since when are they against the new world order ? Plus the UN will promise to go after copyright violators (and of course not do it, same story as with human rights violations). While the UN screams bloody murder about being leftist, in practice they react in a very rightist way : they let everyone fend for themselves unless absolutely impossible. Between that, they only care about themselves and forcing their ideology on the world.

The only thing political parties understand is direct personal power. I hope the UN won't be able to provide it.

Re:Doesn't matter - won't happen

[Wandering Voice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBIZcnmuolI

George Bush Sr., 41st President of the US, openly called for a 'New World Order' in front of Congress on Sept. 11, 1991.

Re:Doesn't matter - won't happen

[tehcyder]

The Left loves governments with records of human rights abuses, because they're "diverse". Haven't you notice that leftists and liberals, for all their talk about "human rights", "women's rights", etc., are always trying to make friends with Muslims, who have the most atrocious records in the world on those issues? The Left will be happy to hand control of the internet over to countries like Iran. However, the "Left" doesn't actually have any political power whatsoever.

I'm being generous and assuming you are American, but in the rest of the world, "the Left" do not approve of human rights abuses because they're "diverse". It is morally castrated right wing capitalists who happily trade with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, China and so on that prop up those countries rulers against the wishes of the majority.

As has been said countless times here on slashdot, American only has a small and politically insigniicant left, the two main parties and presumably the majority of voters are quite right wing by world standards.

Re:Doesn't matter - won't happen

[Grishnakh]

So why is it that so many European countries have laws against blasphemy, insulting a religion, etc., and use those laws to prosecute anyone who "insults" Islam? And even provides state subsidies to Islamic religious organizations?

But yes, I'm American (and neither right, nor left). Over here, our "liberals" (the ones in the general population who espouse these principles, not the politicians who pander to them) will go on and on about human rights, women's rights, and various other "progressive" causes (many of which are quite valid and worthwhile causes, I'm not trying to say that women's right are a bad thing!) on one hand, but then they'll turn right around and talk about how wonderful "cultural diversity", "multiculturalism" (something the Europeans are also always crowing about), etc. are, driving around with their "Coexist" bumper stickers, and basically doing anything they can to appease Muslims, when those peoples' beliefs are basically the polar opposite of all the "progressive" stuff they claim to support. It's not just Muslims, it's any "diverse" culture where basically women's rights are in the shitter, animal rights (another progressive cause) are non-existent with things like bull/cock/dogfighting, etc. And these same people never have any shortage of anything to say about Western culture, even though it's pretty much the only culture that actually worries about these issues, thinks people should be treated equally, thinks religion and government should be kept separate, etc.

quota filled

[Beelzebud]

I guess this fills the quota for the daily right-wing paranoia freak out story.

Why govern?

[WillgasM]

Why do we need any human entity to oversee the Internet? Let the protocols govern the Internet, and let us (tech people who know wtf we're doing) worry about the protocols. The Internet is a tool. Tools can be used for good or evil, but it's not the tools fault. Stop imposing regulations on the tool, and worry about the people behind the tool. If I use a hammer to fix your fence; thank me, not the hammer. If I use a hammer to bludgeon a puppy; blame me, not the hammer. Nobody has ever been raped or murdered through the Internet. Somebody might use the Internet to find out where you live so they can come rape/murder you, but that doesn't mean the Internet needs fixing; It means the rapists and murderers need fixing.

This shows what people ACTUALLY think of the UN.

[Karmashock]

How often do some people say "oh you should let the UN take care of that" or "did you ask the UN?" or "what was the consensus of the international community"...

But offer that same august body control over the internet and everyone won't trust anywhere near it.

Exactly. And that's why it's hard to interact with the UN in all those other circumstances. It's a mess, corrupt, and highly incompetent. Count on it and it will drop you baby on the head every time... repeatedly... possibly on purpose.

Control freaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the whole point of the internet was that no one had control.

No thanks.

[Millennium]

There is currently no governing body that is sufficiently dedicated to freedom of expression to be even remotely worthy of governing and/or regulating the Internet. The US government comes closer than most, leading to a relatively non-intolerable situation as compared to most other situations. Sealand might do better, but that's not really a practical solution, and I can't particularly think of anyone else. Certainly not the UN, which not only lacks any procedure to exclude known foxes from duties that include guarding the henhouse, but appears to tout this fact as a feature, not a bug.

Written by the FCC comm. against Net Neutrality.

[Beelzebud]

Some good old anti-UN paranoia from a Republican in the FCC. He is also against Net Neutrality.

Re:Fuck the Useless Nations

[GameboyRMH]

And, I wouldn't be surprised if the UN tried to implement all the awful things the US has tried over the years on top of that. Don't forget, many different countries cooperated on ACTA.

What's broken?

[peppepz]

Can somebody explain to me what's broken with the current governance model of the Internet, that has to be fixed?

I'm not from the USA, and I'm critical of their positions more often than not, but honestly with the Internet they're playing fair; what's the chance that, whoever takes over, will be a better replacement?

Don't let communists run anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

look at how fucked America is with obama.

Re:Don't let communists run anything...

[biodata]

Communists will soon be running everything. Didn't you notice who is buying the bits left over from the fail capitalism? China is winning.

Re:Don't let communists run anything...

[AdamWill]

approximately precisely as fucked as it was under Bush, because your politicians have virtually no independent power over anything any more?

Re:Written by the FCC comm. against Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

SOPA? HELL NO!!!1
UN? Sure. What, in the name of Muhammad, could possibly go wrong?

Don't worry

[biodata]

anon will look after anon's internet. It doesn't belong to the US or anyone else.

Just like EasyPass

[Qubit]

I don't have one, but IIRC, when the systems were initially put in place, everyone swore up and down that they would only use them for collecting money and would never, EVER permit the data to be used to spy on people or to be used to track their location, etc..., etc..

Fast forward to today.

- What's one of the first thing to be subpoenaed in divorce proceedings? That's right: EasyPass records.
- What can the FBI pull up with a NSL? (heck -- I don't even know if they need one these days. Last I heard they were breaking the warrant/subpoena rules dozens of time each year, and I haven't heard about any convictions or fired agents)

Power Corrupts. Bureaucracies get bigger. Sometime, someone will get it into their head to think of the children...or the Prada and Nike products.

As much as I would like to have more global/world involvement in the governance of the Internet, the UN has not proven itself to be a reliable and impartial steward of the current set of programs and offices under its aegis (who the heck put Libya on the Human Rights Council?). As such, in my mind it has not shown that it would be a significantly better steward of the Internet than the US Government.

Re:Just like EasyPass

[AdamWill]

Er, how are those two things even remotely related? One's a 150 year old international standards body, the other appears to be some sort of American corporately-owned road toll system.

So your argument boils down to: "because one party I can think of in the entire history of human endeavour once made an assertion in bad faith, it follows that the ITU is definitely doing the same thing". Holy rhetorical fail, batman!

(It's also worth remembering that the ITU long pre-dates the UN and has been a fairly dull-but-necessary standards body doing the kind of dull-but-necessary things standards bodies so frequently do for rather more than a century. It's only under the UN umbrella these days because that's where it makes sense for it to be. I don't see any particular reason to assume that it's lying and the commisioner of the FCC, who has an obvious vested interest in scare stories about TEH EVIL FOREIGNERS COMING TO STEAL OUR INTERNETS, is telling the truth; especially when he doesn't appear to have a shred of evidence.)

Who controls the Internet today?

[cocotoni]

This is all a load of crock. It's not as if US is controlling the Internet today. If they were, then there would be no great firewall of China, no filtering of tweets in India and probably no net neutrality. Also, what is "US" that controls the Internet according to this - the government or the military or the people or what? Because I did not see any changes in the Internet when the US government changed. The packets didn't start flowing in different ways just because there was a new guy in the Oval Office.

Today the Internet is "controled" (and I use this word loosely) by technocrats and bureaucrats and civil servants. If tomorrow UN/ITU took "control" of the Internet NOTHING would change, as it would continue to be controlled by another group of technocrats and bureaucrats and civil servants. And one thing they are good at is maintaining the status quo.

With all these dictators as USians see them, "controlling" the UN, what of your rights was ever trampled in the 67 years of existance of UN? What ideology was rammed down people's throats? Now how do you think that those pesky russkies or chineeze will stop YOU from talking about things they don't like? By passing a UN resolution? First they don't have enough votes on their side, second the UN resolutions are sooooo well respected by everyone.

If the "control" was passed tomorrow from ICAAN to ITU, a couple of feel-good resolutions would be passed in the vein of "everyone should have the access to the Internet", some more non-latin cTLDs would be created (like you care for the ones that exist already), and NOTHING ELSE WOULD CHANGE. The China would still operate the great firewall withing their cyber-borders, Australia would still pass the laws requiering the ISPs there to filter traffic for terrorists, criminals and IP violators, and US would still discuss the SOPAs, PIPAs, ACTAs and Net Neutrality laws. Unless they create the Internet police with their blue berets that US can send to China to arrest people torrenting the latest films and vice versa that China can send to US for discussing Tiananmen. Don't be silly.

Control Trolls

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Attention all grubby controlling trolls:

Keep your FUCKING HANDS off my internet!

BS, just like the email tax

[NeoMorphy]

This reads just like the email tax hoax. It's totally unrealistic and will never happen.

Am I missing something, or am I wrong in that each country already has control over their portion of the Internet. They prove it when they start censoring and setup firewalls trying to exert their will over the masses. Obviously, if countries like China want a change, it's not to make it better, and doesn't most of the internet mischief originate from Russia and China? If they can't control things in their own backyard then they need to back off. And you know they can find the culprits if they wanted to, I'm sure if a hacker posted nude pictures of senior Chinese officials having sex with underage prostitutes, they would be arrested before their fingers left the keyboard.

The U.N. just wants more control and more money. I think our answer should be, screw you guys, we're out of this club and we're taking our funding with us.

Re:Written by the FCC comm. against Net Neutrality

[Beelzebud]

The only problem is that there is no such plan in place, but yes let's all pretend the anti-net neutrality member of the FCC is going to be honest about his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal...

There aren't any sane or rational Republicans left, are there?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Reject the UN.

[couchslug]

There is some hope of changing what the (corrupt) US government does, but none of changing what the coalition of evil known as the United Nations does.

That's the flaw in attempts at "world government", which in reality means loss of sovereignty and that is all.

Re:Reject the UN.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised you haven't been moderated to -1 yet, The people here seem to be bum buddies with the UN and vote anything against them into -1 land

The real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

But... we'll never get this. Why? Because the powers that be can go full time on their efforts to control; the politicians who are bought and the folks doing the buying don't need to take time to go to work - that is their work. Just as the mega-corporations who are fighting for their own control don't have to spend their evenings taking care of the kids.

No, the real reason is because of defeatists like you who apparently have nothing better to do than whine and bitch on Slashdot about how we'll never get justice. All you're doing is discouraging other people who might put their actual effort into, you know, OPPOSING such tyranny. We might fail (in the short term), but nobody succeeds at anything unless they try.

Today

[shiftless]

What is really horrible is that this state of affairs isn't an accident. It was designed that way, to be a Parliment of Tyrants. When the UN was proposed and designed most nation states were unfree hellholes

And what's changed?

So lets turn over control of the Internet to the same bunch of misfits who thought seating Iran to an organization to pontificate on human rights was a good idea. And lets not forget Libya having to get booted out of the Human Rights Council when Kadaffy's body count got so high even the other tyrants were getting embarrased.

Let's not forget the good ole U.S., who has more slaves ('inmates', aka prisoners) than any other country in the world.

So oh heck yea, lets turn the Internet over to these thugs, what could possibly go wrong when the Axis of Evil starts writing the RFCs for the Evil Bit and it ain't April Fools.

I assure you, the U.S. government and their 'first world' buddies are MORE than capable of making the Internet a shithole all on their own, with or without the Axis of Evil's help.

Re:Today

[currently_awake]

The fundamental basis of democracy is giving EVERYONE a voice. If you start excluding people you don't like it doesn't work. And that means we have to listen to Iran, Syria, and all the other "despotic" countries. Unless all you want is a stage to dictate to others, then you can limit the audience to your friends.

Like Ron Paul

[shiftless]

Kasparov, Yabloko and the like hold 1-5% support as far as anyone can tell, and are a distant fourth in line as far as potential alternatives to Putin.

Yep! Just like Ron Paul, who popularity seems to be massive and growing, yet according to the official vote counts he's an nobody, in last place.

Re:Like Ron Paul

[Rakarra]

Just like Ron Paul, who popularity seems to be massive and growing

That has always been an illusion. Ron Paul's supporters are very vocal and supportive. No one gets excited about Romney. No one. But Ron Paul? He has a small number of folks who really agree with him. Most voters do not agree with the details of his political positions, but I'll admire him for sticking to his guns and being willing to say politically unpopular things.

Maybe so

[shiftless]

It might not be yours, but it's mine, and I don't take orders from anyone.

Re:Fuck the Useless Nations

[Anonymous Coward]

And the US doesn't?

Just sayin'...

Re:This shows what people ACTUALLY think of the UN

[Anonymous Coward]

How often do some people say "oh you should let the UN take care of that" or "did you ask the UN?" or "what was the consensus of the international community"...

Here in the U.S. almost never, and even then only when followed by hysterical laughter.

Re:Doesn't matter - won't happen - maybe

[grantspassalan]

This has really nothing to do with the right or the left. All governments, without a single exception fear loss of control over those governed more than anything else. In order to control people, governments have traditionally passed various laws concerning weapons and communications.

When the printing press was invented, some governments immediately passed laws to assert their control over this new communications medium. Because printing presses and later broadcasting stations are really expensive, governments only had to exert their controls over the relatively few owners of these technologies.

With the Internet all this changed dramatically. Now anyone who can afford to buy a computer and subscribe to an Internet connection, is able to bring their ideas to the entire world. Some of those ideas have been or will be dangerous to those who wish to be or remain in control. Therefore, governments will attempt to and probably eventually succeed in stifling the free communication between ordinary people. This move to have the UN take over the Internet, is just another attempt at total control. The effort of the US to do this with SOPA and PIPA failed for now, but this is only a temporary setback for those who want to stifle free communications between ordinary people.

Copyrights and ACTA are readily available tools for all governmental and/or corporate control freaks to use, whether on the left or the right. The US government has become particularly adept at using copyright as a weapon on behalf of large media corporations to shut down websites not only located in the US, but it seems almost anywhere else on the globe.

UN hands off the USAnet!

[Anonymous Coward]

No niggers on my teh internets!

Another Protest

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that the Internet needs another blackout day a la SOPA?

Re:Fuck the Useless Nations

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the 1st Amendment.
Just sayin'

Re:This shows what people ACTUALLY think of the UN

[Karmashock]

You hear it from other countries with some frequency. Though I suspect they'll change their tune if the internet... the only means they have to communicate unhindered left to them is taken over by the UN which will then cooperate with their repressive governments to ensure that any comment they make on the internet gets tracked back and their family killed.

The UN is a great idea as a place for governments to meet and discuss diplomacy. As an independent entity it has no business involving itself in anything. There is no UN. The UN is a collection of countries that may or may not agree with what the UN is doing at any given time.

I trust the UN to pick out appetizers for a diplomatic meeting and make sure there's plenty of wine. That's all they're good for... a catering service... provide some translators and a room. The nations themselves must work these things out. The UN is merely a place to do that.

I may soon want out

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been online almost every day for the last 15 years. I'm a programmer and web developer among other thing. people who know me know how important the internet is to me. what I feel the future holds for me is not good. I feel there might one day be a demand for non-profit organizations to form their own version of "the internet" without such restrictions. if that never happens, I may very well give up computers and the internet. possibly even become a monk in some far off remote village. until then, I hope and pray for a race of alien beings to come take me away from here.