UN Pushes Plan To Assume Internet Governance Role 287
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.
RTFS, guys (Score:5, Informative)
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:
Re:Putin's elections (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good luck ruling it without ICANN (Score:5, Informative)
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:Two bad choices (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 [freedomhouse.org], 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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]