The United Nations International Telecommunications Union is holding its World Conference on International Telecommunications this week in Dubai UAE, running through December 14th. What are they going to talk about? The Internet, but beyond that we’re not entirely certain. And that has more than a few people concerned about the future of a free and open Internet, not the least of which is the U.S. House of Representatives, the European Union, and perhaps more relevantly Google.
The ITU is a union of government representatives from dozens of member countries including names you can probably guess like USA, India, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and Australia. But other member countries have a less than spotless reputation for maintaining a free and open Internet including Russia, China, Iran, Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan. In the ITU each country stands on equal footing with only one vote and so countries with a more established open policy on the internet will not have any advantage over those that routinely want to censor it. Are these the people we want making decisions on the future of the Internet?
Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this meeting is that the proposals being discussed and voted on are not open to the public. There have been a few rumored leaks that include proposals for cutting off the internet for undisclosed reasons, allowing more government regulation and monitoring of traffic, and rules to charge content providers for providing content to various regions. There is even talk that the ITU might push to take Internet governance away from ICANN and other organizations. In fact, the U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously to send a message to the ITU to butt out. Google is lending its voice, and web traffic to the cause with their Take Action site dedicated to keep the Internet free and open.
Of course there are two sides to this story. Many of the nations represented by the ITU are fighting against what they feel is a monopoly of control and influence over the Internet by the USA. What’s more, censorship and government monitoring of Internet traffic is nothing new and is routinely done by many countries including the China, Russia, and the USA. So one could question what impact any new rules established by the ITU would have beyond what is already being imposed. And the ITU itself is responsible for advancing broadband and telecommunications in countries that might have otherwise remained disconnected.
What do you think? Do we need an internationalized regulatory body or is the Internet best left unregulated; spam, viruses, and all?
Absolutely NOT! The UN is probably the most corrupt organization on the planet. It is dominated by tiny, minuscule little countries that are run by despots.
Here’s some info from DickMorris.com on this topic.
…
A voting majority of the 193 nations in the General Assembly — 96 countries (one vote per nation) — have fewer than five million people living there. In total, the countries have a population of only 241 million people, far less than the 310 million that live in the USA. In all, 12 countries have fewer than 100,000 inhabitants and 40 have fewer than one million. Why should we let these countries vote on global policy? Just because a group of people decide to set up a nation, why should the UN admit it with a vote equal to the US?
…
And lots of the larger nations that vote in the UN are authoritarian and un-democratic. When the delegate from Russia votes on admitting Palestine, does he vote for 140 million Russians or for one man — Vladimir Putin? And who does the Chinese delegate represent? 1.3 billion people or the dozen men on the Politburo?
Freedom House, a bi-partisan organization founded in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt and 1940 GOP nominee Wendell Wilkie, rates nations based on their degree of democracy. It reports that 57% of the world’s population lives in countries that are “not free.” Only 87 of the 193 nations in the General Assembly are “free.” So who do the others represent? Not their people, just their dictators or ruling juntas.
The premise of the UN is that it takes all comers regardless of their forms of government. That makes sense when issues of war or peace are being adjudicated. If a dictator controls a country and its military, you have to give him a seat at the peace talks otherwise you can’t negotiate. But to accord him a place and a vote when global policy is being set — as in the General Assembly — makes no sense. He only speaks for himself.
And finally, there is the corruption that pervades the UN, making nations very susceptible to oil-linked bribery. Transparency International rates the degree of integrity in each of the world’s nations. It rates only 50 of the 182 nations it studied as “honest.”