The U.N will consider imposing international regulation of the internet at a conference in Dubai next month. In true U.N. form the meeting is closed-door. Internet regulation would be a big prize for globalists who would love a way to regulate content and give themselves a global mechanism for tax revenue. Conference organizers claim they are not interested in controlling the internet – but since when has the U.N. convened any meeting that didn’t try to impose their authority in a global context. The U.S. should have nothing to do with this conference and should oppose any attempt to give the U.N. regulatory control or power to infringe on American sovereignty.

A U.N.-sponsored conference next month in Dubai will propose new regulations and restrictions for the Internet, which critics say will censor free speech, levy tariffs on e-commerce, and even force companies to clean up their “e-waste” and make gadgets that are better for the environment.

Concerns about the closed-door event have sparked a Wikileaks-style info-leaking site, and led the State Department on Wednesday to file a series of new proposals or tranches seeking to ensure “competition and commercial agreements — and not regulation” as the meeting’s main message.

Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions and believes management of the Internet by one central organization goes against free speech.

“[Doing nothing] would not be a terrible outcome at all,” Kramer said recently. “We need to avoid suffocating the Internet space through well-meaning but overly prescriptive proposals that would seek to control content.”

The conference will be run by the International Telecommunications Union (ITC), a U.N. agency that has typically provided a welcome service by making sure that the Internet works across countries. Many of its guidelines were first instituted in 1988. Most haven’t changed since then.

‘While the worst-case scenario isn’t likely, there’s a decent chance that some of these regulations will go into effect.’

- Josh King, an attorney with legal advice site Avvo.com

The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is the first such meeting since those guidelines were created, and businesses are taking it seriously: U.S. delegates will include representatives from AT&T, Cisco, Facebook, GoDaddy, and dozens more.

To dispel concerns, the ITU played damage control in early October.

“There are no proposals submitted to create new international regulatory agencies, or mechanisms, and hence no proposals to put ITU in control of the Internet!” said Malcolm Johnson, ITU’s telecommunication standardization bureau director, in a written statement.

Despite those reassurances, key experts remain concerned.

The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is one of just five groups that assign numbers to Internet names, a key part of making the web tick. Cathy Handley, executive director of government affairs at ARIN and a conference attendee, said the meeting is meant to exert some sort of controls.

“Some of the proposals that could clearly have consequences address the high cost of mobile roaming, taxation of calls, issues associated with the routing of calls, cybersecurity and combating spam,” Handley told FoxNews.com. “A major concern is with any attempt to make the International Telecommunication Regulations prescriptive and force regulation.”

Read more:
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on digg Share on delicious Share on email More Sharing Services
Tags #buzzclimber, CENSORSHIP, david spady, INTERNET REGULATION, U.N.

 xxmatt85 wrote:
This would be just plain stupid to even attempt at all and just simply impossible to do.

 whembly wrote:

 xxmatt85 wrote:
This would be just plain stupid to even attempt at all and just simply impossible to do.

Impossible to regulate... not really... difficult, yes.

The biggest fear is taxation...

 ENOZONE wrote:
And the sheer stupidity of them even attempting it....

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
You guys haven't moved on to the espressonet yet? Have you been living under a rock?

Mm, I'm not worried. The internet stands for everything that is free and lewd. It will always remain a beacon of expression, obsession and regression, no matter how many bureaucrats stick their hands in it!

 whembly wrote:
but since when has the U.N. convened any meeting that didn’t try to impose their authority in a global context.

“Some of the proposals that could clearly have consequences address the high cost of mobile roaming, taxation of calls, issues associated with the routing of calls, cybersecurity and combating spam,” Handley told FoxNews.com. “A major concern is with any attempt to make the International Telecommunication Regulations prescriptive and force regulation.”

That may be the craziest thing I've ever heard. I mean fething seriously, I know the UN as this nefarious one-world government thing that is taking over the planet is a big thing to a certain American mindset, but come on, reality has to come in at some point.

Seriously, you don't get to have threads about the UN taking over the world next to threads about how the UN are a bunch of spineless nobodies who can't stop dictators torturing their own people... and pretend you're doing anything but just making up stupid stuff to get outraged over.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This means nothing for a few reasons, the primary of which is that the US has (for now) decided not to regulate the Internet, and the US generally doesn't care what the UN thinks or wants.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This means nothing for a few reasons, the primary of which is that the US has (for now) decided not to regulate the Internet, and the US generally doesn't care what the UN thinks or wants.

Eeyup now if only the rest of the world would follow our example we could get some prime real estate in NYC back

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm all for international cooperation I just see the UN in it's present format as a complete cluster feth in dire need of a nuke'n boot.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well first we hang all the politicians... err hang them out to dry that is. The World Health Organization does excellent work because it's primarily composed of by international experts in their respective fields working together, with minimal interference from the general assembly besides a budget, do that across multiple fields then they (the experts) can take recommendations to their individual nations. You satellite example's a good one, we're gonna have a problem with Space Junk in Earth orbit here in the near future, how the hell do we deal with the that? Well here's a room full of guys from various space agencies world wide to suggest the best course of action.

Cut the gak and let's get some actual work done instead of endless pontificating from the same useless blowhards that prevent any one from getting anything done world wide.

Then again I'm the type of person who thinks calling someone a politician is an insult of a most egregious nature and considers anyone in such a field a waste of food and oxygen.

Do I realize there needs to be some politics involved in everything, especially internationally? Yes, sadly. But the general assembly should be the side show, not the main stage. Vote on the budget for the people who do useful things and shut up for the rest of the year. If you sit in the corner and be a good boy general assembly, you can have a juice box and hold up traffic with your diplomatic marked limos later.

Maddermax wrote:

“Some of the proposals that could clearly have consequences address the high cost of mobile roaming, taxation of calls, issues associated with the routing of calls, cybersecurity and combating spam,” Handley told FoxNews.com. “A major concern is with any attempt to make the International Telecommunication Regulations prescriptive and force regulation.”

Soooo... the proposals are mainly about trying to limit spam, improve handling of routing and improving roaming internet prices?

As long as they don't try to restrict internet content or make it easier for governments to censor their people, I'm fine with it. Talking about basic infrastructure and handling problem issues like spam and ridiculous roaming internet pricing, which need to be discussed and solutions worked on internationally, is not a major concern. If I see them trying to implement content censorship, or even try to restrict internet trade, then there's a major problem, but for the moment, I'm not going to panic.

 LordofHats wrote:
One thing the internet may give us if better regulated: Far fewer viruses, spyware, and tracking cookies

 whembly wrote:

 ENOZONE wrote:
And the sheer stupidity of them even attempting it....

Oh... they'll try...

And we'll say "NO".

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well first we hang all the politicians... err hang them out to dry that is. The World Health Organization does excellent work because it's primarily composed of by international experts in their respective fields working together, with minimal interference from the general assembly besides a budget, do that across multiple fields then they (the experts) can take recommendations to their individual nations. You satellite example's a good one, we're gonna have a problem with Space Junk in Earth orbit here in the near future, how the hell do we deal with the that? Well here's a room full of guys from various space agencies world wide to suggest the best course of action.

Cut the gak and let's get some actual work done instead of endless pontificating from the same useless blowhards that prevent any one from getting anything done world wide.

Then again I'm the type of person who thinks calling someone a politician is an insult of a most egregious nature and considers anyone in such a field a waste of food and oxygen.

Do I realize there needs to be some politics involved in everything, especially internationally? Yes, sadly. But the general assembly should be the side show, not the main stage. Vote on the budget for the people who do useful things and shut up for the rest of the year. If you sit in the corner and be a good boy general assembly, you can have a juice box and hold up traffic with your diplomatic marked limos later.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well first we hang all the politicians... err hang them out to dry that is. The World Health Organization does excellent work because it's primarily composed of by international experts in their respective fields working together, with minimal interference from the general assembly besides a budget, do that across multiple fields then they (the experts) can take recommendations to their individual nations. You satellite example's a good one, we're gonna have a problem with Space Junk in Earth orbit here in the near future, how the hell do we deal with the that? Well here's a room full of guys from various space agencies world wide to suggest the best course of action.

Cut the gak and let's get some actual work done instead of endless pontificating from the same useless blowhards that prevent any one from getting anything done world wide.

Then again I'm the type of person who thinks calling someone a politician is an insult of a most egregious nature and considers anyone in such a field a waste of food and oxygen.

Do I realize there needs to be some politics involved in everything, especially internationally? Yes, sadly. But the general assembly should be the side show, not the main stage. Vote on the budget for the people who do useful things and shut up for the rest of the year. If you sit in the corner and be a good boy general assembly, you can have a juice box and hold up traffic with your diplomatic marked limos later.

That's a really good answer to my question. My hat is off to you, good sir.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I hope you're being sarcastic.