UN to regulate the internet ?

Reports have been surfacing that the UN plans to propose an idea to take control of the internet at their World Information Summit in Geneva next Wednesday. The movement is being led by countries like China, Syria and Vietnam *couch* communists *couch*. They would distribute all domain names and have full access to the control of the internet according to rumor. They would assume all power currently held by dozens of other governments and private companies.

This coming from an organization that believes free speech should only be granted as long as it is not used against them.

If this turns out to be true, then we're seriously screwed. I hope the US fights them hard on this one.

World Daily Article
Australian IT Article
Washington Times Article

Yes and No. In a way the UN does have power. The power of influence. Most of the worlds governing bodies listen to them, and they would do almost anything that the UN asks of them. Because of this they have power, a lot of it. And yes, the US will do what it wants to do. Currently US companies control an overwhelming majority of the internets servers, technology, and domain rights. But if we keep getting pres. candidates that get more and more liberal every four years, as we have been, then inevitably one of these people would surrender control of the net if he/she were elected. I don't believe this will be happening anytime soon, but it might become an issue in, say, 2012. Just wait and see.

I'm talking about the people whom I consider to be the true liberals, the ones who actually make decisions regarding this country. People like Hitlary and Kennedy. These people keep preaching about things like the inherent evilness in individualism, moving away from self governing, and the move to a more world base government (UN) rather than individual governments that decide their own laws and rules. It's this type of thinking that will eventually bring upon the end of free speech and the free flow of information. History proves that for us. Look at Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Cuba. The first step to removing outspoken thoughts, verbally or in print, was the eradication of the "individual". The same can happen to electronic forms of communication as well. All they have to do is to give the UN more power, which IS what many powerfull people in a America want to do, if they were allowed.

Just look at the UN's own thoughts on the matter of free speech. Take their Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example. They state clearly in Article 19 that freedom of speech, opinion, and expression should be allowed by any person or media, as you would expect of course. But check the fine print. Article 29, section 3. "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.". Hmmmm..... I wonder what would happen if they were in control?

Where have you been living if you don't think that the UN doesn't have influence or power (outside the US). Many world leaders (mostly of developing and undeveloped countries) would bow to them if asked. Although I do believe this to be the case, I do not believe that the world or any single country would stop if the UN were to no longer exist. Oh, and I too believe that they are laughable.

They make the rules when it comes to issuing .com, .net, and .org addresses if I am not mistaken. And either they or VeriSign controls the distribution. I believe that there are some squabble over that issue right now. But I believe that the UN seeks to control the servers and access as well. If not now, then eventually, that's what they'd want.

The individual countries retain those rights. The US, for example, contracted a private company to do the work, but the US owns all the rights, and chooses who to distribute .us and .kids.us to. I would assume that most other countries do the same.

What I mean is politicians in general. They may not have ultimate power over the decisions that are made, but they do have some power in the way of influence. You can't deny that Ted Kennedy has influence, and his party is not in control.

As I said, the end of individualism is the begining of the end for freedom of speech, and many other freedoms as well. You don't think that some current US politicians want to end individualism? hmmmm.. I think so. Here's a comparison.