Jew World Order

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.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the
Internet’s flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988.

That
year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a
treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international
telecommunications.

This insulated the Internet from economic and
technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory
success story of all time.

Since the Net’s inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others
have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it
operating and thriving through what is known as a “multi-stakeholder”
governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been
the key to the Net’s phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used
the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and
that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This
explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping
their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human
condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology
in history.

Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world,
where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and
raising living standards.

Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their
crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming
the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods.

Worried parents
are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And
proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and
organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.

The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study
found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new
jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments
blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government
control.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member
states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its
reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of
proposals that could be codified into international law next December at
a conference in Dubai is chilling:

• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international”
Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web
destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone
companies and government treasuries;

• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates,
terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping
agreements known as “peering.”

• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of
multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that
coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the
Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other
multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical
standards that allow the Internet to work;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are
particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based
technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some
governments feel excluded and want more control.

And let’s face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular
outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet
connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts
have progressed significantly.

Merely saying “no” to any changes to the current structure of Internet
governance is likely to be a losing proposition.

A more successful
strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity
within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested
parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the
multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to
address reasonable concerns.

As part of this conversation, we should
underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the
developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition
the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A
balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and
national sovereignty.

It would impair Internet growth most severely in
the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to
seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also
undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as
cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is
antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network
of networks without borders. No government, let alone an
intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in
lightning-fast Internet time.

Productivity, rising living standards and
the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing
world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions
become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no
matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back.
Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result
is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder
model.

Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new
regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory
role for the ITU.

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized
than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation
proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member
states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda.

Unlike the
U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings.
With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could
be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a
majority.

While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the
treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it
is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to
affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and
prosperity across the globe.

February 23, 2012 – posted at BeforeIt’sNews

Source

diggmutidel.icio.usgoogleredditfacebook