I'm not saying that government shouldn't have power... I'm saying that government should not attempt to GAIN power for the sake of gaining power...

I'm not saying that government shouldn't have power... I'm saying that government should not attempt to GAIN power for the sake of gaining power...

It's not "gaining" power to say you have claim a right you already possess. I think you're misunderstanding the position of governments and the powers of the ITU.

First of all, governments have every "legal" right to do pretty much whatever the heck they want on their territory, so long as it doesn't violate human rights. Now, the UN has declared that everyone has a right to protection against "arbitrary interference with his privacy." All of the UN agencies uphold this view, including the ITU. Note that this is an essentially meaningless right. For one thing, all that's necessary to get around it is a legitimate reason to violate your privacy. For another, the UN and all of its component agencies have no legislative power. None. The UN can make recommendations and set standards, but it cannot change the laws of any of its member countries unless they agree to the laws for themselves. The UN, and hence the ITU, fundamentally cannot regulate the internet. It has no power to do so.

All of that said, nothing prevents any of the member countries from regulating their own networks unless it is their own internal laws. They have every ability to regulate their own portions of the internet as and they've had this power from the beginning!

Finally, the meetings won't be over till the end of next week, but all I've seen of their schedule is that they'll be putting out standards. Let's say the worst happens and the ITU edits the treaty, which is then ratified in the US, (or wherever) and becomes a law. Well, it doesn't overrule any other laws in power and legally, the US government can't do anything more than before. As for the question of them using extralegal methods, they already do.

These talks are only really important from the aspect of showing how the international political community is looking at computer networks. Beyond that, it's a lot of hype over nothing.

The internet is owned by citizens and corporations. those citizens and corporations are under the jurisdiction of whatever government rules in that particular corner of the world. therefore, governments control the internet (as far as laws and regulations are concerned).

The internet itself is not owned by anyone... Not to say that no one owns individual space on the internet, but the internet itself is like a company with stock... whoever owns the most stock owns the company... (A lot of times one needs to own over half the stock, and NO ONE HAS DONE THIS TO THE INTERNET!)

Also, it's called the WWW for a reason... There are standards, yes, but not much regulation (and by that I mean sites blocked by the government), except in communist countries... Why? Look at the name... World Wide Web, meaning that if there is any jurisdiction, it must be global... and since there is no global government (the UN does not count because not all countries are part (e.g. Taiwan)), treaties (like the major one being revised at the ITU) are made between countries that participate actively in the internet...

This does not mean that those treaties have an effect on the entire world... just to the participating countries right???

Wrong! The treaties have no binding effect AT ALL because the governments involved have no jurisdiction over the entire world! The only way that the treaties would have effect is if EVERY country had a say... Why? It's called the World Wide Web...

Does this mean that participating countries won't abide by said treaties? Not at all. They will abide... but until ALL the countries of the world make a GLOBAL law regarding the internet and treaties involving the usage there thereof, the treaties can be broken easily by participating countries...

Why be worried? Because the US is trying to negotiate/compromise with countries that (while not technically breaking any global laws) are using national jurisdiction with a global entity to restrict it... The US is starting to board their metaphorical boat, and now they might "give" [up] internet freedom in order to "take" peace with China, Iran, etc...

We can always break out of the treaties, right? Well, it depends on which direction the country will take within the next (this is an arbitrary #) 40 years...

In other words... Schrödinger's Cat situation! We should be worried and not worried at the same time...

A global law would be under individual countries to enforce, but if a country were to disobey said law, then the country would be punished...

Ahhh... but a punishment could be that the country breaking the law would be excluded from UN decision making for x time... What about Taiwan, etc.? How about no UN recognition as a country for x time...