There's no such thing as UN law. There are treaties between nations, frequently brokered at the UN, and there are UN resolutions, which are more like "this statement was not vetoed by anyone" than they are rulings of law.
Any devolution of ICANN's powers to the UN (which, if not massively fucked up, is probably healthier for the internet than keeping it under one country) would likely be an administrative handover. I seriously doubt it would be done on the basis that the G77 voting as a block could take control of the net.
For an analogy, look at the way the UN peacekeepers typically handle things. They go someplace where there's peacekeeping.. and then they sit there. They don't do anything and avoid taking a side at all costs. If either side says they're not welcome anymore, they're gone.
The UN isn't a government, it's a really big conference room.
The objective of some is to turn it into a world government. This is just one more little step in that direction.
Having the Internet controlled primarily by the US and US-friendly organizations may not be ideal, but it would be better than having it controlled by a China, Russia, Mid-east dominated body.
"The objective of some" is another way of saying "I have no justification for this but want to say it anyways." Useless conspiracy theorizing and straw-manning.
The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.
I did name names, right there in my post. So did the article. But clearly I should have known better than to have used 'world government', too much of a loaded, and lazy, term. But I do think there is a push to increase the UN's power in the world, to the point where some or all of it is binding.
If I don't trust the motives and agendas of some of the regimes behind that push, so sue me? The US isn't exactly a paragon these days, and our political system somewhat corrupted by the influence of highly-concentrated wealth, but I also see signs of a long-overdue self-corrective reaction to that, enabled in large part by the open Internet.
Is such a reaction possible in other more restrictive, more authoritarian regimes? Doesn't look like it, and ones like China are doing all they can make sure it stays that way, but who knows. We shall see...
Russia and China have no interest in increasing the power of the UN; they want to increase their own power relative to other nations, and in this particular case they think that the UN will be a useful channel to do so.
In other situations Russia and China fight to reduce the power of the UN. Mostly situations where western powers are seeking UN legitimacy for piercing national sovereignty, such as in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Today Russia opposed UN intervention in Syria, and I think China does as well.
Not that irrelevant... it is just another side to the general corruption and outright gangsterism that often characterises the modern UN. They also voted to legalise the execution of homosexuals only recently. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/un-general-assembly-vot...
Just like Abu Ghraib is ust another side to the general corruption and outright gangsterism that often characterises the modern US, right?
I don't know how much you can read into things. In war, you usually have the bad guys and the worse guys. If you put a good person in a war zone he or she will do bad things.
Just like Abu Ghraib is ust another side to the general corruption and outright gangsterism that often characterises the modern US, right?
Bingo. Not for the country as a whole, or the people within it, but definitely for the executive branch.
I don't know how much you can read into things.
I don't think there is any real need to look for a subtle subtext here. The UN certainly isn't bothering to be particularly subtle.
In war, you usually have the bad guys and the worse guys.
In that case you accept no possibility of a defensive or peacekeeping force working on behalf of ordinary people and think that soldiers are mindless thugs who will just loot anyone they are sent to protect. I don't accept that and think that it is possible to have a culture of respect on the ground, but only if that permeates the entire organisation and only if infractions by those people that you are imposing on a situation are publicly investigated and properly dealt with as a matter of absolute policy.
If you put a good person in a war zone he or she will do bad things.
If I take that statement at face value, then I'd have to say that history contains plenty of examples to the contrary.
Any devolution of ICANN's powers to the UN (which, if not massively fucked up, is probably healthier for the internet than keeping it under one country) would likely be an administrative handover. I seriously doubt it would be done on the basis that the G77 voting as a block could take control of the net.
For an analogy, look at the way the UN peacekeepers typically handle things. They go someplace where there's peacekeeping.. and then they sit there. They don't do anything and avoid taking a side at all costs. If either side says they're not welcome anymore, they're gone.
The UN isn't a government, it's a really big conference room.