I read all of the OP.  I don't like how the UN likes to stick its nose into things, either.

1. The UN doesn't have the power to tax anything, in the literal sense, let alone internet traffic as far as I know. The Security Council can pass international law in a heartbeat but I believe at least one of the big 5 would veto this type of law. Especially the US as it would be hurt by such a treaty. The General assembly can only pass resolutions that have no effect. Moreover the UN gets all its funds by donations, I do not believe it can levy taxes on anything (except actions passed by the security council which would be blocked by a big 5 member; strangely even China's diplomatic stance would be so threatened by this it wouldn't work as it would veto the UN action.) Essentially the UN practically CANNOT and WILL NOT  pass such a law.

 

2. Strange as it is to say this. Governments do have a right, waived in some cases, to control international web traffic. China can block Google if it chooses. This doesn't say such actions are always ethical but if enough countries signed a treaty to block websites that didn't pay a fee it would be doable.

 

3. The current internet is pretty much designed and controlled by the US. This is true, we control ICANN that handles domain names, designed the internet, and as the worlds largest and most technologically proficient economy are a "necessary evil". (or good.) However I will point out it is impossible to have a neutral governing body of any organization. The UN, ICANN, and the Breton Woods Organizations all give greater powers to specific states for reasons. Equality doesn't exist as a right for the state but it may for the individual.

 

4. The internet is still legally largely undefined. Originally it was just a file sharing  and remote control system. Then it evolved into the behemoth it is today. It actually is doing well considered this was not its design purpose. I would contend that there are several legal layers to the internet. On one side it is a public forum for the sharing, distributing, and mingling of ideas. On another it is an extension of private networks. Thirdly it is a commerce hub. Fourthly it is a government network in many cases. It is difficult. The internet is not an equalizer or freedom of speech by access machine. It is a tool that can be implicated in freedom of speech but is not necessary for it from a denotative standpoint.

5. I would contend that "internet territory" falls under a government. Google, Facebook, and Netflix etc. are American websites and therefore fall under American jurisdiction. Foreign access will have to happen under some treaty, which it does, and is partly allowed by the grace of the receiving state. Published materials, i.e. facebook posts, youtube videos, files on sharing websites are legally open for government surveillance to prevent crime. Private materials stored on private access only servers on public networks would require a warrant as per US legal code. Outside the US anything goes according to the country. Internet territory would be decided by server location and the company registration. The web cannot become neutral territory. (Challenge this, I am up to changing; but it can't be wishy washy egalitarianism. There is a necessary measure of pragmatism.)

 

6. The web is essentially a timebomb and a war-zone. The rest of the world can be paranoid about american encroachment, but we got here first and if they want there own web they have to make it financially and practically useful and in reality they can't. Only two countries I know of have a chance of making something like this work. North Korea and Bhutan and thats just because they really don't need to use the web right now to live.

As a further comment. While it will be beneficial for many countries to gain more control of the internet they will not support intervention as it exposes them for intervention.

1. If it didn't, the parties wouldn't bother even noticing it, never mind opposing it.

2. Agreed.

3. Also true. 

4. I don't see it as layers... rather ... a web.

5. I contend that Europe, Russia, China, etc. are trying to break the web for different reasons. Europe - for the money. Russia and the dictatorships  - to prevent free exchange of ideas. Interestingly, Putin opposed the U.N. move. Not out of any democratic ideals (I doubt he has use for any), but rather to allow his own hegemony over a Russian intranet.

After all this time, these nation states are trying to become their own portals/bubbles. That needs to be fought. The net needs to remain a free place.

Yes and no. The UN can be powerful when it provides a forum for big (powerwise) countries to win support and acceptance for actions in littler(powerwise) countries. This is what happened with Libya and Iraq, and it's what Russia fears will happen in Syria. However, in this case, as the action would be taking place in one of the biggest countries, and said country has a vested economic and political interest in preventing it, so I doubt it's likely.

 

I don't know exactly what this means. Explanation, please?

The U.S. has veto power but is absolutely not "in control" of the UN.  It is more and more serving as a proxy for the EU and a suck-up/favor trading venue for nations wanting support for their own goals.

What's at stake is pretty much the OP...a free and open universe that anyone can travel or a bunch of nationally and corporately controlled portals that charge for or require vetting for access.

The United State's behavior in managing the internet structure has been almost exclusively positive.

I'd contact your representatives but that may have little impact in the long run.  At any point, the EU or China or Russia or anyone else can simply create their own network and bridge or bar it with others in any way they want--including with fees or political control.

Your choices then will be to stay off their network or pay their toll.

This idea has been around for awhile, the UN wants to raise money. A country has to agree to give tax to the UN ... not everyone will agree to it, why would you.  

A storm in a tea cup ... it will never happen, just one of many plans that get released for discussion (this comes out every year). It gets more attention because the US loves an us vs them ..

 

When looking at anything, there tend to be 'lumpers' (those who group things) and 'splitters' (those who separate them). Both have value. I tend to see inter-connectivity of things - a lumper of sorts. 

If it doesn't happen it'll be because people/media become aware of the problem and oppose it (election years are powerful things, in some respects). I don't see it as a "U.S. vs. 'them'" thing so much as a sneaky 'end run' which was caught and is getting appropriately drubbed.

I wouldn't call it sneaky, it will be up for debate. Everything will be put on the table, other parties will put forward their recommendations. Everyone will disagree and enjoy an expensive holiday... see you next year. The International Telecommunication Union members will work on (tweak) polices and plans for next time to justify their large pay packets ... nothing gets done.

'election years are powerful things'

Yep, look what the big bad world is trying to do to us ...

But let's not get blindsided by, "The rest of the world is enlightened and their politicians are pure and only do good" syndrome either.

Politicians are as politicians do.

Politicians may be more or less bad, but they are all still politicians.

The point to distinguish is "statesman" vs. "politician".

To date, I've seen precious few statesmen, but all too many politicians.

But the point is, the U.N. can't do this. Ever, barring some seismic shift in the world power dynamic. The US is a veto-power member of the Security Council, which means in practice that anything going against its own monetary interests never passes. That's the way it's effectively always been, and, as Taz mentioned, it has been brought up (and shot down) multiple times before.

 

I think I understand your basic point regarding the "joiner" thing, and while it's not as big of an issue as you make it out to be (mostly because this proposal will never pass), I can see why putting extra taxes on the internet could make it less accessible.

 

 

This does not make sense. The UN, however powerless, is a more-or-less democratic body wherein each country gets a vote. If something makes it through most parts of the UN, it's because the majority of countries that are members of that body wanted it to be done. On the security council, the US is even significantly overrepresented, having permanent veto power where other countries do not. Now, granted, votes aren't assigned based on population, but that's the way it works in the US Senate and- to a lesser extent- the Electoral College.

Ok in response to response to my previous large post. The only UN body that can pass this type of international law is the security council. Essentially the UN has several different congresses of sorts. The security council consists of 15 (or 18 I forget) nations with 5 permanent veto members. Its resolutions are international law and it can declare war, (UN has no army so once again the states actually fight.). The General assembly and committees have representatives from every nation. There resolutions are non binding and must be enforced by states or turned into treaties. The US, China, UK, and Russia would all veto it. France would probably support but they don't matter. As I said countries could use the UN general assembly as a forum.

 

as for the web v layer debate. Think of the web as a highway with different types of traffic. Much of the traffic is private say  family members visiting each other. That would be like a private business server network. Some places are destination, e.g. websites. etc. I am contending that each type of network and location on the web is sort of like its own network that overlaps with others to become the multipurpose web.

The UN manages to do plenty of stuff w/o needing the vote of the Security Council.

As for the layer/highway/web... no matter.