Christiane Schulzki-Haddouti writes in Futurezone about alleged fears that the UN would take over the internet. With the UN she means ITU, the cartel-like UN organisation for international telecommunication companies, which still breathes the spirit of the times when telecommunication was a public utility service. She refers to an op-ed by Robert M McDowell in the Wallstreet Journal:
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.
Just consider the recent attempt with the SOPA laws to annex the Internet as a property of the United States. The position of McDowell is good old cyber-libertarianism:
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.
Still for certain functions you rely on neutral govermental players. Privacy and libel, contract law, protection of property, law enforcement etc. Non-intervention is a deliberate choice as is intervention.
Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach.
I don’t know why anyone would still favour multi-stakeholderism. In Brussels multi-stakeholderism makes citizens feel alienated and public servants appear disloyal to their people.