Actually it looks like the opposite: Internet controlled by the United Nations.

> India’s spokesman, Mr Dushyant Singh, argued that the proposal “should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to ‘take over’ or ‘regulate and circumscribe’ the Internet.”

If a politician says it isn't, then it probably is.

If the Internet is to be ruled the way Indian, South African and Brazilian governments work, expect to pay bribes to be able to do anything (I am Brazilian, I know what 3rd world "governance" means).

Please don't let the Indian government anywhere near the Internet. On my one visit to India I saw at first hand the infinite gulf that exists between the great, charming and interesting people of India and their idiotic government officials.

Several hundred of us spent about four hours queuing (standing in lines) in a stiflingly hot airport hall (over 40C), just to be allowed to leave and embark. At the head of each consecutive queue of several hundred people presided one of these officials with yet another poor quality paper form to be filled in, serving no logical purpose that I could discern apart from providing employment for these idiots. When I slowly worked my way to the head of the first queue, the official asked me (politely) to borrow my pencil, as he had nothing to fill the paperwork with!

They did not seem to think that there was anything at all unusual about any of this, presumably putting all travellers through this unnecessary hell. The very idea of controlling the Internet, which would necessarily end up this way, is the stuff of nightmares.

I am only relaying my personal experience, not having any particular wish to single out the Indian government for criticism. Unfortunately most governments share much the same motivation and 'efficiency' to various degrees. It is just one of the blessings of India that it makes one comprehend essential principles with greater depth and clarity than before.

Just another pre-planned step towards the New World Order, One Global Fascist Government, no dissent, no freedom.

Maybe they mixed up their CIRP acronym a little, it should have been called a CRAP proposal.

When it comes to making international laws/reforms/standards it would be so much better if it is to be regulated by a consortium (I mean a people's body independent of the government) body like (WWWC) consisting of technologists who know what they are talking and are able to make moves without siding/consulting with governments. The other way of looking at is is that compared to bureaucrats, panels/consortiums that publicly discuss topics can be opposed easily and can be requested/demanded to make changes.

For such things, what we need is not closed door meetings that happen in lavish halls, but openly published specs/drafts/RFCs that people can comment upon and voice their opinions about.

"Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;"

All they need to do now is write up their proposal as a draft RFC and mass post it to important hacker mailing lists (open source, Internet engineering, standards groups) on April 1st, 2012.

Considering that individual governments are already in a position to screw with internet using legislation (e-parasite, sopa, protect-ip bills), this may not be such a bad idea. When a council of countries are involved, may be governments wont resolve to such unilateral acts.

The Indian government’s thirst for Internet Control http://aamjanata.com/the-governments-thirst-for-internet-con...

This is just a bad idea on free speech issues alone. The first thing to go would be the ability to say anything about religion, the second would be the ability to say anything about politics.