????雖然國際電信聯(lián)盟沒有權(quán)力在美國或者其它反對該方案的國家實行互聯(lián)網(wǎng)控制，關(guān)注這一進(jìn)程的人士還是擔(dān)憂，一個隔離和受管制的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)體系的建立將破壞信息和商務(wù)的全球自由流動，以及某些跨境技術(shù)的發(fā)展，如云計算。格雷內(nèi)爾預(yù)測，如果未能阻止這些管制努力，聯(lián)合國對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的管轄權(quán)將緩慢但持續(xù)地增強(qiáng)?！皣H電信聯(lián)盟可以發(fā)表報告，給出分享互聯(lián)網(wǎng)商務(wù)收入的百分比目標(biāo)，”他說?！八軌虬l(fā)布互聯(lián)網(wǎng)商務(wù)的全球稅收，允許貧窮國家受益于先進(jìn)國家的電子商務(wù)活動。”

????互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在由下而上、集中化、共識驅(qū)動的模式下繁榮昌盛，而對聯(lián)合國由上而下地插手這一系統(tǒng)的擔(dān)憂超越了政治分歧。聯(lián)合國對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的管制（特別是這種管制只需要簡單多數(shù)投票）威脅了“全球的自由和繁榮，”美國聯(lián)邦通信委員會（Federal Communications Commission）的共和黨委員羅伯特?M.麥克道維爾最近在華爾街日報發(fā)布文章寫道：“即使互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)已經(jīng)改善了數(shù)十億人口的生活，還是有一些政府覺得他們被排除在外，想要加強(qiáng)對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的控制?！?/p>

????在美國眾議院通信委員會中占多數(shù)的共和黨員發(fā)布了一個備忘錄，稱聯(lián)合國的努力威脅了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的分散結(jié)構(gòu)里內(nèi)嵌的“靈活性和創(chuàng)新”，那是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在技術(shù)平臺和拓展商務(wù)和思想的自由流動的媒介的雙重身份下，迅速演化和生長的動力。

????與此同時，民主黨出身的聯(lián)邦通信委員會主席朱利葉斯?格納考斯基告訴參議院委員會，提議中的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)管制新方案是個“糟糕的主意，損害全球經(jīng)濟(jì)，損害全球自由和民主?！备呒壵賳T也敲響了警鐘，他們在白宮科技政策辦公室（White House Office of Science and Technology Policy）的博客上寫道，聯(lián)合國的計劃將“把互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的未來交予政客、而不是創(chuàng)新者和專家來主宰?！?/p>

????然而直到現(xiàn)在，這一威脅并未引起公眾廣泛的關(guān)注。如同格雷內(nèi)爾指出的：“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)已經(jīng)成為我們?nèi)粘Ｉ畹囊徊糠?，人們無法想象某個國際官僚機(jī)構(gòu)能完全接管它?！眹H電信聯(lián)盟的使命是“連接全世界…保護(hù)并支持每個人的基本通訊權(quán)力?！?/p>

????確保聯(lián)合國兌現(xiàn)誓言需要公眾的努力，最起碼需要去年冬天對《禁止網(wǎng)絡(luò)盜版法案》（Stop Online Piracy Act，SOPA）的群眾抗議所引發(fā)的那種規(guī)模的公眾動員和關(guān)注。

????While the ITU may not have the authority to impose controls over the Internet here or inside other resisting nations, those following the process fear the establishment of a separate, regulated Internet regime that would disrupt the global free flow of information and commerce, as well as the development of such cross border technologies as cloud computing. Grenell predicts a slow but steady gain of U.N. jurisdiction if these efforts aren't blocked. "The ITU can put out reports and mandate goals of what percent of commerce to share," he says. "It can issue a global tax on Internet commerce to allow poorer countries to benefit from those more sophisticated."

????Fears over top-down U.N. meddling in a system that has thrived under a bottom-up, centralized, consensus-driven approach cross the political divide. U.N. regulation of the Internet -- which requires just a simple majority vote -- threatens "freedom and prosperity across the globe," Robert M. McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control."

????A memo issued by the Republican majority of the House communications subcommittee argues that the U.N. effort threatens the "flexibility and innovation" built into the Internet's decentralized structure, something that has enabled it to "evolve and grow so quickly, both as a technological platform and as a means of expanding the free flow of commerce and ideas."

????Meanwhile, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, told a Senate committee that this proposed new layer of international regulation is "a bad idea, bad for the global economy, bad for freedom and democracy across the world." And senior administration officials sounded the alarm on the White House Office of Science and Technology blog, arguing that the U.N. plan would "put political dealmakers, rather than innovators and experts, in charge of the future of the Internet."

????So far, though, the threat hasn't caught widespread public attention. As Grenell notes: "The Internet is such a daily part of our lives that people can't fathom the idea that an international bureaucracy would be able to take it over." The ITU's stated mission is to "connect all the world's people..[to] protect and support everyone's fundamental right to communicate."

????Holding the U.N. to those words will require, at the very least, the kind of mobilization and attention generated by last winter's mass outcry over SOPA, the ill-fated Stop Online Piracy Act.