<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 14px; background-color: rgb(237, 239, 244); "><span class="commentBody">Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is the message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound.</span></span></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN sanctions on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there was busy hunting down and executing protesters. But want a new UN body to develop global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting." Then we can have intergovernmental horse trading over all aspects of global IG with Russia, China, et al linking voting deals on issues like their proposed code of conduct for acceptable Internet speech, TLDs, address assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and other geopolitical items. That should help ensure a stable and open Internet…</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></div></body></html>