UN council: Nations, stop switching off the internet

Does anyone have the full list of the 15 countries that wanted to remove the text that the article mentions? From the article it links [1] I can find:<p>Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kenya, South Africa, Indonesia, and India<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.co.uk&#x2F;2016&#x2F;07&#x2F;01&#x2F;un_officially_condemns_internet_shutdowns&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.co.uk&#x2F;2016&#x2F;07&#x2F;01&#x2F;un_officially_condem...</a>

Can somebody explain why authoritarian governments are even allowed a vote or membership in the UN?<p>What does it matter what a few elites at the top want for &quot;their&quot; country, when millions of their citizens usually want the exact opposite?<p>I doubt that many citizens in the 15 countries that voted against would agree with their leadership on this matter, for example.

The vote was 20 in favor, and 14 against. And of course the result is meaningless. Imagine the horrific outcome if the UN had proportional representation and actual power.

India isn&#x27;t really a <i>full</i> democracy; it says it is a &quot;democracy&quot; as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about.<p>For example, during 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi these jokers were playing shehnai[1] all day on their only state-owned TV channel Doordarshan[2]. This I know, because I lived there then.<p>And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy&#x2F;convicted&#x2F;ruling-overturned background who is well known to have massacred people&#x2F;colleagues based on their beliefs&#x2F;position. One can only imagine what goes on behind those free speeches.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Shehnai" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Shehnai</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Doordarshan" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Doordarshan</a>

Slashdot had a good discussion about this.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yro.slashdot.org&#x2F;story&#x2F;16&#x2F;07&#x2F;03&#x2F;0340234&#x2F;un-council-seriously-nations-stop-switching-off-the-internet" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yro.slashdot.org&#x2F;story&#x2F;16&#x2F;07&#x2F;03&#x2F;0340234&#x2F;un-council-s...</a><p>There&#x27;s now a group that&#x27;s also pushing to also make cryptography and anonymity a basic human right.

&quot;Stop switching off the internet [we need it to surveil you]&quot;

Regardless of the result, I highly doubt that the GFW would be removed or even relaxed... What does it take to shove a decision down the throats of people operating the GFW?

Nations: uhm, no.