1. UN vs the Internet Summary
In 1988, 114 countries signed a treaty which almost completely deregulated the internet from economic and technical regulations which otherwise might have stunted its growth. This was one of the single largest and most successful deregulations of all time.
Now, however, dozens of countries lead by Russia and China are pushing to establish what Vladimir Putin calls “International control over the internet” through the International Telecommunication Union, a treaty organization under control of the UN. Some of their proposed 'revisions' to the original treaty include:
Subjecting cybersecurity and data privacy to international control.
Allowing foreign phone companies to charge fees for 'international' internet traffic, with the goal of generating revenue for the state-owned phone companies.
Regulating international roaming rates and practices.
Many governments, particularly those in emerging economies are interested in these proposals, either for economic reasons or political ones.

2. 8 Steps Step 1: Ethical Issues
One issue is that countries are trying to rewrite the original treaty in order to exert more control over the internet, which threatens other nations' sovereignty.
Another issue is the one of whether the good of the nations (the ones trying to impose international regulations) supersedes the good of their people.
Step 2: Stakeholders
Nations who wish for the internet to remain free and unregulated.
Nations who wish for the internet to become regulated because a free net is a threat to the nation's government.
Nations who wish for the internet to become regulated because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that their economies and the welfare of their people has been hurt by the existence of an unregulated internet.
Step 3: Three Solutions
Solution A) The internet remains as it currently is, with no international regulations. The best possible outcome is that with no international regulations, the internet and the global economy eventually help the nations that have been afflicted by the free internet overcome their problems. The worst case outcome is merely the preservation of the status quo. This would be the best solution in my opinion.

3. 8 Steps
Solution B) All of the regulations are put in place. Best case is that the ITU is relatively efficient in its regulations. Worst case is that the internet becomes 'balkanized' and fragmented, with each nation having its own independent internet. This solution would be unacceptable.
Solution C) Some of the regulations are put in place, but by large the internet remains unregulated. Best case is that the regulations are enough to satisfy the regulators. Worst case is that it merely lays the groundwork for more extensive regulations down the line. This solution is also unacceptable.
Step 4: Solution
I would choose to leave the internet unregulated as it currently is. This would be the best possible solution, as the unregulated net is a source of immense economic growth and political liberation. This solution sees people as ends, due to the fact that it preserves their existing freedoms.
Step 5: Natural & Balanced?
This is a clash between freedom and control. If freedom is assumed to be natural, then this solution does not violate what is natural.
This solution leans more towards an excessive side, namely denying any form of international regulation on the internet. It is deficient in that it fails to address some of the actual grievances which lead certain nations to support this notion.

4. 8 Steps Step 6: Majority agreement & Greatest Good
It is unlikely that there will be a clear majority agreement on this, as estimates indicate that 90 or more nations could vote in support of this regulation, a mere 7 short of the majority needed to pass it unconditionally.
This solution will likely serve the greatest good, as it leaves the internet free and unregulated, allowing for continued economic growth and political liberation.
Step 7: Personally committed & Autonomous solution
I am personally committed to this solution. The internet has been unregulated by international bodies for my entire life, and I wish to stay that way.
This solution is merely a preservation of the status quo based on how I understand it. I take responsibility for it.
Step 8: Philosophy
No single philosophy created this solution. It was a combination of the realist school of thought in that assuming freedom is natural, therefore freedom (in the form of no international regulation) is good, the existentialist view that the motives of many of the nations who desire this regulation are wrong because they seek to use it to limit human freedom, and the pragmatic view that any legitimate grievances will be eventually addressed by letting the internet remain free of international regulation.

5. ACM code of Ethics General Moral Imperatives
The first two sections of the code call for computing engineers to Contribute to Society and Human Well-being, and to Avoid Harm to others. While the argument can certainly be made, and supported, that the internet has had a negative impact on society and human well being and has lead to harm to others, I personally believe that it's positive benefits far outweigh its negative impacts and that international regulation of the internet has a far greater potential for harm and negatively impacting human society, so I must oppose it on those grounds.
Professional Responsibilities
However, should this be signed into law, I will be ethically impelled to comply with it. That said, I believe that no international regulation is consistent with the ACM's code of ethics.