US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty

[Jorge Amodio]

IMHO while there is no explicit reference or mention to the Intenret on the
body of the ITR, there are quite clear implicit references.

On the other hand the text on Article 1 product of "compromise" and
"massaging" the text many times in relation to the ITR not being related to
"content" and the lack of a formal definition of what "content" actually
means in Article 2, leaves that open to interpretation and on a telcom
system it could be any data unit on any of the layers of the OSI model, ie
an IP packet or an electronic email.

Then if the ITR is not related to "content" how you deal with 5B ? isn't
unsolicited bulk electronic communications "content" ?

To a certain degree I agree with the "ITU-phobia" Milton wrote about on the
IGP site, but what is certain is that as the Internet keeps advancing ITU
becomes more and more obsolete, then if we want to save whatever is
positive from their potential contributions we need to have a more open and
frank dialog, but sooner or later the other side needs to admit that no
longer plays the role it use to play when telecom was a obscure market
dominated by government run monopolies.

My .02
Jorge



On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi Milton,
>
> A point I think you miss is that the word "Internet' does not need to be
> spelled out for the hooks to be there for Internet control.
>
> e.g.
> What is telecommunications about SPAM - no matter what euphemism they use
> What kind of security is there in telecommunications beyond robustness.
> And if ROA isn't good enough anymore, who exactly is going to be covered
> by AOA?
>
> You think that doing a word search is analysis of the text?  After
> spending 23 days and nights among these folk I have lot of respect for
> their ability to use language and to say what they want to say without
> using the red flagged words.
>
> As I have said elsewhere, I think they negotiated to a drawl.  the
> Internet is in the ITRs even of the words aren't, but subtly and not in any
> way near as strong and emphatic as they (many Member states)  want and will
> keep pushing for it.  This is a tussle that isn't even close to finished.
>
> And I can't wait for the next episodes.
>
> avri
>
> PS. I do beleive the camel got its nose in the tent.
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Dec 2012, at 01:46, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
> >> Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:30 AM
> >
> >> In this case, the ITR treaty, was seen as  threatening the Internet and
> >> Internet governance in some ways, especially with regard to Internet
> >> content and the scope of Member State and ITU control over the Internet.
> >>
> >> For me one the major issues related to the security and robustness of
> >> the Internet being a Member State responsibility.
> >
> > [Milton L Mueller] Avri,
> > Did you notice that the word Internet does not appear in the ITRs?
> >
> >
> >> "
> >> ARTICLE 5A
> >>
> >> Security and robustness of networks
> >>
> >> 41B             Member States shall individually and collectively
> >> endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international
> >> telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and
> >> avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious
> >> development of international telecommunication services offered to the
> >> public.
> >
> > [Milton L Mueller] international telecommunication services is not
> "Internet". And have you read all
> >
> >> First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that
> >> robustness?  And what does it mean to apply this security not only to
> >> the physical network but also to harmonious development...  The worst
> >
> > [Milton L Mueller] ...of services. Harmonious development of services.
> No one knows wtf that means. If your point is that vague calls for peace
> and harmony can do enormous harm in the international sphere, better take a
> look at virtually every resolution, every document that comes out of the UN
> system. Better yet, give us one example, just ONE, of how the ITRs or any
> similar treaty have been used in the past to expand scope beyond what its
> drafters intended, beyond what the language says
> >
> >> power of the ITRs is what they allow Member States to do inside their
> >> countries with permission of international law.  Also what is envisioned
> >
> > [Milton L Mueller] which they do already. With or without permission
> >
> >> It does not take much imagination to see  the future actions of
> >> repressive states with regard to their power to protect the security of
> >> the network from disharmony.
> >
> > [Milton L Mueller] it does not take any imagination at all, because it
> is already happening - in dozens of jurisdictions. This provision does
> exactly nothing.
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121219/d7d294b2/attachment-0001.html>