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

[McTim]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.


+1 on all of the above.

In re: "ITU-phobia", there are plenty of examples (47-E the Russian
proposal for example) one
could point to which lead one to believe that many Member States would
like to use the ITU as
a vehicle to gain greater control over the governance of the net!

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121209_it_is_not_paranoia_if_they_are_really_after_you/

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel