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

[Jorge Amodio]

So it is a regulation of bulkiness and unsolicitedness of and amorphous
group of disorganized electrons ...

-J


On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Then if the ITR is not related to "content" how you deal with 5B ? isn't
> unsolicited bulk electronic communications "content" ?****
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] I still don’t get this. It is easy to recognize
> something as a) bulk and b) unsolicited regardless of what is in the
> message. In other words, this regulates bulkiness and unsolicitedness, not
> 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/20121220/c1ebbec0/attachment-0001.html>