<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 22 January 2013 01:25 AM,
McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxgWR7CvrVmV1YRKR5bbcKT7NRBswZSpB-tiUb1JpXu7HA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><snip>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/keeping-the-internet-free/2013/01/20/48c7fdb8-4fa1-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/keeping-the-internet-free/2013/01/20/48c7fdb8-4fa1-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana">So, the Washington Post thinks that the US did
not sign the ITRs because, to quote the paper,<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana">"The United States objected to a
resolution appended to the treaty saying that “all governments
should have an equal role and responsibility for international
Internet governance.”</font> "<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana">US signed on precisely this sentence (it is
from the Tunis Agenda) in 2005 at the WSIS summit. (And it was
Bush administration then!) I would think, now with many weeks past
since the WCIT, as big and important a newspaper as the Washington
Post would have the means to find out exactly why did the US not
sign the ITRs.<br>
<br>
Why is it that even those who support US's decision not to sign
the ITRs are not able to agree/ decide on exactly why did the US
not sign the ITRs. More than a bit strange, isnt it.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxgWR7CvrVmV1YRKR5bbcKT7NRBswZSpB-tiUb1JpXu7HA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>