[governance] WCIT melt down

[Adam Peake]

Milton, of course you're right, resolutions do not have treaty status.
 I was mixing a few things.

Not to your point, but the resolution is for sure part of WCIT and
during the first plenary Dr. Toure said "WCIT is not about taking over
the Internet.  And WCIT is not about Internet governance."  If at that
time he'd said treaty/ITRs you can be sure people would have taken
notice.  So it's a bit of a shame.

Adam


On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The resolutions are
>> part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the secretariat, they are
>> "WICT.
>
> [Milton L Mueller] Sorry, Adam, I think this is just false. Resolutions are NOT part of the ITRs. The ITRs are an international treaty which, if ratified, have force of law. Resolutions are not of the ITRs, full stop. Furthermore, I believe (but am not sure) that countries can take reservations on a resolution (i.e. refuse to agree to it) while signing the ITRs.
>
> Let me make it clear that I would oppose the "enabling environment" resolution, but I also view it as a rather lame, harmless and near-desperate attempt of the ITU to retain relevance in the IG world.
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t