[governance] Re: US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty

[William Drake]

I guess this thread started here, didn't notice it'd moved

Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH>
> Date: December 19, 2012 4:35:09 PM GMT+01:00
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty
> Reply-To: William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH>
> 
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Avri Doria 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.
> 
> +1 
> 
> I've been puzzled by the insistence on this point.  We spent two weeks in Dubai talking about almost nothing but the Internet and that is clearly what many administrations think is covered in the provisions on OAs, spam, security, exchange points, nondiscrimination/states rights, routing, and so on, not to mention the resolution.  We'll see how things go in the implementation phase.  
> 
> The other point is obviously that if not for the "keep the net out of it" campaigning that's been so derided by the ITU, friendly states, and some bloggers, the word Internet would be all over the text.  So for anyone to look at the final, note its absence, and proclaim see, there was nothing to worry about, totally misses the point that it was the worrying that made the nothing, such as it is perceived to be.
> 
> Bill
> 
>> 
>> 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.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121219/a1275170/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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