[governance] today's Wash Post editorial

[parminder]

On Tuesday 22 January 2013 01:25 AM, McTim wrote:
> <snip>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/keeping-the-internet-free/2013/01/20/48c7fdb8-4fa1-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html
>
So, the Washington Post thinks that the US did not sign the ITRs 
because, to quote the paper,

    "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.” "

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.

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.

parminder




>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130122/e3be2766/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