White House: We Will Not Support An ITU Treaty That Blurs Telecom Infrastructure With The Info That Crosses Over It
from the good-for-them dept
While the US's position on the ITU discussions at the World Conference on International Telecommunications has been pretty clear from the beginning, to put an exclamation point on it, the White House put out a statement saying that it will not support an agreement that tries to expand the ITU's mandate beyond telecom infrastructure and into the world of what happens on that infrastructure. The key paragraph:But we should not confuse telecommunications infrastructure with the information that traverses it. The global consensus for a free and open Internet is overwhelming. Millions in the United States and around the world have already added their voices to this conversation, and their position is clear: they do not want the WCIT to govern the Internet or legitimize more state control over online content. Our Administration could not agree more – and will not support a treaty that sets that kind of precedent.This is the key point. Many in the ITU seem to want to blur the distinction between the infrastructure itself and the information that runs over it. They believe that their mandate over "telecommunications" includes the specific "communications" that run over those networks. That's a massive rewriting of history. Their mandate is supposed to be focused on the technological infrastructure, rather than how it is used.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: internet, internet governance, itu, telecom, us, wcit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The US, UK, and Canada are the ones leading the charge against the ITU. They want to be the ones who control the Internet.
"Russia, China and Saudi Arabia were among those pushing for the change."
That one sentence tells you all you need to know about the motives behind the proposed treaty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is why the strong pushers for change is actually more important and why this article is a bit superfluous. The EU countries (excluding United Kingdom) opinions are far more important.
It is not many years ago ICANN was under attack from european politicians. They wanted an international organisation at that time. ITU was seen as somewhat acceptable to look at but with Russia and China giving it warm support the politicians pulled back in their statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The other countries you mention want to wrest control away from the US because they want to quash free speech, and NO other reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
rofl, my post is so wrong, but I find it funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least we're still free to argue about how free it may or may not be, but for how much longer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I'm cynical but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe I'm cynical but...
That is, until the M*AA comes out for it.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe I'm cynical but...
So what if it was a weaker version of laws already on the books in the US?
Every single state in the US has a law against murder. It is a very serious crime�and all 50 states outlaw it. Nevertheless, I would oppose a general statute against murder at the federal level. As would many people. Further, I even suspect most Congressmen would oppose a general federal statute against murder�or at least nobody has put a federal murder bill into the hopper and sent it off to committee.
As a nation, we are basically committed to the idea that not every piece of legislation should be global.
You going to accuse all of us of being �pro-murder�? �Support a federal murder statute or you're the worst of the worst!!!Eleventy!One!� � Well, I guess that's politics. You're free to make the charge, see if the newspapers will pick it up, see if it'll sway the electorate. �� I guess that's politics.
So... � so what if it was a weaker version of laws already on the books in the US?
So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe I'm cynical but...
I agree with you regarding a a general pro murder statute, but that is a straw man argument to my point.
The UN treaty on Child welfare was a set of GUIDELINES that countries were ENCOURAGED to design their own laws to conform to. There was NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM in the treaty. Additionally, the treaty was based on laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS in the USA, except they were somewhat watered down. The treaty in this scenario didn't make UN the sole arbitrator on all disputes involving children in the US, it merely created a framework that UN members could pledge to follow. This is redundant for the US because THE UN RESOLUTION IS BASED ON OUR FEDERAL LAWS, SO BY PLEDGING THE US WOULD BE PLEDGING TO IMPLEMENT LAWS BASED ON US LAWS. /logic.
Anyhow, the example you put forth on Murder is different because you are assuming a UN mandate that signatories place a specific law (although general in nature) regarding a crime that affects all states and the federal government, with a means of enforcing said law via the UN, is a direct infringement of the country's ability to govern itself. The example I gave isn't that - it's a pledge to develop laws to promote child well being, as the UN laws as a guide.
Finally, back to my point, which you kind of helped me prove:
The US is very paranoid when it comes to UN treaties that MIGHT infringe on the country's rights (for example, above mentioned UN treaty about the children that you love so much) and didn't approve it. This ITU WCIT proposal would be taking away rights and imposing restrictions on rights Americans (used to) have regarding freedom of speech, expression, etc. over the internet. If a treaty that MIGHT infringe won't pass muster in the US congress, a treaty that WILL infringe definitely won't get approved, and I'm sure the US will use its influence to shut that whole thing down.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe I'm cynical but...
Oh, so your example is really more like yesterday's (Dec 12, 2012) Congressional action:
(Both examples pulled from the Daily Digest�it appears that the Government Printing Office hasn't sent the text to the Library of Congresss, so they aren't up on Thomas yet.)
Anyhow, in that case, I CAN FUCKING SEE WHY YOU'RE SHOUTING. � THAT IS GOD-DAMN OUTRAGEOUS. � YOU ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT. � IT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY. � A MOCKERY. �� I SAY AGAIN �� A MOCKERY. �� A 100 PER-CENT MOCKERY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sneaking suspicion
We can't get anything on either document without a lot of secrecy and both are harmful to innovation globally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fighting over this issue is about par for world politics, where on country should respect the sovereignty of another, but tries to use social effect to get changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Line...what line?
Yet the White House conveniently forgets that this line exist when it wants to spy on that information to "fight terrorism", or when the MAFIAA wants to push more copyright enforcement. Thanks, but I'll start taking the Pres' stance on this seriously when he starts applying more consistently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 13th, 2012 @ 4:34pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The global consensus for a free and open and "non-surveiled" Internet is overwhelming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fghuhmim
Oink
Inimitable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]