

US, Canada, Australia and UK refuse to sign UN's communications treaty - yuxt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20717774

======
a-priori
I'm Canadian, and I support our government's decision here. They've done some
boneheaded things with respect to Internet policy over the last few years, but
this isn't one.

I don't like the idea that the US governs major parts of the Internet's
infrastructure. In principle, I would like to see its governance transferred
to some sort of an international body. I just don't trust the ITU to play that
role impartially. Until we find such a steward, I think we should follow the
"if it ain't broke don't fix it" maxim.

~~~
mtgx
Look at these countries here. Who are they? US' biggest allies perhaps? Yes,
they are. And that's why they did it. Don't think they did this to protect the
people's interests or whatever. Harper would install backdoors in everyone's
computers tomorrow if he could.

~~~
cfs_
> Harper would install backdoors in everyone's computers tomorrow if he could.

{{citation needed}}

I certainly, certainly, understand that politicians often act against the
interests of those they are meant to serve. However, I don't know why this
level of discourse which includes unfounded, outrageous claims with regards to
Politicians and Governments is so prevalent.

As a citizen, you also need to accept that Politicians typically act and make
decisions on more data points than you or I have access to. The President of
the United Staes represents the interest of 312 million people and those
interests often conflict quite violently. He has to make life and death
decisions which affect the lives of millions of people in America and around
the world, and he does so on a daily basis using incomplete and conflicting
information. That shit ain't easy.

To be opposed to a Politician or Government is completely fine and the right
of any citizen in a democracy. Governments are imperfect organizations made up
of imperfect political parties composed of humans who are imperfect. However,
statements like, "Harper would install backdoors in everyone's computers
tomorrow if he could.", without citation does nothing to improve the
situation. The governing of our society is too important of a topic for such
unproductive and toxic level of discourse which is all too common.

~~~
arcosdev
Many Canadians already know what a crook Harper is. But here's a pretty good
citation:

[http://openmedia.ca/news/warrantless-online-spying-bills-
tar...](http://openmedia.ca/news/warrantless-online-spying-bills-target-all-
canadians-unpopular-legislation-tabled-petition-tops-8000)

------
jayfuerstenberg
Lately Harper's Canada has been heading down the wrong road when it comes to
progress and justice.

I am proud at least that it didn't participate in this ITU farce.

------
belorn
Its like looking from the side, at two parties neither suitable to hold the
key infrastructure of the internet.

The UN would be a horrible caretaker, motivated by censorship, power grabs,
and very old business model becoming obsolete and clinging to the government
to save it, ie the telecoms industry.

The US is almost as horrible caretaker, trying to police the world, spying all
the time, and a slightly old and obsolete business model that are clinging to
the government to save them, ie the media industry.

I doubt any solution will come top-bottom in this case. If we want a change,
it must come from distributed network without actors in the middle that
control the switches. Mesh networking is hopefully this, but if not, maybe a
overlay network could be enough.

~~~
caf
Neither side really understands the Internet, either. IANA isn't in control
because someone decreed it so - it's in control solely because the
overwhelming majority of the independent networks that make up the Internet
choose to respect its allocations.

------
devb0x
Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Sudan... I don't think I'd side with
them either.

~~~
shmerl
On the other hand, when it comes to the threat of TPP for the Internet, US
doesn't complain (quite on the contrary). Does it sound hypocritical?

~~~
mseebach
Yes, you're right. We should let Russia and Saudi Arabia run the Internet,
because the US isn't flawless.

~~~
shmerl
You have it totally wrong. We shouldn't let US to push TPP on the rest. Surely
we shouldn't let any ITU backed by Russia, Iran and the rest to do that
either.

My point was about apparent hypocrisy. When it comes to taking away control
over Internet from US to others, US objects. But when it comes to adding more
control in the interest of US lobby groups (which push TPP), US government is
silent. We, as Internet users should worry about both of these problems the
same way.

------
btilly
See also [http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-
telec...](http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a)
which has more details about how the vote happened, and why.

------
noselasd
Btw, the (draft of) the treaty is here:
[http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-
pu...](http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf) .
It's really not in any way as bad as the fud on the internet wants us to
believe. And it's certainly not about ITU taking control over the internet.

~~~
onetwothreefour
No way. You mean the vested interests of the USG means that people are
spreading FUD about moving governance from US to international control?

Really? :)

------
brc
Personally, I wouldn't trust the un to run a lemonade stand. Their track
record is exceedingly poor. I actually trust the us government more than the
un, simply because there are checks and balances in place, even if theynonly
seem theoretical at times.

------
meric
It's good to see national governments seeking to retain their influence and
power, working for individuals _this time_.

------
charonn0
Do the supporting countries have a specific beef with the IANA or is it only
because it's US-based/backed?

~~~
mtgx
They just want more control over the Internet, and the ISP's want to make all
content companies pay for transferring their data through their pipes. In the
minds of ISP's, who so far have lived off ripping off customers with SMS
charging, they don't think it's fair that people get to use e-mail or apps
like Whatsapp for "free". They want their "cut".

~~~
varjag
ISPs have nothing to do with SMS, unless you specifically mean mobile
telephony operators.

~~~
mtgx
Yes, I actually meant all telecom companies, which are part of ITU.

------
mtgx
I wonder what role this resolution plays in the whole thing, though?

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/23365121371/itu-
go...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/23365121371/itu-goes-back-
multiple-promises-makes-play-internet-governance-with-sneaky-surprise-
vote.shtml)

Does this mean the resolution is pretty much irrelevant now? Or does it mean
most of the companies participating there will continue to seek that power
over the Internet, perhaps at next year's conference (I think they are having
one again next year, to talk about who owns the IP infrastructure or
something).

------
bluedanieru
>"Negotiators from Denmark, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Costa Rica and Kenya have said they would need to consult with their
national governments about how to proceed and would also not be able to sign
the treaty as planned on Friday."

The full list is available here. In particular I am glad to see Japan has also
refused to ratify:

<http://www.ipv.sx/wcit/>

~~~
mercurial
How accurate is this? It doesn't show Russia as a backer of the proposal.

------
ucee054
If other countries want to govern their national nets without US control,
they'll govern their national nets without US control. One way or another.

Seems to me the choice is that the US+friends either sign, or get a fragmented
internet.

