Leaked Documents Show the U.N.'s Internet Power Grab...(thenerfherder.blogspot.com)
thenerfherder.blogspot.com
Leaked Documents Show the U.N.'s Internet Power Grab...
http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com/2012/06/leaked-documents-show-uns-internet.html?m=1
19 comments
Well, if UN laws had much practical effect, then we'd have peace in the middle east and Africa right now, and we don't.
A UN resolution means zip-all for US law, French law, Chinese law, etc. So by definition it can't be as bad as SOPA/PIPA in the us or ACTA in europe. However it might give some cover to those who are pursuing those types of policies.
If this resolution is being pushed mostly by Russia/China, I'd look at it the same way I look at arab league censures of Israel. It's more indicative of the countries that voted for it than some abstract concept of "the UN", and won't have much effect on reality.
A UN resolution means zip-all for US law, French law, Chinese law, etc. So by definition it can't be as bad as SOPA/PIPA in the us or ACTA in europe. However it might give some cover to those who are pursuing those types of policies.
If this resolution is being pushed mostly by Russia/China, I'd look at it the same way I look at arab league censures of Israel. It's more indicative of the countries that voted for it than some abstract concept of "the UN", and won't have much effect on reality.
Except that if as the article suggests, ICANN is replaced by a UN agency, UN law would become, in some ways, directly enforceable by that agency (at least insofar as the replacement agency has the ability to enforce.)
There's no such thing as UN law. There are treaties between nations, frequently brokered at the UN, and there are UN resolutions, which are more like "this statement was not vetoed by anyone" than they are rulings of law.
Any devolution of ICANN's powers to the UN (which, if not massively fucked up, is probably healthier for the internet than keeping it under one country) would likely be an administrative handover. I seriously doubt it would be done on the basis that the G77 voting as a block could take control of the net.
For an analogy, look at the way the UN peacekeepers typically handle things. They go someplace where there's peacekeeping.. and then they sit there. They don't do anything and avoid taking a side at all costs. If either side says they're not welcome anymore, they're gone.
The UN isn't a government, it's a really big conference room.
Any devolution of ICANN's powers to the UN (which, if not massively fucked up, is probably healthier for the internet than keeping it under one country) would likely be an administrative handover. I seriously doubt it would be done on the basis that the G77 voting as a block could take control of the net.
For an analogy, look at the way the UN peacekeepers typically handle things. They go someplace where there's peacekeeping.. and then they sit there. They don't do anything and avoid taking a side at all costs. If either side says they're not welcome anymore, they're gone.
The UN isn't a government, it's a really big conference room.
Still, a policy agreed on in the UN would legitimize laws being created in the member countries. When criticized, they would point at the UN.
The objective of some is to turn it into a world government. This is just one more little step in that direction.
Having the Internet controlled primarily by the US and US-friendly organizations may not be ideal, but it would be better than having it controlled by a China, Russia, Mid-east dominated body.
Having the Internet controlled primarily by the US and US-friendly organizations may not be ideal, but it would be better than having it controlled by a China, Russia, Mid-east dominated body.
"The objective of some" is another way of saying "I have no justification for this but want to say it anyways." Useless conspiracy theorizing and straw-manning.
The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.
The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.
I did name names, right there in my post. So did the article. But clearly I should have known better than to have used 'world government', too much of a loaded, and lazy, term. But I do think there is a push to increase the UN's power in the world, to the point where some or all of it is binding.
If I don't trust the motives and agendas of some of the regimes behind that push, so sue me? The US isn't exactly a paragon these days, and our political system somewhat corrupted by the influence of highly-concentrated wealth, but I also see signs of a long-overdue self-corrective reaction to that, enabled in large part by the open Internet.
Is such a reaction possible in other more restrictive, more authoritarian regimes? Doesn't look like it, and ones like China are doing all they can make sure it stays that way, but who knows. We shall see...
If I don't trust the motives and agendas of some of the regimes behind that push, so sue me? The US isn't exactly a paragon these days, and our political system somewhat corrupted by the influence of highly-concentrated wealth, but I also see signs of a long-overdue self-corrective reaction to that, enabled in large part by the open Internet.
Is such a reaction possible in other more restrictive, more authoritarian regimes? Doesn't look like it, and ones like China are doing all they can make sure it stays that way, but who knows. We shall see...
Russia and China have no interest in increasing the power of the UN; they want to increase their own power relative to other nations, and in this particular case they think that the UN will be a useful channel to do so.
In other situations Russia and China fight to reduce the power of the UN. Mostly situations where western powers are seeking UN legitimacy for piercing national sovereignty, such as in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Today Russia opposed UN intervention in Syria, and I think China does as well.
In other situations Russia and China fight to reduce the power of the UN. Mostly situations where western powers are seeking UN legitimacy for piercing national sovereignty, such as in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Today Russia opposed UN intervention in Syria, and I think China does as well.
To be fair, the UNSC has the UK, US and France as permanent members, who can veto resolutions.
But this isn't a Security Council resolution. Their veto status means nothing in this conference.
Well, they don't just sit there - they occasionally murder people and rape women and children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping#Hum...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping#Hum...
True but irrelevant, and potentially inflammatory.
Not that irrelevant... it is just another side to the general corruption and outright gangsterism that often characterises the modern UN. They also voted to legalise the execution of homosexuals only recently. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/un-general-assembly-vot...
[edit] The US abstained - http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/151133.htm
[edit] The US abstained - http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2010/151133.htm
Just like Abu Ghraib is ust another side to the general corruption and outright gangsterism that often characterises the modern US, right?
I don't know how much you can read into things. In war, you usually have the bad guys and the worse guys. If you put a good person in a war zone he or she will do bad things.
I don't know how much you can read into things. In war, you usually have the bad guys and the worse guys. If you put a good person in a war zone he or she will do bad things.
Just like Abu Ghraib is ust another side to the general corruption and outright gangsterism that often characterises the modern US, right?
Bingo. Not for the country as a whole, or the people within it, but definitely for the executive branch.
I don't know how much you can read into things.
I don't think there is any real need to look for a subtle subtext here. The UN certainly isn't bothering to be particularly subtle.
In war, you usually have the bad guys and the worse guys.
In that case you accept no possibility of a defensive or peacekeeping force working on behalf of ordinary people and think that soldiers are mindless thugs who will just loot anyone they are sent to protect. I don't accept that and think that it is possible to have a culture of respect on the ground, but only if that permeates the entire organisation and only if infractions by those people that you are imposing on a situation are publicly investigated and properly dealt with as a matter of absolute policy.
If you put a good person in a war zone he or she will do bad things.
If I take that statement at face value, then I'd have to say that history contains plenty of examples to the contrary.
Bingo. Not for the country as a whole, or the people within it, but definitely for the executive branch.
I don't know how much you can read into things.
I don't think there is any real need to look for a subtle subtext here. The UN certainly isn't bothering to be particularly subtle.
In war, you usually have the bad guys and the worse guys.
In that case you accept no possibility of a defensive or peacekeeping force working on behalf of ordinary people and think that soldiers are mindless thugs who will just loot anyone they are sent to protect. I don't accept that and think that it is possible to have a culture of respect on the ground, but only if that permeates the entire organisation and only if infractions by those people that you are imposing on a situation are publicly investigated and properly dealt with as a matter of absolute policy.
If you put a good person in a war zone he or she will do bad things.
If I take that statement at face value, then I'd have to say that history contains plenty of examples to the contrary.
I couldn't find any mention of ICANN or control over DNS in any of the leaked documents I looked through.
It seems like the article authors or the leakers are "reading between the lines" but I'd be happier to have a link and a reference number so I could read the proposal in context.
It seems like the article authors or the leakers are "reading between the lines" but I'd be happier to have a link and a reference number so I could read the proposal in context.
ICANN and DNS will be dealt with at conferences in 2013 and 2014. WCIT is mostly about charging for international Internet traffic termination, making the ITU-T's recommendations( which compete with the IETF's and others') mandatory, and getting the ITU's foot in the Internet-regulation door.
*at least insofar as the replacement agency has the ability to enforce.
Which is still almost zero.
Which is still almost zero.
Er good? No more of this US attitude where they own all the .com's
I think instead of looking at conflict zones, you should look at treaties with real effects. Drugs control treaties, for example, are enforced by the UN under US guidance. Every country has banned cannabis (for example) as a result, even countries where such a ban is laughable, where the stuff is endemic and traditional. This leads to problems. Admittedly it's not just the UN.
Also it should be said the UN sets norms for the world to follow which in many areas are extremely valuable.
Also it should be said the UN sets norms for the world to follow which in many areas are extremely valuable.
I dunno. My first response was "In other words four proposals to allow countries to do what they are already doing, and one to remove one country from administering large parts of the internet...."
I don't think it is all that bad. It's not like China needs the UN's permission to censor......
I don't think it is all that bad. It's not like China needs the UN's permission to censor......
How ironic they do not listen to the great U.N. Commissioner Pravin Lal.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Does anyone sincerely believe this obscure UN body stands a snowball's chance in hell of actually snatching authority from Icann? The only reason the US response has been lackluster is because the threat is insignificant.
It's also quite surprising to see Crovitz's WSJ editorial referred to as an "article". It's classic unsubstantiated fear mongering, typical of the editorial section of that paper.
It's also quite surprising to see Crovitz's WSJ editorial referred to as an "article". It's classic unsubstantiated fear mongering, typical of the editorial section of that paper.
The ITU isn't that obscure, it is the main trans-national regulatory body for telecommunications. If you've ever made a phone call across a national border the ITU is the body that set the technical standards that made that call possible.
Having the ITU be the responsible party for resolving cross-border disputes over internet policy isn't entirely crazy. However I wouldn't expect too much of it one way or the other; by their very nature trans-national governance entities are mostly advisory; and make a convenient stalking horse for multiple national agendas.
Having the ITU be the responsible party for resolving cross-border disputes over internet policy isn't entirely crazy. However I wouldn't expect too much of it one way or the other; by their very nature trans-national governance entities are mostly advisory; and make a convenient stalking horse for multiple national agendas.
Authoritarian regimes could attempt to use this idea to splinter themselves (perhaps in a coalition) into separate "Internet" blocs that use the same type of communication infrastructure, but different "information" infrastructure.
The issue is less about the UN trying to take control of Internet authority, it is more about what seems to be growing discontent with the US having all of the control. See the Chinese RFC about "internal internets" mentioned yesterday.
This seems to come up every few years ago, then there's buzz about it, and then everyone realizes that the Internet works just fine and everything goes back to normal.
This seems to come up every few years ago, then there's buzz about it, and then everyone realizes that the Internet works just fine and everything goes back to normal.
> the Internet works just fine.
From a technology standpoint, sure.
From a jurisdiction, big brother, we hold all the power standpoint, the current setup of "the Internet" is dysfunctional at best.
From a technology standpoint, sure.
From a jurisdiction, big brother, we hold all the power standpoint, the current setup of "the Internet" is dysfunctional at best.
Sorry to be pedantic; it was an Internet Draft, which anyone can submit, not an IETF RFC.
The USA has started throwing it's weight around w.r.t. .com namespace. People are starting to realise that's not right.
It seems to me like this article confuses one member country proposing something as that proposal being accepted. Members at a meeting are free to propose all sorts of wacky stuff - that is why they are meeting to discuss the merits of the proposals.
Also -
China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state"
Isn't this already the case? Who has authority for communication infrastructure within a country if not the government of that country? Or is the insinuation that the government would seize ownership of the infrastructure?
Also -
China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state"
Isn't this already the case? Who has authority for communication infrastructure within a country if not the government of that country? Or is the insinuation that the government would seize ownership of the infrastructure?
Isn't this already the case? Who has authority for communication infrastructure within a country if not the government of that country?
Basically. A lot of people have been pretending that the Internet (even the part inside your country) is exempt from all laws... because it's the Internet.
Basically. A lot of people have been pretending that the Internet (even the part inside your country) is exempt from all laws... because it's the Internet.
Not every country has the same laws as every other country.
But every country has laws, and the Internet is not exempt just because we want it to be.
Obviously, so different things will break in different countries.
What constitutes information infrastructure? And what does "within the state" mean? Available, hosted, owned by operators living within?
I am less concerned about the machinations of a bunch of second tier states trying to put the internet genie back in a bottle via largely toothless legislation, than I am concerned it will get used as a thin end of a wedge for those in the US who want some data autarchy imposed here at home.
My belief is that the reason there is a lack of pushback by the US is because the elements most in line with this ignorant proposal are those at the helm.
My belief is that the reason there is a lack of pushback by the US is because the elements most in line with this ignorant proposal are those at the helm.
Personally, I think we should encourage using Tor for all internet use.
It seems crazy, but if lots of people start using it, and more people provide relays, then it will be faster AND less likely to be blocked.
EDIT: Actually, I2P, since it's P2P and fully anonymous.
It seems crazy, but if lots of people start using it, and more people provide relays, then it will be faster AND less likely to be blocked.
EDIT: Actually, I2P, since it's P2P and fully anonymous.
Does this blog post add anything to original Wall Street Journal article?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...
No. In fact, it's not much more than a cut and paste job.
I don't have time to read such a long document now. Can someone who has tell us if there is really something worrisome here, or if this whole fuss is just more noise from the same crowd that thinks bike lanes are a UN plot to strip us of our rights. (I'm not making that up: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-p...)
Did you read the post?
Yes. I've never heard of the author, and based on the other HN comments some of his points appear a bit exaggerated. Hence, my question.
Exaggerated? Here's a link to the Chinese proposal to give each government control over the internet in it's country - DNS and all - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00
This is the abstract - "With the reality of Internet, Autonomous Internet technology in this article constructs independent autonomous extensible domain name architecture and domain name hierarchy through current domain name architecture, provides independent root DNS server, inner/outer DNS resolution mechanism for each autonomous internet network system, and provides reformation and transition solution from current Internet to realize autonomy even in unilateral action."
If you read the WSJ article linked, you'll see the ridiculous proposals like making snooping on email legal, and charging a fee on internet traffic that crosses national borders. Imagine having to pay for a google search, not to google but to your government. Actually that'd make google search payed, because they'd have to pay to crawl sites that are hosted in servers outside the US.
And if you're under the impression that all of this is too ridiculous and surely sane politicians will not back this, you're underestimating the assholery and idiocy of politicians.
"Well, we can't have all these people communicating directly with one-an-other now can we? Next thing you know they'll be exchanging ideas and experiences or organizing things on their own! Better regulate it".
I wonder why there hasn't been much US response? Maybe the US isn't planning to be a signatory or isn't planning to legitimize it?
Nothing that ECOSOC (and by extension UNDG and ITU) pushes forth is legally binding and even if this particular trend gains momentum the USFG can always bargain with its wallet (assuming they aren't complicit).
Plenty of crazy drafts get passed around in the UN all the time, but the beauty of it all is that no entity is forced to change. Instead you get plenty of gawking and reprimanding that doesn't have any enforcement. The noteworthy exception is the SC, but its permanent members can veto anything that they disagree with.
Plenty of crazy drafts get passed around in the UN all the time, but the beauty of it all is that no entity is forced to change. Instead you get plenty of gawking and reprimanding that doesn't have any enforcement. The noteworthy exception is the SC, but its permanent members can veto anything that they disagree with.
This.
When it comes to the UN, nothing matter if it doesn't come from the UNSC (and even then, it only really matters if everyone's OK with it). ECOSOC and the ITU have a bunch of treaties underpinning them, but they've all got enough cave-outs to drive a supertanker through. The ITU can hem and haw all it wants about how ICANN should be turned over to them, and nothing will happen save a follow-up report coming out in a year about how this hasn't happened, and how unfortunate that is.
The larger issue, as other have alluded to, is that this is more evidence that the global south isn't happy with the US-centric management of the Internet (which isn't news), and that they'r getting organized to try and make this an issue (which is). Having said that, if you'd like to see how well that group does getting things of substance passed when the US isn't interested, check out most things the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs leads end up.
When it comes to the UN, nothing matter if it doesn't come from the UNSC (and even then, it only really matters if everyone's OK with it). ECOSOC and the ITU have a bunch of treaties underpinning them, but they've all got enough cave-outs to drive a supertanker through. The ITU can hem and haw all it wants about how ICANN should be turned over to them, and nothing will happen save a follow-up report coming out in a year about how this hasn't happened, and how unfortunate that is.
The larger issue, as other have alluded to, is that this is more evidence that the global south isn't happy with the US-centric management of the Internet (which isn't news), and that they'r getting organized to try and make this an issue (which is). Having said that, if you'd like to see how well that group does getting things of substance passed when the US isn't interested, check out most things the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs leads end up.
Even SC resolutions, which are in theory binding, are frequently ignored.
The brass tacks reality of the internet is that the ICANN roots only have power because individual networks expliticlty cede them that power. If you want to secede from the ICANN DNS, you can replace your root.hints file anytime you want.
The brass tacks reality of the internet is that the ICANN roots only have power because individual networks expliticlty cede them that power. If you want to secede from the ICANN DNS, you can replace your root.hints file anytime you want.
The US is planning to participate in WCIT. They recently appointed an ambassador. We have a US comment on the treaty revisions from 2011 on WCITLeaks.org:
http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/T09-CWG.WCIT12-C-0028!!MSW...
http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/T09-CWG.WCIT12-C-0028!!MSW...
I think that as the US is a permanent member of the security council it can veto this if it wants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council...
I'm afraid not. ITU belongs to UNDG, which itself is a sub-group of ECOSOC, and the veto policies of SC don't carry over to ECOSOC.
I sincerely like the fact that someone on here can answer with something like that. I had no clue and it would have taken a lot more time to look that up than read it (and off the cuff it sounded plausible re: the security council). And if I want to pursue it, I can start from what you said and check that.
Who are the U.N. supposedly going to grab power from then? Why shouldn't ICANN be under the ITU? How is the ITU "obscure"? Do they do a bad job of regulating telecomms at the moment?
Launch of wcitleaks http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-launching-...
another article I found interesting http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-s...
Launch of wcitleaks http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-launching-...
another article I found interesting http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-s...
Isn't ITU in charge of making international phone calls artificially expensive by funneling money to kleptocratic PTTs? And now they're proposing to bring the same caller-pays settlement to the Internet. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u...
On the other hand, astonishing reading the blog post:
"First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way"- in short, to legitimize full government control."
It's ok if the US censors sites and takes down websites by changing DNS data, but it's not not ok for other countries - and I do not express any opinion about China in this - to request this to do?
"First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way"- in short, to legitimize full government control."
It's ok if the US censors sites and takes down websites by changing DNS data, but it's not not ok for other countries - and I do not express any opinion about China in this - to request this to do?
[deleted]
Blogspam.
Rewrite of http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...
Rewrite of http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...
Just wanted to let everyone here know that you can access the documents directly on our site at wcitleaks.org, or follow @wcitleaks on Twitter for updates.
I agree with the need for discussions like this to take place in the open so that people can be informed about what their representatives in government are discussing. International treaties are very important.
However, both this article and the WSJ seem to take the quotes very much out of context. For example:
'What it shows is breathtaking. First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way" - in short, to legitimize full government control.'
I could only find a similar quote in the alternate version of the document linked: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/CWG-WCIT12_TD-62E.pdf and only in a section discussing network security and cross-border network attacks:
---
"a) Member-States have the responsibility and right to protect the network security of the information and communication infrastructure within their state, to promote the international cooperation to fight against network attacks and disruptions.
b) Member-States have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory use ICTs in a rational way and endeavour to ensure the effective functioning of ICTs, in secure and trustworthy conditions.
c) User information in information and communication network should be respected and protected. Member-states have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory protect the security of user information."
---
Which in the context where it appears seems to be a discussion on a Chinese proposal about the need for countries to have policies and procedures to deal with cross-border network attacks. In any case, it seems like there are calls for clarification and some discussion that it is unnecessary, especially this portion:
---
"We believe the proposed text in C 59 imposing new treaty rights and obligations on Member States regarding domestic network security is both unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope of the ITRs. The United States looks forward to a further explanation from China with regard to the proposed amendments, and we note that we may have further reaction at that time. Source C 75 (USA)"
"The intention of the proposal is to refer only to network security and not content, that is, to the security of the infrastructure. The intention is to encourage Member States to cooperate to improve infrastructure security. Further, article 8 should concern only dissemination of information and a new article should be envisaged for security matter. (China)"
"Portions of the proposal (e.g. rights at national level) are already covered by the Preamble and should not be added here. Provisions regarding responsibilities of Member States excessively expand the scope of the ITRs. (USA)"
---
In those contexts, the statement seems much less nefarious, and as the US representative mentions, probably unnecessary.
I don't have the time to source the other quotes and summaries but I can't help but think that the articles are poorly researched at best.
However, both this article and the WSJ seem to take the quotes very much out of context. For example:
'What it shows is breathtaking. First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way" - in short, to legitimize full government control.'
I could only find a similar quote in the alternate version of the document linked: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/CWG-WCIT12_TD-62E.pdf and only in a section discussing network security and cross-border network attacks:
---
"a) Member-States have the responsibility and right to protect the network security of the information and communication infrastructure within their state, to promote the international cooperation to fight against network attacks and disruptions.
b) Member-States have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory use ICTs in a rational way and endeavour to ensure the effective functioning of ICTs, in secure and trustworthy conditions.
c) User information in information and communication network should be respected and protected. Member-states have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory protect the security of user information."
---
Which in the context where it appears seems to be a discussion on a Chinese proposal about the need for countries to have policies and procedures to deal with cross-border network attacks. In any case, it seems like there are calls for clarification and some discussion that it is unnecessary, especially this portion:
---
"We believe the proposed text in C 59 imposing new treaty rights and obligations on Member States regarding domestic network security is both unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope of the ITRs. The United States looks forward to a further explanation from China with regard to the proposed amendments, and we note that we may have further reaction at that time. Source C 75 (USA)"
"The intention of the proposal is to refer only to network security and not content, that is, to the security of the infrastructure. The intention is to encourage Member States to cooperate to improve infrastructure security. Further, article 8 should concern only dissemination of information and a new article should be envisaged for security matter. (China)"
"Portions of the proposal (e.g. rights at national level) are already covered by the Preamble and should not be added here. Provisions regarding responsibilities of Member States excessively expand the scope of the ITRs. (USA)"
---
In those contexts, the statement seems much less nefarious, and as the US representative mentions, probably unnecessary.
I don't have the time to source the other quotes and summaries but I can't help but think that the articles are poorly researched at best.
WCITLeaks.org cofounder here. You're right that the language sounds more benign than they way it is described, but remember that this is diplo-speak and it is occurring in a pre-existing context. The Chinese proposal is actually pretty sweeping when properly interpreted, and is cause for some concern.
Okay ... I can accept the idea that diplo-speak is often a cover for power-grabs and may certainly be the case here, but how do you go about this "proper interpretation"?
I find any secrecy like what happens in many treaty negotiations to be concerning, I don't need to be sold there, but to trust your interpretation I need more transparency from you.
How does your secret decoder ring work?
I find any secrecy like what happens in many treaty negotiations to be concerning, I don't need to be sold there, but to trust your interpretation I need more transparency from you.
How does your secret decoder ring work?
Irrelevant.
What will happen though, the US has peaked in power, will censor more sites through DNS, Asia and Europe will be fed up at some point and the internet (DNS) will break up. In the long run power will balance itself with the amount of people in countries and economic power.
What will happen though, the US has peaked in power, will censor more sites through DNS, Asia and Europe will be fed up at some point and the internet (DNS) will break up. In the long run power will balance itself with the amount of people in countries and economic power.
Just another reason to adopt Namecoin as an alternate DNS provider. Lots of work still needs to be done though for it to be easy enough to use by the average user.
On a tangential note, Google reports a record number of requests from governments to remove things from their search results. Not just places we normally associate with censorship, but lots of supposedly more "liberal" western democracies as well. Control over the net is simply too powerful of an incentive for governments to maintain the principle of keeping their hands clear.