Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions

Comments Filter:
  • Norway too (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 14, 2012 @09:10AM (#42285951)

    Norway is also refusing to sign

  • So go buy your own! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pla (258480) on Friday December 14, 2012 @09:48AM (#42286169) Journal
    FTA: "In particular many attendees believed it was an anachronism that the US government got to decide which body should regulate the net's address system as a legacy of its funding for Arpanet - a precursor to the internet which helped form its technical core."

    Yeah, that makes perfect sense, I can't imagine why the US didn't sign. "Hey, that thing you paid for, developed, and turned into a thriving platform for social and commercial activity? We don't like that you own it and we don't, so would you mind handing it over?".
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Well yes, but there's a difference in culture between the US and some other places that impacts how this is viewed.

      In the US it is all about the individual. Collectivism is frowned upon. Europe is more socialist, which is a point part way between the US and countries like China, where in China the group is everything and the individual is nothing.

      The more collective your outlook, the more it makes sense to take from the individual WHEN that is for the greater overall good. Europe strikes a balance betwee

    • Come on, the Internet is not a thing "paid for, developed and a thriving platform", it's a fucking convention. It's a protocol, like a language if you prefer. It's not a "thing". There are several other network protocols and there has been several other protocols since way before the internet. In France we were surfing on transpac and X25 before we joined the internet. The world now uses the Internet, precisely because it is very simple and open. If you really wanted to call it your own, then have fun surfi
      • by pla (258480)
        Come on, the Internet is not a thing "paid for, developed and a thriving platform", it's a fucking convention.

        Absolutely true! And if you want to roll your own internet, hey, we've done the groundwork, feel free to implement those protocols (hell, feel free to just take the already-implemented public domain code) and you can have your very own internet, domestically controlled. But as the real problem here, you don't want "an" internet - You want America's internet. You even say as much:


        In France w
        • I understand you are probably trolling but let me get some facts straight. Yuo didn't "kindly let us use it", we decided to use it, because it was open and free. Nobody ever required the permission of anybody to use it. Except Slashdot, every single website I visit on a regular basis comes from France. I'm not even using Google.com if you want to know, I have a local version of it. It's not America's internet that we want to use, it's the global one. And we could not do that without the US or it would be a
          • by tbird81 (946205)

            Well listen. We don't want the UN controlling it!

            The UN is a corrupt organisation. It will only cripple the internet, make it illegal to offend anyone, and try to implement a world-wide selection of laws.

            Fuck off ITU.

            • 100% agreed. THAT is a good argument. "It's our own" is a boggus argument and does not stand.
      • by emt377 (610337)

        Come on, the Internet is not a thing "paid for, developed and a thriving platform", it's a fucking convention. It's a protocol, like a language if you prefer. It's not a "thing". There are several other network protocols and there has been several other protocols since way before the internet. In France we were surfing on transpac and X25 before we joined the internet. The world now uses the Internet, precisely because it is very simple and open. If you really wanted to call it your own, then have fun surfing on your own web site. If the British went around calling the English language their own, the world would juse use esperanto for good.

        The U.S. should trademark the word "Internet". If one tuple isn't in the U.S. it shouldn't be called the Internet. It should be called "Internet-like", or "Internet-compatible", or "using the Internet method". Especially in France. They can call it Telepac-Plus or whatever. There's no reason they should be able to just take what we've created and popularized. It's OUR heritage, not theirs. OUR language, not theirs. The French should stop stealing our refined and superior culture.

    • by phlinn (819946)
      The worst part about that particular complaint is that there is nothing about the internet that requires that other countries use the US's root DNS servers. They are free to implement their own.
      • by idontgno (624372)

        This is nothing about DNS. The slippery slope argument (for good or ill) the major Internet powers used to justify refusal is that treaty language implies that signatory governments have a mutual international obligation to do content monitoring (e.g., deep packet inspection). These clauses were argued to be non-content-neutral, and (for instance) coud allow Iran to insist that the US prohibit blastphemous content (for Shiite Muslim definitions of "blastphemy").

        DPI and other content-based restrictions have

        • by phlinn (819946)
          Quoting the article "In particular many attendees believed it was an anachronism that the US government got to decide which body should regulate the net's address system..." emphasis added. At least one complaint by the countries that wanted UN control was about DNS. It's a stupid argument. That's the only point I was responding to. I actually agree with the holdout countries on content restrictions. I don't find it hard to believe the US government here, because at it's worse it's been better than, f
        • by Guy Harris (3803)

          This is nothing about DNS. The slippery slope argument (for good or ill) the major Internet powers used to justify refusal is that treaty language implies that signatory governments have a mutual international obligation to do content monitoring (e.g., deep packet inspection). These clauses were argued to be non-content-neutral, and (for instance) coud allow Iran to insist that the US prohibit blastphemous content (for Shiite Muslim definitions of "blastphemy").

          As per this post at the Center for Democracy and Technology [cdt.org], there's an ITU-T Recommendation "Y.2770: Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks" [itu.int], which is "restricted to TIES users [itu.int]", where "TIES (Telecommunication Information Exchange Service) is a set of networked information resources and services offered by ITU without any charge to ITU Members (Member States [itu.int], Sector Members [itu.int], Associates [itu.int], and Academia [itu.int]) to support their participation in the activities of the Union." Not being a M

      • by Guy Harris (3803)

        The worst part about that particular complaint is that there is nothing about the internet that requires that other countries use the US's root DNS servers. They are free to implement their own.

        And many of them have. [root-servers.org].

        The problem is that the root zone is controlled by the US Department of Commerce [icann.org] ("National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) - which is an office within the United States Department of Commerce - authorizes changes to the root"), so their root servers serve up information that's ultimately US-controlled.

  • That's what this is all about.

  • WTF with the title (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Like2Byte (542992) <Like2Byte@@@yahoo...com> on Friday December 14, 2012 @11:00AM (#42286739) Homepage

    Seriously? "US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions" is the title of this piece?

    From what I could tell, even TFSummary mentions multiple countries refuse to sign. But, "OMG! Teh Un1t3d 5t4t3s refusors to p3n h4x moar documents! Roooaarrr!!1"

    A more sensationalist title I've not seen on /. for a while.

    How about a more neutral tone for story summaries? Maybe, I don't know:

    Multiple countries fail to agree on ITU Treaty
    Multiple countries disagree on ITU Treaty content
    Differences still exist between countries involved in ITU Treaty
    ITU Treaty content to undergo more revisions

    sheesh.

  • It seems like the Final Acts of ITU at WCIT2012 will be remembered as crimes against humanity, no less. Read the act: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf [itu.int] If you'll realize the the consequences you'll get the real tragedy: Governmental supervision on content in the name of "security & anti-spam"; the 'Free-Riders' (Google , Facebook, AWS & likes) will keep 'riding' on our infrastructure paid by our taxes; no mention of net neutrality & freedom of content even. As I see

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...