So it is a regulation of bulkiness and unsolicitedness of and amorphous group of disorganized electrons ... -J On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > Then if the ITR is not related to "content" how you deal with 5B ? isn't > unsolicited bulk electronic communications "content" ?**** > > *[Milton L Mueller] I still don’t get this. It is easy to recognize > something as a) bulk and b) unsolicited regardless of what is in the > message. In other words, this regulates bulkiness and unsolicitedness, not > content. ***** > > ** ** > > To a certain degree I agree with the "ITU-phobia" Milton wrote about on > the IGP site, but what is certain is that as the Internet keeps advancing > ITU becomes more and more obsolete, then if we want to save whatever is > positive from their potential contributions we need to have a more open and > frank dialog, but sooner or later the other side needs to admit that no > longer plays the role it use to play when telecom was a obscure market > dominated by government run monopolies.**** > > ** ** > > My .02**** > > Jorge**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:**** > > Hi Milton, > > A point I think you miss is that the word "Internet' does not need to be > spelled out for the hooks to be there for Internet control. > > e.g. > What is telecommunications about SPAM - no matter what euphemism they use > What kind of security is there in telecommunications beyond robustness. > And if ROA isn't good enough anymore, who exactly is going to be covered > by AOA? > > You think that doing a word search is analysis of the text? After > spending 23 days and nights among these folk I have lot of respect for > their ability to use language and to say what they want to say without > using the red flagged words. > > As I have said elsewhere, I think they negotiated to a drawl. the > Internet is in the ITRs even of the words aren't, but subtly and not in any > way near as strong and emphatic as they (many Member states) want and will > keep pushing for it. This is a tussle that isn't even close to finished. > > And I can't wait for the next episodes. > > avri > > PS. I do beleive the camel got its nose in the tent.**** > > > > > > On 19 Dec 2012, at 01:46, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > >> Avri Doria > >> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:30 AM > > > >> In this case, the ITR treaty, was seen as threatening the Internet and > >> Internet governance in some ways, especially with regard to Internet > >> content and the scope of Member State and ITU control over the Internet. > >> > >> For me one the major issues related to the security and robustness of > >> the Internet being a Member State responsibility. > > > > [Milton L Mueller] Avri, > > Did you notice that the word Internet does not appear in the ITRs? > > > > > >> " > >> ARTICLE 5A > >> > >> Security and robustness of networks > >> > >> 41B Member States shall individually and collectively > >> endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international > >> telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and > >> avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious > >> development of international telecommunication services offered to the > >> public. > > > > [Milton L Mueller] international telecommunication services is not > "Internet". And have you read all > > > >> First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that > >> robustness? And what does it mean to apply this security not only to > >> the physical network but also to harmonious development... The worst > > > > [Milton L Mueller] ...of services. Harmonious development of services. > No one knows wtf that means. If your point is that vague calls for peace > and harmony can do enormous harm in the international sphere, better take a > look at virtually every resolution, every document that comes out of the UN > system. Better yet, give us one example, just ONE, of how the ITRs or any > similar treaty have been used in the past to expand scope beyond what its > drafters intended, beyond what the language says > > > >> power of the ITRs is what they allow Member States to do inside their > >> countries with permission of international law. Also what is envisioned > > > > [Milton L Mueller] which they do already. With or without permission > > > >> It does not take much imagination to see the future actions of > >> repressive states with regard to their power to protect the security of > >> the network from disharmony. > > > > [Milton L Mueller] it does not take any imagination at all, because it > is already happening - in dozens of jurisdictions. This provision does > exactly nothing. > >**** > > ** ** >