US, Canada, Australia and UK refuse to sign UN's communications treaty | Hacker News Reader

US, Canada, Australia and UK refuse to sign UN's communications treaty

bbc.co.uk

64 pointsyuxt27 comments

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

I don't care about intentions of government. I care the results.

You can have a government that starves millions of people to death for a good ideal, and I would not think that government any better than Nazi government that sent millions of Jews to gas chamber.

The same way, if some dictatorial monarch yielded results than modern democratic government, I would not skip a beat and choose a dictatorial monarch over modern democratic government.

And if you subsequently changed your mind about the dictatorial monarch, when they got corrupted by their power? Oops.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

Btw, the (draft of) the treaty is here: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-pu... . 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.

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? :)

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.

It's good to see national governments seeking to retain their influence and power, working for individuals this time.

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

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".

Payment wasn't the reason that the US, UK, Canada, etc... aren't signing, it's the idea of opening up "Internet" governance into an ITU treaty. Once you start mixing Internet and telecommunications governance, you open the door to a treaty that would force countries with a strong free speech tradition to enforce the censorship laws of other countries.

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

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

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

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/23365121371/itu-go...

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).

>"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/

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com