The spam thing
"Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunications services."
It sounds fine, with possible pessimistic and paranoid outcomes. (Pessimism and paranoia are always sensible when considering what governments will get up to.) I don't understand the following example of US objection:
"... to the US even a Skype call is content, user-generated content but still content, ..."
How can anyone compare a Skype call with 'unsolicited bulk electronic communication'?
Leaving aside that objection using an inappropriate comparison:
"How could an operator know an email was unsolicited, critics asked, without looking at it? "
An operator can't know that an email is unsolicited or not, even if they do look at it. I might enjoy getting lots of emails from email@example.com; but I don't, and I might want emails from firstname.lastname@example.org; but I don't because I'm not totally ignorant. I can take care of myself when it comes to spam, but the majority of people can't so how about the ISPs provide information to their customers to let them opt-in to spam rejection mechanisms (such as Spam Cop and Spam Assassin)? There are measures that could be taken, including coordinated effort against the serious scammers and malware artists out there. So why don't the 'rejectionists' propose sensible alternatives instead of walking out.
On a final note, I'm wondering how all this is being reported in the rest of the world. What is the tone of newspaper and technical press reports in Russia, India, China, Papaua New Guinea, etc? Are the US and its vassal states regarded as fighters against oppression, or are they viewed as spoiled brats who want to keep the toys (or various points between)?