UN telecoms talks FOUNDER as US, UK, Canada and Aussies quit The ITU's new binding treaty on regulating the internet and global communications is effectively dead in the water after Western nations including the US, UK, Canada and Australia refused to sign it. With these world powers out of the game and free of the treaty, the ITU agreement looks rather pointless: the vast majority of …
You live in an insanely hot country with very little potable water (at least for a lot of it) where virtually everything kills you. The world has not forgotten the heroic efforts of the Anzac troops in ww2 either. Just because you don't park aircraft carriers off countries all the time doesn't mean you aren't powerful. Fatti maschi, parole femine etc.
The mining industry alone gives you world clout, plus being a friendly port next to Asia does't hurt. Cricket and Rugby are probably best left out of it :-) You might even be significant enough to be forgiven for Neighbours (but not Home and Away or Round the twist) :-)
"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 bankofnigeria@hotmail.com; but I don't, and I might want emails from juicyrussianbrides@phish.ru; 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)?
Actually, I can quite easily see "How can anyone compare a Skype call with 'sunsolicited bulk electronic communication'". Telemarketers and Telephone scammers could quite easily start using apps such as Skype (if they are not alreay) to make VOIP calls to physical phones, or using Text Messages (SMS).
Once again as per the tone of the article the US gets blamed for unilateralism (notice how much less there truly is since the village idiot and his neocon jesters left office?) when the article clearly states no Western country signed the treaty. If other governments don't have the courage to stand up for their own interests then their body politic is picking the wrong leaders.
Hmm. I read the article as if the article itself could be blamed for unilateralism, but not the USA. I read it as the USA's stand on the matter is the example given in the article. I understand what you are saying, and it would be true if the article implied that the USA was the only country walking away, or lack to mention others were not. Why I feel the article is unilateral is because it seems to take just one countries opinions and action, and use those for the basis of all other countries. I blame the authors approach for that, but I don't blame the author for his intentions.
This article is written with a lot in context, with little background explanation of that context.
The whole thing is a Russia global domination power-play anyways. There's a great article on CNET with some proper journalism (no offence there reg') which I dare not link to for fear of the ubiquitous spam filters which contains an interview with Anthony Rutkowski which explains what's really going on fairly well.
If we need the internet removing from US control it's within the capability of plenty of volunteers - we don't need and international treaty with the likes of China and Russia fighting for their brand of justice and freedom for all. I can totally see the argument for removing the total control of the US over it, but I can't see the argument for giving it to those guys - which is the intent.
Hey! Round the Twist was an amazing program! Definitely a better Aussie export than Home and Away, Neighbours, or Prisoner Cell Block H!
Also, the Round the Twist theme tune is THE PERFECT tech support hold music:
"Have you ever, ever felt like this. Have strange things happened, are you going round the twist"
Not really. We need the IETF much more and have it OUT of government hands!
The UN (and the corruption it fosters) has outlived it usefulness. We would be better off without it! If people want to play in their sandbox, and make rules, let them do it on their own dime/half-crown.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
