The recent World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai has ended in a stalemate as a number of leading member countries, including The US, UK, Australia and Canada, have refused to sign an International Telecommunication Union treaty.
2015 will see the arrival of a new ITU treaty that will replace the current (outdated) treaty that was put into place way back in 1988. This comes as a setback for the U.N as the countries that refused to sign are amongst the largest telecommunications powers on the planet.
The U.N were forced to deny allegations made by The E.U and Google accusing them of using the treaty as a way to effectively gain control over the internet. Although It would appear that an agreement is a long way off, 89 nations did sign the treaty, with a further 12 including Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the Czech Republic reserving the right to defer signing until a later date.
The treaty called for all countries to hold equal rights over the governing of the internet. One theory suggests this would potentially open the door for tighter, more refined restrictions to arrive in the future, thus basically giving the U.N the first step on the ladder to gaining complete control of the online world.
The treaty - which comprises 23 pages - contained a number of key talking points on which certain countries disagreed, but none more-so than that of 'spam', which was explained thus: "Countries should endeavour, where possible, to prevent unsolicited bulk electronic communications, in order to reduce their impact on = telecommunications services".
A guideline twenty-three page document for the treaty was created, of which the topic of 'spam' was one of the main talking points, stating that: "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."
From this statement alone, it would seem that the document was suggesting that any 'mail' thought to be of an inappropriate (unsolicited) nature would be allowed to be read without any consent - going directly against the US first amendment, in particular.
A further 2 conferences are to be held in 2013, either one of which could see changes made to the treaty that would cause the 55 countries that did not sign to change their minds. Whether or not this comes to pass we can only wait and see. But, for now at least, common sense prevails.
2015 will see the arrival of a new ITU treaty that will replace the current (outdated) treaty that was put into place way back in 1988. This comes as a setback for the U.N as the countries that refused to sign are amongst the largest telecommunications powers on the planet.
The U.N were forced to deny allegations made by The E.U and Google accusing them of using the treaty as a way to effectively gain control over the internet. Although It would appear that an agreement is a long way off, 89 nations did sign the treaty, with a further 12 including Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the Czech Republic reserving the right to defer signing until a later date.
The treaty called for all countries to hold equal rights over the governing of the internet. One theory suggests this would potentially open the door for tighter, more refined restrictions to arrive in the future, thus basically giving the U.N the first step on the ladder to gaining complete control of the online world.
The treaty - which comprises 23 pages - contained a number of key talking points on which certain countries disagreed, but none more-so than that of 'spam', which was explained thus: "Countries should endeavour, where possible, to prevent unsolicited bulk electronic communications, in order to reduce their impact on = telecommunications services".
A guideline twenty-three page document for the treaty was created, of which the topic of 'spam' was one of the main talking points, stating that: "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."
From this statement alone, it would seem that the document was suggesting that any 'mail' thought to be of an inappropriate (unsolicited) nature would be allowed to be read without any consent - going directly against the US first amendment, in particular.
A further 2 conferences are to be held in 2013, either one of which could see changes made to the treaty that would cause the 55 countries that did not sign to change their minds. Whether or not this comes to pass we can only wait and see. But, for now at least, common sense prevails.
About the Author:
Saul Saresi writes regularly about latest Voip news and practices hosted business voip For more information about Voip services please visit his site Voipdito business phone line
No comments:
Post a Comment