19-12-2012, 16:23 #1
55 paises se recusam a assinar novo tratado ITRs
A recusa mela o plano de amantes da liberdade, como Vladimir Putin, que seja estabelecido controle sobre a Internet através da ITR - International Telecommunications Union.
Como no Brasil temos democracia até demais, votamos a favor do controle junto com nossos hermanos da União Soviética da America Latina e indiscutiveis governos democráticos da Africa, Asia e Oriente Médio. Na defesa dessa bobagem da Internet continuar independente, aqui no nosso quintal só paises metidos à besta, que teimam em crescer aceleradamente, votaram contra a proposta: Chile, Colombia e Peru.
Em vermelho, os votos contrários. Em preto, os favoráveis ao controle da Internet pelos governos.
Lembra aquele ditado: nascer pobre é destino, mas casar com pobre é burrice.
Lista com os votos (verde:sim; vermelho:não):
O preço da liberdade é a eterna vigilância.
Última edição por 5ms; 19-12-2012 às 16:28.
19-12-2012, 17:12 #2
Text taken unchecked from auto-transcript; likely to contain transcription errors
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mr. Chairman, as head of the U.S. Delegation, I wanted to start out and thank you for your tireless work and leadership. Your personal commitment to a successful outcome here is very impressive.
However, I do need to say that it’s with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the U.S. Must communicate that it’s not able to sign the agreement in the current form.
The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years. All without UN Regulation.
We candidly cannot support an ITU Treaty that is inconsistent with the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. As the ITU has stated, this conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues. However, today, we’re in a situation where we still have text and resolutions that cover issues on spam and also provisions on Internet governance. These past two weeks of course we have made good progress and shown a willingness to negotiate on a variety of telecommunications policy issue, such as roaming, and settlement rates.
But the United States continues to believe that Internet policy must be multistakeholder driven. Internet policy should not be determined by Member States, but by citizen, communities, and broader society. And such consultation from the private sector and civil society is paramount. This has not happened here.
We live in an interconnected world, which is becoming more interconnected with every passing day. We came to this conference with a hope for finding ways to advance our cooperation in the telecommunications arena, and continue to believe that is an important goal.
We are disappointed that this conference didn’t fully provide that opportunity. But remain committed to finding other ways to advance on our shared common goals.
Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask at this — that this intervention be entered into the record of the plenary and thank you for your time.
Announcing the UK’s decision not to sign, Head of the UK Delegation Simon Towler said:
On the Internet itself, our position is clear. We do not see the ITRs as the place to address Internet issues. The proper place is multistakeholder form, the IGF, the ICANN GAC, the CTS T would all have been possibilities. We were prepared to see an acceptable resolution in the context of an overall acceptable text, about you that option was foreclosed. So my position now is we prefer no resolution on the Internet at all and I’m extremely concerned that the language just adopted for the Preamble opens the possibility of Internet and content issues.
The European Parliament has passed a resolution expressing opposition to proposals which would extend the International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) authority to include the Internet.
The European ParliamentThe ITU will meet next week for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, where the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) will be re-negotiated. The EU joins a number of governments and civil society groups in opposing any extension of the scope of the ITRs to include the Internet.
- Believes that the ITU, or any other single, centralised international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over either internet governance or internet traffic flows;
- Stresses that some of the ITR reform proposals would negatively impact the internet, its architecture, operations, content and security, business relations and governance, as well as the free flow of information online;
- Believes that, as a consequence of some of the proposals presented, the ITU itself could become the ruling power over aspects of the internet, which could end the present bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model; expresses concern that, if adopted, these proposals may seriously affect the development of, and access to, online services for end users, as well as the digital economy as a whole; believes that internet governance and related regulatory issues should continue to be defined at a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder level;
- Is concerned that the ITU reform proposals include the establishment of new profit mechanisms that could seriously threaten the open and competitive nature of the internet, driving up prices, hampering innovation and limiting access; recalls that the internet should remain free and open;
- Supports any proposals to maintain the current scope of the ITRs and the current mandate of the ITU; opposes any proposals that would extend the scope to areas such as the internet, including domain name space, IP address allocation, the routing of internet-based traffic and content-related issues;
Última edição por 5ms; 19-12-2012 às 17:20.