The
United Kingdom, United States and Canada have refused to sign a treaty
which would allow greater involvement in web governance to nations
throughout the globe
During the International Telecommunication Union conference in Dubai, a number of countries objected outright to the proposals of the agreement. For instance, there was strong opposition from the US Federal Communications Commission. Its head, Robert M. McDowell, claimed that the public governing of the web might impact the basic freedoms of web. McDowell also said that a number of countries present at the conference in UAE had gone back on commitments to keep the web free from government control.
As for the United Kingdom, it has also refused to sign the agreement, because the ITU seeks to update 24-year-old telecommunications guidelines without concerns over Internet regulation. The country’s representative claimed that the stakes were too high for the proposed treaty.
Finally, Canada has also objected to the agreement, along with the negotiators from other countries, who pointed out that they can’t sign a treaty without further consultation with respective national governments.
Despite the fact that some nations did sign the agreement, those who didn’t will still be bound by the guidelines set out in the 1988 version, which didn’t cover web regulation. In the meantime, such countries as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Sudan are demanding that they have a more equal say in the regulation of the worldwide web. At the moment, the United States is responsible for appointing governing bodies which coordinate aspects of the web, including the allocation of Internet addresses.
The experts argue that an ITU led approach could help enhance some aspects of the web, with a concerted approach against the proliferation of spam, for instance. Nevertheless, the opposers have argued that they hand states powers to enforce Internet regulation and increase online censorship.
Apart from the governments, the ITU plans have also been criticized by the private sector Internet companies. For instance, Google vice president Vint Cerf, who is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Internet, also hit out at the proposals, highlighting the “borderless” nature of the Internet.
During the International Telecommunication Union conference in Dubai, a number of countries objected outright to the proposals of the agreement. For instance, there was strong opposition from the US Federal Communications Commission. Its head, Robert M. McDowell, claimed that the public governing of the web might impact the basic freedoms of web. McDowell also said that a number of countries present at the conference in UAE had gone back on commitments to keep the web free from government control.
As for the United Kingdom, it has also refused to sign the agreement, because the ITU seeks to update 24-year-old telecommunications guidelines without concerns over Internet regulation. The country’s representative claimed that the stakes were too high for the proposed treaty.
Finally, Canada has also objected to the agreement, along with the negotiators from other countries, who pointed out that they can’t sign a treaty without further consultation with respective national governments.
Despite the fact that some nations did sign the agreement, those who didn’t will still be bound by the guidelines set out in the 1988 version, which didn’t cover web regulation. In the meantime, such countries as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Sudan are demanding that they have a more equal say in the regulation of the worldwide web. At the moment, the United States is responsible for appointing governing bodies which coordinate aspects of the web, including the allocation of Internet addresses.
The experts argue that an ITU led approach could help enhance some aspects of the web, with a concerted approach against the proliferation of spam, for instance. Nevertheless, the opposers have argued that they hand states powers to enforce Internet regulation and increase online censorship.
Apart from the governments, the ITU plans have also been criticized by the private sector Internet companies. For instance, Google vice president Vint Cerf, who is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Internet, also hit out at the proposals, highlighting the “borderless” nature of the Internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment