On 14/12/2012 19:51, Mike A wrote:
Yep. _Gloriously_! The US walked out, followed by bunchty others.
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020469/opponents-say-itu-treaty-threatens-internet-freedom.html>
The ITU didn't implode and that article gives a ridiculously misleading impression of what happened. The BBC gives a more balanced viewpoint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20717774 There's some stuff up on some US news channels (ABC, etc), but some of the larger players (CNN, NY Times + others) haven't actually woken up to the extent of this tech/political landgrab, and have no recent articles on the outcome or the political importance of it. What actually happened is that the ITU ignored their previous promises not to have a vote on the ITRs. When a vote was finally called because it was apparently that there was no general consensus on the articles, 77 countries voted in favour and 33 voted against, causing the treaty to start the process of becoming legally binding in those countries which voted in favour. The current positions are here: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0066!!MSW-E.pdf http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0067!!MSW-E.pdf Many countries are formally sitting on the fence, including pretty much every country in Europe which didn't walk out - also enjoy the spat in declarations #4 (argentina) and #93 (UK). Now that this landgrab has succeeded in large chunks of the world, the ITU's position has consolidated, although not nearly to the extent that had originally been envisaged in the draft ITRs. I don't forsee this debate dying any time soon. Nick