US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet
[Feels operational to me.] <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html> The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union that the Internet doesn't need new international regulations. The vote was unanimous: 414-0 Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round unanimously. -- TTFN, patrick
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
[Feels operational to me.]
<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html>
The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union that the Internet doesn't need new international regulations. The vote was unanimous: 414-0
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round unanimously.
It is can be useful (particularly during an election year) to make certain that there is no doubt regarding the resolve of government with respect to positions being taken in international negotiations. In this case, I believe that the message is now quite clear... :-) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:47:30PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
[Feels operational to me.]
<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html>
The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union that the Internet doesn't need new international regulations. The vote was unanimous: 414-0
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round unanimously.
It is can be useful (particularly during an election year) to make certain that there is no doubt regarding the resolve of government with respect to positions being taken in international negotiations.
In this case, I believe that the message is now quite clear...
:-) /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Its just the house.... :) But I suspect Terry & delegation will take note. /bill
John, I like your approach - simply no comments I think the way as your legislation guys decided to follow can be absolutely wrong. My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing countires and US native commercial interests that you (not you personally - of course) aimed to protect All this discussion have only financial background - no more. Dima PS You can reference not only to magazines - but more on House of Representatives which expressed their opinions more openly. On Aug 4, 2012, at 12:47 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
[Feels operational to me.]
<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html>
The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union that the Internet doesn't need new international regulations. The vote was unanimous: 414-0
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round unanimously.
It is can be useful (particularly during an election year) to make certain that there is no doubt regarding the resolve of government with respect to positions being taken in international negotiations.
In this case, I believe that the message is now quite clear...
:-) /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Aug 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Dmitry Burkov <dburk@burkov.aha.ru> wrote:
My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing countires
Dmitry - There is a very real financial issue that developing countries face with affording the infrastructure that their citizens want to use (and often used to access to VoIP and streaming media services) I do think that there needs to be ample discussion of these concerns, but do not assume that a regulatory regime is the only available solution the issues raised. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy players(mobile are the same) We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again to protect our market interests - no more. On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Dmitry Burkov <dburk@burkov.aha.ru> wrote:
My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing countires
Dmitry -
There is a very real financial issue that developing countries face with affording the infrastructure that their citizens want to use (and often used to access to VoIP and streaming media services)
I do think that there needs to be ample discussion of these concerns, but do not assume that a regulatory regime is the only available solution the issues raised.
FYI, /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Aug 3, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Dmitry Burkov <dburk@burkov.aha.ru> wrote:
The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy players(mobile are the same) We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again to protect our market interests - no more.
Dmitry - We're quickly leaving the realm of network operations, but it might be helpful if you could further explain what you mean by the above (as it's not particularly clear what you mean by "our own problems") /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
in my stupid opinion it is the problem of a new global still developing global market - key dominated players are from our countries - which see on them as on strategical national strategic assets. Should I explain more? Or it is already clear? I classified censorship and IPR protection in the same manner or I mistaken? On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy players(mobile are the same) We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again to protect our market interests - no more.
On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Dmitry Burkov <dburk@burkov.aha.ru> wrote:
My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing countires
Dmitry -
There is a very real financial issue that developing countries face with affording the infrastructure that their citizens want to use (and often used to access to VoIP and streaming media services)
I do think that there needs to be ample discussion of these concerns, but do not assume that a regulatory regime is the only available solution the issues raised.
FYI, /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Subject: Re: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet Date: Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 03:13:53AM +0400 Quoting Dmitry Burkov (dburk@burkov.aha.ru):
in my stupid opinion it is the problem of a new global still developing global market - key dominated players are from our countries - which see on them as on strategical national strategic assets. Should I explain more? Or it is already clear?
I classified censorship and IPR protection in the same manner or I mistaken?
The problem with the ITU idea (apart from being to a certain extent a me-too scheme) is that it is playing in the hands of nation-states that wish to regulate flows of revenue and information in a manner that is detrimental to operational practices for running networks efficiently (on-topic) and business models for operators (somewhat on-topic) -- and then we haven't even gotten started on the phenomenal possibilities of instigating government-run monopolies and information chokepoints by implementing network infrastructure and adressing plans as if IP was E.164 and there only was one ISP per country. (slightly off-topic) Support for these ideas can -- IMNSHO -- only come from those who have something to lose when there is free flow of information and free establisment of business relations. Far from wanting to taint the entire ITU by universal attribution I'd suspect that this is the brain-child of a number of distinct nation-states who have identified themselves as possibly in need of thwarted cashflow (from gov't-supported monopolies with fantasy pricing schemes) or feel that they need to alter the information picture for their subjects. Either that or the entire ITU-T still believes that SS7 scales better than BGP. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 SANTA CLAUS comes down a FIRE ESCAPE wearing bright blue LEG WARMERS ... He scrubs the POPE with a mild soap or detergent for 15 minutes, starring JANE FONDA!!
On 8/3/2012 9:26 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:06:19 -0400, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
The vote was unanimous: 414-0
Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round unanimously. And in fact, they didn't - there's 435 Representatives.
Actually 430. There were 16 "Not Voting". Five seats must be empty. Republican 229 10 Democratic 185 6 TOTALS 414 16
On 8/3/12, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote: "it is the "consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control." Now if they would only practice what they preach.....
[Feels operational to me.] <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html>
-- -JH
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 8/3/12, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote: "it is the "consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control."
Now if they would only practice what they preach.....
It will be interesting to see how that statement gets (ab)used the next time net neutrality, or legislation like SOPA/PIPA becomes a hot topic. jms
On 04/08/2012 16:55, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:
"it is the "consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control."
Now if they would only practice what they preach.....
It will be interesting to see how that statement gets (ab)used the next time net neutrality, or legislation like SOPA/PIPA becomes a hot topic.
I suspect they meant "a global Internet free from _other_ government control". Nick
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 04/08/2012 16:55, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:
"it is the "consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control."
Now if they would only practice what they preach.....
It will be interesting to see how that statement gets (ab)used the next time net neutrality, or legislation like SOPA/PIPA becomes a hot topic.
I suspect they meant "a global Internet free from _other_ government control".
right and i don't think any government body expects to 'practice what they preach' (it might sound absurd, sarcastic, or ironical, but i am truly being serious here). it's more of a 'do what i say, not what i do' mentality.
On Aug 4, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 04/08/2012 16:55, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:
"it is the "consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control."
Now if they would only practice what they preach.....
It will be interesting to see how that statement gets (ab)used the next time net neutrality, or legislation like SOPA/PIPA becomes a hot topic.
I suspect they meant "a global Internet free from _other_ government control".
Actually, it is very likely that they truly mean "free of any government control", with the confusion coming from the idea that enforcing existing laws over the Internet (like copyright protection) isn't controlling the Internet but just routine law enforcement. Obviously, it is equally possible to view enforcing copyright protection as a form of Internet control and/or form of Internet censorship, so stating that governments shouldn't be controlling or censoring the Internet and then taking down hundreds of domain names is certainly going to cause confusion, if even the USG offers it as a perfectly logical and self-consistent position. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Your mileage may vary.
participants (13)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Dmitry Burkov -
Gary Buhrmaster -
Jimmy Hess -
John Curran -
John Curran -
Justin M. Streiner -
Måns Nilsson -
Nick Hilliard -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Roy -
shawn wilson -
valdis.kletnieks＠vt.edu