I'm Canadian, and I support our government's decision here. They've done some boneheaded things with respect to Internet policy over the last few years, but this isn't one.<p>I don't like the idea that the US governs major parts of the Internet's infrastructure. In principle, I would like to see its governance transferred to some sort of an international body. I just don't trust the ITU to play that role impartially. Until we find such a steward, I think we should follow the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" maxim.
Lately Harper's Canada has been heading down the wrong road when it comes to progress and justice.<p>I am proud at least that it didn't participate in this ITU farce.
Its like looking from the side, at two parties neither suitable to hold the key infrastructure of the internet.<p>The UN would be a horrible caretaker, motivated by censorship, power grabs, and very old business model becoming obsolete and clinging to the government to save it, ie the telecoms industry.<p>The US is almost as horrible caretaker, trying to police the world, spying all the time, and a slightly old and obsolete business model that are clinging to the government to save them, ie the media industry.<p>I doubt any solution will come top-bottom in this case. If we want a change, it must come from distributed network without actors in the middle that control the switches. Mesh networking is hopefully this, but if not, maybe a overlay network could be enough.
See also <a href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a" rel="nofollow">http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telec...</a> which has more details about how the vote happened, and why.
Btw, the (draft of) the treaty is here: <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-pu...</a> . It's really not in any way as bad as the fud on the internet wants us to believe. And it's certainly not about ITU taking control over the internet.
Personally, I wouldn't trust the un to run a lemonade stand. Their track record is exceedingly poor. I actually trust the us government more than the un, simply because there are checks and balances in place, even if theynonly seem theoretical at times.
I wonder what role this resolution plays in the whole thing, though?<p><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/23365121371/itu-goes-back-multiple-promises-makes-play-internet-governance-with-sneaky-surprise-vote.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/23365121371/itu-go...</a><p>Does this mean the resolution is pretty much irrelevant now? Or does it mean most of the companies participating there will continue to seek that power over the Internet, perhaps at next year's conference (I think they are having one again next year, to talk about who owns the IP infrastructure or something).
>"Negotiators from Denmark, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Costa Rica and Kenya have said they would need to consult with their national governments about how to proceed and would also not be able to sign the treaty as planned on Friday."<p>The full list is available here. In particular I am glad to see Japan has also refused to ratify:<p><a href="http://www.ipv.sx/wcit/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipv.sx/wcit/</a>
If other countries want to govern their national nets without US control, they'll govern their national nets without US control. One way or another.<p>Seems to me the choice is that the US+friends either sign, or get a fragmented internet.