C’est du délire
Yet this package did not fly—because for America both the ITR and the resolution crossed several red lines. One section of the draft treaty calls for the regulation of “unsolicited bulk electronic communication”, commonly known as “spam”. But prohibiting spam in an international treaty, the Americans argue, would require some definition of the kind of content intended—which could thereby limit the freedom of expression. Russia also insisted that the relevant entities in the treaty be defined as “operating agencies”, which would include internet services providers (ISPs) and other internet firms. (America wants the entities to be classed as “recognised operating agencies”, code for old-style telecommunication carriers.)
[...]
Only the host country had a larger delegation than America, which sent more than 120 people to Dubai. The American representatives included officials from the department of defence as well as from internet firms like Facebook and Google. ►http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/12/internet-regulation
Au moins l’article de The Economist entre un peu dans le contenu (hypothétique puisqu’encore opaque) du traité modifié, finalement rejeté par certains membres dont les USA et la France.
Autrement c’est vraiment difficilement compréhensible cette affaire.
But this incident does show that one must always be skeptical of mainstream accounts of international negotiations, and be attuned to the weird, ironic and hypocritical nature of the process: it is the pro-Internet freedom nations that are insisting on using denial of access to internet services and infrastructure as a form of policy leverage, and the anti-human rights nations that are claiming a universal right of internet access.
►http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/13/what-really-happened-in-dubai
Par ailleurs, précision : les craintes autour du DPI évoquées là ►http://seenthis.net/messages/101868 concernent un standard adopté par l’IUT AVANT le WCIT [tous ces acronymes, c’est effrayant aussi]
