Slashdot Mirror


EU Passes Resolution Against ITU Asserting Control Over Internet

An anonymous reader writes "Today, the European Parliament passed a resolution that condemns the upcoming attempt from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to assert control over the Internet, and instructed its 27 Member States to act accordingly. This follows an attempt from the ITU to assert itself as the governing body and control the Internet. From the article: 'The resolution, which was passed with a large majority, included Members of European Parliament (MEPs) from all major party groups, and the Pirate Party’s Amelia Andersdotter had been playing a central role in its drafting, together with MEPs Marietje Schaake and Judith Sargentini from the Netherlands, Sabine Verheyen and Petra Kammerevert from Germany, Ivailo Kalfin from Bulgaria, and Catherine Trautmann from France.'"

37 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Proud to be European by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Despite all the failing and shortcomings, mother Europe still delivers.

    1. Re:Proud to be European by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 5, Informative

      Commissioner Nellie Kroes is particularly good and has stood up for the rights of users (against pressure from Big Business). Let's recognize and applaud the people that are on 'our' side (I'm from New Zealand, and the decisions she makes as EU Commissioner on digital rights influence countries around the World):
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes

    2. Re:Proud to be European by Hentes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be honest, while I don't like the ITU either I think we shouldn't give our support to the US for free. We should try to exploit our leverage in this situation and tell the Americans that if they want us to support them keeping their 'net they have to govern it more responsibly. Particularly the area of gTLDs is one where there's lots of room for improvement, and Europe shouldn't give up its bargaining positions for free.

  2. Ouch... That has to sting. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure that having the EU tell you "STFU and leave it to the yanks" is one of the harsher put-downs that a multinational treaty organization can suffer...

    1. Re:Ouch... That has to sting. by renoX · · Score: 4, Informative

      > I don't think that anything in their resolution suggests that "the yanks" have or should have any special role in internet regulation.

      Well, that's the current situation, so that's implicitly the result..

    2. Re:Ouch... That has to sting. by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the Europeans recognize that a move to the ITU regulating the Net would result in a situation where all sorts of shennanigans could happen. Yes, the ITU has done a fine job up to now, but that is because they set technical specs and didn't have much power. If they got power then companies and countries would almost certainly corrupt this body to the detriment of ordinary citizens (who have no way of opposing or correcting the regulations that are produced - at least in the US you can take organizations to court, and the EFF often does).

      The EU has seen the dangers and has done well to prevent possible problems in the future - such as the ITU being subverted. Just think of the Microsoft orchestrated voted stuffing of ISO in the Open XML fiasco a few years back; we don't want similar things to break the freedom of the Internet. For example, think of the move to ban criticism of religion, which is exactly opposed to free speech principles of the important freedom to criticize and even offend.

    3. Re:Ouch... That has to sting. by horza · · Score: 2

      ETSI have done a fine job until now. The IETF have done a fine job until now. When was the last time ITU did anything good? Apart from being a mouthpiece for Microsoft or trying to do a power-grab over the Internet?

      Phillip.

    4. Re:Ouch... That has to sting. by jcdr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps the main problem is not the organisation itself, but how much political are the problems there deal with. "Control over Internet" is something that is now highly political. ITU is an organisation that historically faced some political problems and have show how complex there can be. Not certain that others international organisations will better face the same complexity. The political questions are complex, regardless the organisation where there take place. See for example the ISO, that have also faced some highly political problems, for questions that was simple in comparison..

    5. Re:Ouch... That has to sting. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, that's not the case. What the rest of the world wanted the ITU to do was create a framework for decentralised control of the infrastructure that the US nominally controls, and in particular stop ICANN from doing its current TLD-whoring. What ITU proposed instead was to create an international framework for censoring the Internet.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Ouch... That has to sting. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      It doesn't help that the ITU is basically the UN for the Ma Bells of the world... They did a technologically adequate job of ensuring that the hapless customer of incumbent telco A in country B can call the hapless customer of state monopoly telco C in country D; but it's a great deal harder to get excited about bringing them back into the picture when you are starting with a superior successor to antiquated phone systems.

      It'd be like putting the RIAA in charge of digital music distribution. Sure, they did some actually useful tech work on record grooves and equalization curves; but they have some serious personality defects and no obvious superiority over any number of other technically adept entities.

  3. What's the catch? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2
    It actually makes a lot of sense, even when you're reading the legalese, the influence of having the Pirate Party on board (and actually drafting a lot of it) shows.

    calls on the Member States to prevent any changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations which would be harmful to the openness of the internet, net neutrality, the end-to-end principle, universal service obligations, and the participatory governance entrusted to multiple actors such as governments, supranational institutions, non-governmental organisations, large and small businesses, the technological community and internet users and consumers at large

    But as with all things of this nature, I can't help but wonder where the catch is - sensible sounding legislation always comes back to bite us doesn't it?

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    1. Re:What's the catch? by jarkus4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      its not really legislation as it has no binding power whatsoever. Its pretty much "Hey, we dont like this idea" shout from them.

    2. Re:What's the catch? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's both a giant stab at the ITU and the US. They don't want a single entity in control, and they want to make sure all stakeholders are considered collaboratively (which is what the ITU is anyway, but at a different level). In other words, we don't like the current setup, but we thing the ITU being in charge could be worse.

      It plants itself firmly in the camp of open internet, something the US has consistently stood against in one way or another (blocking foreign sports betting, arresting Kim Dotcom, Going after wikileaks payments etc.).

      Now what will plan B look like...

    3. Re:What's the catch? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anonymous Douche fails to understand GP's points. An open internet would prohibit and prevent the abominations of "justice" that have been perpetrated on Kim Dotcom and on Wikileaks. The United States has gone out of it's way repeatedly to prevent an open internet. ACTA and NPP are two fine examples of that. In effect, both are government blessings on corporate attempts to strangle the internet.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:What's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An open internet would prohibit and prevent the abominations of "justice" that have been perpetrated on Kim Dotcom and on Wikileaks

      I don't think so. "Open" does not imply anarchic, nor does it reach beyond the virtual borders of the Internet. Visa and Mastercard would still have blocked payments to WikiLeaks, Amazon would still have kicked WL of their S3 network and New Zealand's police would still have raided Dotcom's home.

      None of those events have anything to do with the openness of the Internet. If anything, the likelihood of those events is larger with an open Internet because with a regulated Internet the MAFIAA c.s. would have had more opportunities to intervene.

    5. Re:What's the catch? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      These aren't things that would change if the US didn't hold the keys to the internet.

      The control of the internet lands on one organization: IANA. Right now, IANA delegates its powers to ICANN. IANA is merely responsible for deciding who gets what IP addresses and domain names. The ITU wants to usurp that power for themselves, for who knows what ends, or why they think the status quo is wrong.

      In any case, even if say the ITU, the EU, China, or even nobody at all had the keys to IANA, the US would still be able to go after Dotcom and Wikileaks due to pre-existing treaties and strong arming tactics that don't require the internet to even exist in the first place.

      Regardless though, there is no such thing as an "open internet" in your definition of the term. SOMEBODY has to decide who gets what names and numbers. There are theoretical ways of decentralizing DNS, (which in my opinion will be riddled with problems, although it will at least perform the intended function) but you CAN NOT decentralize IP address assignments without introducing a whole mess of other problems. It would be akin to not having a regulatory authority on who gets licenses to any given RF spectrum.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    6. Re:What's the catch? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      you CAN NOT decentralize IP address assignments without introducing a whole mess of other problems

      This is something that should probably be addressed in further detail. Geographical routing, I suppose? You already have to trust your gateway so nothing changes there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:What's the catch? by Troed · · Score: 2

      It actually makes a lot of sense, even when you're reading the legalese, the influence of having the Pirate Party on board (and actually drafting a lot of it) shows.

      I do hope everyone applauding this initiative make sure to vote for their local Pirate Party (represented in over 40 countries). Sweden did in 2009 and our two representatives have been doing great work in parliament ever since.

    8. Re:What's the catch? by Troed · · Score: 2

      This would be the Pirate Parties that haven't any manifesto beyond "movies should be free"?

      Strange claim, since it's very far from the truth :) I suggest going through the manifestos and policies of both the German Piratenpartei as well as the Swedish Pirate Party - both having been elected by voters into local and international parliaments.

      German (in English): http://www.piratenpartei.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/parteiprogramm-englisch.pdf

      Swedish: http://annatroberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Piratpartiets_principprogram.pdf
      (to be updated with results from the autumn conference just held - see https://mote.piratpartiet.se/forumdisplay.php?f=825 for the results of individual motions and propositions)

  4. Good by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The anti-innovation, anti-competition strategy of the telcos must be stopped. The only thing as dysfunctional was the old USSR planned-economy model.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Good by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only thing as dysfunctional was the old USSR planned-economy model.

      How about the "unplanned" international banking crisis?

  5. Can the EP take over my country, please? by icebraining · · Score: 3

    Seriously, between the shittiness that is our national government and the shittiness that is the European Commission (fairly well demonstrated by having put my countryman Barroso in "charge"), the European Parliament seems like the only sane institution around here.

    1. Re:Can the EP take over my country, please? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's because it's elected by proportional representation.

      That's what happens when you have politicians who actually have to represent the people who vote them in, and this is why all governments should move to a porportional system if they genuinely want to class themselves as democratic societies and legitimate representatives of the people.

      People think electoral reform in most countries is just a fringe side issue, but it's the single most important issue in improving accountability and hence decreasing corruption and increasing quality of representation IMO. Things still wont be perfect with true proportional representation, but as the EP shows, they're a damn sight better than many of the individual national european governments by themselves and than the likes of the EC.

  6. This is good thing, right? by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Despite the US still being conservative compared to the progessive world, it is definetly far more liberal than nations such as Saudi Arabia where everyone citizen has to belong to the state sanctioned religion and women barely get by with showing their faces in public. Sure the current situation isn't ideal, but the ITU's solution is far worse.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:This is good thing, right? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In my opinion, the US isn't conservative, more like individualistic. Yes, there are religious loudmouths, but they aren't common, you just hear about them more because they are loud where the others are not. Most people, republican or democrat, have religious views on the back of their mind but don't proselytize them. Except, of course, politicians like Jesse Jackson Jr. or Rick Santorum.

      Conservatives say ban sex from the internet. Progressives say ban anything that somebody might consider offensive, even going so far as to put harmless internet trolls in jail. Individualists say that if you don't like what you see, change the channel.

      The US, by and large, is the later of the three. We don't ban pornography, and we don't have hate speech laws. Freedom of speech is more absolute here than anywhere else, pretty much the only limit is speech that causes physical harm.

      Though the left likes to claim that deregulation and austerity is conservative, and so does the media at large, it isn't. It is very much libertarian.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re:This is good thing, right? by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Informative
      Individualistic is just a nicey-nice way of saying selfish. The roots of conservatism lie in the proppping up of existing power structures, whether they're religious, economic or political.

      So-called libertarians who say they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" are, in plain English, conservative.

      By deifying freedom of the individual to do as they wish above everything else, you are simply ensuring that those in power continue to do what they want while living like parasites on the body of society as a whole.

      "Deregulation and austerity" are indeed libertarian, which is to say conservative, as they sit the agenda of those in power perfectly. It is sad that all you rugged American individualists are so blind to this obvious truth.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:This is good thing, right? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3

      The US, by and large, is the later of the three. We don't ban pornography

      You still have the Miller test. And there are still a bunch of states banning sale of sex toys. Some also had sodomy laws on the books until a few years ago (even if they were ineffective in practice after SCOTUS decision back in 80s).

      Then there's this whole business with creationism and Ten Commandments and prayers in schools. And the whole nation-wide controversy about gay marriage and abortion.

      So, yes, you definitely are conservative, very much so.

  7. Re:Laughable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Despite the ludicrous summary, the actual wording of that part was was:

    [The European Parliament] calls on the Member States to prevent any changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations which would be harmful to the openness of the internet, net neutrality, the end-to-end principle, universal service obligations, and the participatory governance entrusted to multiple actors such as governments, supranational institutions, non-governmental organisations, large and small businesses, the technological community and internet users and consumers at large

    Obviously that's not an instruction.

  8. Re:Laughable by lordholm · · Score: 2

    No, the vote signals the stance of the EP, this is important as the council is more aware of the current mood in the parliament and they need to take this into account when negotiating new rules in the council and the commission since the rules must go through the EP in a final vote anyhow. It is not just related to the specific question on hand.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  9. As usual, people don't understand the internet. by Mauvaisours · · Score: 2

    I have a naive and maybe stoopid question : If ITU wants to grab the authority that IANA has now, how the hell are they going to enforce it ?

    Root servers are not going to magically change overnight, and people in the US and Europe are certainly not going to switch to whatever the ITU decides, just because the ITU decides.

    It would be nice for the ITU to remember that the Internet works because everybody agrees with it. If people start to disagree, it will only lead to a split in the internet, and I'm pretty sure the ITU fork will not be the winner, given the history of the slug.

  10. Re:I wish by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Funny

    we had Andersdotters here in India. Young politicians here are 40+, most are 60+ who can't understand tech if their lives depended on it. hence the facebook-post-arrests seen recently.

    I don't see anything wrong with arresting someone for using facebook. A few more cases pour encourager les autres and with any luck we could get the whole fucking thing shut down.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. Re:I wish by chthon · · Score: 2

    Hm, this reminds me a little bit about non-cooperation, non-violence and peaceful resistance. These people seem too old to understand tech, and too young to understand how Ghandi obtained Indian independence.

  12. Re:Women in control? by Sesostris+III · · Score: 2

    It was probably more of a (positive) comment on the number of women who seem to be involved in the issue / in the EU Parliament.

    Found an interesting document from my parliament (warning - PDF): http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01250.pdf. From this it seems that 35% of the EU Parliament are women. (The corresponding percentage for the UK is 22%. No idea what it is for the US after the recent elections, but according to the document in 2010 it was 17%).

    Still could be better, of course. Only two parliament has either more women than men or the same number - Rwanda and Andorra! Given the figures globally I can't think that a positive observation on the role women are playing in any parliament can be considered misogynistic.

    Alternatively, was the work you were looking for misandristic?

    --
    You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
  13. Re:I wish by Grumbleduke · · Score: 2

    I wish we had a few hundred more Ameila Andersdotters in the the European Parliament and in legislatures and governments across the world. While most politicians I have met want to do the right thing, she's one of the very few (if only one) who seems to know enough, be sharp enough and care enough to do it.

    On the other hand, she does make the rest of us look bad...

  14. Re:Yeah right by lordholm · · Score: 4, Informative

    To be frank, after having travelled with railways in many places. I must say that the Dutch railways are probably the best working ones on the entire continent (except for when it is snowing).

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  15. Re:Yeah right by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it was this whore

    Starting with a stupid sexist accusation like that makes me and many other people ignore the rest of your comment. Perhaps you have a valid point about her behaviour in office, but if you're unable to make it without a completely unjustified sexual slur, then you don't deserve to be heard.

    Grow the fuck up.

  16. Re:Yeah right by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Dutch railroads are among the best in the world, with huge double-decker passenger trains between major cities with the frequency that some large cities don't even get on their metro lines. The cost of a ticket on Dutch trains is significantly lower than on the French or UK trains, and they are easier to get (from the machines), without the need of a stupid reservation. Even if a train is delayed, this delay is mostly measured in mere minutes. Only real accidents or failures will result on longer delays. And snow. Snow f***s everything up, because the Dutch don't invest enough to avoid that. But this is a sensible choice, not a failure. It just happens that it snowed in the last 2 years.

    I never understand why the Dutch complain so much about their train system. I guess this is just because they never take the trains abroad.

    The VVD may be wrong on many things, but they haven't messed up the trains.