United Nation disconnect: Saving the Internet
In a refreshing change of pace, the Obama administration, which typically offers a sympathetic ear to entangling United Nations' treaties, walked away from an attempt to control and censor the Internet.
The United States and 54 other nations abandoned the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) confab in Dubai after the U.N. agency, egged on by China, Russia and other dictatorships, pushed through an Internet regulatory resolution in the early morning hours, according to The Wall Street Journal. This, after ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Toure promised that any decisions would be made by “consensus.”
That would be consensus by autocracies that fill Turtle Bay and have no love for an unfettered Internet that threatens their despotic control.
And while Team Obama gets points for abandoning the U.N.'s attempted Web wrangle, far more credit goes to Google, Verizon and other Internet companies that kept close tabs on the conference and flagged this putrid play. They pressured U.S. conference ambassador Terry Kramer to defend a free and open Internet, which included an online petition organized by Google that attracted more than 3 million supporters.
And for good reason: The agreement “violates key principles and undercuts the framework that has contributed to (the Internet's) success,” writes The Heritage Foundation.
ITU critics say the U.S. should quit the agency. Far better for the U.S. to simply quit the U.N.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The student-loan balloon
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- The Connellsville WCVI building: Another fine mess
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- China’s bank: Obama’s blunder
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Obama’s amnesty tab: Where credit isn’t due