New York Times Analysis of the WCIT Treaty
I may be exiled from the blog for saying this, but the New York Times has an excellent analysis of the recently concluded WCIT treaty meeting in Dubai in today's paper. It begins:
At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about?
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
I may be exiled from the blog for saying this, but the New York Times has an excellent analysis of the recently concluded WCIT treaty meeting in Dubai in today's paper. It begins:
At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network.I think it is fair to say that the authors agree with Jack that this may have little practical effect, but seem to share my view that the event was fraught with symbolic significance. Only time will tell.
Paul Rosenzweig is the founder of Red Branch Consulting PLLC, a homeland security consulting company and a Senior Advisor to The Chertoff Group. Mr. Rosenzweig formerly served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security. He is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University, a Senior Fellow in the Tech, Law & Security program at American University, and a Board Member of the Journal of National Security Law and Policy.
-(1).jpg?sfvrsn=e107e99c_5)
