Waudo, I think they are incorrect, I was there for the PrepComs and the negotiations on creating the document, as were several of us on this list. In any case, it is not an international treaty, ratified by parliaments, so has no force of international law, despite having a few signatures by the few Heads of State who were present. It is a consensus document, which can be interpreted to mean very different things depending on ones perspective. In this case for example, (and now YouTube banned in Pakistan according to the Beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm) You and others see the sovereignty clause as paramount, when others such as myself, see clauses such as 42 and others as being contradictory to your views: "42. We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge." In other words, the TA can be used to justify just about anything, so it's not a useful doc to point to IMHO. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:07 PM, waudo siganga <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi McTim - a colleague tells me that the TA ia a BINDING document that was SIGNED by Heads of State.
Kind Regards, Waudo Siganga
On Thu, 20 May 2010 14:39 +0300, "McTim" <[email protected]> wrote:
Waudo,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, waudo siganga <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Judy - The Facebook is blocked only in Pakistan.
easily subverted by the use of proxies.
Ultimately elected
Governments are responsible for application of national laws as well as the welfare and security of the people they Govern. Even the Tunis agenda stated clearly that public policy regarding the Internet is the responsibility of souvreign states.
Good thing the TA is non-binding then ;-)
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel