Re: WTO an even worse possibility as Inet regulator.
Friend, attila@primenet.com did the list a service when he sent his message, "WTO an even worse possibility as Inet regulator." Basing the message "on an article from the (London) Finan- cial Times," he states that a very credible white paper is circulating for the WTO to establish an internet CZAR to regualate the Internet... and he asks: personally, the Feds and the FCC are bad enough --now they want to have a **global** bureaucracy play god -??? That 11 29 95 Financial Times newsstory is headlined: Global regulator urged for information highway Who's doing the urging? The Royal Institute of International Telecommunications Policy put out a report written by a Shell man and a think- tank woman. As regards encryption, the RIITP people ...point out that issues such as...encryption...have global rather than national aspects. Then they contradict themselves: "Encryption, for example, raises tricky and emotive issues connected with...national security and cannot be treated simply as a business problem." Whatever works! They "encrypt" the ultimatums of the New World disorder in any...key. At the very end of the newsstory: Global Superhighways, Chatham House, 10 St James Square, London SW1Y 4LE I'm guessing Global Superhighways is the title of the RIITP report. As for Chatham House... In 1919 [a group of young men who became the dominant influence in British imperial and foreign affairs up to 1939] founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor family (owners of The [London] Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations). --Carroll Quigley [Clinton's mentor]. Tragedy and Hope. A History of the World in Our Time. Macmillan, 1966. P 132. RIITP is probably a front for RIIA. I conjecture, though, that the real publisher of the report has his house in Washington. I agree with jamesd@echeque.com who writes: The main threat to freedom is still internal, rather than external. Looked at from the inside, of course. Cordially, Jim
Oh dear. First off, it's the "Royal Institute of International Affairs" Second, I haven't read or seen the report although I ordered it yesterday. Third....<disclosure>...I am a Foreign Associate of RIIA...</disclosure>. They do nice seminars in a nice part of London near where I once worked. Fourth, RIIA is a think tank, that is part of the UK establishment but not part of the government, much like Brookings, Hoover Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, are in the U.S. It doesn't speak for the UK government, and sometimes criticizes it (usually politely). It doesn't necessarily speak for business, although it certainly speaks *to* it and about it. Fifth, that doesn't mean the report is right. Or necessarily influential. RIIA issues lots of reports, several a month, and most sink without a visible trace. But some don't. So, it could be influential. Especially in the UK. Depends how good/scary it is. I'll report if my copy ever gets here. With the Xmas mails, I figure January at best. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.
participants (2)
-
James M. Cobb -
Michael Froomkin