Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Council of Europe, European Union, Global Internet Treaty, Net Neutrality, united states » Net Neutrality via Global Internet Treaty?

Net Neutrality via Global Internet Treaty?

Last week an Internet Governance Forum was held in Lithuania.  During this forum the Council of Europe presented a proposal that outlined 12 principles of internet governance, including a commitment from countries to sustain the technological foundations that underpin the web’s infrastructure. These 12 principles are the foundation of a broader Global Internet Treaty the Council of Europe wants to implement.

The Council of Europe is comprised of 47 member states and works with the European Union on culture and education as well as on the international enforcement of justice and Human Rights.

The Council proposed cross-border co-operation between countries to identify and address security vulnerability and protect the network from possible cyber attacks or cyber terrorism. It would also uphold rights to freedom of expression and association, and the principle of net neutrality, in which all internet traffic is treated equally across the network.

The Council further went on to say, “The fundamental functions and the core principles of the internet must be preserved in all layers of the internet architecture with a view to guaranteeing the interoperability of networks in terms of infrastructures, services and contents.  The end-to-end principle should be protected globally.”

Now I understand that there is more to this proposal than Net Neutrality.  There are a number of principles that at least on the surface look good.  They use language that many people can agree on.  But this treaty kind of reminds of the Defense appropriation bill that our Congress is trying to push through now.  The bill has much needed defense funding in it; however when Harry Reid inserted the DREAM Act it became a poison pill.  To a certain extent the same can be said with this proposal.  There are a number of ideas that sound solid; however insert Net Neutrality and in my opinion it too becomes a poison pill.

So what does this mean for the United States?  Well as many of you know the FCC has been pushing hard for Net Neutrality and the power to regulate the internet.  They have been turned away twice; first by the courts and then by congress.  The United States is not a member state of the Council but it does hold the status of “Observer” nation.  This status allows us to participate in the Committee of Ministers and all intergovernmental committees.  So as you can see we can sit in and help guide policy.  I see this as another possible opportunity to force Net Neutrality on us via this Global Internet Treaty if it becomes a reality.  So this is something we will definitely need to keep our eye on.  The progressives will use every angle and avenue to include an international treaty to achieve their goals.

We would be wise to remember this.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!


Filed under: Council of Europe, European Union, Global Internet Treaty, Net Neutrality, united states

opinions powered by
  • Steve Dennis September 21, 2010 at 4:46 AM

    I heard about this internet treaty but hadn't given in much thought. I guess I should have because it certainly seems as if this yet another attempt at passing something on the sly that would never pass via constitutional procedure. The government has been willing to try to circumvent the constitution on a number of occasions–from the EPA regulating greenhouse gasses, to the possible granting of amnesty by homeland security using suspect procedures–so there is no doubt in my mind that this could be another attempt by the Obama regime to implement its radical agenda.
    This story bears watching closely.

  • John Carey September 21, 2010 at 5:20 AM

    Thanks for the comments Steve. With this administration you have to keep your eye on it all from all angles. The ends justify the means with this group.

  • Conservative Scalawag September 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM

    I guess since the Obama Progressive machine can't get it through the front door, he'll use the back door to shut up decent.

  • John Carey September 21, 2010 at 6:00 AM

    I believe the possibility exist to do just that CS! Thanks for the comments.

  • Trestin September 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM

    Another example of fear driving policy. The threat of terrorism or a cyber attack is real, but the danger is overstated. The draconian measures we are taking to attempt to prevent such things, harm us more than the attack.

  • John Carey September 21, 2010 at 6:06 PM

    Welcome back Trestin! Whenever leftist organizations like the Council of Europe creates policies designed for the betterment of humanity you can bet somewhere hidden inside are measures that strip liberties away.

  • LD Jackson September 21, 2010 at 6:57 PM

    Great post, John. This is just one more example of the Fairness Doctrine running amok. These people can't stand it because conservative ideals have such good success on the Internet and on the radio.

  • John Carey September 21, 2010 at 7:32 PM

    Thanks Larry. They cannot compete with the conservative ideology so they must find ways to control the message and Net Neutrality and fairness doctrine are their tools.

  • Gorges Smythe September 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM

    If the huckster is ever convicted of the fraud of which he's guilty, couldn't everything he did be declared null and void?

  • John Carey September 21, 2010 at 8:25 PM

    I'm not sure if they could repeal any of it GS. This crap was passed with a great deal of help from a number of useful idiots in Congress.

  • Matt September 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM

    I wonder what the fine print says?

    At any rate, putting this in the hands of government is abuse waiting to happen.

  • John Carey September 21, 2010 at 9:56 PM

    I totally agree Matt. This is very dangerous stuff if you ask me.