The article quotes the following:
Member states should endeavour
to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk
electronic communications and minimise its impact on international
telecommunication services.
"Bulk" is a non-meaningful term for
this purpose. If someone sends unsolicieted emails to a full mailing list they
have of 10 people, this is considered bulk processing and therefore falls within
the definition of bulk.
Spam - or unsolicited electronic communications -
come from many sources.
As a consumer, I view the unsolicited business
offers I receive from my telecommunications provider as Spam! These come in the
form of both emails and text messages.
As a result, my request:
For
those Countries who have signed the treaty: Please immediately enact legislation
that prevents Telecommunications companies from:
- Sending
unsolicited communications!
- Working around the Law via such
means as terms in their contractual agreements, terms of service, etc. that
allows unsolicited communications being sent from the telecommunications
provider to their customer!
Thank You!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
Unfortunately the article didn't give a link for the
Statement from
Dr Hamadoun I. Touré . While it is the usual plate of mealy-mouthed
platitudes, Dr Touré was compelled to use
the word NOT in bold caps,
twice. It'll take me a while to go through the Final
Acts (pdf 30pp), IOW the Resolutions of the Plenary
Session.
One might be
excused for thinking the non-signers didn't want to be involved with useful work
like
considering
that it is important for travellers to
be aware of a single well-known number to access local emergency
services,
...
invites Member States
to introduce, in addition
to their existing national emergency numbers, a globally harmonized national
number for access to
emergency services, taking into consideration the relevant
ITU-T Recommendations. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| I used to have a relative who worked in the UN, so I am
fully aware of what
exactly the UN is and how it functions.
Others should be made aware
too.
Basically, jobs in the UN are given out on the basis on who
you know
in the UN, and they are given out on the basis that
you will support the votes
and causes of their sponsors -
hence the nepotism and corruption. There is a
huge amount of
effort and money put into the UN by countries which are run
by
dictators, war criminals and human rights violators to
corrupt the UN in this
way to their benefit, by seeking to
place stool pigeons and those will trade
votes, and agree to
block vote in a way that favours them, and the UN is wide
open to such corruption. Think OOXML committee and multiply
that a
hundredfold.
The UN is an undemocratic organisation which is accountable
to nobody. For an example of how the UN operates, just look
at the UN human
rights council - it is packed full of the
world's worst human rights violators
who repeatedly block
the UN's own rules and mandates with the council. Why is
this? Because the countries abusing human rights have the
most reason to get
their stool pigeons and block voters into
the council - countries that observe
the UN's rules and
mandates on human rights don't make a particular effort to
get their people into the Human Rights Council, and are not
prepared to engage
in corrupt practices to do so, and once
the members are in the council, they
can do whatever they
want - there is no way of holding them accountable or
challenging them on decisions or votes, no matter how
perverse or obviously
unreasonable or in breach of UN
mandates they are. They simply cannot be
challenged.
The voting in the UN is also completely undemocratic. In the
council chamber, Sri Lanka and Bukino Faso have one vote
each, and the US and
India also have one vote each, and the
worlds population has no vote - only
representatives
appointed by the member states. This means that not only is
it
demographically undemocratic, but the poorer countries
trade block votes with
dictatorships in return for favours.
The UN security council is also
undemocratic with the five
winners of the last world war being granted veto
powers
simply on the basis that they won a war that took place
about 70 years
ago. This may have been a reasonable measure
for keeping the peace in the
immediate post WWII scenario,
but how long this can be maintained in future is
questionable.
This is of course nothing new - the UN has been doing this
for years, so why is this a problem now? The answer is that
since the "War on
Terror", the US and other Western
governments have agreeing to invest more and
more power in
UN institutions in the hope of getting quid pro quo support
on
the War on Terror, particularly in declaring that the UN
trumps national law
which member states are obliged by
treaty to comply with (
background 1, background 2). This
should be ringing
alarm bells, because by doing this we are putting in place
an unaccountable world dictators club which trumps the
accountability and
protection that is built into our
national law, and the wider the powers
granted to the UN,
the worse things get. On top of that democratic and
corruption free countries are always going to lose out in
the UN because
although we are bound by our national anti-
corruption and accountability rules,
the worlds various
dictators and human rights abusers are not, and it is them
that will dominate and control the UN and its voting. The UN
also gives the
wannabe dictators human rights abusers and
receivers of graft in western
countries great opportunities
for acting in the UN ways that are not permitted
in their
own home countries through their political power to appoint
people to
the UN and direct them how to vote. They can be
held accountable for what they
do in their own countries
through their national government, but they can't be
held
accountable for what they do to their own countries via the
UN and its
ability to trump national law. This is a huge new
opportunity for corrupt
politicians. For example a US
politician can receive payment to a Swiss account
from a
foreign company or foreign government to use their position
in the US
administration to instruct their representative to
cast a vote in the UN to
pass a resolution which would fail
in the US Congress/Senate - for example on
copyright - and
which will trump national government.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
