Turnbull loves “feisty” Twitter debates

16

Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has declared he enjoys the “often quite feisty” debates he regularly participates in with respect to topics such as the National Broadband Network, noting that the medium was a good one for examining the quality of people’s arguments.

The former Liberal Leader remains one of the few Australian politicians to actively respond to questions and queries via the burgeoning social networking platform, with most in the political sphere simply using it to post links to their latest speeches or media releases.

Turnbull’s opposite, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, has yet to join Twitter, although his Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has a presence, which it mainly uses to post links to ministerial and departmental statements and other related news.

In an interview with Mumbrella (above), Turnbull said simply posting links was an acceptable use of the medium, but he also enjoyed Twitter’s more interactive side. “I quite like having debates on Twitter, and getting into often very feisty arguments on Twitter, it’s good,” he said.

Turnbull’s web site is also a fount of debate, with many using its facility to post comments to debate the MP’s ideas on his blog posts and speeches. “The good thing about a lot of these online forums, to use a generic term, is that the quality of people’s arguments becomes obvious,” said Turnbull. “People who post, you know, stupid or absive comments, really are shown up for what they are.”

Turnbull’s enjoyment of the medium was on display in January during a series of debates spurred by news regarding the National Broadband Network and Coalition policy regarding it.

“A prudent deployment of public resources is more likely to ensure you daughter’s prosperity than an National Broadband Network with no cost/benefit analysis,” he told prominent telecommunications commentator Michael Wyres through Twitter on January 11. And later, to Sydney resident Luke Fromhold, “I am a big fan of iTunes University and keen on more online education content, but hard to see how online lectures etc require 100Mbps domestic.”


Recently the Liberal stalwart has used his Twitter account to spruik the poll hosted on his site regarding gay marriage, as well as posting pictures from a community picnic for his electorate of Wentworth in Sydney’s Centennial Park.

One of the small number of other politicians who does have a responsive Twitter presence is also in the Communications portfolio — Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. Ludlam often posts updates live from his laptop during sensitive Senate hearings and responds to questions from followers while in parliament. In recent weeks the politician has posted links to issues associated with the Federal Government’s controversial data retention scheme, as well as responding to ad-hoc follower enquiries.

16 COMMENTS

  1. While it should be no surprise that I disagree with Malcolm’s position on the NBN, he certainly gets plenty of points for bothering to engage with people, whether it be online or otherwise. It’s how all public representatives should engage. Government 2.0 for the win…

    For the record though Malcolm, I still think my daughter will be far better placed with a transformed economy, that doesn’t rely on the sheep’s back and the mining industry like it pretty much always has.

    *cheesy smile*

    I did enjoy the debate that day – as did you!

  2. I do like that Mr Turnbull deos chose to actively engage with us, however I do find, at times, his position to be quite inflexiable due to, in all probablity, his party alliegances.

    Althrough I understand and respect his position, and the fact that he has often been quoted in saying that he can’t really solidfiy his postition until it clear what is happening for the NBN, and until his party come up with an acceptable agreement, which likely will not happen until about a year before the next election, would it not be better, Mr Turnbull, assuming you are listening, to actually engage in a serious dabate about the flaws of your policy as well as the the NBN?

    I remember once you saying that your plan would address those in affected areas like RIMs and Pair-Gain areas quicker than the NBN, and althrough technically true, it would likely, I wanted to continue the debate by pointing out as the policy document was written there was absolutely no priovision to open up the market, which should be a key concern, especially considering one of you main arguements against the NBN is the fact it will create a monoploy.

    How can you, in fact, support a plan that will, in fact, secure the dominate market player position of Telstra and then turn around and say that the NBN creating a monoploy is bad? That is somewhat hypoctrical of you Mr Turnbull.

    And where is the provision in your plan to secure a minimum level of access for consumers? The National Broadband Plan in America, which also follows the “hands off” apporach you conservatives prefer, sets a minimum definition of Broadband to be 4Mbps. You plan does nothing of the sort, we only have a thiny vailed promise of 12Mbps which almost everyone in the industry knows is infessiable to achieve given the funding you have allocated.

    What provisions have you made in your plan for if the Telcos decide not to endorse it, as is a direct possiblity by relying on Private Enterprise to enact your plan?

    And why are you bluring the debate with misinformation like the market is converting to wireless solutions, when in fact there has not been a decline in the number of fixed line subscribers to correspond with the massive growth of mobile broadband solutions? Why do you also say this when in the last year the per subscriber consumption levels of mobile connections has in fact declined quite considerbly?

    Why does your plan specifically endorse $2b in fixed-wireless when you have often cirtised the NBN for “picking winners” when it comes to the technology utilised? I know this particular point is trival compared to the other ones, but the wording of a policy can influence heavily how it is implemented. Would it not be better to say $2b for innovative services to deliever to sparsely populated areas like rural towns, farms, and outter metropolian areas?

    I’m glad you want to debate with people on Twitter, Mr Turnbull, I really am, but I see very little actual debate going on.

    • I agree, this is the prime problem I have with Turnbull at the moment. He is an extremely open-minded individual, and passionate — but right now he is constrained by the need to argue bad policy.

    • His party isn’t squishing Turnbull at all, its just that (as he has rightly said before) that Tunrbull cannot make any significant coalition policy on communications due to the Australian Telecommunications changing every 3 months due to how NBN is rolling out. Expect much more information on Malcom’s part this year (and next)

      People saying that the Liberal party squashing him is a smokescreen. The market will automatically open up when Telstra is split and the CAN becomes a government mandated retail (not wholesale) last mile internet service.

      We already have an open market right now, with private companies installing DSLAMS and using their own backhaul and whatnot. We just need to move it one step further

      “How can you, in fact, support a plan that will, in fact, secure the dominate market player position of Telstra and then turn around and say that the NBN creating a monoploy is bad? That is somewhat hypoctrical of you Mr Turnbull.”
      Uh, he wants to split Telstra, he has always said that he wants to structurally (i.e. the strongest and mose forceful seperation) of Telstra. Not sure what misinformation you are spreading here. He said this like half a year ago

      • His party isn’t squishing Turnbull at all, its just that (as he has rightly said before) that Tunrbull cannot make any significant coalition policy on communications due to the Australian Telecommunications changing every 3 months due to how NBN is rolling out. Expect much more information on Malcom’s part this year (and next)

        I seriously do not buy that at all. I’m sorry, but even in a fluid enviroment with IT, you need to be more open about what you intend. If you are the Shadow Minister for Telecommications and you currently have a policy tabled that isn’t good enough and you don’t agree with, pull it. It should not be sitting on the Liberal website as their policy document. Mr Turnbull hasn’t even done this.

        I’m waiting for more information, patiently, and even if he doesn’t want to make it actualy Liberal Policy, he could still, say, I dunno, on his blog maybe, table some ideas of how he intends to fix the industry, there for everyone to read, and for him to update as things change?

        Having to pull together bits of losely related information to figure out what his opionion on the whole matter is isn’t good enough. And this is what I was trying to stir from Mr Turnbull from this comment, him to actually put his ideas down somewhere.

        People saying that the Liberal party squashing him is a smokescreen. The market will automatically open up when Telstra is split and the CAN becomes a government mandated retail (not wholesale) last mile internet service.

        We already have an open market right now, with private companies installing DSLAMS and using their own backhaul and whatnot. We just need to move it one step further

        I’m sorry, what? Government mandated retail last mile service? What HAVE you been smoking? That would take us back decades in Telecommications if we have a single last mile provider.

        Yes, we need to explain the open market, and this is exactly the kind of policy, plus some mandates and subsides to accerlate things, that I want to see come from Mr Turnbull when he finally has worked out what is going on with the industry.

        But in the mean time he could discuss these options with people, and maybe take submissions on the issues in the industry, etc, etc. If he has time to ask people what they think of same-sex marriage he has time to ask them what they think of Broadband doesn’t he?

        Uh, he wants to split Telstra, he has always said that he wants to structurally (i.e. the strongest and mose forceful seperation) of Telstra. Not sure what misinformation you are spreading here. He said this like half a year ago

        That is not what the currently tabled policy from the Coalition says, and hence the whole core of my arguement. If that isn’t what his policy is, pull it plan and simple.

        • “I seriously do not buy that at all. I’m sorry, but even in a fluid enviroment with IT, you need to be more open about what you intend. If you are the Shadow Minister for Telecommications and you currently have a policy tabled that isn’t good enough and you don’t agree with, pull it. It should not be sitting on the Liberal website as their policy document. Mr Turnbull hasn’t even done this.
          I’m waiting for more information, patiently, and even if he doesn’t want to make it actualy Liberal Policy, he could still, say, I dunno, on his blog maybe, table some ideas of how he intends to fix the industry, there for everyone to read, and for him to update as things change?”

          Im sorry but the NBN is the equivalent of putting the entire telecommunications industry into a bowl and whirring it with a blender. There is no certainty, whatsoever, especially with what is hapenning with Telstra/Optus etc etc. It is a perfectly valid reason

          “I’m sorry, what? Government mandated retail last mile service? What HAVE you been smoking? That would take us back decades in Telecommications if we have a single last mile provider.
          Yes, we need to explain the open market, and this is exactly the kind of policy, plus some mandates and subsides to accerlate things, that I want to see come from Mr Turnbull when he finally has worked out what is going on with the industry.”

          Only the Canco part of Telstra would be mandated as a utility, its the best you can do with what happened with Telstra

          “That is not what the currently tabled policy from the Coalition says, and hence the whole core of my arguement. If that isn’t what his policy is, pull it plan and simple.”
          That is what Malcom has said around 7 times already, so you are simply ignoring what he is stating? You know WHY its not part of their policy. Well because, as I explained earlier, due to the NBN, Telstra might already be split up anyways, so the coalition will not “splitting up Telstra” in their policy if it already hapenned, mmmkay?

          Im sorry but you ignoring what Malcolm Turnbull says regarding these issues and saying they are never policy is misrepresentation at the worst.

          Simply put, the coalition cannot make a Telecommunications POLICY right NOW, because they have no idea what will happen in the short term. The liberals already said they support structural support for Telstra, but they can’t put that into their policy because by the time they get into government, it may have already started (or been underway)

          Malcom Turnbull has been more then open, and I have given you plenty of links in another article where he has stated these things. The reason why its not policy is purely political, because the NBN is a purely political move.

          • I’m sorry but the NBN is the equivalent of putting the entire telecommunications industry into a bowl and whirring it with a blender. There is no certainty, whatsoever, especially with what is hapenning with Telstra/Optus etc etc. It is a perfectly valid reason.

            The entire telecommunications industry has been “in a blender” for the past 5 years from the various policies that have been tabled. If anything, the NBN, where there is finally some progress, i.e. they’re actually building the network trail sites and will start roll out this term, the telecoms industry will be more stable than it has been in a while.

            So I’m sorry but it still isn’t good enough to Mr Turnbull to go around saying all these wonderful things about what he going to do on talk shows, with interviews, etc, and not actually table anything. There is a huge difference between saying you’ll do A, B and C, and actually commiting A, B and C into a policy.

            Only the Canco part of Telstra would be mandated as a utility, its the best you can do with what happened with Telstra.

            And as a ultity there will be no requirement, without government mandate, for them to innovate. The same as NBN Co. So you get exactly the same situation you would with NBN Co, except based upon 50 year old technology. No thank you. That isn’t good enough in this industry. One of my biggest concerns with NBN Co is that it is will have very little need to upgrade if it finds itself behind the curve, but this particular concern was offset somewhat by the fact it would it was building way above the required demand.

            So not only aren’t you paying attention to what I am saying fully, that althrough I hear Mr Turnbull saying great things, and engaging in debates with people on Twitter, etc, etc, he still hasn’t done anything that indicates he’s at all commited to anything he has said during the course of these debates and interviews, but you’ve also got a seriously flawed view of what needs to be done to fix the industry.

            That is what Malcom has said around 7 times already, so you are simply ignoring what he is stating? You know WHY its not part of their policy. Well because, as I explained earlier, due to the NBN, Telstra might already be split up anyways, so the coalition will not “splitting up Telstra” in their policy if it already hapenned, mmmkay?

            You completely misunderstood what I was saying there, if you do not support the policy that was brought to the election by your party, why is it still up on the website?. If the policy is no longer workable, because the industry will have changed considerably since the election, why is it still up on the website?. And most importantly, if you talk to a person on Twitter and say stuff like “my policy will address the digital devide quicker because it will invest directly into the problem areas”, and your policy is not the policy up on the website, why is it still up on the website?.

            This isn’t about what he has or hasn’t said, by leaving that insult of a policy up on the website, the Liberals are effectively still endorsing it. If that isn’t what you intend to do, pull it. Which is exactly what I said in my last post. I didn’t say I didn’t not Mr Turnbull wants to seperate Telstra, I didn’t ignore the fact that it is going to happen anyway with the NBN Co policy looking the way it, the whole point of the orignal post you quoted back to me and called me out for “misrepresenting” Mr Turnbull was simply because, if he doesn’t support that policy, pull it down from the website or at the very least put some kind of disclaimer there.

            Im sorry but you ignoring what Malcolm Turnbull says regarding these issues and saying they are never policy is misrepresentation at the worst.

            I can understand how you would think that, but let me point out that you have done much worse than me regarding ignoring pieces of information. Just recently you expressed concern over the NBN being fibre based due to recent boom in mobile commications, ignoring the data that says that the demand for fixed line connections is not actually falling.

            Simply put, the coalition cannot make a Telecommunications POLICY right NOW, because they have no idea what will happen in the short term. The liberals already said they support structural support for Telstra, but they can’t put that into their policy because by the time they get into government, it may have already started (or been underway)

            And if you had been listening you would have heard I don’t want Mr Turnbull to write a policy, I want him to solidifiy his position. For, in fact, the very reason we are having this conversation in the first place. What is written on the Liberal party website for the policy for Telecommications does not relate back to what the Shadow Minister for Telecommications wants to do. So, is it too much for me to ask what it is Mr Turnbull wants to do in a forum where we can question and otherwise influence his opionion?

            Malcom Turnbull has been more then open, and I have given you plenty of links in another article where he has stated these things. The reason why its not policy is purely political, because the NBN is a purely political move.

            Purely political move… from a politican. Well… I never!

          • “You completely misunderstood what I was saying there, if you do not support the policy that was brought to the election by your party, why is it still up on the website?”

            Because there is nothing wrong or unworkable with their old policy

            Their old policy was a mandated 12/1 mbits up/down, that was already clarified and their current policy is a mandated 12/1. Their old policy was designed to be a mix of technologies, their new policy was is a mix of technologies (which Turnbull later restated would be mainly FTTH/FTTN with a little bit of wireless) and their old policy wanted to build a competitive backhaul around Australia, their now policy is also that. Everything (except for Telstra seperation, which is still unknown) would still apply right now.

            Their policy is set of guidelines, not a Labor “we will do it ourselves and what we are going to do”. Its more akin to America’s NBP (national broadban plan) which details set goals (such as mandated speeds and whatnot) because it expects the private industry to fill in. The NBP never detailed how exactly it was going to be done, thats up to the private industry to do. Malcolm cannot tell the private industry what to do, all he can do is to set up a competitive regional backhaul (thats their policy on their website) and mandate a 12/1 mbit speeds.

            “What is written on the Liberal party website for the policy for Telecommications does not relate back to what the Shadow Minister for Telecommications wants to do. So, is it too much for me to ask what it is Mr Turnbull wants to do in a forum where we can question and otherwise influence his opionion?”
            Only POLICIES are allowed to go on the Liberal POLICY site for telecommunications. As I said this their old policy is basically the same as their new one. Timeframes may change, as well as whats happening with Telstra/NBN, but the coalition has to wait to update this, and Malcolm has already explained this. Political parties ALWAYS leave their old policies on their websites until they UPDATE them (which will happen, most likely at a minimum in 2012, in this case)

            “I can understand how you would think that, but let me point out that you have done much worse than me regarding ignoring pieces of information. Just recently you expressed concern over the NBN being fibre based due to recent boom in mobile commications, ignoring the data that says that the demand for fixed line connections is not actually falling.”
            I did this when?

            The matter of fact is, all these “IT” people suddenly start commenting on political issues because the focus is on telecommunications and expect parties to do something out of the ordinary (i.e. politically stupid) to please them. Policies by opposition parties are only updated (at best) a year before the election. The Labor party updated their FTTN to FTTH just a month before the vote (in fact I think they did it even sooner then that).

            “And as a ultity there will be no requirement, without government mandate, for them to innovate.”
            They will if they have an ROI and are forced to compete against other people that will be providing fiber networks (or other competing forms of technology). Remember I said a government mandated (as in something that the ACCC would watch over), not a government run utility. It will still be privately owned

            “So I’m sorry but it still isn’t good enough to Mr Turnbull to go around saying all these wonderful things about what he going to do on talk shows, with interviews, etc, and not actually table anything. There is a huge difference between saying you’ll do A, B and C, and actually commiting A, B and C into a policy.”
            And you are not politically realistic. What he is doing is perfectly ACCEPTABLE and NORMAL for an opposition party 2 years before an election. He CANNOT table anything, because he needs to see how NBN will work out. He cannot give timeframes on anything, because he needs to see how much or far NBN has built. He cannot give figures on how much the whole thing is expected to cost, because the private industry is designed to fill in. All the liberal party can do is table how much the government will spend in their broadband policy, and they have done that

            “they’re actually building the network trail sites and will start roll out this term, the telecoms industry will be more stable than it has been in a while.”
            This is such a joke its not even funny

            Simply put, you have to ACCEPT and WAIT for the Liberal party to update their policy when they actually have clarity in order to put forward a policy in the first place. I already gave you a link where Malcom explained their policy (in reference to what is on their website), and he said there isn’t any difference [barring separation of Telstra/issues with NBN]. There was an issue with miscommunication from Tony Smith, which Malcom has already resolved

          • Because there is nothing wrong or unworkable with their old policy

            You’re joking right?

            Their old policy was a mandated 12/1 mbits up/down, that was already clarified…
            No it wasn’t actually. I can’t find anything to find that clarification. In fact, in the fine print of that policy it quite clearly states that if your line length is not capable of getting 12/1 you will only be given what your line is cable of.

            …and their current policy is a mandated 12/1.

            But it isn’t policy… wasn’t that what you were just saying? So you don’t know. If they had actually mandated 12/1Mbps, I would support that policy. But they haven’t. Mr Turnbull has been quoted in saying that 12Mbps/1Mbps would be a “reasonable minimum” but that’s about it. You’re getting ahead of yourself.

            Their policy is set of guidelines, not a Labor “we will do it ourselves and what we are going to do”. Its more akin to America’s NBP (national broadban plan) which details set goals (such as mandated speeds and whatnot) because it expects the private industry to fill in. The NBP never detailed how exactly it was going to be done, thats up to the private industry to do. Malcolm cannot tell the private industry what to do, all he can do is to set up a competitive regional backhaul (thats their policy on their website) and mandate a 12/1 mbit speeds.

            Which I actually want, except their orginal policy didn’t include mandate provisions, and was oddly specific in the subsidies it intended for a policy that “wasn’t going to tell private enterprise what to do.”

            I did this when?

            I am terribly sorry, that wasn’t actually you. It was “Someone else” (pun not intended I swear).

            The matter of fact is, all these “IT” people suddenly start commenting on political issues because the focus is on telecommunications and expect parties to do something out of the ordinary (i.e. politically stupid) to please them. Policies by opposition parties are only updated (at best) a year before the election. The Labor party updated their FTTN to FTTH just a month before the vote (in fact I think they did it even sooner then that).

            I’m not asking him to release a policy, I’m asking for him to engage in the debate properly. I always find it curious that politicans are supposed to be representive of the people on particular issues and some of the never actually ask the people what is they want?

            They will if they have an ROI and are forced to compete against other people that will be providing fiber networks (or other competing forms of technology). Remember I said a government mandated (as in something that the ACCC would watch over), not a government run utility. It will still be privately owned

            So basicly Telstra but under the a closer eye of the ACCC? Again, no thanks.

            This is such a joke its not even funny

            You think that when the rollout is underway, when the sites for the next 3 years have been selected, as they are being, that the industry won’t be able to better prepare for the change than when the government was posturing about what it is they intend to do?

          • “But it isn’t policy… wasn’t that what you were just saying? So you don’t know. If they had actually mandated 12/1Mbps, I would support that policy. But they haven’t. Mr Turnbull has been quoted in saying that 12Mbps/1Mbps would be a “reasonable minimum” but that’s about it. You’re getting ahead of yourself.”

            They want to bring everyone up to 12/1 minimum speeds (this has been stated explicitly), that is policy. Malcolm Turnbull has stated that numerous times. Thats what the policy states.

            What ISN’T policy is how they are going to EXACTLY do that, because they CANT say that right now because of the NBN and issues with Telstra

            “Which I actually want, except their orginal policy didn’t include mandate provisions, and was oddly specific in the subsidies it intended for a policy that “wasn’t going to tell private enterprise what to do.””

            Bringing everyone to 12/1 minimum speeds is effectively the same as mandating. Again, you are splitting hairs here

            “So basicly Telstra but under the a closer eye of the ACCC? Again, no thanks.”
            Nonono. Telstra is going to be split, and the retail version of Telstra (if it still retains its monopoly status for last mile) will be watched over by ACCC to make sure it doesn’t abuse monopoly powers. The main point is it wont be VERTICALLY integrated, so they cannot spend profits raised from wholesale and spend them in another area (like Telstra did currently for wireless), and they cannot use their massive market size and other sections of the company to dominate over competitors in an anti-competitive way as they did in the past. Their won’t be any conflict of interest

            Splitting up private vertically integrated monopoly telcos is a standard practise around the world, its what is done in Japan with NTT and its what was done in America

            “You think that when the rollout is underway, when the sites for the next 3 years have been selected, as they are being, that the industry won’t be able to better prepare for the change than when the government was posturing about what it is they intend to do?”

            The NBN is anything but stable, and you are over simplifying it.

          • They want to bring everyone up to 12/1 minimum speeds (this has been stated explicitly), that is policy. Malcolm Turnbull has stated that numerous times. Thats what the policy states.

            No. The policy on the website doesn’t say this at all, in fact it specifly says in the fine print that they only promise to deliever what the technology is capable of, and let’s actually look at what Turnbull said shall we: (here)

            The approach I would take is identify those areas that do not have satisfactory broadband now, which is a combination of blackspots in the cities and rural and regional areas, and ensure that all of those areas have access to the Internet at speeds comparable to the best speeds in the city, eg ADSL 2+. I guess it’s about 12Mbps or something of that order.

            That is not explictly stating he is setting a 12Mbps minimum. To say it explictly he would have had to say, “We aim to give this areas a minimum of 12Mbps.” He’s given himself some wiggle from there.

            Bringing everyone to 12/1 minimum speeds is effectively the same as mandating. Again, you are splitting hairs here

            And you’re not spliting hairs as well?

            Nonono. Telstra is going to be split, and the retail version of Telstra (if it still retains its monopoly status for last mile) will be watched over by ACCC to make sure it doesn’t abuse monopoly powers. The main point is it wont be VERTICALLY integrated, so they cannot spend profits raised from wholesale and spend them in another area (like Telstra did currently for wireless), and they cannot use their massive market size and other sections of the company to dominate over competitors in an anti-competitive way as they did in the past. Their won’t be any conflict of interest

            Except this isn’t possible in the PSTN networks without first kicking out all LLU customers. So it won’t happen. I think you’re getting confused here, or you got this statement, “…CAN becomes a government mandated retail (not wholesale) last mile internet service.”

            Telstra will have to be split into two entities, the retail/mobile entity, and a wholesale entity (CAN Co) which will mantain the copper/fibre spurs from the exchange to the home, i.e. the last mile, and resales this service to retailers (including the other half of it’s split). Is this what you are meaning? Because if it is anything else, I don’t actually understand how you’re going to split it?

            The NBN is anything but stable, and you are over simplifying it.

            And you are trying to over-state the complicated politcal climate we find ourselves in. So I guess we should try and meet in the middle?

  3. “And later, to Sydney resident Luke Fromhold, “I am a big fan of iTunes University and keen on more online education content, but hard to see how online lectures etc require 100Mbps domestic.””

    There it goes again misleading the general public via social networking with his fud. Looking at the speed he quoted here it seems he has not done much research and knows nothing much about the National Broadband Plan let alone the American US$350 billion plan for 100Mbps.

    Australias plan is for 1Gbps Malcolm.

  4. I wonder if he is game to twitter with

    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski
    http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/biography.html

    or

    Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CTRC) Chairman The Honourable Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Q.C.
    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/about/vfinckenstein.htm

    to discuss important key telecommunications issues such as core Internet values and policies, international and universal obligations, Internet Freedom and Openness.

Comments are closed.