After reading the original document, I'm not sure I would have signed it either. It really doesn't commit anyone to anything other than agreeing to get together for more dinner and drinks in Paris and Berlin in 2019...and likely sign another meaningless document.
The third paragraph also raises some concerns:
"We also reaffirm that international law, including the United Nations Charter in its entirety, international humanitarian law and customary international law is applicable to the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) by States."
Is this the same United Nations Charter that the majority of the signatories don't abide by anyhow? I believe this has been one of the major criticisms of the UN members - that they are not holding up their ends of the deal and that the burden has fallen primarily on the U.S. to support. The paragraph I've cited above could be translated to mean that the burden of say, "Prevent[ing] and recover[ing] from malicious cyber activities that threaten or cause significant, indiscriminate or systemic harm to individuals and critical infrastructure" would also fall largely on the U.S. to finance.
Another thing I find ironic about this whole "Call for Trust and Security" is that it was sponsored by the same government that said it needed a European Army to defend itself from the U.S.
Finally, and @rslade I've mentioned this before, it is important to know something about the sources of "news" we read and share. The article that this thread is based on originated on Shareblue. This particular media brand is strongly biased toward liberal causes and has been suspected of publishing stories that are propagandist and factually misleading. The website is run by David Brock who has been called a "Left Wing Hit Man" known for campaigns against the U.S. president and other conservatives.
