The Internet Battle Initiated: The UN ITC Dubai WCIT Conference Begins - Coverage here

Today's update:

WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked

A deadlock in negotiations over the scope of international telecom rules risks triggering a vote, forcing the hand of Western nations trying to preserve the freedom of the Internet, the head of the U.S. delegation at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai said in an interview.

Ambassador Terry Kramer says proposals to bring Internet companies under the remit of the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, could be "disastrous" for U.S. companies and put the Internet at risk of censorship and control.

The debate has split delegates into two camps and if consensus can't be reached, a vote will be taken.

Mr. Kramer said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse to sign the treaty if ITU member governments try to seize Internet control.

Source

I have to admit, I am still somewhat dumbfounded by the US position here. In my humble opinion, they are not seeking to protect Internet freedom, but rather their exploitation of it - or possibly some level of control over it that I am currently not connecting the dots to.

The UN Resolution would change the way ICAAN operates - and ICAAN is located in the US. So that could be a factor. Then again, I can think of at least three or four more scenarios that would fit here.

Hopefully, as this plays out, one of the countries on the other side of the argument will spill the beans and call the US out. In turn, the US will air the other sides dirty laundry as well. If that happens? We all get a bit more information to work with - a better understanding - and a win for the people.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

Today's update:

WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked

A deadlock in negotiations over the scope of international telecom rules risks triggering a vote, forcing the hand of Western nations trying to preserve the freedom of the Internet, the head of the U.S. delegation at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai said in an interview.

Ambassador Terry Kramer says proposals to bring Internet companies under the remit of the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, could be "disastrous" for U.S. companies and put the Internet at risk of censorship and control.

The debate has split delegates into two camps and if consensus can't be reached, a vote will be taken.

Mr. Kramer said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse to sign the treaty if ITU member governments try to seize Internet control.

Source

I have to admit, I am still somewhat dumbfounded by the US position here. In my humble opinion, they are not seeking to protect Internet freedom, but rather their exploitation of it - or possibly some level of control over it that I am currently not connecting the dots to.

The UN Resolution would change the way ICAAN operates - and ICAAN is located in the US. So that could be a factor. Then again, I can think of at least three or four more scenarios that would fit here.

Hopefully, as this plays out, one of the countries on the other side of the argument will spill the beans and call the US out. In turn, the US will air the other sides dirty laundry as well. If that happens? We all get a bit more information to work with - a better understanding - and a win for the people.

~Heff

Heff, the US does not want UN control. UN control is control by the General Assembly. The recent UN assembly vote on Israel clearly shows the US cannot control it. The UN may make it illegal for all countries to keep long term world wide records on every email etc.

What the US wants is to control it via corporations or direct control by itself. There are many countries that do not mind spying on their own people but have a collective fit at the US and other Governments having access to everything planet wide. It takes $$$$$ to be ablle to do this, many simply cannot afford it.

The US could lose the Golden intel Goose.

P

Updating

From the Internet Society.

The Internet Society released the following statement. From President and CEO Lynn St. Amour:

“The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is an important event that the Internet Society hopes will contribute to greater connectivity and growth in international telecommunications for the public. Over the last week and throughout the weekend, ITU Member States were engaged in hard and difficult negotiations to move the work of the conference forward positively.

As the conference moves back into plenary session today, we are seeing the first results of delegates' efforts in the form of proposals to modify existing treaty text and insert new text into the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). In reviewing these texts, and noting that bracketed text remains unresolved, it is increasingly clear that the fundamental question facing delegates is whether the scope of the treaty applies to traditional telecommunications or whether it will be extended to include the Internet (explicitly or implicitly).

As we have previously stated, applying the existing ITRs to the Internet would have serious unintended consequences for the current operation and future innovation and growth of the Internet. Many or most of the phrases currently in brackets (and therefore unresolved) would have a significant negative impact on the functioning and evolving future of the Internet.

It is now more important than ever that the scope of the treaty NOT apply to the Internet.

The Internet Society has openly expressed our significant reservations about some of the proposals at WCIT, and this does not shake our foundational belief that an open dialogue between a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world is the best way to ensure the continuation of the Internet’s growth and evolution. We wish for a successful conclusion to this conference in updating the international treaty governing public telecommunications.

The Internet Society applauds those Member States that are seeking to preserve the open global, interoperable Internet, and wish them all success in their efforts to ensure that the ITRs are not interpreted to apply to the Internet.”

And from ITWire.com

WCIT12 is a gathering of representatives of the ITU's 193 member governments being held to redraft the 25 year old International Telecommunications Regulations. Most of its sessions are being held behind closed doors.

In July, in what it said was a move to "enable multi-stakeholder consultation in the run up to WCIT," the ITU created a page on its web site "where all stakeholders can express their opinions on the content of the latest version of TD64 [the main input document to WCIT-12], or any other matter related to WCIT."

Now, some of the organisations responsible are less than happy with the end result. They claim that more should have been to present their view to WCIT delegates.

The US based Center for Democracy and Technology - a non-profit public policy organisation and Internet freedom organisation - has sent an open letter to ITU secretary general Hamadoun Touré and WCIT-12 chairman Mohamed Al-Ghanim complaining about "the lack of any official standing to the public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU's invitation; the lack of access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the working groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to encourage independent civil society participation."

The letter - co-signed by almost 20 other organisations - states: "Unfortunately, the ITU has provided no mechanism for inclusion of the public comments in the WCIT working papers. They are not made accessible through the document management system (TIES) in the same manner as proposals submitted by members, nor are any of the comments reflected in the numerous working drafts reviewed by WCIT delegates.

When men, with vested and conflicting interests, sequester themselves to discuss "freedom" - and then choose to do so in secrecy? They are either revolutionaries or tyrants.

I don't feel the ITU has a revolutionary agenda...

mod edit - post removed

15e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:

i) You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.

My apologies....it just seems a pity that everyone apart from US citizens (it would appear) is involved.

Updating:

Internet regulation in limbo as nations clash in Dubai

The UN summit responsible for reviewing the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) for the first time since 1988 is reaching its climax in Dubai. It doesn’t sound like the most interesting event on paper, but the communications sphere has seen some pretty major changes in the past 24 years which has turned this year’s World Congress on International Telecommunications (WCIT) on its head. For the first time ever, the world is discussing how we regulate the Internet.

Indeed, the search giant itself has launched a ‘Take Action’ page warning about the dangers of Internet regulation and the damage the ITU (International Telecommunications Union; the UN agency leading the event) could cause, urging us to sign a petition “in support of the free and open Internet.” Concern over the UN and nation states asserting power over the net has been echoed by the web’s creator, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who fears major changes to regulation “would be a disruptive threat to the stability of the system”. In short, the overriding sentiment from the US and much of Europe entering the talks in Dubai has been ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’

But it was never going to be that simple. Russia and China predictably emerged as adversaries, and a leaked document during the summit’s early stages showed that the two Eastern powerhouses, with support from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Algeria, Sudan and Egypt, wanted to redefine the Internet as a system of state-supervised networks enabling increased government intervention. Those fighting the battle against censorship online would have been alarmed, if ultimately unsurprised.

Source

And:

Elsewhere, attendees at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT 12) in Dubai, played witness to some "shenanigans" last night, as the UN received a majority ruling stipulating that it should take an active part in the web regulations process. However certain nations were not aware that they were taking part in a binding vote, which was held at 01:30 in the morning, with one delegation complaining that they had been deceived outright.

This provides the latest twist in a turbulent week in Dubai. A group of nations led by China and Russia initially issued proposals for a segmented system of networks which grant governments greater control over the net, only for it to be dropped days later, seemingly putting the US and its allies on course for a favourable outcome at the conference. But the pendulum now seems to have swung away again as the event nears its conclusion. Analysing the key areas of contention and revealing first-hand insight from an attendee, is this analysis, so follow the link to get to grips with what's been happening at WCIT.

Source

Members being unaware that they were participating in a binding vote at 1:30 in the morning? Folks these techniques are not new. In fact they are the same exact techniques that caused the American Revolution. From the American Declaration of Independance.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

Is it time that we demand our own Government, and those who also cherish liberty, provide us with a Cyber Declaration? An Digital Bill of Rights?

I think it is.

~Heff