UN Trying Once Again To Control Internet

[Kathianne]

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/aw-shucks-why-not-let-the-un-control-the-internet/


Aw Shucks, Why Not Let the UN Control the Internet? (http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/aw-shucks-why-not-let-the-un-control-the-internet/) November 24, 2012 - 9:03 pm - by Claudia Rosett (http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/bio/)

Here it comes again — another United Nations-sponsored grab to control the Internet. Next month, Dec. 3-14, the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is holding a conference (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx) in Dubai, at which UN member states will meet to update the ITU treaty arrangements for international communications. The window will be open for everything from proposals for UN-regulated and administered fees to, as The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/261863-us-ambassador-warns-internet-fee-proposal-gaining-momentum-abroad) reports, language from China and Iran, which, in an effort to share with the world at large their own domestic practices, “could lead to online censorship and government monitoring of Web traffic.”


For those of you who don’t spend hours poring over UN web sites, some quick background on the UN’s ITU. Based in Geneva, its current secretary-general (http://www.itu.int/en/osg/Pages/biography.aspx) is Hamadoun Toure of Mali, whose credentials include a PhD from the University of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics of Moscow; honorary degrees from, among other places, the State University of Belarus and the National University of Moldova; plus membership in the Golden Order of the Honour of the International Telecommunication Academy of Moscow. The ITU’s deputy secretary-general (http://www.itu.int/en/osg/Pages/deputy-sg.aspx), Zhao Houlin, is from China.I’d include here a list of participants expected at the Dubai conference, except, in one those ominous foreshadowings to which the UN’s more troublesome gatherings are prone, the conference web site features its roster of “Announced Participants” as a restricted link (http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WCIT12-ADM-0004/en), accessible only to those the ITU deems worthy. Apparently that does not include the great unwashed Internet-using public.


But hey, with the UN on the job, what could possibly go wrong?

...

[gabosaurus]

Fear not. The U.S. will not allow such. Despite what a conservative web site might want to scare us into thinking.

http://thenextweb.com/us/2012/09/24/worried-un-control-internet-dont-fret-us-government-arrayed/

[Kathianne]

Fear not. The U.S. will not allow such. Despite what a conservative web site might want to scare us into thinking.

http://thenextweb.com/us/2012/09/24/worried-un-control-internet-dont-fret-us-government-arrayed/

Funny, my link and yours were on the same side. Do you read what you post or just go for the 'conservative website' bit?

[cadet]

Know what's truly hilarious? Do you know how many nerds at this school i know that can hack into anything? Do you realize how easy it is to black market things? Especially on the internet.
Hackers, pirates, and in general geeks are always one step ahead of everything. I'm sure someone could easily just create a nice little browser that was almost like the internet.
And the biggest problem would be attempting to get the control, they'd have to get inside every new computer sold. Put their little tweaks in it, and pray that no one was smart enough to undo the hardware that they'd add. (which is dead simple by the way)
Plus, they'd have issues with "Anonymous", (internet hackers, managed to get into the FBI database) who would hack the UN out of it just cause they can.

[revelarts]

Know what's truly hilarious? Do you know how many nerds at this school i know that can hack into anything? Do you realize how easy it is to black market things? Especially on the internet.
Hackers, pirates, and in general geeks are always one step ahead of everything. I'm sure someone could easily just create a nice little browser that was almost like the internet.
And the biggest problem would be attempting to get the control, they'd have to get inside every new computer sold. Put their little tweaks in it, and pray that no one was smart enough to undo the hardware that they'd add. (which is dead simple by the way)
Plus, they'd have issues with "Anonymous", (internet hackers, managed to get into the FBI database) who would hack the UN out of it just cause they can.

White hat Hackers are one of our greatest hopes. Trusting the U.S gov't, the U.N. and Big Corporations leaves us all vulnerable and without a voice or any real checks and balances that can be verified.
There are probably white hats in the U.S. gov't and in some corps but I don't think they don't have the reigns. The U.N., China and Russia can't be trusted that's for sure.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

White hat Hackers are one of our greatest hopes. Trusting the U.S gov't, the U.N. and Big Corporations leaves us all vulnerable and without a voice or any real checks and balances that can be verified.
There are probably white hats in the U.S. gov't and in some corps but I don't think they don't have the reigns. The U.N., China and Russia can't be trusted that's for sure.

Obama and Hillary are all about trusting the UN and China. We should be asking why but the "messiah" is above being questioned or held in check by any branch of government or WE THE PEOPLE. A RECIPE FOR DISASTER BUT THE SOLDOUT CITIZENS VOTED FOR THE FREEBIES AND WILL EVENTUALLY GET THE SHAFT.
Biggest problem with that is so will we get it as well.-Tyr

[aboutime]

Know what's truly hilarious? Do you know how many nerds at this school i know that can hack into anything? Do you realize how easy it is to black market things? Especially on the internet.
Hackers, pirates, and in general geeks are always one step ahead of everything. I'm sure someone could easily just create a nice little browser that was almost like the internet.
And the biggest problem would be attempting to get the control, they'd have to get inside every new computer sold. Put their little tweaks in it, and pray that no one was smart enough to undo the hardware that they'd add. (which is dead simple by the way)
Plus, they'd have issues with "Anonymous", (internet hackers, managed to get into the FBI database) who would hack the UN out of it just cause they can.


CADET. Though you may think it is hilarious now. Be careful with sharing the information you are now making public. Just a word of advice, if you don't mind.

As one of those 'nerds' from the Eighties myself, who took part in many military communications/satellite/comm suite set-up's, and introductions to computer usage back then.
You should remind yourself of an old WWII saying "Loose Lips Sink Ships".
You may be tempted to brag about the knowledge you are getting. But I will refer you to a name you can Google to help warn you of those loose lips, kinds of temptations.
Look up John Walker.
The rest is up to you.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Funny, my link and yours were on the same side. Do you read what you post or just go for the 'conservative website' bit?

that was a rhetorical question... right?

[cadet]

CADET. Though you may think it is hilarious now. Be careful with sharing the information you are now making public. Just a word of advice, if you don't mind....

It's common knowledge... It's not really private info if you can Google it.

[aboutime]

It's common knowledge... It's not really private info if you can Google it.

cadet. I know, and understand that. But, and there's always that 'but'. Sometimes it's just a wiser thing to do to keep such facts to yourself. If you will be dealing with classified documents, or communications of any sort in the military. Either as an officer, or enlisted. That warning about "Loose Lips" must always remain foremost in your mind.

It doesn't matter if it IS common knowledge. Why help someone put the puzzle together?

[avatar4321]

Excuse my language, but who the hell do they think they are trying to control us? I didn't vote for anyone in the UN.

[logroller]

Excuse my language, but who the hell do they think they are trying to control us? I didn't vote for anyone in the UN.

I didn't see that they were trying to control US. More akin to influence than anything else. It's a money thing I'd betcha-- find a way to tax the Internet. Of course a few, China/Iran, want to control the Internet as they do in their respective countries. But the UN hasn't the power to censor the Internet anymore than it has the power to prevent censorship-- each country must oblige willingly. Its pretty much a meeting for circle-jerks and backstabs....er, I mean, finding a multilateral diplomatic agreement. That's what they'd call it.

[Kathianne]

I didn't see that they were trying to control US. More akin to influence than anything else. It's a money thing I'd betcha-- find a way to tax the Internet. Of course a few, China/Iran, want to control the Internet as they do in their respective countries. But the UN hasn't the power to censor the Internet anymore than it has the power to prevent censorship-- each country must oblige willingly. Its pretty much a meeting for circle-jerks and backstabs....er, I mean, finding a multilateral diplomatic agreement. That's what they'd call it.

http://news.yahoo.com/bitter-struggle-over-internet-regulation-dominate-global-summit-040702595--sector.html


...

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - An unprecedented debate over how the global Internet is governed is set to dominate a meeting of officials in Dubai next week, with many countries pushing to give a United Nations body broad regulatory powers even as the United States and others contend such a move could mean the end of the open Internet.


The 12-day conference of the International Telecommunications Union, a 157-year-old organization that's now an arm of the United Nations, largely pits revenue-seeking developing countries and authoritarian regimes that want more control over Internet content against U.S. policymakers and private Net companies that prefer the status quo.


Many of the proposals have drawn fury from free-speech and human-rights advocates and have prompted resolutions from the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament, calling for the current decentralized system of governance to remain in place.


While specifics of some of the most contentious proposals remain secret, leaked drafts show that Russia is seeking rules giving individual countries broad permission to shape the content and structure of the Internet within their borders, while a group of Arab countries is advocating universal identification of Internet users. Some developing countries and telecom providers, meanwhile, want to make content providers pay for Internet transmission.


...


If a majority of the ITU countries approve U.N. dominion over the Internet along with onerous rules, a backlash could lead to battles in Western countries over whether to ratify the treaty, with tech companies rallying ordinary Internet users against it and some telecom carriers supporting it.
...


Google's Vint Cerf, the ordinarily diplomatic co-author of the basic protocol for Internet data, denounced the proposed new rules as hopeless efforts by some governments and state-controlled telecom authorities to assert their power.


"These persistent attempts are just evidence that this breed of dinosaurs, with their pea-sized brains, hasn't figured out that they are dead yet, because the signal hasn't traveled up their long necks," Cerf told Reuters.


The ITU's top official, Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré, sought to downplay the concerns in a separate interview, stressing to Reuters that even though updates to the treaty could be approved by a simple majority, in practice nothing will be adopted without near-unanimity.


"Voting means winners and losers. We can't afford that in the ITU," said Touré, a former satellite engineer from Mali who was educated in Russia.


Touré predicted that only "light-touch" regulation on cyber-security will emerge by "consensus," using a deliberately vague term that implies something between a majority and unanimity.


He rejected criticism that the ITU's historic role in coordinating phone carriers leaves it unfit to corral the unruly Internet, comparing the Web to a transportation system.

...


Despite the reassuring words, a fresh leak over the weekend showed that the ITU's top managers viewed a badly split conference as a realistic prospect less than three months ago.


The leaked program for a "senior management retreat" for the ITU in early September included a summary discussion of the most probable outcomes from Dubai, concluding that the two likeliest scenarios involved major reworkings of the treaty that the United States would then refuse to sign. The only difference between the scenarios lay in how many other developed countries sided with the Americans.


ITU officials didn't dispute the authenticity of the document, which was published by Jerry Brito, a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University as part of a continuing series of ITU-related leaks.


Touré said that because the disagreements are so vast, the conference probably will end up with something resembling the ITU's earlier formula for trying to protect children online — an agreement to cooperate more and share laws and best practices, perhaps with hotlines to head off misunderstandings.


"From Dubai, what I personally expect is to see some kind of principles saying cyberspace is a global phenomenon and it can only have global responses," Touré said. "I just intend to put down some key principles there that will lay the seeds for something in the future."

Even vague terms could be used as a pretext for more oppressive policies in various countries, though, and activists and industry leaders fear those countries might also band together by region to offer very different Internet experiences.


In some ways, the U.N. involvement reflects a reversal that has already begun.


The United States has steadily diminished its official role in Internet governance, and many nations have stepped up their filtering and surveillance. More than 40 countries now filter the Net that their citizens see, said Ronald Deibert, a University of Toronto political science professor and authority on international conflicts in cyberspace.


Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said this month that the Net is already on the road to Balkanization, with people in different countries getting very different experiences from the services provided by Google, Skype and others.


This month, a new law in Russia took effect that allows the federal government to order a Website offline without a court hearing. Iran recently rolled out a version of the Internet that replaced the real thing within its borders. A growing number of countries, including China and India, order sites to censor themselves for political, religious and other content.


China, which has the world's largest number of Internet users, also blocks access to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter among other sites within its borders.


The loose governance of the Net currently depends on the non-profit ICANN, which oversees the Web's address system, along with voluntary standard-setting bodies and a patchwork of national laws and regional agreements. Many countries see it as a U.S.-dominated system.


The U.S. isolation within the ITU is exacerbated by it being home to many of the biggest technology companies - and by the fact that it could have military reasons for wanting to preserve online anonymity. The Internet emerged as a critical military domain with the 2010 discovery of Stuxnet, a computer worm developed at least in part by the United States that attacked Iran's nuclear program.


Whatever the outcome in Dubai, the conference stands a good chance of becoming a historic turning point for the Internet.


"I see this as a constitutional moment for global cyberspace, where we can stand back and say, `Who should be in charge?' said Deibert. "What are the rules of the road?"

[logroller]

That supported everything I said, add Russia. Since when does Russia need UN approval to censor?
Follow the money. The only reason countries would seek international regulations on the net is for the benefit of a) multinational conglomerates and/or b) state owned interest in telecom systems.
I read about this before and debated something here on it; what worried me most was some previous treaty that could be manipulated to circumvent senate approval of any treaties on this subject.
Does anybody know what is required to revoke a treaty?

[revelarts]

That supported everything I said,
no it doesn't log.

Why do you do seem to do that EVERY time there's some horrible international/transnational agreement/meeting mentioned?
1st you say it's good or really, not so bad, can't/doesn't/won't effect us.
then when people show that it is terrible and can affect us.
You claim what you said is still somehow true.

it's creepy Log.
Are you for international rules and standards in general?



...add Russia. Since when does Russia need UN approval to censor?
Follow the money. The only reason countries would seek international regulations on the net is for the benefit of a) multinational conglomerates and/or b) state owned interest in telecom systems.
I read about this before and debated something here on it; what worried me most was some previous treaty that could be manipulated to circumvent senate approval of any treaties on this subject.
Does anybody know what is required to revoke a treaty?

OK Now your talking. Treaties become law. Laws are reapealed or amended by NEW laws.
"...Section xyz of law/treaty ABDC is hereby amended as follows..."
I'd agree that Multinationals would want control but also every thugocracy, bureaucracy and tin pot dictator wants to be able to control who says what and know who does it, when and where on the internet. As well as tax. the Internet is one of the largest threats to all big gov'ts that's every been created. And the 1st mass communication device that hasn't fallen into the the hands of the rich and under strict control of the gov'ts.

Radio and TV are restricted by $$ and gov't law even though "the people" own the airways.
But the internet is still in wild west phase and a lot of folk don't like it.

[logroller]

no it doesn't log.

Why do you do seem to do that EVERY time there's some horrible international/transnational agreement/meeting mentioned?
1st you say it's good or really, not so bad, can't/doesn't/won't effect us.
then when people show that it is terrible and can affect us.
You claim what you said is still somehow true.

it's creepy Log.
Are you for international rules and standards in general?


In general, I'm for freedom. The specific means of maximizing freedom requires a balance among individual rights. to effect this, we have rules, laws, standards, what have you. That applies to individuals within sovereign states and between such sovereigns, but those standards or rules only hold as much water as the faithful administration by each state.
Take the issue at hand, the " open internet". It's open because the people who own and operate it benefit from it being so. No other reason. Take tha benefit away, and watch what happens. We benefit from the open Internet. Obviously, Russia and such don't feel it benefits them, so they wish to restrict it.
That is their right. Just as I can put a restriction on what sources can be shown on my computer: he with the keys makes the rules. That others make different rules may be of concern to what i feel is my best interests. They aren't within my realm of control, I can't force them to implement such measures, but i can attempt to influence them. Nothing's to stop me from talking to parents of my children's friends about the restrictions i have in place, and that they might also benefit from such rules. Is that me being responsive to my concerns-- or is that creepy?

Now my kids don't have the same rights as you or I do. So it's a little different, but it illustrates a point: a sovereign's actions are voluntary. When I go to Starbucks I'm free to carry a legally concealed weapon; that the bank next door may have a problem with that, they are free to approach Starbucks and ask that they change that policy. Starbucks would tell then to kick rocks probably, as the US delegates will in Dubai, but its not some evidence grand conspiracy to oppress Starbucks clientele-- its People looking out for their best interests. No different than countries getting together in Dubai to discuss what they'd like to see implemented.



OK Now your talking. Treaties become law. Laws are reapealed or amended by NEW laws.
"...Section xyz of law/treaty ABDC is hereby amended as follows..."
I'd agree that Multinationals would want control but also every thugocracy, bureaucracy and tin pot dictator wants to be able to control who says what and know who does it, when and where on the internet. As well as tax. the Internet is one of the largest threats to all big gov'ts that's every been created. And the 1st mass communication device that hasn't fallen into the the hands of the rich and under strict control of the gov'ts.

Radio and TV are restricted by $$ and gov't law even though "the people" own the airways.
But the internet is still in wild west phase and a lot of folk don't like it.
still free to write and make as many copies as you desire, hand it out door to door, send it in the mail, whatever-- with the caveat that there are restrictons on content; things like copyrighted material are restricted by law. Oh wait, the open Internet has those restrictions too...at least in the United States and with those countries in which we have treaties. I'd bet its easier for government cronies and thugs and tin-pot dictators to locate a person who violates those laws on the internet through an ip address than someone who just drops it in a mailbox or on a doorstep; but I digress. Are those copyright laws, rules, regs and treaties in place to restrict our freedom to information or to protect the interests of the copyright holder?
The demise of Sopa/pipa would indicate the former.

With the understanding that we are a sum of our parts, there exists a synergy that makes the sum greater in effect than any and all agents acting in their own interests.I believe there's a balance that is found by each country, state, locality and home working together. Each is an agent which plays a part in implementing the rules by which their best interests are fulfilled. That the UN is, on its face, a conglomeration of nations that has lended credibility to actions which you find abhorrent concerns you-- I understand that as I share many of your concerns. But the UN holds no power over any of those agencies. Iraq didn't comply with the UN resolution. Nor did the US need UN authorizaton to invade Iraq. We requested it to lend credibility to our action, but it wasn't required. (Ironically, i think the US lost credibility as a result) The membership countries take it upon themselves to implement each resolution. No country is bound by those resolutions anymore than I am bound to the follow the resolutions you make. Nothing wrong with you trying to talk me into it though. But I might just talk you out of it.;)

[revelarts]

In general, I'm for freedom. The specific means of maximizing freedom requires a balance among individual rights. to effect this, we have rules, laws, standards, what have you. That applies to individuals within sovereign states and between such sovereigns, but those standards or rules only hold as much water as the faithful administration by each state.
Take the issue at hand, the " open internet". It's open because the people who own and operate it benefit from it being so. No other reason. Take tha benefit away, and watch what happens. We benefit from the open Internet. Obviously, Russia and such don't feel it benefits them, so they wish to restrict it.
That is their right. Just as I can put a restriction on what sources can be shown on my computer: he with the keys makes the rules. That others make different rules may be of concern to what i feel is my best interests. They aren't within my realm of control, I can't force them to implement such measures, but i can attempt to influence them. Nothing's to stop me from talking to parents of my children's friends about the restrictions i have in place, and that they might also benefit from such rules. Is that me being responsive to my concerns-- or is that creepy?

Now my kids don't have the same rights as you or I do. So it's a little different, but it illustrates a point: a sovereign's actions are voluntary. When I go to Starbucks I'm free to carry a legally concealed weapon; that the bank next door may have a problem with that, they are free to approach Starbucks and ask that they change that policy. Starbucks would tell then to kick rocks probably, as the US delegates will in Dubai, but its not some evidence grand conspiracy to oppress Starbucks clientele-- its People looking out for their best interests. No different than countries getting together in Dubai to discuss what they'd like to see implemented.


still free to write and make as many copies as you desire, hand it out door to door, send it in the mail, whatever-- with the caveat that there are restrictons on content; things like copyrighted material are restricted by law. Oh wait, the open Internet has those restrictions too...at least in the United States and with those countries in which we have treaties. I'd bet its easier for government cronies and thugs and tin-pot dictators to locate a person who violates those laws on the internet through an ip address than someone who just drops it in a mailbox or on a doorstep; but I digress. Are those copyright laws, rules, regs and treaties in place to restrict our freedom to information or to protect the interests of the copyright holder?
The demise of Sopa/pipa would indicate the former.

With the understanding that we are a sum of our parts, there exists a synergy that makes the sum greater in effect than any and all agents acting in their own interests.I believe there's a balance that is found by each country, state, locality and home working together. Each is an agent which plays a part in implementing the rules by which their best interests are fulfilled. That the UN is, on its face, a conglomeration of nations that has lended credibility to actions which you find abhorrent concerns you-- I understand that as I share many of your concerns. But the UN holds no power over any of those agencies. Iraq didn't comply with the UN resolution. Nor did the US need UN authorizaton to invade Iraq. We requested it to lend credibility to our action, but it wasn't required. (Ironically, i think the US lost credibility as a result) The membership countries take it upon themselves to implement each resolution. No country is bound by those resolutions anymore than I am bound to the follow the resolutions you make. Nothing wrong with you trying to talk me into it though. But I might just talk you out of it.;)

..............http://www.mynetbox.info/images/xtra/hmm-smiley.jpg
cough

.
um neighbors... starbucks .. right


If you know your neighbors are child molesters, killers and thieves you probably don't want to sign many of the proposed neighborhood covenants they draw up. It might not be in your best interest. A conglomeration of child molesters, killers and thieves doesn't lend much credibility to anything really does it? You certainly don't want to find out that your wife has signed it before you even knew about it.

And here's something you often bring up, and i resonant with the sentiment but, the balance of law and freedom you talk about is NEVER included in these agreement. A balance of grassroots or local representation is never included in any of these agreements.
You and others offhandedly say, well the congress approved it therefor WE signed off on it because we voted for those clowns. WE didn't sign off on Jack. It's well known that many congressmen rarely even READ the bills or treaties. They are advised by people that have a stake and benefit -and may have written- said instruments and rarely is the public informed or consulted before the vote. Is this really representational gov't? where we should just STFU and abide by whatever comes down the pipe. And assume there is never any untoward collusion, grand or otherwise because its like starbucks talking to the bank or like 2 parents (u know i love that 1) talking in the neighborhood?

case in point this TPP did your congressperson let YOU know that this was going on? Does he even know the content? Why would you ASSUME that these Starbuck like foreign neighbors and multinational corps , acting in secret, are writing something that's going to be in our best interest log? in general.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

..............http://www.mynetbox.info/images/xtra/hmm-smiley.jpg
cough

.
um neighbors... starbucks .. right


If you know your neighbors are child molesters, killers and thieves you probably don't want to sign many of the proposed neighborhood covenants they draw up. It might not be in your best interest. A conglomeration of child molesters, killers and thieves doesn't lend much credibility to anything really does it? ( 1)You certainly don't want to find out that your wife has signed it before you even knew about it.

(2) And here's something you often bring up, and i resonant with the sentiment but, the balance of law and freedom you talk about is NEVER included in these agreement. A balance of grassroots or local representation is never included in any of these agreements.

You and others offhandedly say, well the congress approved it therefor WE signed off on it because we voted for those clowns. WE didn't sign off on Jack. It's well known that many congressmen rarely even READ the bills or treaties. They are advised by people that have a stake and benefit -and may have written- said instruments and rarely is the public informed or consulted before the vote. (3) And assume there is never any untoward collusion, grand or otherwise because its like starbucks talking to the bank or like 2 parents (u know i love that 1) talking in the neighborhood?

(4) case in point this TPP did your congressperson let YOU know that this was going on? Does he even know the content? Why would you ASSUME that these Starbuck like foreign neighbors and multinational corps , acting in secret, are writing something that's going to be in our best interest log? in general.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^^^^^^^ Rev. your Four GREAT points I numbered and bolded above.


1. Who gave the wife authority and WHY ISNT THE HUSBAND CONSULTED?--DIVISION MUCH..

2. Such a balance is a myth when it is really just about TOTAL CONTROL !

3. Assume such at very great peril, where billions and billions of dollars are involved there is always enormous greed and that enormous greed invites its constant companion -CORRUPTION- along for the ride everytime it gets a chance. Nothing about this indicates otherwise and the secrecy indicates a high probabilty that corruption exists and is also a core part of it.

4. Doing things in secret point to the need to hide , what is that need? Common sense tells us its not good for us or else why be so secretive and why try to foist it upon us? -Tyr

[Kathianne]

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/you-cant-make-decisions-about-the-open-internet-behind-closed-doors/


The U.N. Shouldn’t Make Decisions About an Open Internet Behind Closed Doors

By Brett Solomon
11.30.12
6:30 AM


Behind closed doors, decisions will be made next week that could threaten the global, open internet. This isn’t a sky-is-falling cry: There could be very real consequences both in how we use the internet and how it’s governed.


A relatively unknown United Nations agency called the International Telecommunication Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union) (ITU) is hosting the World Conference on International Telecommunications (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx) (WCIT) from Dec. 3 to 14. And it’s an opaque, government-controlled event.
The goal is to update a decades-old treaty, the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). But certain countries appear to be attempting a quiet “coup” in updating the ITRs – one that could violate our rights online while leaving users less secure and with slower service.


It’s worth acknowledging that the ITU does a lot of important work. It sets spectrum and technology standards, has done much to improve global interoperability and efficiency, and helped increase access to information and communication technologies in developing nations.


And let’s face it: Given the dominance of the U.S. government, the current model of internet governance is not perfect, and urgently needs to include more voices from around the world.


Yet there’s an incurable, inherent problem with the ITU: Only governments get to vote. And that’s antithetical to how decisions about the internet are made. The ITU’s very nature should disqualify it from deciding how the internet is governed, especially when those decisions would be made by way of a binding international treaty.


But it’s the process here that reveals the most about the ITU priorities, and who can participate.


It’s missing information transparency. As an international NGO, we had to fight just to read the proposals. It’s only through leaks that we’ve been able to gain access to the actual documents to be debated at the WCIT.


It limits stakeholder input. When the governments first meet, they will decide whether to shut out communities and experts who are not on government delegations – potentially excluding those who helped build and maintain the internet in the first place. Policies like these make the WCIT anathema to the “multi-stakeholder” process where all sectors are consulted – a model endorsed at the UN World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), which, ironically, was convened by the ITU.


It costs money. While Secretary-General Touré notes here in Wired (http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/head-of-itu-un-should-internet-regulation-effort/) that 700 private organizations are ITU members, he neglects to mention the membership cost: $2,100 to $35,000 annually – as well as the fact that sector members can’t vote. This exorbitant fee effectively excludes most users and human rights groups from participating.


It centralizes and slows things. Decisions made at the WCIT could put internet policymaking under a top-down international regulatory regime, replacing decades of merit-based, multi-stakeholder agreements. The current model of internet governance – the method by which norms and decision-making procedures are made and enforced – isn’t perfect. But it does allow for efficient, open, and sensible changes. Governments are anything but nimble, let alone open, in their decision-making processes.

...