US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty

[Poomjit Sirawongprasert]

I, am here in Dubai as the adviser to the Thai Delegations, agree with
Avri.  It is too drama forum for everyone and it is more difficult to the
non English speaking country like us to learn about the hidden agenda
behide those beautiful words.

BTW, I have tried so hard for my own country to reduce the degree of
censorship but it is not easy.  At least the outcome from my effort is
Thailand sign on the ITRs but we have very strong statement of our own
reservation, to take 'internet' away from the ITRs.

Lastly, I love ICANN forum than this crazy ITU forum a lot.

Poomjit Sirawongprasert (Moui)
ภูมิจิต ศิระวงศ์ประเสริฐ (หมวย)
twitter: @Moui <http://twitter.com/moui>
facebook: PoomjitS <http://facebook.com/PoomjitS>



On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I can't speak to why the US and other democracies did not sign not the
> other treaties and the fact the US republicans filibustered  its own laws
> made treaty in the Treaty on the Disabled.  But since I was in Dubai and
> immersed in this process, I will try to speak to this situation somewhat.
>
> In this case, the ITR treaty, was seen as  threatening the Internet and
> Internet governance in some ways, especially with regard to Internet
> content and the scope of Member State and ITU control over the Internet.  I
> know that Milton and Fadí beleive this is not the case, and I will admit
> that the attacks are not as blatant as was expected, but I agree with the
> decision by many governments, including my own governments decision to not
> sign, and thus disagree with the analysis of these august gentlemen.
>
> For me one the major issues related to the security and robustness of the
> Internet being a Member State responsibility.
>
> "
> ARTICLE 5A
>
> Security and robustness of networks
>
> 41B             Member States shall individually and collectively
> endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international
> telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and
> avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development
> of international telecommunication services offered to the public.
> "
>
> First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that
> robustness?  And what does it mean to apply this security not only to the
> physical network but also to harmonious development...  The worst power of
> the ITRs is what they allow Member States to do inside their countries with
> permission of international law.  Also what is envisioned in the collective
> endeavor. To what extent does this empower one country to impose on the
> legal system of another country to support its laws concerning the
> security, i.e harmony, of its network development?
>
> It does not take much imagination to see  the future actions of repressive
> states with regard to their power to protect the security of the network
> from disharmony.  Yes, it is less than these governments wanted, but it is
> yet another step forward toward government control of the network -
> especially since for most of those nations Internet is infrastructure and
> the ITRs are about infrastructure.  It is only a small abstraction that,
> while not made in the ITRs, has been made by them and can be seen in their
> reservations.
>
> I also see threat in the article on spam, even though they have named it
> euphemistically: Unsolicited bulk electronic communications
>
> "
> ARTICLE 5B
> Unsolicited bulk electronic communications
> 41C             Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures
> to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications
> and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services.
> Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense.
> "
> True this is not as bad as unwanted Spam, which could mean anything, since
> Spam cannot be defined without reference to content.  But even this: has
> this criminalized political statements sent to mailing lists?  Will a
> sender potentially need to prove that every recipient solicited the
> mailing.  Or will this feed into new crimes being defined in Russia and
> elsewhere that all email on LGBTQIA.+ event criminal propaganda.  Remember
> we can't even prove that every email sent on this list is solicited.  And
> will the general reference bulk electronic communication extend this to
> beyond just the consideration of email?  What about SMS and other tools
> used in events such as the Arab spring - what can potentially be deemed
> illegal based on this article.  remains to be sen, but it is a dangerous
> open door on repression of communications.
>
>
> I also have a problem with the preeminent place they have created for
> ITU-T protocols.  True they did not go as far as initially proposed and
> state that only UTU-T protocols could be used, but they went far enough
> making the use of ITU-T recommendations something that must be taken into
> account. Specifically: "taking due account of the relevant ITU-T
> Recommendations."  A step too far in my estimation especially if you take
> into account the recommendations that came out of WTSA, including the
> approval of DPI standards.  We have to take WTSA and WCIT, and in fact the
> upcoming WTPF as a progression of events and look at the effects with a
> comppound perspective.
>
> Some will argue that these are not binding on member States, and that is
> true.  My issues, and the issue of many governments, is not that all states
> will be bound by these (except [perhaps those that require collective
> endeavor), but that many States will use these as their legal bulwark for
> repressive acts that threaten the freedom of the Internet.
>
> I am also concerned with its scope, While Authorized Operating Agencies
> (AOA), a new term that is as of yet untested, and is not as broad as
> Operating Agency (OA) that would have allowed regulation of every
> infrastructure company, it is not as restricted as the Recognized Operating
> Agency (ROA).  Some have argued that  AOA is as restricted as ROA, yet
> logic demands the question that if AOA is the same as ROA, why did it need
> to be changed.  There is extra scope in AOA which remains to be discovered
> in practice.
>
> Beyond that, while not binding on governments,
>
> "RESOLUTION PLEN/3 (DUBAI, 2012)
> To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet
> "
>
> Gives the iTU marching orders on Internet governance.  While the ITRs
> themselves did not mention the Internet, this resolution did, in a big way.
>  With a statements  like:
>
> "
> instructs the Secretary-General
> 1                 to continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play
> an active and constructive role in the development of broadband and the
> multistakeholder model of the Internet as expressed in § 35 of the Tunis
> Agenda;
> "
>
> We can expect to see a much stronger presence of the ITU everywhere.  I
> even would bet that Fadí will be seeing a lot more of his good friend
> Hamadoun.  And I expect the encroachment of the ITU on the IGF and all
> things Internet governance to continue unabated.  ICANN may be safe for the
> moment, but the rest of the Internet ecosystem is certainly not.
>
> So not this wasn't the horror we expected.  The governments did a fine job
> of negotiating this back, and I think without the attached resolution might
> have taken their chances on the other stuff, no matter how nervous it makes
> me and some of them.  But the resolution that gives the ITU extra
> responsibilities for governance of the Internet broke the sense of an
> acceptable agreement.
>
> There is a lot of good stuff in this treaty for roaming, for  emergency
> services, for landlocked countries and for accessibility, and I expect that
> these will be adhered to de-facto by most of the non-signatories (though
> some like Chile may not adhere to new regulation on landlocked countries
> and the US may not adhere to the new rules on roaming).
>
> And I expect (purely a personal prediction) that if something can be done
> about the Internet resolution in the Plenipot in 2014, more countries will
> sign on to the treaty before 2015 when if goes into effect.  the story is
> not over by a long shot, just this episode.
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
> On 15 Dec 2012, at 04:42, Rudi Rusdiah wrote:
>
> > Dear all:
> > Why now big democratics nation avoid to sign international treaty...
> >
> > This happened not only with Internet treaty...but also Climate Change
> Treaty (Kyoto Protocol) and UNCLOS (UN  Convention on Law of the Sea) until
> now are not signed by US, but signed by majority of the countries
> participated in the summit ?
> >
> > Its a pity and sad... even in WTO since Cancun... it always
> deadlock...luckily in WSIS Tunis 2005 all countries could signed and agreed
> on the Internet Governance (Tunis commitment)... so we can continue with
> the IGF forums and many other post WSIS meeting.. hope no more deadlock in
> the future....?
> >
> > Regards, Rudi Rusdiah - APWKomitel - Association of Community Internet
> Center (Indonesia)
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121215/0ff6794b/attachment-0001.html>