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

[Alex Gakuru]

interesting perspectives -
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/latest-wcit-2012-news-foretells-of-unfounded-fears/54392/

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Poomjit Sirawongprasert
<poomjit at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/20121215/313482fa/attachment-0001.html>