<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
</font><img src="cid:part1.03050700.00010705@itforchange.net"
alt="New York Times" id="NYTLogo"><br>
<h1 class="entry-title instapaper_title">Message, if Murky, From
U.S. to the World</h1>
<ul class="entry-meta">
<li class="byline author vcard first"> <i>by</i> <span
class="fn">ERIC PFANNER</span> </li>
<li> <time class="updated" datetime="2012-12-14T00:00:00"
pubdate=""> Dec. 14, 2012 </time> </li>
</ul>
<section class="entry-content instapaper_body">
<div id="article" score="38.75">
<div class="columnGroup first" score="21.25"> <nyt_byline> </nyt_byline>
<div class="articleBody">
<p> At the global treaty conference on telecommunications
here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But
then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. </p>
<p> What was that all about? And what does it say about the
future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by
the United States but now has many more users in the rest
of the world? </p>
<p> It may mean little about how the Internet will operate
in the coming years. But it might mean everything about
the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic
global oversight of the network. </p>
<p> The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western
allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet
freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other
participants in the two weeks of talks here were left
wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been
negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to
engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as
they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline
approached. </p>
<p> The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer,
announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could
not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United
States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship
and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet
oversight and replace it with government control. </p>
<p> Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by
these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in
the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the
fees that telecommunications networks should charge one
another for connecting calls across borders. After being
excised from the pact at United States insistence, the
I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is
attached to the treaty. </p>
<p> The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These
regulations do not address the content-related aspects of
telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was
understood by all parties to refer to the Internet,
delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no
one could call it an Internet treaty. </p>
<p> A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt
the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds
their human rights obligations.” </p>
<p> Both of these provisions were added during the final
days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United
States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it
more intellectually challenging for governments like China
and Iran to justify their current censorship of the
Internet. </p>
<p> What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections
from the United States were removed. One of those stated
that treaty signers should share control over the Internet
address-assignment system — a function now handled by an
international group based in the United States. The other,
also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet
companies like Google and Facebook to pay
telecommunications networks for delivering material to
users. </p>
<p> Given that the United States achieved many of its stated
goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in
an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been
coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? </p>
<p> In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on
Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like
references to countering spam and to ensuring “the
security and robustness of international
telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued,
could be used by nefarious governments to justify
crackdowns on free speech. </p>
<p> But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns
were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of
the debate that had mattered most. The United States and
its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty
conference to make a strong statement about the importance
of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty
and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that
even to talk about the appearance of global rules for
cyberspace was a nonstarter. </p>
<p> It may have been grandstanding, but some United States
allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong
American stand would underline the importance of keeping
the Internet open. </p>
<p> “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of
Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy
officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign
Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United
States in opposition to the pact. </p>
<p> That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency,
the International Telecommunication Union — took place in
this economically liberal but socially and politically
battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the
United States boycott of the final treaty. </p>
<p> “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries
around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of
the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a
good message to start the debate.” </p>
<p> Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian
government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of
Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support
of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his
government would sign the telecommunications treaty
because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees
that had been written into it. </p>
<p> “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he
said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand
the issues.” </p>
<p> Working together could become more challenging as the
Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications
— accounts for an ever greater share of global
telecommunications traffic, and as more people in
developing countries go online. </p>
<p> According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the
telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to
take control of the Internet — as critics had contended —
but to narrow the digital divide. </p>
<p> While the United States was talking about the open
Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking
about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion
people around the world who remain offline. </p>
<p> Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating
investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone
roaming costs and for extending Internet access to
disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to
expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate
the content that travels on the Internet, he said. </p>
<p> “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no
highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news
conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union
tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the
previous evening. </p>
<p> As developing countries gain better access, the numbers
game will continue to tilt against the United States and
other developed countries that have championed the cause
of an open Internet. The Internet population of China —
538 million as of June, according to the Chinese
government — is already nearly double that of the United
States. </p>
<p> Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in
developing countries, governments and citizens of these
countries might also grow more tolerant of it. </p>
<p> “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in
its view of the Internet and its relationship to society
in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. </p>
<p> By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were
eligible to vote had signed the document and about two
dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said,
with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts
could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he
was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so,
though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. </p>
<p> Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious
prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United
States’ position and applying mostly to developing
countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the
outcome. </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</body>
</html>