<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Peter<br>
<br>
Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure
is of those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent
refused and havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is
normal for many countries to sign such important and binding
documents like treaties after a round of consultation at home. In
1988, 112 countries signed up on the last day of the WCIT and 75
signed up later.... So, a huge number of countries deciding to
take time is quite normal. Many reports are making this number
look as suggesting much less support for the ITRs than there
actually is. This side of mis- representation must also be kept in
mind. <br>
<br>
The NYT correspondent says that "</font> <font face="Verdana">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...."<br>
<br>
You say "</font> <font face="Verdana"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Of
195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed
the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the
countries were undecided or needed to consult with their
capital...."</span><br>
<br>
Can you share the source of your information. The number actually
saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a
confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and
other reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is
the actual count of 'those who have refused to sign' ...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM,
Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Überschrift 1 Zchn";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.berschrift1Zchn
{mso-style-name:"Überschrift 1 Zchn";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Überschrift 1";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#365F91;
font-weight:bold;}
span.fn
{mso-style-name:fn;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1056590619;
mso-list-template-ids:-1554746494;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
New York Times wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“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.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Guess
we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics
and correct the reporting:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regarding
the “handful of Western allies”:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Of
the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the
treaty.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Of
the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to
sign the treaty.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">So,
while the American delegation was joined by only a handful
of allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by
seven handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies
from African, Asian and CIS countries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">And
it is clear that the European countries were not merely
following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in
prior consultations what they would stand for and what not.
The “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to
extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or
security issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regarding
the “most other nations signed it”:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Of
195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%)
signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49
(25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult
with their capital. How could this reporter claim that “most
other nations signed it”?? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Peter
H. Hellmonds<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Public
& International Affairs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="DE"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu">peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="DE">+49 (160) 360-2852<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"
lang="DE"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] <b>Im
Auftrag von </b>parminder<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> 16 December 2012 14:23<br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [governance] NY article expresses
surprise at US walkout in Dubai<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><img id="NYTLogo"
src="cid:part1.06040808.07020408@itforchange.net" alt="New
York Times" height="23" width="152"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World<o:p></o:p></h1>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1"><i>by</i> <span class="fn">ERIC PFANNER</span>
<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">Dec. 14, 2012 <o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<div id="article">
<div>
<div>
<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.
<o:p></o:p></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? <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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.” <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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? <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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.” <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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.” <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>