<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 18 December 2012 08:04 AM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<snip></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Verdana"> More seriously, why not match an index of
whether a country allows software patents or not, and in general
how strong (or bad) is its digital IP policy -- an issue very
germane to global regulation of the digital space, or of the
Internet...... <br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">I can try to hazard a guess on why a digital IP
policy wise ranking of votes at WCIT wont be done... It is that
there isnt enough money to support organisations and participants
that would do such kind of work.... That brings us to the
questions, why isnt there such monies....well, I dont have to do
all the guessing myself :)<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Verdana"> <br>
Political economy question with regard to the global
communication realm are as important as FoE questions. Just
asking for greater balance, that is all. A balance that the
civil society involved with global IG seem to have entirely
entirely lost. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:06 AM,
Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:016001cddc96$28d36480$7a7a2d80$@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:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Sprechblasentext Zchn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-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;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.SprechblasentextZchn
{mso-style-name:"Sprechblasentext Zchn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Sprechblasentext;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage23
{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:869758655;
mso-list-template-ids:45648938;}
@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;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1056590619;
mso-list-template-ids:-1554746494;}
@list l1: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;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
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">Parminder,<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">The
original figures come from another list (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:itu2012chapters@elists.isoc.org">itu2012chapters@elists.isoc.org</a>
and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:WCIT@lmlist.state.gov">WCIT@lmlist.state.gov</a>).
Sorry, I’m sometimes losing track of who sees what since
there are multiple lists where the same is discussed, with
often the same people on multiple lists.<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">Dave
Burstein sent a message on Friday, 14 Dec, with the
Subject: [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who
haven't signed” and that contained an attachment with
figures he had received from the ITU. There is a
country-by-country list, sorted by region, and showing in
green, red and white those who signed, those who did not,
and those who could not. I just calculated a few
statistics based on those numbers:<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">195
countries overall<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">7.016
billion people overall<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">89
(46%) countries signed (green) – representing 3.834
billion people (55%)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">57
(29%) countries opposed (red) – representing 2.574 billion
people (37%)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">49
(25%) countries open (white) – representing 0.606 billion
people (9%)<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">I
have asked Dave whether it is ok to forward his message
and the attachment to this list. <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">Interesting
also the following infographic:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340">http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340</a><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">“There
is a clear correlation between a state's ranking in the
Democracy Index and how their position on the
International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the
International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World
Conference on Information Technology (WCIT-12). “<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">The
chart categorizes countries in four categories (full
democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and
authoritarian regime) and shows percentages of those in
each category who voted for (red) or against (green) the
ITRs. (Note: color code reversed versus the ITU coding).<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">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Peter<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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> 17 December 2012 05:42<br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: AW: [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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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 "</span> <span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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 "</span> <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><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><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>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM,
Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
New York Times wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></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"> </span><o:p></o:p></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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regarding
the “handful of Western allies”:</span></u><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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”:</span></u><o:p></o:p></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”?? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Peter
H. Hellmonds</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Public
& International Affairs</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="DE"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu">peter.hellmonds@hellmonds.eu</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="DE">+49 (160) 360-2852</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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</span><o:p></o:p></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:part12.00080702.05030504@itforchange.net"
alt="New York Times" height="23" border="0" 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:l1
level1 lfo3"><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:l1
level1 lfo3">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>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>