<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>
In your listing, the number 57, which is actually indicated as
eligible to sign but not (yet) signed somehow seem to have
magically changed to '*opposed*'.... How did you make that shift?<br>
<br>
As I mentioned earlier, for the 1988 ITRs 75 members signed later
on, which makes the practise appear quite common.<br>
<br>
The real figure to focus on is the number of countries that have
said 'they wont sign' - I figure this number at present is between
12 to 20. I am happy to be corrected on this 'key figure'. <br>
<br>
As for matching democracy indices, these are spins being put that
are unnecessary... Wonder is someone wants to do a colour of skin
index match as well . 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>
<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 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> 17 December 2012 05:42<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> 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:part8.05030906.05080803@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>
</body>
</html>