[governance] US Ambassador Terry Kramer on WCIT

[Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro]

Dear All,

See below:

Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Development and Progress
of the World Conference on International Telecommunications Currently Being
Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Until December 14,
2012<http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2012/201637.htm>
12/06/2012 02:45 PM EST

Development and Progress of the World Conference on International
Telecommunications Currently Being Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Until December 14, 2012

Special Briefing
Terry Kramer
Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International
Telecommunications
Via Teleconference
December 6, 2012

------------------------------

*MR. HENSMAN: *Thank you. Good morning, everyone, or afternoon. Thanks for
joining us. Today we’ve got an on-the-record conference call with
Ambassador Terry Kramer, who is the U.S. Head of Delegation for the World
Conference on International Telecommunications taking place in Dubai. We do
have journalists that are in the room as well as dialed in, so we’re going
to try and alternate as best we can within the time allowed to get
questions from both groups.

With that, let me turn it over to Ambassador Kramer.

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Well, thank you very much, and I wanted to
welcome all of you that are here in Dubai as well as all of you on the
phone. I wanted to also to start out by thanking all of you for your
ongoing coverage, because transparency in the process and the nature of the
discussions here is absolutely critical, so thanks to all of you.

I also wanted to just take a minute to thank the ITU Secretary General
Hamadoun Toure. I think he’s done a very good job of laying out a vision
for what the conference is all about and also ensuring that there’s an
active and honest dialogue amongst everyone here. So a special thank you to
Hamadoun Toure.

I wanted to reiterate his vision for this conference, which is: How do we
find the best ways to accelerate broadband availability globally. I also
want to thank the city of Dubai, the leaders of Dubai, for hosting what has
been a good event. I think this city is a great example of what we talk
about in the telecomm and the internet sectors, the city being dynamic,
being entrepreneurial, being growth oriented, it’s a great setting for what
we’re doing here.

And finally, I wanted to thank the conference chair, Mr. Mohamed Al Ghanim.
And he’s had – really done a great job at being able to look at a lot of
different issues, but also move through issues at a good pace. So he’s done
a great job.

What we wanted to do on this call is take stock of where we’re at – we’re
obviously a few days into this conference – and share where we see progress
and also share where we need to see further progress to ensure a successful
outcome. Now, as all of you know, our own vision for this conference is to
ensure that we’re seeing a successful environment for the telecomm and
internet sectors. It’s important to continue to remind ourselves that
that’s the goal of what we all should be doing here as leaders.

As we’re only a few days into it, I can say we’ve seen a couple of good
elements of progress in our work. As many of you know, a week ago we
submitted, along with our Canadian colleagues, a proposal that called for
an immediate look at a foundational element in this conference. And that
specifically is: What organizations or sectors are we going to look at
here? And as you know, we’re looking specifically from a U.S. and Canada
point of view in this proposal to be focused on the telecomm sector, not on
the internet sector. And as part of that, we feel strongly that the
agencies that should be reviewed in this agreement should be recognized
operating agencies.

Recognized operating agencies are public providers of telecommunications
services. So in the U.S., this would be providers such as AT&T and Verizon.
What recognized operating agencies does not include would be private
networks, which a lot of the internet players would be in there, ham radio
operators would be in there, and government networks would not be in there.
So we want to stay pure to the focus of this conference, which is on
telecomm service providers.

Now, let me tell you where a couple of the areas of success has been. First
of all, it’s been agreement on the overall wording of the preamble. The
preamble lays out the general focus of the conference and the references to
the original constitution. There was also agreement on the definition of
telecommunications, which we think is an important first step to ensure
that we’re not confusing the ICT sector, companies that are involved in
processing, et cetera. So the focus and definition of telecommunications
was a success.

A final item is the one, importantly, that is left remaining to be
determined, and that’s whether the focus is going to be on recognized
operating agencies or operating agencies. Operating agencies is a much
broader term. Again, it includes the internet sector in that mix. So that
issue has left to be worked on. We’ve been spending quite a bit of time
working with a variety of countries in bilateral discussions to
specifically focus on this recognized operating agency issue.

Again, fundamentally, the conference, to us, should not be dealing with the
internet sector. That carries significant implications that could open the
doors to things such as content censorship. It could also introduce payment
models that we would be significantly concerned would reduce traffic. And
so we think keeping to the pure focus of this conference on advancing
broadband in a telecomm arena is absolutely the right approach.

Now, we’re seeing several countries throughout the world that have been
good supporters of our position on keeping the internet out of this and
focusing on recognized operating agencies. These are countries in a variety
of regions, specifically in Europe, in Latin America, and in the Asia
Pacific in addition to our partners in North America. So we’re very
encouraged by that. And in that support, we see a common alignment about
the need for multi-stakeholder organizations driving a lot of the successes
in the market, and also the importance and criticality of liberalized
markets, liberalized markets where there are competitive alternatives,
where there are a variety of providers, providing a variety of alternatives
that drives down prices and creates better availability.

So again, a couple areas of success, an area that needs to critically be
focused on, on recognized operating agencies. And we’ll be working that
issue literally day and night over the next few days.

So let me stop here and take any questions that you have.

*OPERATOR:* Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you do have a question
on the phone, you can press * then 1 on your touchtone phone, and you will
hear a tone indicating you’ve been placed into queue. You can remove
yourself from the queue by pressing the # key. If you’re using a
speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers.

Once again, if you have a question on the phone, press * then 1 at this
time. And one moment for the first question.

*MR. HENSMEN:* Megan, if we have a question from the room, we can start
there.

*MS. MATTSON:* Could you state who you are and where you – what
organization?

*QUESTION:* Matt Smith from Reuters. I just have one little question, do
you think the focus of conference should be on broadband or, something
about – see what you can do about telecomm, does that contradict?

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* No, broadband is basically the term for high-speed
telecomm networks. So we very much believe in providing broadband access
globally. That then allows people to access the internet, et cetera. What
we are saying, though, is internet by itself, which gets into content, gets
into applications, et cetera, is an area that should not be the focus. So
again, the core network that provides all the service and the high-speed
nature of it, broadband, we think is absolutely the right focus and the
right vision for the conference.

*MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. Let’s go to the next question from the phones.

*OPERATOR:* Thank you. We go to David McAuley with Bloomberg. Your line is
open.

*QUESTION:* Thank you very much. Ambassador Kramer, thank you very much for
this time.

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Sure. Thank you, David.

*QUESTION:* One comment. When there’s a question in the room, I don’t think
we can hear it on the phone.

Secondly, the – I understand the definition for telecommunications has been
set. This morning, in the conference that the – in the media conference
that the ITU holds, Director Peprah from Ghana mentioned that that’s the
case, but ICT is still in the works – that is, the concept of information
communications technology is still in the works, possibly as a defined
term. Could you comment on that?

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. We are still working through a lot of different
elements of how this definition gets driven. Our view right now is it does
not belong in there. There may still be people talking about ICT in
different forms. And certainly, in our own discussions, people are talking
about VoIP operators, Skype and others that provide what they believe is
telecomm services. But we don’t feel those are appropriate.

*QUESTION:* Thank you.

*OPERATOR:* And our next question from the line of Rob Lever with AFP.
Please go ahead.

*QUESTION:* Yes, Ambassador, thank you. There have been some reports that
you’ve probably seen that the ITU approved at – I guess there was some kind
of a prelude to the summit in Dubai last week – a provision allowing
members to use some type of internet snooping or eavesdropping they call
deep packet inspection. Can you address this, whether this is – these
reports are accurate? And if they are accurate, what does that mean for
your whole position and the U.S. position? What would be Washington’s view
on that?

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So first of all, I have not seen the specific
reference that you’re mentioning. Let me just talk for a second about deep
packet inspections.

So, deep packet inspection has a good and a bad connotation. The original
connotation of deep packet inspection was for operators to be able to look
at their networks and say, “Are they performing well?” So in the mobile
sector, it’s do you have blocked calls and dropped calls, et cetera. What’s
happened, though, is some companies have used deep packet inspection
technologies to not look at aggregate customer information, traffic
information, et cetera, but to look at individual customer information. So
looking at individuals and what sites they’re on and how much capacity
they’re using, et cetera, as you can imagine, we’re very much opposed to
that because we feel that’s a violation of people’s privacy and gets into,
obviously, censorship, et cetera.

So again, deep packet inspection can get used in good and bad contexts. I’d
have to see the specific reference, but anything that would go past
aggregated customer information would be problematic.

*QUESTION:* Well, and the reports say that the ITU essentially approved
this. I mean, if you’re involved in that, can you – do you not know whether
they did that or not? I mean, that’s kind of important.

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Dick Barrett is here with me, who’s our senior
director, and he’s our deputy head of delegation. Let me have him answer it.

*MR. BARRETT:* Yes, thank you, just getting settled in. There was a
recommendation that had been worked on for four years involved in deep
packet inspection as a means of classical traffic management. It had been
gone through – it was a private sector initiative, as all of these items
are coming in through the ITU-T at the technical level. It had four years
of vetting. And at the end of a World Telecommunications Standardization
Assembly, that document came forward without opposition. There was some
editing at the end of the process of approval. Some appendices were deleted
because they were kind of extraneous to the actual technical aspects of the
recommendation. But then it was adopted by the World Telecommunications
Standardization Assembly, as I indicated.

*MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. For the next question, we’ll just go back to the room.
And if I could remind folks in the room to please speak up so our
colleagues on the line can hear your questions. Thank you.

*QUESTION:* Yes. My first question is about internet security.

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I’m sorry, your name?

*QUESTION:* My name’s Sam Hoda from Radio Free Europe.

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

*QUESTION:* Internet security is one of the key things that you mentioned
(inaudible). And the Russians have proposed something that (inaudible).
What is the exact position of the U.S. delegation on this (inaudible)?

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So this is Sam from Radio Free Europe.

*MR. HENSMAN:* Ambassador, I’m sorry to interrupt –

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. And the question was on internet security, that
the Russians have proposed a suggestion, a proposal on internet security.

So first of all, again, there’s an important distinguishing characteristic
here. There’s some people talking about network security, having to deal
with telecomm networks. There are other people talking about information
security or internet security. We draw a very stark line between the two,
because again, anything that gets into the content or the internet, we do
not feel should be part of this treaty.

What can happen is what are seemingly harmless proposals can open the door
to censorship, because people can then say, listen, as part of internet
security, we see traffic and content that we don’t like. And people are
making judgments, governments are making judgments about that content that,
again, can be suppressing people’s freedoms and rights to express
themselves, to share points of view, to access information, et cetera. So
while there may be proposals on internet security, you can imagine we’re
very much opposed to those.

*MR. HENSMAN:* Let’s go and take one from the phone lines.

*OPERATOR:* We go to Danny Yadron with the *Wall Street Journal*. Please go
ahead.

*QUESTION:* Mr. Kramer, thanks so much for doing this call.

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Thank you.

*QUESTION:* I mean, you probably saw some of the reports in the U.S.
yesterday that the fact that the conference has not set aside internet
activity was a disappointment or some sort of rejection of what the U.S. is
trying to accomplish. I realize we have several more days to go, but I
mean, what’s your reaction to that, that this has not been settled yet, or
it’s still being negotiated?

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. I don’t know that I would say I was disappointed
that it hasn’t been settled by now. It’s a pretty large fundamental issue,
and there is a pretty big gap in points of view between a variety of
nations. This again gets down to a fundamental view about telecomm versus
internet, companies – not companies but countries, nations that are focused
on liberalization and free speech and commercial opportunities, et cetera,
and those that have a very different view of those.

So it’s not an easy issue to work through because it’s a philosophical one.
So I don’t know necessarily I would have expected it to be resolved. I know
what our point of view is on this, and I shared this today with Secretary
General Hamadoun Toure and Chairman Mohamed Al Ghanim, is we – again, if
there is a dispute on this, we need to go back to the original charter of
the conference, which is: How do we advance the telecomm sector and
broadband? And if there’s a dispute on the definitions and the agencies
that are subject to review here, we should go back to the original ones
that were in the original ITRs, which, again, are recognized operating
agencies.

So that, to us, is the way you work through all of this. Short of that,
it’s a problematic situation, and it’s a situation that we are not likely
to negotiate on because of a significant scope creep and incursion on what
we think are the wrong areas to move into.

*MR. HENSMAN:* I think we’ve got time for one more question, maybe two.
Let’s go to the room.

*QUESTION:* Oh, yes. Hi. Toula Vlahou with the AP. Have you, sir, seen the
proposal from Russia, Article 3A? Have you been able to read it?

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I’ve seen a Russian proposal. I don’t remember Article
3A offhand.

*QUESTION:* In general, the proposal that I believe was discussed somewhat
the other day with – back in some committee. What do you think of the
proposal?

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* The overall Russian proposal?

*QUESTION:* There is this one about government management. I didn’t read it
(inaudible) --

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* There’s --

*QUESTION:* -- having some sort of the government – as having some sort of
governing over the internet.

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So there is a proposal – so the most dramatic
element of the Russian proposal that is suggesting that internet governance
get moved away from multi-stakeholder organizations such as ICANN over to
government or single organizations – potentially the ITU, although I think
the ITU would say it doesn’t want to be in that business. And again, we
fundamentally disagree with that, because once governments are in that
role, they’re in a position to make judgments about how the internet is
going to operate, what type of information’s going to flow there, et
cetera. So we think that multi-stakeholder organizations that are inclusive
in nature, have technical expertise, and can be making independent, agile,
rapid-fire decisions are the right ones from a pragmatic standpoint and
from a philosophical standpoint.

*QUESTION:* Has there been discussion on this proposal anywhere besides the
--

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, I’m sorry, have we had discussion? Yeah. We’ve
looked at the proposal, but we are not keen to get into a discussion about
that proposal because, again, we think it’s out of scope for the conference.

*MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. Let’s take one more from the phone line, and then I
think that’ll be our time, as the Secretary’s going to have her press
conference.

*OPERATOR:* And we go to Eliza Krigman with Politico. Your line is open.

*QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. I understand that
yesterday there was some kind of security attack on the network, and that
hackers have claimed responsibility for it. Do we – do you know for certain
that it was indeed hackers that happened? And as a follow-up, Director
Peprah this morning said that this is a great example of why cyber security
is so important. Has this emboldened others who think that cyber security
should be an element of the treaty?

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So first of all, I don’t think it’s been
confirmed who did what in this situation. I mean, we are obviously very
concerned about that incident because, as you remember, there’s been a big
focus on transparency in this conference. And the ITU has made all the main
plenary discussions available via webcasting. They posted the proposals on
their site. So taking that site down creates an impression that there isn’t
transparency. So we’re obviously just as concerned as everybody else is on
that. We don’t know exactly who did what.

And I’m sorry, your second question was?

*MR. HENSMAN:* I think we’ve lost --

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Okay. I think the second question was: Does this
embolden people on cyber security recommendations?

First of all, on cyber security, we have always said we very much see the
threat. As a matter of fact, we talk about malware incidents. There’s been
87,000 a day, and that number has doubled. So I don’t think there’s any
debate about the cyber threat. The key issue is how do you solve those
issues most effectively? And so our point of view is you’ve got to have a
variety of organizations that, again, have got that technical expertise and
that agility. And the fact the site went back up so rapidly – actually, the
validation that you do need a lot of different organizations with different
expertise, not one single one that kind of owns the problem. So again, we
actually thought it was a helpful reminder to everybody about the necessary
skills and speed to deal with the issues.

*MR. HENSMAN:* Thank you all for joining us. I think that’s the time that
we have for today. We appreciate you participating. And thank you,
Ambassador Kramer.

*AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Good. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.



PRN: 2012/1928


*Ends*






-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121207/2e120a63/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t