[governance] Re: US Ambassador Terry Kramer on WCIT

Thu Dec 6 16:24:13 EST 2012

Did I mention that he was asked about his thoughts on "Deep Packet
Inspection"?

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/20121207/63f7eae3/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