[governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency

[John Curran]

On Dec 14, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
>> The WCIT conference, in the words of SecGen Toure, were to be
>> discussions based on "consensus, in the true tradition of ITU." The
>> draft revised ITRs under consideration at the time still had significant
>> aspects which dealt with the Internet, including an Internet Resolution,
>> references to spam and security matters, all despite clear statements at
>> the begin of the conference that the scope of the treaty would not
>> include the Internet.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] It remains a fact that nothing in the final ITRs mentions the Internet. The "spam and security" references in 5B and 5A, respectively, are as close as it comes and they cannot reasonably be classified as Internet governance. Here is 5A:
> 
> "Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public."
> 
> And here is 5B:
> 
> "Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense." 
> 
> If it is your contention that these words constitute an aggressive attempt to take over the internet or to insert governments into the governance of the Internet in a new way I will laugh in your face. 

It's my contention that some Member States believe these words 
are applicable to the Internet...  I was present during many of
these debates, and it's clear for example that 5B is targeting
spam _on the Internet_.

> As for the Resolution, I understand the objections to it, but its (contested) passage via "room temperature assessment" did not by itself seem to trigger the abandonment of the process, though it may have contributed to it. And because it is NOT part of the ITRs and has no binding force on anything or anyone except the ITU SG, who is already actively and happily seeking a role for the ITU in Internet governance and has been doing so for the past 15 years, again I have trouble understanding it as a basis for refusal to sign the treaty.

Apparently some of my earlier mail to this list you did not receive:

The Resolution directed Member States "to elaborate on their respective 
positions on international Internet-related technical, development and 
public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums..."

While not giving the ITU any authority, per se, it does have Member States 
effectively acknowledging that there are (unspecified) Internet-related
public-policy issues that fall within the mandate of ITU and which are to
be discussed at ITU fora.

>> It should not be surprising that many participants left the WCIT once
>> the WCIT abandoned these principles. In the end, 50+ countries do not
>> appear to be signing the revised ITRs, citing the conference as a
>> departure from the multistakeholder Internet governance. To ascribe this
>> to a common desire to prevent non-discriminatory telecommunications
>> access does not reflect a solid understanding of the nature of the
>> proceedings as they occurred.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] True, I was not there. But as my blog post makes clear, I was watching online and did not detect any disruption or abandonment of the process until AFTER the African amendment vote regarding nondiscriminatory access.

To be expected, since it was the process issues with that vote which 
made it clear that WCIT had departed from its original mandate as 
described by ITU leadership at the start.  Feel free to watch it 
again, and listen to the actual reasoning behind each countries 
reservations... there is about a dozen countries which all rise 
up and object to meeting at this point for similar reasons.

> Furthermore, there is nothing substantive in the ITRs that constitutes a significant deviation from "multistakeholder internet governance." Please specify what it is (the Resolution does not count, remember, because it is not part of the ITRs), or alter your assertion. 

The WCIT moved from seeking consensus among the participants 
to conducting a contentious vote (only open to Member States) 
to force an outcome. This was specifically after they indicated
that the WCIT conference would operate by consensus as is their
typical practice for contentious issues.  Countries and sector
members participated on that basis.

> To conclude, this is an empirical issue and my interpretation remains open to any new facts. 


ROTFL!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone (although I could not provide such 
entertainment without others assistance.)




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