[governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency

Fri Dec 14 10:31:50 EST 2012

John,

Declan,

the causes of concern about WCIT and the ITRs were not only the explicit mentions of the Internet (the Resolution came very close to being accepted and its rejection was not due only to the inclusion of the word.)

The concern - and in some cases outright rejection - occurred against all encroachment by the ITU, or under the ITU umbrella by specific countries and groupings, on issues like spam (later un-named to "unsolicited commercial telecommunications", which could have covered even phone telemarketing), network security, routing (under the guises of "number misuse" and "call traceability" among others), IXPs (even without the "I", but what other exchanges make sense?), and so on. 

The painstaking removal of these issues, or their reduction to digestible size, took great effort and lots of conciliation.

The "spam" issue as an example. For months the provision to be discussed was about spam or unsolicited commercial email. These words were replaced by "unsolicited [bulk] electronic communications" in order to avoid words explicitly belonging to the Internet. The new wording is ridiculous as it could be interpreted to describe phone telemarketing as well - which Sector Members would mostly not support. It is no wonder that delegations would balk at signing off gingerly on badly crafted language like this, fraught with unforeseeable consequences.

Every step of the negotiations contributed to frayed nerves and to a piling up of reservations and second thoughts. 

The breakdown at the end came in a discussion between countries opposing the explicit inclusion of mentions to human rights and their (many of the same, not necessarily all) insistence on the explicit mention of "States' rights", mostly to international connectivity. It's not that principle that was contested; the crumbling down of the process has more to do with timing, wording and actors. 

One does have to read the transcript to see how this developed publicly, and that's still not the whole story of course. 

An unstated key is the constant shiftiness in the way things were introduced, retired, reintroduced, and spun, with the Secretary General and other ITU officers and principals from like-minded delegations attempts to manipulate the process. It would come to a head on almost any issue. They overreached one step too far. 

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

! !! !!! !!!!
NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO

SMS +525541444475
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de John Curran [jcurran at istaff.org]
Enviado el: viernes, 14 de diciembre de 2012 09:05
Hasta: Milton L Mueller
CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Declan McCullagh
Asunto: Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency

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