[governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

So, by your enclosing those terms in quotes, are we to understand that in your opinion Amb Kramer was being hypocritical?

You might be confusing a hostile response to an overly political debate to trolling by the way. I would invite you to spend a few years on usenet to recognise trolling for what it actually is.  In my case, a response that is not driven by any commercial consideration at all.  Simply an allergic reaction to what I would term "uncivil society"

--srs (iPad)

On 17-Dec-2012, at 3:50, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> For anyone who hasn't yet read this, it is a very interesting document... 
> 
> One quick content analysis observation--the term "free" is used 6 times,
> "markets" 6 times, "Freedom" once, "Internet Freedom" not at all, and
> "multi-stakeholder" 17 times!
> 
> M
> 
> World Conference on International Telecommunications
> 
> Remarks
> Terry Kramer
> Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International
> Telecommunications Via Teleconference Dubai, United Arab Emirates December
> 13, 2012
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> *MODERATOR:* Yes, good evening everyone. We're here in Dubai and with
> Ambassador Kramer. We've just finished a session at the World Conference on
> International Telecommunications, and I'm going to turn it over to
> Ambassador Kramer now to give us the latest developments that happened at
> the WCIT 2012.
> 
> Ambassador.
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Megan, thank you, and thank all of you for
> joining us today. I want to thank you for your attention and patience as
> we've worked through the last two weeks at this conference, and I appreciate
> your diligence and persistence in reporting on the WCIT.
> 
> I also want to take this opportunity to thank and commend the ITU Secretary
> General Hamadoun Toure and our Conference Chairman, Mr. Mohamed Al-Ghanim,
> for their efforts and skills in working to guide this meeting. Our gratitude
> also goes to the United Arab Emirates for their hospitality during these two
> weeks.
> 
> The United States today has announced that it cannot sign the revised
> international telecommunication regulations in their current form.
> Throughout the WCIT, the U.S. and other likeminded governments have worked
> consistently and unwaveringly to maintain and enhance an environment for
> success for the international telecommunications and internet sectors. The
> United States has consistently believed, and continues to believe, that the
> ITRs should be a high-level document and that the scope of the treaty does
> not extend to internet governance or content. Other administrations have
> made it clear that they believe the treaty should be extended to cover those
> issues, and so we cannot be part of that consensus.
> 
> There are a number of issues that were critical to the United States in
> these negotiations. Number one, recognized operating agencies versus
> operating agencies. The United States consistently sought to clarify that
> the treaty would not apply to internet service providers or governments or
> private network operators.
> 
> Number two, spam. The United States position remains that spam is a form of
> content and that regulating it inevitably opens the door to regulation of
> other forms of content, including political and cultural speech.
> 
> Number three, network security. The United States continues to believe that
> the ITRs are not a useful venue for addressing security issues and cannot
> accede to vague commitments that would have significant implications but few
> practical improvements on security.
> 
> Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that
> some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet
> governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions.
> We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through
> multi-stakeholder organizations.
> 
> And finally, number five, the internet resolution. This document represented
> a direct extension of scope into the internet and of the ITU's role therein
> despite earlier assertions from Secretary General Hamadoun Toure that the
> WCIT would not address internet issues.
> 
> The United States has been willing to engage in good-faith discussions
> regarding these issues, and we'd like to thank and commend the other
> delegates for engaging with us. However, while we have consistently
> maintained our positions regarding the scope of the conference, other
> administrations have continually filed out-of-scope proposals that
> unacceptably altered the nature of the discussions, and ultimately of the
> ITRs.
> 
> It is clear that the world community is at a crossroads in its collective
> view of the internet and of the most optimal environment for the flourishing
> of the internet in this century. The internet is a global phenomenon that is
> providing enormous personal, social, and economic benefits to consumers,
> citizens, and societies in all areas of the world.
> It has grown exponentially over the past decade and continues to flourish
> and adapt to human needs everywhere. The entire world has benefited from
> this growth, and the developing countries are seeing higher growth rates
> than the developed world. The infrastructure of the global internet is
> shifting rapidly away from the transatlantic routes that formerly carried
> most traffic. The internet is becoming more regional and national and less
> centered in the U.S. and other Western countries. This is a welcome
> development.
> 
> All of the benefits and growth of the internet have come as a result not of
> government action or of intergovernmental treaty. They are an organic
> expression of consumer demand and societal needs, along with other
> multi-stakeholder governance. We have every expectation that the internet
> will continue to grow and provide enormous benefits worldwide. The United
> States will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of
> internet governance, standards development, and management. No single
> organization or government can or should attempt to control the internet or
> dictate its future development.
> 
> In addition, the United States remains fully committed to the values of
> freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas on the
> internet. While there was no consensus at WCIT-12, the conference served a
> valuable purpose in clarifying views and building a foundation for continued
> dialogue. The United States will continue to work not only within the ITU
> but in multiple forums to achieve the universal goals of further growth of
> advanced network infrastructure in developing countries.
> 
> The United States continues to believe that multi-stakeholder governance of
> the internet, coupled with liberalized telecommunication markets and the
> growth of network infrastructure in all countries, will accelerate growth
> and spread of the international telecommunications and internet throughout
> the world. The U.S. will remain engaged in a global dialogue on the role of
> governments and other stakeholders in the growth and development of
> international telecommunications and the internet sectors. This conversation
> will not be over when WCIT-12 ends. Rather, the discussion will continue for
> many months and years.
> 
> I'd like to now open the floor for your questions.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question,
> please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone
> indicating you have been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the
> queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone,
> please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. One moment, please,
> for our first question.
> 
> Our first question is from Rob Lever with AFP. Go ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador, thank you. You said at the start that the
> United States cannot sign these ITRs in their current form. And does that
> mean that it's not quite over and that you still have some hope of reaching
> some compromise, or is - you believe that proposal is on the table? And
> secondly, what does it mean if there is no consensus or no treaty that's
> signed? What does that mean? Do we even need this at all?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Thank you for the question. So first of all, the
> discussions in the main plenary right now are in the final stages. And the
> chairman has gone through - the chairman of the conference has gone through
> several rounds of changes to the ITRs to try and meet a variety of needs.
> And that's been a lot of our negotiations that have gone on over the last
> few days.
> 
> The version that's out there now looks like it's the near-final one. There
> could still be some very small ones, but it's looking near final. And the
> level of support from a variety of other nations looks strong enough that it
> looks unlikely it will materially change. So I just made a public commentary
> on the plenary floor to let the audience know there that we were not going
> to sign the agreement. And obviously, we talked about our fundamental belief
> in multi-stakeholder governance. So while there's still a chance things
> could change, I'd say it's highly unlikely. The plenary will meet for
> another hour or two, and then there's formalities tomorrow with signatures
> and other things.
> 
> So what can happen is your second question. So what's likely is if there's
> enough consensus to proceed, there'll be an actual signing ceremony where
> the countries that do agree with the ITRs will formally sign them.
> Obviously we are not going to be signing them. There may be some nations
> that will take reservations. So they may sign the agreement, but they will
> identify several areas that they don't like about the treaty. So it's a way
> of expressing opposition to it.
> 
> 
> 
> So the final part of your question is why does all this matter, how does it
> matter, et cetera. At the end of the day, these ITRs are not legally binding
> terms. They're much more normative and values oriented. It really kind of
> drives what the public discussion is. The actual ITRs officially don't take
> effect until January of 2015, and again, there's not a legally binding
> nature to it. But what is very fundamental about all this discussion is this
> is - we've had a very explicit discussion about views on the internet, and
> how it should be managed. And that - it was an explicit discussion on the
> plenary floor, and with our bilaterals, et cetera. And as you know, the
> divergence of views is significant. And we're going to continue to advocate
> the multi-stakeholder model. I'd like to think that as time progresses and
> people see the benefit of the internet, that the belief in liberalized
> markets and a multi-stakeholder model that frankly is much more practical in
> terms of advancing the internet, that that will take hold. But that will
> take a period of time, that discussion.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Eliza Krigman. Go ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION: *Hi. This is Eliza Krigman with Politico. Thanks for taking my
> call. What does this mean for the commercial arrangement between carriers,
> and specifically within payments from - or sending party pay payments, will
> there - if some countries ratify this treaty, does that mean they're going
> to then send Google a bill for sending their subscribers YouTube content?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So, Eliza, fortunately the sending party pays
> elements have been removed through negotiations. They have been removed from
> the agreements here. So we're obviously very pleased about that.
> There's obviously still - you have a lot of organizations that do business
> globally. But the way the treaty works is there's national sovereignty
> rights, so countries can do whatever they want to do in their own country.
> But obviously we don't want to have agreements globally that set a tone. So
> we're going to have to continue to advocate the importance of the global
> nature of the internet. And there's a natural momentum where the world is
> becoming more interconnected, and the commercial opportunities are
> significant. So that's where there's a continued kind of momentum to keep
> negotiations going between countries, between network operators.
> 
> *QUESTION: *Thank you.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from John Eggerton with Broadcasting
> & Cable. Go ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador. Can you identify any of the other countries you
> think might not sign, or is it just going to be the U.S.?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, so there were several - after I made my
> statement, there were a variety of other nations that then started to share
> their views, their concerns about the treaty. And they were either
> acknowledging that they would not sign or they acknowledged they had
> significant reservations and wanted to talk to their capitals overnight, or
> they identified specific areas that they want to take a reservation on. And
> matter of fact, once I spoke, there was a variety of nations, and I'll read
> them off to you here, and then we went to a break immediately afterwards.
> 
> So the countries that have already spoken and we'll hear from more, but it
> is the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, Netherlands,
> Kenya, the Czech Republic, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland. And again, that
> was just the group that spoke before we went on a break. So we'll know more
> after this. One of the reasons, obviously, that I put my statement out is we
> wanted to clearly signal that this is the United States position.
> There's a lot of countries, as you can imagine, that are waiting to see
> where the U.S. comes out.
> 
> But on this issue, candidly, we are resolute on this. We had to go in
> understanding that we may have nobody else supporting us, because these
> issues are so fundamental. And fortunately, as I mentioned with that list of
> countries, a lot of other countries see the same issues we do.
> 
> *QUESTION: *All right. But that's a mix. You don't know which specifically
> have said they're not going to sign; that's a mix of all three of those?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* That's right. That's right. But all of them - the tone
> in which they shared it were all concerns. There isn't anybody in that group
> saying, "We love it." They are all either going to be taking some sort of
> reservation or they're going to not sign. I mean, it was pretty clear from
> their comments.
> 
> *QUESTION: *Okay. Thanks.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Richard Waters with *Financial Times*.
> Go ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Yes, hello. The fact that so many countries haven't - sorry, are
> going to sign this suggests that - or does it suggest that actually the
> trend is away from the kind of open, free internet that you've been
> discussing here? And particularly if you bear in mind what happened at
> earlier conferences in 2003 and '5 where the kind of worst outcomes were
> headed off from your point of view, is what we're seeing now a trend away
> from the kind of web and the internet that the U.S. would like? And what
> gives you the confidence to think that if things will swing around? You seem
> to be suggesting that when countries see the benefit of an open internet,
> they will adjust their point of view, but it seems to be exactly the
> opposite here, isn't it?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yes. So first of all, we don't know yet who's going to
> vote in favor, because we won't know, literally, till tomorrow on that.
> There could be a lot of countries that abstain, et cetera. So it's, I think,
> premature for us to say who's going to agree or not agree.
> 
> But a couple of things on this. A lot of the countries that are expressing
> points of view different than ours are newer and less experienced in the
> whole internet play. It's a newer phenomenon. The penetration rates are
> still growing, et cetera. Many of them are dealing with political issues in
> their home countries where there's political instability and there's a
> different mindset to what the benefits of the internet bring. So the
> context, first of all, is very different in a lot of the countries that have
> expressed points of view different to ours.
> 
> The second comment, Richard, is, as you know, I've got a mobile background.
> I used to work with Vodafone. It is amazing as technology rolls from country
> to country how it looks in different places. It carries its own life and
> customizes to the local market. I actually think even more than the mobile
> sector, the internet looks different in different places from a content
> standpoint, an application standpoint, et cetera. And in turn, as that
> customization occurs, growth tends to increase. So I'm a fundamental
> believer over the long term you will see a lot more interest, economic
> activity, et cetera. Are there going to be political issues where certain
> countries don't want free expression? Absolutely, but if you say over a long
> period of time, I think people will see a lot of the
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

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