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

[jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr]

Dear Michael and all

 

Ambassador Kramer said



 

I'd be interested to have a rational explanation upon the relationship between DCs' "higher growth rates" and the Internet. IMHO there is rather a direct relationship ... with declining growth rates in Industriallized countries ! Maybe the US ambassador is just re-quoting the buzz of the World Bank that circulates since a couple of years (it's become a password in each WSIS Forum) in the UN agencies, claiming that +10% increase in mobile subscribers, sorry : consumers, means 1,6% increase of GDP in Africa. 

 

How happy these Africans are, thanks to mobile and the Internet !

 

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 16/12/12 23:23
> De : "michael gurstein" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT
> 
> 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 benefits, and this is a
> long game that we're playing here.
> 
> *QUESTION:* But as more countries join the internet, as you say, it could be
> that they will change the internet rather than the internet changing them.
> So this just might be the way (inaudible) countries that have a different
> approach to the medium changing the internet.
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I don't know. I mean, it depends what you mean by
> changing the internet. If you mean they're going to look to make it look
> different and customize it to their environment, then yeah, I would agree
> with you. If it's governments are going to, on the long term, control the
> internet and decide what it looks and how, I don't know that's going to
> happen yet. Certainly, people talk about it in a futuristic way, but I've
> not seen kind of a concrete piece of it.
> 
> And take an example of Kenya. I think Kenya is a great example from the
> internet and mobile and they're one of the supporters of our activity. They
> see a clear benefit in their society because it creates economic value, it
> reduces the digital divide, it creates more demand for services, it connects
> them with the world. And I think as you see more of those case examples of
> success, you get more and more people that say this is a good thing. And
> that's, again, the long game that we see.
> 
> *QUESTION:* All right, thanks.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Okay, our next question is from Joseph Menn with Reuters. Go
> ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. I wasn't tracking all of it as well as I might
> have been, but it looked like 3.8, the addressing thing, came out, which
> seemed like a very clear stumbling block. If that's right, then was the last
> straw the provision on countries pledging not to disconnect each other?
> Because if so, that sort of makes it look like the U.S. is an outlier and
> wants the ability to disconnect other countries in times of conflict.
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So you know, candidly, there were several items
> that really were the things that turned this over. What was interesting
> about this negotiation is sometimes there's this impression, well, you're
> negotiating ten items; one or two matter a lot, and seven or eight are kind
> of moderate, they don't matter a huge amount, you can give and take. In this
> negotiation, candidly, there's like five, six, seven things that were huge
> issues that had a lot to do, again, with different aspects of controlling
> the internet, and any one of these would have been a trip for us, would have
> been us saying no, we don't want to do this. And so when I read those off at
> the beginning of the call, each of those would have been a big issue.
> 
> So there was an internet resolution, as I mentioned. The internet resolution
> specifically talks about governance, about governments involved in
> governance of the internet. Now, what happened in the negotiations, they
> said, well, we'll take that internet resolution, we'll move it from the body
> of the articles which are binding in nature and they'll move it to a
> resolution which is nonbinding. And they said, well, isn't that great? The
> reality is it's still in the ITRs and people are going to look at it and say
> the ITU and this WCIT conference got into internet governance. So that was a
> fundamental issue that would have tripped, again, our position.
> 
> The second one is on spam. There's a provision on spam in this. And again,
> there was a lot of effort to try and water it down with saying we're going
> to mitigate, the focus on content, et cetera. But at the end of the day, if
> you're saying you want to reduce the spam problem, you're getting into a
> content issue there. And somebody, especially if you're talking amongst
> governments, you're giving the government the right to look at those issues.
> 
> A third issue was the issue of security. When you put security mixed in here
> with the internet and content, again, you open the door for an organization
> to say, listen, in the quest of dealing with cyber security issues, I'm
> going to have to look at content and I'm going to make it okay to review
> that content. So again, there's all these kind of circuitous ways to get
> into these things.
> 
> The final thing is just the agencies that are subject to this. We don't want
> lack of clarity about the agencies that are subject to this. We're very
> clear on this that public providers of telecomm services should be the ones
> that are affected but not any others, not private networks, not internet
> players, not cloud computing players, not government networks, et cetera.
> There's a lot of players in this kind of converged world that, again,
> indirectly or directly could be subject to these regulations.
> 
> So candidly, the decision to do a no-sign - there wasn't a lot of
> consternation on it. There were too many issues here that were problematic
> for us, and it made the decision clear.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Thank you.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from David Gewirtz with CBS Interactive.
> Go ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Hi. This is David Gewirtz calling. So Ambassador, what happens
> now? Will other countries essentially route around the U.S. desires for an
> open net? Will this lead to what might essentially become two internets, one
> open and one closed?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, we obviously hope that doesn't happen here. And
> again, from my own technology and mobile background, there's a natural
> momentum to players that have scale, that are first-movers, et cetera, that
> create lower costs, they create greater inoperability, et cetera. So there's
> a natural, I think, bias or advantage to that. And that benefits, by the way
> - we talk about Richard's question earlier about when technology rolls to
> successive markets, many of those later markets get the better end of the
> technology, because infrastructure costs come down, or handset costs come
> down, or unique contents available, et cetera, they get the benefit of it.
> 
> Now, if a country says, listen, I want to have a different standard, I'm
> going to have a different approach, then they can go proceed with that.
> Candidly, they could still do that under national sovereignty. But they're
> going to have to deal, again, with a more and more interconnected
> environment. And so I think our job in all of this is to continue to espouse
> the benefits of an open internet, of free content, of low costs here, of all
> the things that entrepreneurs do with the internet. We have to keep
> advocating that, and that will create a natural bias or momentum in favor of
> it. And again, at the end of the day, if somebody wants to develop a
> different standard approach, it's obviously that's country's prerogative.
> But we're hoping that's not an easy task.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Thank you.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Grant Gross with IDG News
> Service. Go ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Hello, Ambassador. Thanks for taking our calls. Kind of
> following up on that, what is the danger of this kind of resolution now as
> you see it coming out? What problems could it cause, even with the U.S. and
> the UK and other countries not adopting it?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so I don't see a lot of near-term or
> intermediate-term risks here, because it's not a legally binding document.
> It doesn't carry that risk. I think we've also maintained good relationships
> and enough kind of openness that companies that do business abroad have got
> a good environment.
> 
> I do think that it does set up for a much more direct conversation that's
> going to have to happen on multi-stakeholder governance, that that is really
> the only model that's been proven to be effective, where, again, you've got
> civil society and industry and others there addressing fundamental internet
> issues. And in turn, multi-stakeholder organizations are going to have to
> continue to focus on outreach and being global in nature.
> 
> And if you - there's issues in Africa. A lot of our African colleagues here
> are saying, listen, we've got cyber issues; we need help with that. Then we
> need to make sure there are multi-stakeholder organizations available to
> help then with those issues. The United States, in addition, does a variety
> of bilaterals with individual countries to help them with their own cyber
> work and other issues related to the internet.
> 
> But again, our fundamental view on this thing is you've got to be pragmatic.
> No one government can solve fundamental issues and deal with the internet,
> so you've got to have that expertise, that agility. And importantly, you've
> got to be customized in your approach.
> 
> So again, to bring up the cyber security issue, when you ask a lot of
> countries what is the cyber security issue, at the end of the day, it's
> heavily a regional issue; it's not a global issue. There's kind of one or
> two countries there are cyber issues with. So then you kind of ask the
> question, well, why exactly would you want to put terms in a global
> agreement on cyber. And there's not a very good answer.
> 
> So the net net of all this is we need to continue to advance the argument
> and the benefits of multi-stakeholder organizations. We need to put a lot of
> energy into the effectiveness of those organizations and make sure we
> continue to kind of build that global opportunity. So I think that's the
> charter going forward. And again, coming from the mobile industry, I've seen
> that in my own life with the associations and standards bodies that work
> very well in that environment. So I do think it will happen. It's just a
> period of time.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Thanks.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Adam Popescu with ReadWrite.com.
> Go ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Hi, Mr. Ambassador. Thanks for your time. A lot of my questions
> have already been answered by my peers, but going forward, what I'm - what I
> understand from what you're saying is because of the fact that other nations
> are going to be putting forth a lot of this stuff in terms of the ROA versus
> OA, basically my question is, sort of dovetailing on one of the last
> questions about the two internets, are we going to see a different view of a
> certain site for international, when they're here in the U.S.?
> And what's going to happen globally? And you mentioned January 2015 as the
> day when these are supposed to take effect, so maybe you could speak on that
> a little bit.
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. So first of all, I mean on a second internet,
> again, anything is possible. And you see on the content side there are
> social media sites, for example, in Russia that are unique in Russia. But
> again, what happens in this space, as you know - take a Facebook, right,
> with over a billion users. There's a natural advantage to having that type
> of user base globally. And that creates a momentum for that to spread
> further.
> 
> So I think, again, with the momentum that's going on, that it's kind of a
> natural that having some unique standard and setup somewhere else is going
> to be an easy task. There's countries, again, in the mobile space that have
> tried to set up a different standard for 3G, 4G, the latest network
> technologies - very difficult to pull off. So I don't know necessarily
> there's some ulterior motive at this point. We're seeing some nation want
> create some new effort. But we are going to need to continue to do this
> global outreach so we don't inadvertently allow a Balkanization of the
> internet.
> 
> And in terms of the January 15th date, nothing happens until then. And
> there's a lot of activities and conferences that are going to happen between
> now and January of 2015. So a lot of different reviews are going to happen.
> And candidly, in these situations a lot of people may have buyer's remorse.
> It's interesting; even when we do our bilats, et cetera, there are a lot of
> nations that are still kind of getting their head around what the internet
> is, the opportunity, what are the issues with spam, and what are the issues
> with roaming related to this et cetera. And that's been the benefit of this
> conference and our bilaterals, is we can have that discussion with people.
> And I think from that information, that education, you get a much better
> outcome. And I think people will come to the conclusion that
> multi-stakeholder governance is the right approach.
> 
> *QUESTION: *One quick follow-up question: When is the next major internet
> conference where we can kind of take up some of these matters?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Well, there's WTPF, a policy forum that's in May of
> next year. So that's going to be a place where some internet issues will be
> discussed. There's an IGF, an Internet Governance Forum meeting that's every
> year. I think their - it's tentatively targeted for Indonesia next year in
> the fall. So these happen literally every few months or so. But again, what
> we don't want to see is have these in the form of a treaty negotiating
> conference. There's a huge amount to be done in best practice sharing, and
> fora that talk about ideas and approaches, but just not setting up
> regulations.
> 
> *QUESTION: *And then my final question: Is this conference, then, and the
> fact that we're not signing, is this a failure?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Not at all. It's an interesting question, because I
> would talk with our U.S. delegation - success - and we always set this out
> with the goals of our delegation in the U.S. effort. Our end goal here is to
> create an environment where we can say there's going to be success for the
> internet and telecom. And it is so easy in this setting here where you're
> dealing with a lot of technical rules and regulations, you're dealing with
> other regulators here, et cetera, to lose sight of the plot in life. The
> plot here is to make sure that these sectors do well. And if you can't
> definitively say that an ITR is going to help that future of success, then
> you shouldn't put the ITR in. You shouldn't put regulation in.
> 
> So I very much look at this - this is success. We've had a chance in this
> conference to communicate what success, we think, looks like, the importance
> of the internet globally. There's been a connection between different
> countries and different people, et cetera, that I think all of that is a
> benefit. And on any issue that you have that's a deep kind of philosophical
> or technical issue, you don't have kind of one conversation and people's
> minds change. It happens over a period of time. It happens when you can
> point to success. It happens when you can say, look at what's happened in
> Kenya with broadband and the internet. Look what's happened in India with
> mobile penetration. You start pointing to success, and people say, "Now I
> know this isn't some theoretical, philosophical argument. This is a model
> that works." And so I think those things will happen. I'm optimistic about
> it. But it's the beginning of several steps. And so I do think this was a
> success, and there are going to be more of them.
> 
> *QUESTION: *Thank you.
> 
> *OPERATOR: *Our next question is from Cyrus Farivar with ARS Technica. Go
> ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION: *Hello Mr. Ambassador, and thank you very much for my taking
> question. I had two questions. First of all, I'm wondering - you talked
> about how the United States is not going to be supporting these agreements.
> I'm wondering why these agreements are even necessary in the first place.
> As you know, and I think as pretty much all of my colleagues know, lots of
> countries out there already conduct their own national internets to varying
> degrees. I'm talking most notably of China, Iran, certainly North Korea,
> that has probably the most restrictive internet policy of anyone in the
> world. So I wonder: Why are these even kind of national-based agreements
> even necessary to begin with when this practice is already going on? That's
> my first question.
> 
> And then my second question is: I'm wondering what was the role of lobbying
> to your delegation, particularly by corporations such as Google and
> particularly by prominent internet technical experts, like Vint Cerf, who,
> as you know, was the architect of some of the fundamental foundations of the
> protocols behind the internet itself.
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. No. Great questions. So first of all, on your
> first question on the global nature, you're absolutely right. Countries have
> national sovereignty rights, so they can do what they want. But what we
> don't want over time is a set of global agreements that people can point to
> and say, listen, this treaty gave us the right to impose these terms on
> global operators of some sort. Now, again, we don't' think that's going to
> happen with this per se because it's a normative approach, it's not legally
> binding. But you sure don't want to kind of just allow something to happen
> that people can think is a binding term on an increasingly global
> environment. So that's why we don't want it to happen.
> 
> Our argument specifically on the ITU is the ITU does great work in a lot of
> the radio areas, in spectrum work, in coordination work, they do a lot of
> great work in developing markets, et cetera. But in the internet, it's not
> the charter. It's not the place. It's not going to be able to do the things
> that are going to really add value. And so that's why we say, continue with
> the ITU and interact with a lot of other delegates, but make sure it's on
> the right topics.
> 
> Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but
> I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here
> of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from
> State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et
> cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet
> players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were
> members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as
> a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're
> representing national interests.
> 
> So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be
> subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these
> different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward,
> why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry
> provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed
> our positions more broadly on a national basis.
> 
> A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our
> bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real
> benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece
> of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do
> outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're
> able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players,
> and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our
> delegation.
> 
> But finally I'll say - and I don't know if you call - it's a bit of the
> irony of all this is we - people said, "Geez, you guys have a large
> delegation." The fact we had a large delegation with the type of engagement
> we had is the beauty of our system - is you have a lot of people that are
> taking their ideas - some of them are their own self-interest, but a lot of
> it is much broader than that, and they're contributing to a greater outcome
> here. And as I did bilaterals with other nations, it was interesting how
> many countries I would go to where a member of industry or civil society
> said, could you tell my government this, this and this? And I said, well,
> isn't there a delegation in their own country sharing it? Well, the reality
> is a lot of countries don't have that type of inclusive nature. Certainly
> the democratic ones do, but there are a lot of ones that aren't. And it was
> a very stark message to me of exactly what we're talking about when we talk
> about multi-stakeholder governance and how you collect the best wisdom and
> energy to create something bigger. So a long-winded answer to your question,
> but that - those representatives were a very essential part of our
> delegation.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Thank you.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from David McAuley with Bloomberg
> BNA. Go ahead, please.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Thank you. Ambassador Kramer, my questions, too, have been
> answered, but let me ask this: What will happen to the U.S. delegation now
> and to your role between now and, let's say, WTPF in May? And what are the
> U.S. plans going forward between now and January of 2015?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. Thank you, David. And so a couple of things.
> People will all go into their own worlds again in the coming weeks and
> months. So our delegation - obviously a lot of them are in civil society or
> industry, et cetera. They'll, obviously, go back into that. I'll eventually
> go back into probably academia and the work that I was doing before, and
> maybe industry again. You never know.
> 
> But importantly, what should be happening in the next month or two is what
> are the learnings from the conference, what are the implications going
> forward, how do we advance multi-stakeholder governance. All of those
> things, I think, are going to be very, very helpful. And I think, again, to
> the earlier question about was this successful, there's a lot of success in
> understanding points of view of other nations, of really honing in on our
> arguments, and importantly how do you advance these ideas about liberalized
> markets and about multi-stakeholder governance. So the next couple of
> months, my mind is going to be on that and sharing insights as well as a lot
> of my colleagues.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Thank you.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Next question comes from Jennifer Martinez, The Hill. Please go
> ahead.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. Appreciate it. You've
> kind of touched on this in previous questions, so apologies if this is
> somewhat of a repeat. But with the countries that are signing the ITRs, I
> guess, would they be treating a company like Google or Facebook differently
> in the future, or is it too early to tell, since the treaty hasn't gone into
> effect yet?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. I think it's too early to tell. A lot of the
> countries that would sign, that would have policies very different than
> ours, are already creating a very different environment. So I don't think
> that's likely to happen near term. And again, I think from a legally binding
> standpoint, these ITRs don't have teeth in them. But I do think we have to
> continually be vigilant on this issue about not erecting barriers.
> 
> And some of the arguments on this, Jennifer, it's interesting. You may have
> governments that have different political views than us. They may have
> different practices on censorship, et cetera. But many of them are
> fundamentally concerned about commercial issues. They want to see commerce;
> they want to see people using the internet effectively, et cetera. And so
> there's always that argument that helps advance keeping the internet free
> and open.
> 
> So that's kind of the mindset from here. And again, I don't expect any big
> change in any of this. But we are going to have a continued effort to make
> sure this multi-stakeholder model and the global opportunity is made clear.
> 
> *MODERATOR:* All right. We have time for one more question.
> 
> *OPERATOR:* Okay. Last question comes from Josh Peterson, The Daily Caller.
> 
> *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. Thank you for your time and thank you for taking
> my question. I just wanted to go back and talk a little bit about what
> brought the proceedings to a vote. Because from what I understand, the event
> operates on consensus, but - and a vote was unlikely. So what was it that
> prompted this to happen?
> 
> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so first of all, what happened last night and
> what also happened this evening is there was an indication of interest.
> People hold up placards. They did one vote, I think, later on to try and
> move things along. So some of what's happening is the views on these issues
> are so heartfelt and so significant, and it slowed down a lot of the
> negotiations. I mean, here we are Thursday night, and it's almost midnight
> here, and people are still trying to work away.
> 
> So the chairman has really tried to move things along. And one of the tools
> was to do this vote on the human rights element. But in general, they've
> tried to really stick to consensus. So I don't feel, per se, that this
> indication of interest or a nominal vote has been the big issue. I think the
> bigger issue is there's a variety of nations out there that do hold
> different views than our own, and we're going to have to continue to engage
> so that we don't find that that continues to be an area of disagreement.
> 
> *MODERATOR:* All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us this
> evening. And as a reminder, we will not be having another call. This was our
> press briefing that we had mentioned in our media note previously.
> Thank you, everyone. Have a good night.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121217/6579198d/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