AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai

Sun Dec 16 23:41:30 EST 2012

Peter

Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is of 
those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused and 
havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for many 
countries to sign such important and binding documents like treaties 
after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 countries signed up 
on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up later.... So, a huge number 
of countries deciding to take time is quite normal. Many reports are 
making this number look as suggesting much less support for the ITRs 
than there actually is. This side of mis- representation must also be 
kept in mind.

The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries 
that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen 
had indicated that they would not...."

You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) 
signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the 
countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...."

Can you share the source of your information. The number actually saying 
they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a confusion in 
this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and other reports - NYT 
says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the actual count of 'those 
who have refused to sign' ...

parminder

On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
>
> The New York Times wrote:
>
> “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, 
> derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other 
> nations signed it.”
>
> Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and 
> correct the reporting:
>
> _Regarding the “handful of Western allies”:_
>
> Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty.
>
> Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the 
> treaty.
>
> So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of 
> allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls 
> of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and 
> CIS countries.
>
> And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following 
> the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations 
> what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe 
> did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including 
> spam, or security issues.
>
> _Regarding the “most other nations signed it”:_
>
> Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the 
> treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries 
> were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this 
> reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”??
>
> Peter H. Hellmonds
>
> Public & International Affairs
>
> peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu
>
> +49 (160) 360-2852
>
> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder
> *Gesendet:* 16 December 2012 14:23
> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Betreff:* [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in 
> Dubai
>
>
>
>
> New York Times
>
>
>   Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World
>
>   * /by/ ERIC PFANNER
>   * Dec. 14, 2012
>
> At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United 
> States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the 
> document and left in a huff.
>
> What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the 
> Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now 
> has many more users in the rest of the world?
>
> It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming 
> years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal 
> to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network.
>
> The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, 
> derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other 
> nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks 
> here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been 
> negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a 
> public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight 
> on Thursday as the signing deadline approached.
>
> The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it 
> was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its 
> current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage 
> censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet 
> oversight and replace it with government control.
>
> Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these 
> assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, 
> which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications 
> networks should charge one another for connecting calls across 
> borders. After being excised from the pact at United States 
> insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that 
> is attached to the treaty.
>
> The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not 
> address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That 
> convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the 
> Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no 
> one could call it an Internet treaty.
>
> A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations 
> “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.”
>
> Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling 
> in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new 
> treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for 
> governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of 
> the Internet.
>
> What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the 
> United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers 
> should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a 
> function now handled by an international group based in the United 
> States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for 
> Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications 
> networks for delivering material to users.
>
> Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the 
> negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour 
> intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like 
> Britain and Canada?
>
> In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer 
> cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam 
> and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international 
> telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used 
> by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech.
>
> But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less 
> tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had 
> mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a 
> chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about 
> the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty 
> and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk 
> about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter.
>
> It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in 
> Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would 
> underline the importance of keeping the Internet open.
>
> “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet 
> freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet 
> and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which 
> joined the United States in opposition to the pact.
>
> That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the 
> International Telecommunication Union — took place in this 
> economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down 
> emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the 
> final treaty.
>
> “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the 
> world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet 
> Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.”
>
> Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of 
> President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a 
> strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. 
> Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty 
> because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been 
> written into it.
>
> “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not 
> good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.”
>
> Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — 
> especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever 
> greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people 
> in developing countries go online.
>
> According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the 
> telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take 
> control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the 
> digital divide.
>
> While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré 
> and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to 
> more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline.
>
> Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in 
> broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for 
> extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. 
> The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to 
> regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said.
>
> “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for 
> them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, 
> where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the 
> messy pileup of the previous evening.
>
> As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will 
> continue to tilt against the United States and other developed 
> countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The 
> Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to 
> the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United 
> States.
>
> Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, 
> governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more 
> tolerant of it.
>
> “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of 
> the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” 
> Mr. Kramer said.
>
> By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had 
> signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would 
> not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. 
> Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he 
> was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. 
> Kramer said this was unlikely.
>
> Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty 
> largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying 
> mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy 
> with the outcome.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121217/e2e3c63c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1110 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121217/e2e3c63c/attachment.gif>
-------------- 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