[LINK] Internet Society Concern

stephen at melbpc.org.au stephen at melbpc.org.au
Thu Dec 13 20:42:53 AEDT 2012


NYTimes Editorial

Global Internet Diplomacy

Published: December 12, 2012 

Representatives of 193 countries are meeting in Dubai to update a treaty 
known as the International Telecommunication Regulations that was last 
negotiated in 1988 and governs the exchange of telephone traffic between 
countries

But a group of countries led by Russia and China are trying to use the 
deliberations, the first in 24 years and taking place under United 
Nations auspices, to undermine the open spirit of the Internet. 

The United States, the European Union and other countries have rightly 
resisted any such effort, which is also supported by the United Arab 
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Algeria, Iraq and Bahrain. It is bad 
enough that most of these countries already restrict the online speech of 
their citizens, but now they want international law to endorse their 
control and censorship of the Internet and possibly even tighten control 
in ways that would make it harder for users to get information online and 
allow governments to monitor Internet traffic more readily. 

One particularly disturbing element of their proposal, a copy of which 
was leaked last week to the Web site WCITleaks.org, has the potential to 
cause major disruptions to the Internet by giving each country the 
ability to manage Web addresses and numbering. 

That important logistical task is currently overseen by the nonprofit 
organization known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers — and it should stay that way. ICANN already coordinates with 
governments, civil society groups and Internet service providers to 
assign and manage domain names . Allowing each country to manage and 
potentially politicize that function by giving favorable treatment to 
some groups or providers would risk fragmenting the Internet, which is 
useful precisely because it’s universal and operates on the basis of 
globally accepted standards. 

Other parts of the proposal would give broad powers to countries 
over “matters of Internet governance.” Analysts say that language appears 
to legitimize and validate controls over content and access that many 
nations already use by including them in an international treaty. 

The Internet provisions are ill-considered diversions from what should be 
the core purpose of the conference: finding ways to expand access to 
communications technology, including reducing international cellphone 
roaming charges and lowering the cost of wireless and broadband services 
by encouraging competition. 

Organizers of the conference, which ends on Friday afternoon, have 
already said that no proposals or a final treaty will be put to a vote. 
Instead, they say an agreement will be reached through consensus. The 
envoy representing Washington, Terry Kramer, has made it clear that the 
United States will not accept any language on Internet controls, which he 
says does not belong in a treaty that should properly focus on 
telecommunications. Subjecting the Internet to more overlapping and 
unneeded regulations would only serve to weaken it. 



> > From:   cover at isoc.org
> > To:   isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org 
> > Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:03:49 -0500 (EST) 
> > Subject:   [ISOC] NEWS RELEASE
> 
> 
> Internet Society Expresses Concern over Direction of World Conference on
> International Telecommunications
> 
> Statement from the CEO and President, Lynn St. Amour:
> 
> At the conclusion of today's plenary, the Internet Society is concerned
> about the direction that the ITRs are taking with regards to the 
Internet.
> 
> The Internet Society came to this meeting in the hopes that revisions to
> the treaty would focus on competition, liberalization, free flow of
> information, and independent regulation - things that have clearly 
worked 
> in the field of telecommunications.
> 
> Instead, these concepts seem to have been largely struck from the 
treaty 
> text. 
> 
> Additionally, and contrary to assurances that this treaty is not about
> the Internet, the conference appears to have adopted, by majority, a
> resolution on the Internet. Amendments were apparently made to the text
> but were not published prior to agreement. 
> 
> This is clearly a disappointing development and we hope that tomorrow
> brings an opportunity for reconsideration of this approach.
> 
> 
> ISOC CEO and President, Lynn St. Amour
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.internetsociety.org
> http://www.internetsociety.org/wcit-daily-updates
> 
> --
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Loosley
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server






More information about the Link mailing list