WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World

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.
…
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.htmlAlso see:ITU Director General ‘Surprised’ By U.S. Dissent On New Telecoms Treaty, Says Internet And Content Issues Are Not In There
The director general of the International Telecommunication Union today spoke of his surprise and disappointment with the U.S., UK and other nations walking out of a vote to approve a new UN telecoms treaty, the first update to international regulation of the industry in 24 years. The treaty has been charged with controversy over questions of how it would approach Internet provisioning and freedom of speech, with several parties weighing in before and during the UN meeting in Dubai to make their positions known.”Yesterday we met twice,” director general Hamadoun Toure (pictured left) said today in the ITU’s first post-vote press conference. “I couldn’t imagine they wouldn’t sign it. I especially was surprised by the reasons that were put in place. I had made it clear from the opening that [Internet and content were not a part of the discussion]. I invited ICANN to show that we want to build bridges. The telecoms society and internet society need to work together. I made an appeal to please help us build bridges. The fighting will not help the consumer that we are trying to reach here.” He later noted repeatedly that Internet and content were not part of the discussion.
techcrunch.com/2012/12/14/itu-director-general-surprised-by-u-s-dissent-on-new-telecoms-treaty-says-internet-and-content-issues-are-not-in-there/The U.N. Isn’t Regulating the Internet-but Governments Still Exert Control
Is the U.N. now somehow regulating the Internet now that its International Telecommunications Union — after a two week meeting in Dubai that centered largely on whether it should include the Internet in its telephone-centric regulations — has today declared the existence of a new global telecom treaty?No. First, the United States, Canada, and many European nations declined to sign the new International Telecommunications Regulations. Some 89 countries were in favor and 55 opposed or abstained. If you go to the actual new wording of the regulations-which haven’t been changed since 1988-and search for “Internet” you find it mentioned in fairly bland language within a one-page nonbinding resolution.
www.technologyreview.com/view/508886/the-un-isnt-regulating-the-internet-but-governments-still-exert-control/After WCIT: Some observers fear content proposals [IDG]
Expect no major changes to the functioning of the Internet in the coming months after a controversial ending to the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), but an agreement hammered out there may encourage countries to censor Web content in the longer term, participants and observers said.WCIT, which ended Friday, will have little short-term impact on the Internet because regulations outlined in the final document won’t go into effect until 2015, and countries that want to sign on will need to have their governments ratify the treaty before then.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/121412-after-wcit-some-observers-fear-265136.htmlHow the UN’s ‘Game-Changing’ Internet Treaty Failed
Did you know that, for the past two weeks, the future of the Internet has been at stake?Yes, it has. Those two weeks hosted the World Conference on International Telecommunications (also hosted, technically, by Dubai). And they hosted, as well, a fairly dramatic face-off — often between blocs led by Iran, Russia, and China and blocs led by the United States, the UK, and Canada. The purpose of the summit? To rewrite a multilateral communications treaty (official name: International Telecommunications Regulations) that has been the official governing document of the Internet since the late 1980s. The treaty, if passed with a meaningful consensus, could have significantly altered the way the Internet is governed — and, therefore, it could have significantly altered the Internet itself.But go ahead and exhale: Late last night, a faction led by the United States walked out of negotiations, refusing to sign the treaty. “It’s with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the US must communicate that it’s not able to sign the agreement in the current form,” Terry Kramer, the U.S. ambassador to the summit, put it. “The internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years.”
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/how-the-uns-game-changing-internet-treaty-failed/266263/