Brazil did sign. There have been the usually silly declarations from 
some gov reps that "the ITU does not control the Brazilian (sic) 
Internet". They seem to be happy with the roaming clauses and the 
mention of regional IXPs etc.

Our main concern is how far this will go in terms of policy within 
Brazil. Two crucial articles in our Internet Bill of Righst (Marco 
Civil) are being attacked. Article 9 is under pressure by a lobby of the 
transnational telcos operating in Brazil with full support of the 
Ministry of Communications, to either eliminate net neutrality from the 
Marco or define Anatel (our telco regulator) as the organization who 
will take control of the Internet link layer (or in their words, 
"regulate net neutrality"). Major worry is if this will mean the 
adoption of Y.2770 and the freedom to peek into and manipulate traffic 
at the link layer to the delight of telcos (of course they already do this).

The other article of concern (Art.15) is what refers to accountability 
of intermediaries. Lobby led by the likes of Rede Globo wants explicit 
insertion of takedown procedures, and there is also pressure to keep 
mandatory logs of navigation sessions as well.

So Marco Civil is in danger of becoming a lame, useless piece, or worse, 
one more instrument in the hands of telcos and big midia, instead of the 
major national reference from the point of view of users' rights for 
legislation and regulation affecting the Internet.

To compound the difficulties, some sectors of the federal government are 
pushing since 2011 for modifications in the structure of governance of 
names and numbers in Brazil. One of the scenarios is a future 
re-statization of CGI.br, since 2003 a multistakeholder organization in 
which the majority of members are elected by non-gov interest groups. 
One vision calls for going back to 2002, when gov indicated the non-gov 
members without public consultations. This movement started in mid-2011 
with the Min.of Communications pressing for the end of "Norma 4" -- the 
federal norm which determined that the Internet is a value added service 
not subject to telecom laws and regulations. This was approved at the 
time CGI.br was created in 1995. The end of Norma 4 together with 
pressures to change in statutes of the organization operating the domain 
name system in Brazil (NIC.br, which is overseen by CGI.br) are 
indications of this trend.

This process of Marco Civil through Congress coincided in time with the 
last phases of the WTSA and WCIT processes, and of course the latter 
heavily affected the former.

Not happy times here in this area!

--c.a.

On 12/15/2012 02:49 PM, Nuno Garcia wrote:
> Crossposting.
>
> Carlos, Brasil did sign the treaty?
>
> What does that means?
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Nuno Garcia
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dave Burstein <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 14 December 2012 20:03
> Subject: [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed
> To: itu2012chapters <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
>
>
>>From the ITU. Since people asked.
>
> 144 with right to sign****
>
> ** **
>
> 152 Members States present****
>
> ** **
>
> 89 have signed****
>
> 55 have reserved right to sign later****
>
> ** **
>
> In 1988, 112 signed on the spot, and eventually 187 signed up.
>
>     No, I don't know why only 144 have a right to sgn instead of 190 ITU
>   There's about 20 behind in their dues but I don't know if that's it.
>
> The surprises are India, Kenya and Phillippines all leaning against and
> consulting back home.
>
>
> Editor, DSL Prime, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and A Wireless Cloud
> Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley, 2002) and Web Video: Making It
> Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit, 2008)
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>