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. >