interesting perspectives - http://www.searchenginejournal.com/latest-wcit-2012-news-foretells-of-unfounded-fears/54392/ On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Poomjit Sirawongprasert <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > I, am here in Dubai as the adviser to the Thai Delegations, agree with > Avri. It is too drama forum for everyone and it is more difficult to the > non English speaking country like us to learn about the hidden agenda > behide those beautiful words. > > BTW, I have tried so hard for my own country to reduce the degree of > censorship but it is not easy. At least the outcome from my effort is > Thailand sign on the ITRs but we have very strong statement of our own > reservation, to take 'internet' away from the ITRs. > > Lastly, I love ICANN forum than this crazy ITU forum a lot. > > Poomjit Sirawongprasert (Moui) > ภูมิจิต ศิระวงศ์ประเสริฐ (หมวย) > twitter: @Moui <http://twitter.com/moui> > facebook: PoomjitS <http://facebook.com/PoomjitS> > > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I can't speak to why the US and other democracies did not sign not the >> other treaties and the fact the US republicans filibustered its own laws >> made treaty in the Treaty on the Disabled. But since I was in Dubai and >> immersed in this process, I will try to speak to this situation somewhat. >> >> In this case, the ITR treaty, was seen as threatening the Internet and >> Internet governance in some ways, especially with regard to Internet >> content and the scope of Member State and ITU control over the Internet. I >> know that Milton and Fadí beleive this is not the case, and I will admit >> that the attacks are not as blatant as was expected, but I agree with the >> decision by many governments, including my own governments decision to not >> sign, and thus disagree with the analysis of these august gentlemen. >> >> For me one the major issues related to the security and robustness of the >> Internet being a Member State responsibility. >> >> " >> ARTICLE 5A >> >> Security and robustness of networks >> >> 41B Member States shall individually and collectively >> endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international >> telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and >> avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development >> of international telecommunication services offered to the public. >> " >> >> First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that >> robustness? And what does it mean to apply this security not only to the >> physical network but also to harmonious development... The worst power of >> the ITRs is what they allow Member States to do inside their countries with >> permission of international law. Also what is envisioned in the collective >> endeavor. To what extent does this empower one country to impose on the >> legal system of another country to support its laws concerning the >> security, i.e harmony, of its network development? >> >> It does not take much imagination to see the future actions of >> repressive states with regard to their power to protect the security of the >> network from disharmony. Yes, it is less than these governments wanted, >> but it is yet another step forward toward government control of the network >> - especially since for most of those nations Internet is infrastructure and >> the ITRs are about infrastructure. It is only a small abstraction that, >> while not made in the ITRs, has been made by them and can be seen in their >> reservations. >> >> I also see threat in the article on spam, even though they have named it >> euphemistically: Unsolicited bulk electronic communications >> >> " >> ARTICLE 5B >> Unsolicited bulk electronic communications >> 41C Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures >> to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications >> and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. >> Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense. >> " >> True this is not as bad as unwanted Spam, which could mean anything, >> since Spam cannot be defined without reference to content. But even this: >> has this criminalized political statements sent to mailing lists? Will a >> sender potentially need to prove that every recipient solicited the >> mailing. Or will this feed into new crimes being defined in Russia and >> elsewhere that all email on LGBTQIA.+ event criminal propaganda. Remember >> we can't even prove that every email sent on this list is solicited. And >> will the general reference bulk electronic communication extend this to >> beyond just the consideration of email? What about SMS and other tools >> used in events such as the Arab spring - what can potentially be deemed >> illegal based on this article. remains to be sen, but it is a dangerous >> open door on repression of communications. >> >> >> I also have a problem with the preeminent place they have created for >> ITU-T protocols. True they did not go as far as initially proposed and >> state that only UTU-T protocols could be used, but they went far enough >> making the use of ITU-T recommendations something that must be taken into >> account. Specifically: "taking due account of the relevant ITU-T >> Recommendations." A step too far in my estimation especially if you take >> into account the recommendations that came out of WTSA, including the >> approval of DPI standards. We have to take WTSA and WCIT, and in fact the >> upcoming WTPF as a progression of events and look at the effects with a >> comppound perspective. >> >> Some will argue that these are not binding on member States, and that is >> true. My issues, and the issue of many governments, is not that all states >> will be bound by these (except [perhaps those that require collective >> endeavor), but that many States will use these as their legal bulwark for >> repressive acts that threaten the freedom of the Internet. >> >> I am also concerned with its scope, While Authorized Operating Agencies >> (AOA), a new term that is as of yet untested, and is not as broad as >> Operating Agency (OA) that would have allowed regulation of every >> infrastructure company, it is not as restricted as the Recognized Operating >> Agency (ROA). Some have argued that AOA is as restricted as ROA, yet >> logic demands the question that if AOA is the same as ROA, why did it need >> to be changed. There is extra scope in AOA which remains to be discovered >> in practice. >> >> Beyond that, while not binding on governments, >> >> "RESOLUTION PLEN/3 (DUBAI, 2012) >> To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet >> " >> >> Gives the iTU marching orders on Internet governance. While the ITRs >> themselves did not mention the Internet, this resolution did, in a big way. >> With a statements like: >> >> " >> instructs the Secretary-General >> 1 to continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play >> an active and constructive role in the development of broadband and the >> multistakeholder model of the Internet as expressed in § 35 of the Tunis >> Agenda; >> " >> >> We can expect to see a much stronger presence of the ITU everywhere. I >> even would bet that Fadí will be seeing a lot more of his good friend >> Hamadoun. And I expect the encroachment of the ITU on the IGF and all >> things Internet governance to continue unabated. ICANN may be safe for the >> moment, but the rest of the Internet ecosystem is certainly not. >> >> So not this wasn't the horror we expected. The governments did a fine >> job of negotiating this back, and I think without the attached resolution >> might have taken their chances on the other stuff, no matter how nervous it >> makes me and some of them. But the resolution that gives the ITU extra >> responsibilities for governance of the Internet broke the sense of an >> acceptable agreement. >> >> There is a lot of good stuff in this treaty for roaming, for emergency >> services, for landlocked countries and for accessibility, and I expect that >> these will be adhered to de-facto by most of the non-signatories (though >> some like Chile may not adhere to new regulation on landlocked countries >> and the US may not adhere to the new rules on roaming). >> >> And I expect (purely a personal prediction) that if something can be done >> about the Internet resolution in the Plenipot in 2014, more countries will >> sign on to the treaty before 2015 when if goes into effect. the story is >> not over by a long shot, just this episode. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> On 15 Dec 2012, at 04:42, Rudi Rusdiah wrote: >> >> > Dear all: >> > Why now big democratics nation avoid to sign international treaty... >> > >> > This happened not only with Internet treaty...but also Climate Change >> Treaty (Kyoto Protocol) and UNCLOS (UN Convention on Law of the Sea) until >> now are not signed by US, but signed by majority of the countries >> participated in the summit ? >> > >> > Its a pity and sad... even in WTO since Cancun... it always >> deadlock...luckily in WSIS Tunis 2005 all countries could signed and agreed >> on the Internet Governance (Tunis commitment)... so we can continue with >> the IGF forums and many other post WSIS meeting.. hope no more deadlock in >> the future....? >> > >> > Regards, Rudi Rusdiah - APWKomitel - Association of Community Internet >> Center (Indonesia) >> > >> > >