CNET Crave

CNET Australia Podcast

Thanks for the memories  July 26, 2012

UN summit implodes as UK, US, Canada and others spurn internet treaty

In a stunning repudiation of a United Nations summit, an alliance of Western democracies, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns that it hands repressive governments too much authority over the internet.

Part of the US delegation, which said today that it could not sign the proposed treaty because of its harmful effects on the internet, at the Dubai summit.
(Credit: ITU)

"This conference was never meant to focus on internet issues," said Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the Dubai summit. "The internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years — all without UN regulation."

Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland and the Czech Republic also said that they could not sign the proposed International Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, saying that "we reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" before signing.

The implosion of the high-profile ITU summit came late in the evening in Dubai after deep divisions became apparent over the mere mention of "human rights obligations" in the treaty — a proposal that China and Iran opposed — and whether the UN was the proper organisation to oversee key decisions about how the internet should be managed. Currently, groups including the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) fulfil that role.

"We all agreed that content was not intended to be part of the [treaty], but content issues keep coming up," the UK's delegate said, adding that the ITU, a UN agency, is not the "proper place" to address internet-related issues.

Canada said that it was forced to reject the proposed treaty because of its commitment to an internet "in which people are free to participate, communicate, organise and exchange information".

A united front from at least a dozen nations, especially the United States, has likely doomed the entire summit, which was convened to draft a new treaty, unless a competing alliance, including China and Algeria, are willing to offer a dramatic last-minute compromise. ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré said in September that, "no proposal is going to be passed if it does not have very wide support from all involved".

It's no coincidence that the nations that have been the most vocal in opposition to the human rights language also enjoy some of the most chequered human rights records.

China has been dubbed a "predator" of press freedom. It blocks thousands of websites and extensively monitors its citizens' internet activities. Algeria has censored websites that are critical of the government, monitored internet chat rooms and indefinitely banned public demonstrations.

China's delegation cited the "security of the state" when objecting to human rights language.
(Credit: ITU)

The polite language of international diplomacy would prevent the alliance of Western democracies from saying this directly, but a key concern is that putting topics related to internet speech and surveillance to a majority vote of ITU's 192 member nations may not end well. Many delegates to the ITU summit have less-than-favourable views toward internet freedom: two-thirds of the world's nations, according to Reporters Without Borders' ratings, suffer from significant "problems" with press freedom.

UN and ITU meetings often result, of course, in more rhetoric than substance. During a UN conference in Tunisia in 2005, for instance, Iran and African governments proclaimed that the internet permits too much free speech, with Cuba's delegate announcing that Fidel Castro believes that it's time to create a new organisation, "which administers this network of networks".

The difference this time is that the ITU summit, which ends tomorrow, was designed to rewrite the International Telecommunications Regulations (PDF), a multilateral treaty that governs international communications traffic. The treaty was established in 1988, when home computers used dial-up modems, the internet was primarily a university network and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was a mere four-year-old.

In a sharply partisan US election year, scepticism about the UN process had emerged as a rare point of bipartisan accord: the House of Representatives unanimously approved a resolution last week aimed at sending a strong message to the ITU. It said, in part, that "the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States [is] to promote a global internet free from government control".

Today's implosion counts as a victory for an alliance of civil liberties groups and internet companies, which had spent the last few months warning of what could happen if the Dubai summit veered in the wrong direction.

Google organised a campaign to draw attention to the summit, saying that some governments "are trying to use a closed-door meeting in December to regulate the internet". Advocacy groups Fight for the Future and AccessNow launched to warn that the ITU poses "a risk to freedom of expression" online. And Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the world wide web, warned about an ITU power grab.


Add Your Comment


Be the first to comment on this story!

Post comment as

Sponsored Links

Recently Viewed Products