Confusion after UN internet treaty split
2012-12-15 13:06
Washington - The freewheeling, unregulated internet seemed
to survive a push for new rules at a UN treaty meeting, but the collapse of
talks leaves unanswered questions about the web's future.
A total of 89 countries endorsed the global treaty on
telecom regulations at the UN's International Telecommunication Union gathering
in Dubai on Friday, but the United States and dozens of others refused to sign,
saying it opened the door to regulating the internet.
ITU chief Hamadoun Toure insisted that the treaty had
nothing to do with the internet, despite what he called "a non-binding
resolution which aims at fostering the development and growth of the internet".
Internet control
"This conference was not about the internet control or
Internet governance, and indeed there are no provisions on the internet,"
the ITU secretary-general told participants at the signing ceremony.
But James Lewis, who follows Internet governance at the
Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said backers
of the treaty distorted the facts.
"They were lying," he said. "It was totally
about the internet."
Lewis told AFP the ITU lost credibility because "they
swore up and down there wouldn't be a vote, that a decision would be by
consensus, and then they took a vote".
The outcome underscored a deep divide between the US and its
allies, which seek to keep the internet open and unregulated, and authoritarian
regimes that want to impose controls over online use and content.
Russia, China and Saudi Arabia have been among countries
seeking such changes.
Still, Lewis said the World Conference on International
Telecommunication, organised by the ITU in Dubai, failed to wrest control of
the internet addressing system from the global non-profit group called ICANN,
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
It remains unclear, said Lewis, whether the treaty can even
become effective without a majority of the 193 ITU members endorsing it.
"The ITU has to suspend consensus rules to say this
treaty is to take effect, and then it becomes an issue for the lawyers,"
he said, adding that the matter could end up before the UN Security Council.
Little immediate impact
US officials, who led opposition to new internet rules, said
the document adopted in Dubai will have little immediate impact.
Countries can exercise control of online activity within
their borders, but Washington and others objected to a treaty that would
legitimise new internet controls under UN auspices.
The head of the US delegation, Terry Kramer, walked out of
the hall as the signing started after protesting that the treaty was
"seeking to insert governmental control over internet governance".
That position drew praise from lawmakers and activists back home.
House Cybersecurity Caucus co-chairs Jim Langevin and
Michael McCaul said the treaty, if implemented, "would result in a
significant setback for anyone who believes free expression is a universal
right".
Google, another critic of the conference, said that many
governments taking part in Dubai proved they wanted increased censorship.
"What is clear from the ITU meeting in Dubai is that
many governments want to increase regulation and censorship of the internet,"
a Google spokesperson said in a statement.
"We stand with the countries who refuse to sign this
treaty and also with the millions of voices who have joined us to support a
free and open web."
'Humiliating failure'
Kieren McCarthy, general manager of the Global Internet
Business Coalition, called the outcome in Dubai "a humiliating
failure" for the UN agency.
"The collapse will come as a severe embarrassment to
the ITU," McCarthy said in a blog post. "Efforts to bring its core
telecom regulations into the internet era had exposed the organisation to
modern realities that it was incapable of dealing with."
Milton Mueller, an internet governance specialist at
Syracuse University, said it's not clear if the new language is a threat to a
free internet.
"While I didn't like the resolution nor did most
Internet rights advocates, I doubt if its passage would in itself be able to do
much harm," he said.
But Mueller said the diplomatic efforts were complicated by
concerns in some countries - mainly with "bad" human rights records -
who object to US sanctions that can cut off access to certain internet services
such as those from Google.
"Weird and ironic, in that it is the pro-human rights
nations that are using denial of access to internet services as a form of
policy leverage, and the anti-human rights nations that are claiming a
universal right of internet access," Mueller said.
