Dear ITU: A Complex Process Where Delegates Who Fly To Dubai Can 'Lobby' Is Not 'Transparency'

from the words-mean-things dept

The EU Parliament recently joined the US government in speaking out against the ITU’s upcoming WCIT event, which we’ve been discussing. This is where the ITU — an ancient organization designed to deal with telegraphs, and whose relevance today has been widely questioned — is seeking to take over certain aspects of internet governance, well outside its mandate. Certain countries — Russia and China in particular — and certain large telcos (including many EU ones) are looking at this as a way to advance very specific interests, either for increased control and censorship over the internet, or in forcing successful internet companies to fork over money to telcos who have failed to innovate. Thankfully, the EU Parliament has now spoken up about its concerns, noting a number of key points (these are just the first half, but they give you an idea):

1. Calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure that any changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations are compatible with the EU acquis and further the Union’s objective of, and interest in, advancing the internet as a truly public place, where human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of expression and assembly, are respected and the observance of free market principles, net neutrality and entrepreneurship are ensured;

2. Regrets the lack of transparency and inclusiveness surrounding the negotiations for WCIT-12, given that the outcomes of this meeting could substantially affect the public interest;

3. Believes that the ITU, or any other single, centralised international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over either internet governance or internet traffic flows;

4. Stresses that some of the ITR reform proposals would negatively impact the internet, its architecture, operations, content and security, business relations and governance, as well as the free flow of information online;

5. Believes that, as a consequence of some of the proposals presented, the ITU itself could become the ruling power over aspects of the internet, which could end the present bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model; expresses concern that, if adopted, these proposals may seriously affect the development of, and access to, online services for end users, as well as the digital economy as a whole; believes that internet governance and related regulatory issues should continue to be defined at a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder level;

6. Is concerned that the ITU reform proposals include the establishment of new profit mechanisms that could seriously threaten the open and competitive nature of the internet, driving up prices, hampering innovation and limiting access; recalls that the internet should remain free and open;

The ITU has taken to its blog to hit back, claiming that it is deeply disappointed in the resolution. No surprise there. It tries to hit back on some of the points, but fails wildly. Take, for example, its response to the transparency issue:

However, it is important to point out that WCIT is inclusive of 193 national delegations which are participating in WCIT-12. Private sector companies and civil society organizations have also registered to attend WCIT-12 in large numbers.

Everyone attending WCIT-12 is free to lobby for their specific positions.

Added to this, in the run-up to the conference, the ITU Secretariat created a platform to allow any individual, civil society player or company to make its views known.

The very thorough and inclusive preparatory process leading up to the WCIT-12 has been completely transparent. Every European parliamentarian could have obtained all the documents from their own government, or from the European Commission.

At ITU, transparency is achieved at the national level, through national consultations in national languages. Surely this process is far more inclusive than just posting an English language text on a web page?

Note the key false equivalency here: that transparency means that you can have your voice heard (if, that is, you’re willing to sign up to fly to Dubai and take part as a delegate). First of all, being heard is not transparency. Transparency is about sharing information in the other direction. It’s about making the discussions and details public so everyone knows what’s going on. Hearing what people are saying is listening and it’s important — but it’s not transparency.

Second, the fact that parliamentarians could obtain the documents is not transparency either. It does not involve the public.

It’s this kind of misleading rhetoric that makes people so concerned about the ITU. The fact that it pretends transparency is something other than it is seems like a real problem.

Filed Under: itu, transparency

China Hails ITU Internet Takeover By Blowing Its Favorite Trumpet: Distrusting The US

from the one-way-of-looking-at-it dept

While there’s been plenty of talk about the upcoming ITU process, the ITU keeps attempting to downplay what it’s trying to do — and insisting that Russia, China and other regimes aren’t looking to use the process to clamp down on the internet. Of course, proposal leaks from Russia suggest otherwise. As for China, Dave Farber points us to an editorial in the People’s Daily newspaper in China from back in August that argues that the ITU process is necessary to wrest control of the internet away from the US.

This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country.

More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike, and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource. The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards.

The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leading to the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet.

This is an exaggeration of reality. While ICANN has serious problems — which we frequently discuss here — that doesn’t mean that dumping it entirely in favor of a ridiculously secretive and bureaucratic process like the ITU makes sense. The article goes on to cite the US apparently turning off the .iq domain for Iraq during the invasion in 2003. Of course, that’s an interesting rewriting of history. The issue with the .iq domain wasn’t quite as cut and dried as the editorial implies. First of all, .iq wasn’t a widely used domain no matter what. But, more importantly, it was entirely managed and controlled by a guy in Texas who was accused of funding terrorists and eventually sentenced to 84 months in jail. It wasn’t so much a case of the US government running to ICANN and saying shut down the domain, as it was a criminal investigation into separate issues that happened to scoop up the one guy who controlled the TLD. And, it should be noted that ICANN gave .iq back to the Iraqi government years ago.

This kind of stuff indicates the lengths to which the Chinese government seems willing to go to prop up the ITU process for taking over aspects of internet governance: they’ll just lie and make up stories when the truth isn’t particularly convenient.

Filed Under: china, itu, us
Companies: icann

Google Asks People To Speak Out Against ITU's Attempt To Takeover Internet Governance

from the speak-up dept

We’ve been covering how the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has been moving forward with its plans next month to consider a number of proposals to takeover aspects of internet regulation and governance. There are, of course, a number of different proposals being submitted by different countries. The problem, of course, is that the setup of the ITU is not open to the public, and there are some special interests involved — mainly by countries with oppressive governments looking to use this as a way to gain control over the internet for the sake of censorship, as well as local (often state-run or state-associated) telcos using the process to see if they can divert money from successful internet companies to their own bank accounts. While the ITU likes to present itself as merely a neutral meeting place for all of these proposals, what’s been clear for a while is that the ITU leadership has taken an active role in encouraging, cultivating and supporting some of the more egregious proposals.

Some of this is due to the way in which the ITU leadership views the internet. Some of it is due to an organization that realizes its own mandate is obsolete and it really serves little purpose anymore, so it’s coping by pretending its mandate is much broader, but doing so in a way that shows it has little understanding of the internet other than “something we want a mandate over.”

This seems to be one situation where, in the US, pretty much everyone is aligned against this effort. Politicians and companies — including telcos, tech companies, service providers and more — are all quite worried what an ITU-governed internet would lead to (mostly funds being diverted from innovative companies to stagnant players and a much less open internet). But the US has only one vote in the upcoming WCIT event where many of these proposals will be reviewed. ITU boss Hamadoun Toure pretends that the public has a voice in this process, but ridiculously shut down the public commenting tool on the ITU’s website before telling everyone about it (nice trick, that).

However, if the ITU won’t let the public comment, there’s nothing preventing the public from speaking out elsewhere. That is, after all, one of the amazing wonders of the internet, which the ITU refuses to understand: it’s a tool of communication and expression. Along those lines, Google has revamped its “Take Action” page to urge people to speak out about the whole ITU/WCIT process which will be kicking off on December 3rd.

Also, if you want a simple video that explains what’s happening, the one at WhatIsTheITU.org is really fantastic. It explains how the internet grew based on an open, bottom up process of technological experts, rather than a closed, top down setup by a large bureaucracy. And we should be concerned when anyone tries to flip that process.

Filed Under: internet governance, itu, open internet, un
Companies: google

Russia Demands Internet Takeover By The UN… And Then Retracts It

from the look-at-that... dept

Quite a week for random governmental retractions. Back in February, when we first warned about the upcoming “World Conference on International Telecommunications” (WCIT) meeting of the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU), we noted that the thing to be most afraid of was countries like Russia and China using the process to take over control of aspects of the internet, in part to allow greater control for the sake of censorship, but also to set up questionable “tariffs” on internet traffic, designed to basically divert money to state owned or “closely associated” telcos. While much of the focus over the past few months was on the EU telcos proposal, you had to know that even worse was coming.

Last week, the Russians released their proposal, first in Russian and a few days later with an English translation to the ITU — and both versions quickly leaked. You can download it from the Internet Archive or view the embed below. It is a pretty blatantly bad document. Larry Downes, over at News.com, has a pretty thorough analysis of the document and why it’s troubling. Here’s a snippet:

The leaked proposal would strongly endorse national control over those parts of the Internet that reside within a country’s borders, including ISPs, traffic, and engineering. One suggested change to the treaty, for example, declares that “Member States shall have the sovereign right to manage the Internet within their national territory, as well as to manage national Internet domain names.”

Russia is also calling for a major revision to the multi-stakeholder governance process that has long-presided over domain names and Internet addressing, which it calls a “critical transnational resource.” Under a proposed revision, the treaty would be amended to make clear that “Member States shall have equal rights in the international allocation of Internet addressing and identification resources.”

Today, oversight of domain names and IP addresses is delegated to ICANN, a nongovernmental organization, which manages key Internet resources through a complex mechanism. According to ICANN, its model is “bottom up” and includes “registries, registrars, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), intellectual property advocates, commercial and business interests, noncommercial and nonprofit interests, representation from more than 100 governments, and a global array of individual Internet users.”

The ITU, by contrast, allows only its member nations to vote. Private organizations can participate in its proceedings by paying a large annual fee but cannot propose amendments or vote.

This isn’t a surprise… but it is a clear problem:

Curbing the Internet is a priority for these countries that goes well beyond the WCIT process. China, for example, recently hosted its first annual “Internet Roundtable for Emerging Countries,” attended by Russia, Brazil, India, and South Africa. According to observers of the meeting, the participants agreed that “The Internet must be managed by governments, with a particular focus on the influence of social networks on society.”

The Russian proposal, however, is the most audacious power grab to date. And it comes as little surprise to observers of the ITU, which has deepened ties to Russia in a bid to demonstrate its relevance in cybersecurity. Last year, during a meeting between Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Toure, Putin bluntly told Toure that Russia was keen on the idea of “establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capability of the International Telecommunications Union.”

Of course, a funny thing happened over the weekend… In talking to people familiar with the matter, we found out that days after the Russian proposal went live, they pulled it and submitted a “revised” version. Right now it’s Russian only, so people are waiting for the ITU’s translators to dig in, but we’re hearing from people who understand Russian that the new version is slightly better than the original, but still has significant problems.

Meanwhile, Downes piece also has two ridiculous tidbits about just how out of touch and clueless the ITU is. Earlier this month, we wrote about an editorial in Wired by ITU boss Hamadoun Toure in which he explained why the UN should regulate the internet. Downes points out that the title of that article was changed from “UN Must Regulate the Internet” to “UN: We Seek to Bring Internet to All.” Quite different, though it’s unclear who came up with the headline. The bigger issue, however, is that part of Toure’s insistence that the ITU process is an “open” one relies on the existence of the WCIT Public Views and Opinions page, where people could submit their opinions — and he encouraged people to do so. Only problem? At the time Toure’s piece was published, the ITU had already turned off the ability to add new comments.

A link directed readers to the WCIT 12 “Public Views and Opinions” page, which, since it was created in July, has received only 15 posts.

But perhaps that’s because the ITU required commenters to first register, provide extensive identifying information, and agree to a lengthy terms of service agreement before they could “express their views” on the contents of a single, and highly redacted, early draft of the proposals the ITU decided to release. (The complete document, as well as many more recent versions, are available on WCITLeaks.)

Or perhaps that’s because, as one of Wired’s reader’s pointed out, the “Public Views and Opinions” page had actually been shut down before Toure’s editorial was even published.

Weeks ahead of the conference, and just as some of the worst proposals are leaking out of the ITU’s information fortress, the public comment page now reads solemnly: “We inform you that the WCIT-12 Open Consultation process is now closed.”

That statement captures, in a nutshell, everything that’s wrong with the WCIT, and the ITU’s pathetic effort to spin it.

Why is it even a discussion for the ITU to try to take more control over the internet when they clearly have no clue?

Filed Under: internet governance, itu, russia, wcit

ITU Boss Explains Why He Wants The UN To Start Regulating The Internet

from the not-good dept

We’ve written a few times about why we should be worried about the ITU (a part of the UN) and its attempts to regulate the internet, to which some have responded by arguing that the ITU/UN doesn’t really want to regulate the internet. However, the Secretary-General of the ITU, Hamadoun Toure has now taken to the pages of Wired, to explicitly state why he believes the UN needs to regulate the internet. And it appears that many of the initial fears are 100% accurate. We’ve already covered how the ITU seems to be hiding all sorts of awful scary things by claiming they all fall under the “cybersecurity” banner, and we’ve noted that the ITU’s mandate over cybersecurity is imaginary and its history with the subject is sketchy, at best. However, in the op-ed, Toure doubles down on why the UN should be there helping countries censor things like “porn and propaganda” on the internet as a part of its “cybersecurity” efforts

Governments are looking for more effective frameworks to combat fraud and other crimes. Some commentators have suggested such frameworks could also legitimize censorship. However, Member States already have the right, as stated in Article 34 of the Constitution of ITU, to block any private telecommunications that appear “dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency.” The treaty regulations cannot override the Constitution.

Many authorities around the world already intervene in communications for various reasons – such as preventing the circulation of pornography or extremist propaganda. So a balance must be found between protecting people’s privacy and their right to communicate; and between protecting individuals, institutions, and whole economies from criminal activities.

First, it should be made clear that Toure is being somewhat disingenuous here. The ITU’s mandate concerning such communications were written for a different time, when telecommunications meant limited communications systems — initially the telegraph (yes, that’s how far this goes back) and then the telephone. Toure claims that the ITU is “charged with coordinating global information and communication technology (ICT) resources,” but that’s only in his own mind. The “Constitution” he so proudly points to only refers to telecommunications — which in this context has a very, very different meaning than broader “information and communications technology.” The ITU’s charter is for telecommunications only. That is, old telephone networks (and telegraphs before that). In such cases, there was a need for a group like the ITU to help deal with standardization and interconnection among large companies. But, with the internet, their role is basically obsolete. There are other basic standards bodies — ones that are more open and understanding. But Toure is focused on helping out authoritarian states like Russia and China that want to claim that “pornography or extremist propaganda” should be censored.

This is a serious problem for those who support an open and free internet that provides greater ability for free expression to occur. If people are doing things that violate local laws, go after them legally and prosecute them under those laws. To put it on telcos — often ones with close ties to state governments — to block and censor, all in the name of “cybersecurity,” is opening up a huge can of worms. There is no need for the ITU to get involved in this situation at all.

Then, there’s the second big problem — and what this story is all about in reality. As we’ve noted in the past, large, slow, lumbering legacy telcos (many of them either state owned or formerly state owned) haven’t innovated at all. They see big internet companies, who are building awesome and fantastic services that consumers want — and getting rich doing so. In response, they get jealous, and say that they deserve some of that money. And that’s what this plan is really about — the ITU helping its “member” telcos try to divert money from the successful services out there to the big lumbering telcos who failed to innovate. Toure more or less says that in his op-ed, by labeling it as a more “fair” distribution of revenue:

An important and influential factor is network financing, so the conference may consider strategies around sharing revenues more fairly, stimulating investment, mainstreaming green ICTs, and expanding access as widely as possible to meet booming demand.

And that’s what this comes down to. It’s about diverting revenues from companies who earned it in the market, to the telcos who did nothing, often getting fat and lazy on the back of government subsidies and who are now jealous. But since they make up the core of the ITU and give it its purpose, suddenly it’s all about “sharing revenues more fairly.”

Thankfully, it appears that most of the commenters on the Wired piece see through this and are calling Toure out on it.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, free speech, hamadoun toure, internet regulation, itu, pornography, propaganda, un

Despite No One Wanting It To, ITU Seeks To Butt In On Patent Issues Too

from the searching-for-relevance dept

We’ve been talking a fair bit about the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) — the legacy group that’s been around in one form or another for over a century and a half, trying to regulate how telco systems work across national borders. Much of the concern has been about its plans to expand its purview over the internet. As many people have noted, it really seemed like the ITU was realizing that its primary function was losing relevance, as basic telco issues become less and less important as they are superseded by the internet. So, without any reason, need or mandate, the ITU is just looking to force itself into a position of internet governance as well — with potentially horrific results. Of course, that’s not the only arena in which the ITU is trying to shove its weight around and assert relevance where it has none. We’ve already pointed out that it also wants in on internet security, despite near complete ignorance on the topic.

And that’s not all… Back in July, we wrote about the ITU’s plan to host a patent summit to respond to the various patent thickets and disputes, with a main focus on the smart phone patent thicket. Now, having discussed problems with patents, and the smartphone patent thicket in particular, this might seem like a good thing, but when the summit was announced, we wondered if the ITU really understood the issue, and whether it would even have the right people participating. While the full details of the summit were apparently off the record, Nick Ashton-Hart’s report on what he could say about the event suggests that, once again, it was entirely about the ITU inserting itself where it doesn’t belong and where no one wants it to go. He notes that all of the ITU’s public statements about the summit positioned itself as “riding to the rescue” of various patent disputes. But there were significant problems with this… in that no one wants the ITU’s “help” here:

1 – First, the was an overwhelming lack of support for action at the ITU by the participants. I’ve been to many international meetings over more than two decades. You can tell, through the often exaggerated politeness in which positions are inevitably couched, when a group is willing to continue to discuss an issue and when it is not. It was completely obvious long before the end of the day that there was insufficient interest in the room to take forward the discussion – at the ITU, at least.

2 – Secondly, the ITU had clearly decided in advance what was going to happen, and expected the participants to rubber-stamp their conclusions. This was obvious when an ITU official read out a pre-prepared speech at the end of the meeting, including the following:

“I believe that providing market players with clear, transparent, effective and up-to-date patent policies works for the benefit of the industry as a whole…As the Secretary-General stated in the opening, ITU has a determination to take a leading role in the development of effective RAND based policies in the ICT sector…”

Followed by this bombshell:

“I will therefore request the TSB Director’s Ad Hoc Group on Intellectual Property Rights, which will meet tomorrow, to begin work on a recommendation aimed at providing high level principles clarifying the meaning of reasonable, and the issue of injunctive relief, in the RAND context.”

In other words, ‘we’re going to do what we want and we expect you to go along with it.’

Basically, before the meeting even started, the ITU had decided what the problem was. But, since it’s jumping into a space where it doesn’t understand the issues, it’s suggesting a “solution” that doesn’t make sense, and which was clearly not supported by others at the summit. Nick explains further:

I recall only one of the 100 participants asking the ITU itself to do anything as an outcome of the meeting – though a few did suggest that standards organisations in general – of which the ITU is one of many – could usefully look at various technical issues (such as transparency of ownership of SEPs).

He goes on to point out that the focus on standards-essential patents is misguided, and was not a main concern of the attendees. In fact, he even notes one participant who got there thinking that SEPs were a problem, but left with his mind changed — further evidence that the ITU had decided well before the meeting what the “result” would be — and the fact that the summit didn’t support its position was simply ignored.

Once again, it appears to just be a situation where the ITU has little knowledge, no experience and no mandate… but where it’s trying to shove itself in, as it tries to remain relevant in a world that no longer needs it.

Filed Under: itu, patents, un

Why You Should Be Worried About The ITU's Bizarre Claim To Have A Mandate Over Internet Security

from the looking-to-remain-relevant dept

We just recently wrote about how the UN’s ITU (International Telecommunications Union) has been seeking to massively expand its mandate to take over international governance issues related to the internet, based on no real mandate other than one of its own making. Because of this, there are reasonable fears that it will end up creating dangerous rules that favor the incumbent telcos (often closely associated with certain governments) over what’s actually best for the internet. Part of that analysis suggested that this was about the ITU trying to remain relevant in any way it could. After all, the core reason for the ITU existing for more than a century and a half was to deal with how different telcos would do the kinds of things that people no longer rely on telcos for. Because of that, they’ve basically been pretending that they should be involved in all sorts of unrelated things.

For example, plenty of the recent discussions coming out of the ITU have been focused on internet security issues. And you could argue that there are some significant security concerns that need attention. But is the ITU the proper body for this? Almost certainly not. Anthony Rutkowski has written up a history of the ITU’s relationship to security noting that, at best, the ITU has tended to completely ignore security issues, and at worst, “treated security as a kind of vague requirement.” The conclusion is pretty clear. The ITU isn’t the proper body to be dealing with security at all. It has neither the mandate nor the necessary expertise.

So why is this ITU security history relevant today? Because its Secretary-General’s new draft of an unneeded and worthless treaty instrument called the International Telecommunication Regulations mentions the word “security” no less than 36 times. Although the term “security” is never defined, the draft leaves the impression that the ITU is competent to deal with the subject of network security.

The reality today is that almost all work relating to network security occurs in myriad other public-private global bodies where it is pursued on a significant scale among expert communities. It is that array of work in other venues that is used worldwide. What purports to occur in the ITU is basically irrelevant and involves a relative handful of people who appear at meetings or workshops in ITU-T, ITU-D, or the General Secretariat for the purposes of maintaining largely website-based fictions to appear responsive to some political mandate of its conferences or leadership. Although a few knowledgeable and dedicated individuals participate in its work, the ITU as an institution has not possessed in modern history, and today does not possess the competence to deal with the subject matter of network security; and treaty mandates will not alter that reality.

Any treaty-based reliance on the ITU’s network security competency would be perilous for the global infrastructure and irresponsible for nation States to recognize. I should know — I was the designated leader of the ITU-T cybersecurity work for the past four years who had to deal with these realities.

In other words, yet another overreach by the ITU to take on something it is not qualified to handle, and which will almost certainly result in a bad situation, driven by political interests, rather than actual security issues.

Filed Under: internet security, itu, un

The Government Can Be Transparent About International Negotiations… If It's Unhappy With Them

from the tpp-vs.-wcit dept

We’ve been covering two big stories lately: the ongoing negotiations over the TPP agreement (Trans Pacific Partnership) as well the upcoming fight to change key internet governance issues via the UN’s ITU (International Telecommunications Union) as part of WCIT (the World Conference on International Telecommunications). Of course, there’s an interesting contrast about these two discussions. Both have been hit with accusations of government bureaucrats keeping things way, way too secret. The ITU has been notoriously secret, despite claims of opening up (which generally involve releasing redacted versions of documents which have already been widely leaked in un-redacted form much earlier). Then we have the USTR, claiming unprecedented transparency, even as the USTR seems to think that “transparency” means getting people to testify about a document they’re not supposed to have seen.

Of course, part of the USTR’s claims about “transparency” are that it has a variety of ITACs (Industry Trade Advisory Committees) who have more or less full access to the negotiating positions of the US — which the public and Congress do not. That those ITACs are limited to just a few industries — often the legacy industries seeking greater protectionism, and not the up and coming innovators who are more important for economic growth. Basically, these ITACs are locked up providing a clearly protectionist attitude towards copyright.

The TPP process has its own ITACs as well — though, in that context, it means an “International Telecommunications Advisory Committee.” More or less the same thing.

Except there’s one major difference. Whereas the ITACs having to do with TPP have been quite secretive, the flipside is happening with the ITACs related to the WCIT fight. And it’s the US driving the transparency. There are lots of reasons to be concerned by the ITU WCIT process, but the US government is making it easy for the public to participate:

Join me and make a difference. 303,000,000 Americans have just been offered access to the notoriously secret ITU WCIT documents. Just join ITAC, the State Department International Telecommunications Advisory Committee, and enjoy access. “It takes a simple email with a request to be placed on the ITAC listserv, based on some material interest in a given topic,” Paul Najarian of State writes. Simply send an email to join ITAC_Listserve_Requests@state.gov and you automatically have access to ITAC.

So, basically, anyone can join the ITAC concerning WCIT. That’s quite different than with TPP, certainly. Oh, and then there’s this bit of transparency, straight from the State Department. The following is an email from Terry Kramer, the US Ambassador and head of the US delegation dealing with WCIT:

First, we welcome all interested stakeholders to participate in our WCIT preparatory process and help the U.S. Government form positions in advance of the conference. We solicit this input and feedback through the United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC). I believe that the ITAC process is critically important in helping the U.S. Government convene the type of open, public, and necessary consultations from all stakeholders that helps strengthen our positions in advance of the WCIT. The ITAC has advised the Department of State on U.S. participation in international telecommunications treaty organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union for decades and has, accordingly, been critical in the preparation of prior U.S. positions for meetings of international treaty organizations, developing and coordinating proposed contributions to international meetings and submitting them to the Department of State for consideration. For the WCIT, the ITAC will continue to serve this critical role. Therefore, we welcome any person and any and all organizations, whether corporate or non-profit, to participate in the ITAC if they would like to assist with the WCIT preparatory process.

Second, all WCIT preparatory documents – including revisions of the TD-62 compilations of Member States proposals, the final report of the Council Working Group, and Member State proposals – have been and will continue to be made available to interested ITAC member. It is imperative that we ensure full consideration of a WCIT proposal’s impact on economic growth, the Internet’s openness, and the world at large and this is best done through the adoption of open and transparent processes that allow for wide consultation. Thus, we will continue to share these WCIT documents with stakeholder so that they can provide more informed views and help us develop positions that reflect the input of the diverse range of interests in the United States.

Starting this week, I will proactively communicate our positions on participation and document availability to underscore the US Government’s commitment to transparency.

Okay, just to translate, if that’s a bit dry: when it comes to WCIT, where the US finds itself on the defensive, suddenly it’s a lover of openness and transparency. The State Department readily invites anyone to join an ITAC and promises to quickly reveal all relevant documents it receives. Furthermore, it knows that sharing the documents will lead to “more informed views.”

In other words, all of the things that the USTR refuses to do with TPP — and which it claims are effectively impossible in an international agreement. Of course, the reality seems to suggest that when the US is in control (as with TPP), then it seeks to hoard and limit info, preferring secrecy to openness and transparency. Yet, when it’s not, as with the ITU process, suddenly government officials are magically in love with openness and transparency. In those cases, it’s willing to let anyone join an ITAC and is willing to share whatever documents it can provide.

All of this really highlights the dishonesty of the USTR in all of this. While, yes, the negotiation process between these two issues are somewhat different, there’s no reason that the USTR can’t take after the State Department in terms of transparency concerning an international negotiation. It just chooses not to do so, because then experts and the public might stand up and point out why the TPP is dangerous.

Filed Under: copyright, international agreements, internet governance, itu, tpp, transparency

UN: We Don't Want To Take Over The Internet… Just Fundamentally Change How It Works

from the tone-deaf dept

We’ve been covering how there are a number of troubling proposals before the UN’s ITU (International Telecom Union), which has been trying to use its role as the global regulator of international telecom issues to insert itself into how the internet should work. So far, the leaks from the secretive process have really only served to highlight how various telcos are using this as an opportunity to get regulators to divert money their way from internet innovators, because they’re jealous of the revenue that actual innovators can generate. Vint Cerf recently gave an insightful, if worrisome, interview with Jerry Brito about how the ITU is being misleading with its statements on the matter. Cerf notes that the ITU has been trying to insert itself into internet issues for many years now, recognizing that its existing mandate, covering telco issues, is becoming increasingly obsolete. Rather than do something useful, like disband, it’s trying to gobble up internet issues, despite a very different view on them.

Cerf points out that the ITU is playing word games in claiming that it simply acts as a neutral platform for various proposals from different telcos, noting that it’s pretty clear that it’s been actively working in this direction for a while, encouraging proposals that would give the ITU much greater say in key internet issues, despite little familiarity with the basics of the internet (or, worse, thinking that it’s no different than a standard telco network).

Of course, the ITU process is being condemned by a growing number of folks. The US government has a surprisingly unified voice on this issue, with both houses of Congress emphatically passing resolutions rejecting the ITU’s efforts here. Of course, the worry is that the US is just one vote in the process, and many other countries see this as an opportunity not just to prop up telcos, but to better establish standards that would make it easy to monitor and censor the internet. Iran, China and Russia, for example, have all been quite interested in the upcoming ITU discussions. Now, the US is (not surprisingly) still a powerful voice in what happens here, so even as just one vote, it can exert influence… which it appears to be trying to do in a variety of ways.

Given the sudden and unexpected public interest in its activities, the ITU has been scrambling to respond, including having its chief, Hamadoun Toure give a talk at Columbia supposedly responding to “critics.” Of course, as Larry Downes highlights, Toure and the ITU seem totally tone deaf in the way they’ve responded so far. For example, Toure seems to think that the complaints are all due to “sensationalist claims in the press,” — apparently ignoring governments, the public, internet companies, civil service, public interest groups and others. All the press’s fault, apparently.

The ITU itself, meanwhile, is stepping up the rhetoric in its campaign to defend the transfer of at least some Internet oversight from today’s multi-stakeholder process to the U.N. Dr. Toure, for example, says that he hopes the WCIT negotiations will address issues “of real import,” including Internet security.

But “security,” in ITU jargon, is a loaded term, relating more to perceived threats to national security than to the security of network communications.

In that regard, the ITU has become dangerously close to associating itself with the overtly repressive goals of Russia. Last year, at a meeting between Dr. Toure and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Putin was characteristically blunt about his country’s aspirations for the ITU. Putin told Dr. Toure that he was keen on “establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capability of the International Telecommunications Union.”

Toure, of course, is used to dealing with telco execs and some regulators, and simply hasn’t been prepared for public scrutiny at all.

The ITU’s clumsy response has exposed just how uncomfortable the agency is in dealing directly with Internet users worldwide—a sure sign of the ITU’s inability to regulate a technology it doesn’t even know how to use.   The agency’s flurry of releases read like weird dispatches from Dickensian England, with lots of extra “distinguished guests,” “plenipotentiaries” “directorates,” and references to “civil society” thrown in for good measure. In an unprecedented number of interviews and public speeches, ITU senior officials have tried to dismiss their critics as “scaremongers” and “paranoids.”  Dr. Toure has even called out FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, who first brought the threat of a free-for-all WCIT to the attention of Congress.

The agency also keeps the media at arm’s length or better.  Any journalist who wishes to cover the WCIT conference, for example, must first satisfy the ITU that they are “a professional journalist or analyst with a proven track record of reporting for bona fide media.”  Online journalists must be “registered to a media organization with a verifiable non-web address and telephone number.”  Bloggers can just stay home.

So not only does the group not actually understand the internet that it’s looking to have much more control over… it doesn’t even think that web-only journalists count as real journalists. Is this really the group that we want making decisions on core internet issues?

Filed Under: hamdoun toure, internet governance, itu, un, vint cerf

Do We Really Want The UN In Charge Of Cybersecurity Standards?

from the answer:-no dept

We’ve been talking quite a bit about the upcoming efforts by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to expand its ability to govern the internet, and numerous proposals are being submitted by various telcos along those lines. The folks over at CDT are ably demonstrating why this is dangerous in a number of ways, starting with why the ITU is the exact wrong place to be dealing with cybersecurity issues, even though many of the proposals deal with cybersecurity. Take, for example, the proposal of African Member States, which suggests that the ITU can be a central force in “harmonizing” data retention laws and rules. As CDT notes, this seems to assume that the only issue with data retention laws are that they are different in different countries. But that ignores the fact that many people question whether or not such laws even make sense in the first place:

This reference to data retention well illustrates the problems with involving the ITU in issues related to cybercrime and cybersecurity. Not only do national laws on data retention vary greatly, but there is ongoing controversy about whether governments should impose data retention mandates at all. In addition, where data retention is required, there are many different views on the legal standards under which governments should be able to gain access to retained data – whether access should require a court order, for example. Such questions are crucial to adopting a data retention law, but are far outside the expertise of the ITU. Other concerns arise from the fact that data retained by a service provider may, absent specific legal and procedural safeguards, be subject to access by the government to investigate any crime, may be accessed by intelligence agencies, and may be shared with other governments to assist their investigations. In addition, the more data that companies are required to retain, and the longer the retention period, the greater the risk that personal information could be breached, leaked, or otherwise abused.

Elsewhere, the report highlights how many of the proposals on “cybersecurity” seem more likely to set up rules and laws that help repressive regimes crack down on critics and dissidents. And that, of course, highlights the real problem here. There is nothing in the ITU that involves actually determining what’s best for the public and for individuals’ rights. Instead, the proposals are from big (often state-supported) telcos and governments themselves. The CDT paper correctly argues that a group like the ITU simply isn’t as quick or as flexible as any reasonable body dealing with the rapidly changing, always dynamic world of cybersecurity. But it goes even further than that. An effective look at cybersecurity requires recognizing that governments and telcos often have views that are not at all in the best interests of citizens — and handing off all discussions on “cybersecurity” regulations to such a body seems ripe for abuse in ways that may help governments or telcos, but at the expense of the public and their ability to speak out.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, data retention, flexibility, itu, regulation, security, telcos, un, wcit