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.Toure, of course, is used to dealing with telco execs and some regulators, and simply hasn't been prepared for public scrutiny at all.
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.”
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.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?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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hamdoun toure, internet governance, itu, un, vint cerf
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That worked mighty well for the US government. [/sarc]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suspect List
They *know* what they're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why Masnick do you continue to pander to Russia Today? It is an organ of the very government described here as an "overtly repressive regime" bent on monitoring and controlling the Internet. Yet time after time you appear on the program giving it further legitimacy. I can only guess that your shameless self-promotion is more important than taking a stand against a repressive regime bent on censoring the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While Russia Today shouldn't be trusted for the news related to Russia itself, they do report critically on issues in Western countries that our media doesn't report very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe because the propaganda machine of the United States always spins everything one sided to make sure they please their corporate masters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did I compare anything? Both are controlled. Just different masters, really.
Are you truly such a unctuous lickspittle that you'd jump to the defense of your master with an argument so unbelievably weak?
I wasn't "defending" anyone. Just making a counterpoint against your unbelievably weak argument that started this silly thread in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Define "continue to"?
Can you name the last time I appeared on there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120926/23522220526/us-military-classifies-wikileaks-as-enemy- united-states.shtml
I really don't understand how you can justify collaborating with the news outlet of a government so diametrically opposed to your own stated position on the internet, freedom of speech, privacy, civil rights, etc. Lending legitimacy by appearing on their programs and promoting RT by embedding their videos in your own website is baffling. Why would you lend your good name (such as it is) to further the public relations interests of the Russian government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is even more puzzling is why Masnick continues to ingratiate himself with the Russians after their blistering mocking of his Inspector Clouseau-like reporting, stating:
"Perhaps the worst example of such came from TechDirt's Mike Masnick. In his article Mr. Masnick, who has a history of factually incorrect reporting, didn't bother to check the facts and blatantly stated that there's no reason to suspect Netflix to be interested in cracking on Internet privacy since the company was "neutral" on SOPA."
and linking to this scathing commentary on his failed comprehension skills:
From the confused, chastising nerd department…
A story published last week on RT America managed to generate a fair share of feedback regarding the content, as the matter at hand, downloading music, is something that most people with an Internet connection have done at one time or another. An article published on October 4 titled “Supreme Court legalizes downloading music” was met with responses from all corners of the Internet, but one particularly peeved reader, Tech Dirt’s Mike Masnick, took to his own site with a dare-to-be-daunting diatribe that aimed to be both scathing and scolding. Unfortunately for Mr Masnick, his retort fell short of actually bringing up a real point against our own piece.
To fail short would be an understatement. Rather, it seems that Mr Masnik’s attempt to discredit our content only exposed that he either did not make it through the story at all or has the reading comprehension skills of a prehensile-tailed primate.
http://rt.com/usa/news/download-supreme-court-music-339/
I particularly like the suggestion that Masnick, "has the reading comprehension skills of a prehensile-tailed primate."
This of course makes him look even more ridiculous and desperate for appearing on Russia Today after being characterized as a complete imbecile. What could you be thinking Masnick? You still collaborate with the Russians even after they publicly humiliate you? Do you have no self-respect whatsoever?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two simple points on that. First, I stopped appearing on RT before that article came out. So you're wrong. As usual. Second, their report was completely false and ridiculous as I showed in my initial report.
The only ones imbecilic were them, which was, in part, why I stopped appearing on RT.
You still collaborate with the Russians even after they publicly humiliate you? Do you have no self-respect whatsoever?
Except I haven't. Once again: you are full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except I haven't.
It seems not. What an embarrassing douchenozzle you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Awesome. You have so much irrational blind hatred that you pretend I was answering a different question than you know I was.
You, sir, need serious help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Um. So? How does embedding the video mean anything?
You're completely reaching.
And, yes, I've appeared on their a few times, giving commentary, the same commentary I give here.
You're really stretching for something to smear me with. Your life must be so fulfilling.
I really don't understand how you can justify collaborating with the news outlet of a government so diametrically opposed to your own stated position on the internet, freedom of speech, privacy, civil rights, etc.
"Collaborating"? Really? Providing commentary is collaborating?
When I appeared on a panel in Hollywood that the MPAA helped organize, was that automatically "lending legitimacy" to the MPAA?
If I was working for them, presenting their points of view, you might have a point. But I wasn't. So you don't. But you're a DC hack, and all you do is know how to attack people by falsely smearing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the answer, luckily, so far seems to be "their own incompetence in regards to the technology". I'm not sure we can bank on that as a long term solution though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because we allowed a couple international corporations to be the ones in control of the backbone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US out of UN
55
How many countries in the UN are Communist/sudo-Commnunist?
5 / Many in S. America
http://geography.about.com/od/lists/tp/communistcountries.htm
Venezuela
Brazil - see recent Techdirt article of Google Exec held
Chile
UK - Ha, ha. Orwell would agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US out of UN
The Google execs incidents are related to outdated Electoral Laws and fortunately they have been released and a proper trial will be held.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"we don't want to kill you"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you really want let's say ATT in charge of the whole Internet ?
Probably NOT !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See, the first paragraph or two is where Mike tries to define his tortured logic, how he manages to twist things into a pretzel and come out claiming it's all straight. Without that information, you cannot understand just how hard he is trying.
Now, if you read like you do (and I suspect most people do), you actually get more of the real story, and then you question where Mike was going with it, because his conclusions often don't seem to have much to do with the story, just what he made it out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the case of the internet, the UN would likely put the Russians in charge of spam control, the Chinese in charge of network security, and let Iran decide free speech issues.
Anything that you think is totally fucked can always be fucked worse when the UN takes over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where have we heard this line before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Limewire.
CDs.
DVDs.
Blu-Rays.
HD-DVDs.
So, yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And to quote Doc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Why now?
I think the main cause has been the EEUU take over some of the basic infrastructure of internet by means of judiciary due to the historic selection of the USA DNS instead of the UK DNS. The other governments are asking themselves if the USA can interfere with our companies internet presence why we can't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Reality of Cables and Sea Control
The United Nations consists overwhelmingly of countries whose territory is not traversed by significant telecommunications cables. Their representatives in the United Nations, and the International Telecommunications Union can make all the fine speeches they like, but these are meaningless in the face of an American "no." The United Nations may claim to own the seabed of the North Atlantic, but the reality is that the United States Navy lies in possession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good suggestion
The same could be said of the MPAA, RIAA and U.S. CoC as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]