ITU Goes Back On Multiple Promises: Makes Play For Internet Governance With Sneaky Surprise Vote

from the shameful dept

Thu, Dec 13th 2012 5:15am — Mike Masnick

Well, well. In response to all of the earlier criticisms of the ITU, and as part of its "social media strategy" to stave off ongoing criticism, ITU officials had made a few promises leading up to the World Conference on International Communications (WCIT). Among them: (1) changes to International Telecom Regulations (ITRs) would be done via consensus, rather than simple majority vote and (2) that the whole thing was not about internet governance. In one move, the ITU appears to have proved both of those claims to be blatantly false. Late into the night in Dubai, as there was continuing "negotiations" over whether or not any new regulations would cover internet communications, Mohamed Nasser al Ghanim, the ITU summit's chairman, claiming he wanted to get "a feel for the room" took what initially looked like an informal vote on whether or not the ITRs would cover the internet, backing a proposal brought forth by Algeria (and backed by Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Nigeria). After the vote showed a majority agreed to expand the ITRs to cover the internet, al Ghanim announced:

"The majority is with having the resolution in...The majority agreed to adopt the resolution as amended."

This took a lot of people in the room by complete surprise, given that there was repeated insistence that the focus was on consensus, and not a simple majority vote. This clearly went against promises by ITU boss Hamadoun Toure. As Declan McCullagh summarizes in the article linked above:

"In the true tradition of the ITU, we will not vote on any issues," Toure told reporters over the summer. "Voting means winners and losers, and this is not simply acceptable. And we believe that we'll come to an agreement on all of the issues." Toure had said last week that the summit "is not about Internet governance."

As the reality of what al Ghanim did began to set in, some delegates began to protest. Spain, in particular, noted "had we known that it was a vote, we might very well have acted differently." al Ghanim then, ridiculously, tried to pretend the vote was not a vote:

But after Spain objected, al Ghanim responded by saying, "no, it was not a vote," and that he had instead been looking for a "feel of the room."

That, obviously, is completely ridiculous, since he then used "the feel of the room" to say that the resolution was adopted, despite significant concerns about it.

The folks at the Internet Society are, quite reasonably, not at all happy about the situation, and called out not just the sudden and unexpected vote, but the secrecy surrounding it as well:

The Internet Society came to this meeting in the hopes that revisions to the treaty would focus on competition, liberalization, free flow of information and independent regulation - things that have clearly worked in the field of telecommunications. Instead, these concepts seem to have been largely struck from the treaty text. Additionally, and contrary to assurances that this treaty is not about the Internet, the conference appears to have adopted, by majority, a resolution on the Internet. Amendments were apparently made to the text but were not published prior to agreement.

Given that the ITU's moves here more or less confirm many of the fears that have been raised about the whole WCIT process all along, and show that Toure's statements were simply untrue, why is it that anyone believes that the ITU has any credibility on this subject any more? The whole idea that we're now allowing countries with horrid human rights records, and with little to no experience in supporting innovation-enabling technologies, to control direction of these discussions suggests that the entire ITU process is broken beyond belief.

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: albania, consensus, hamadoun toure, internet governance, itu, mohamed nasser al ghanim, votes, wcit

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:31am

"more or less confirm many of the fears..."
Yeah, just as Google's relation with NSA confirms several. -- Get over your fears and admit the globalist conspiracy.

"why is it that anyone believes that the ITU has any credibility on this subject any more?" -- WHO believed that in the first place? Establish grounds.

Oh, but THIS can't be let pass: "The whole idea that we're now allowing countries with horrid human rights records, and with little to no experience in supporting innovation-enabling technologies, to control direction of these discussions suggests that the entire ITU process is broken beyond belief."

"we're" -- Who is this WE, Mike?
"allowing" -- Does this WE run the world?
"horrid human rights records" -- Such as invading countries on false pretext, bombing the hell out of them and killing a million, flattening entire cities as collective punishment, (Fallujah), seizing their resources, putting in place a mercenary army that can murder for sport, transporting persons overseas to cages without rights, systematic torture for amusement of guards -- THAT kind of human rights record?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cory of PC (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:49am
  
  Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."
  Again, we're supposed to take you seriously? I rather back gorehound than support your crazy conspiracy, Blue.
  
  And to answer your question: "we're" is referring to the public, that got these people in charge to get these people who are at the ITU there and make these decisions, "allowing" is saying that we, the people, can't do squat because we don't have the power to stop them, and... well, I got nothing on the last part.
  
  ... Well I could be totally off on that! But at least I can figure that out better than you can!
  
  Blue... there's an entire world out there, both digitally and realistically. Please, from another human being, get off your lazy behind, walk to the front door and step outside. Take your keys with you, lock the door, and don't go back inside until the day is over with. Then maybe once you have some fresh outdoor air, maybe you'll think better instead of sounding like a crazy conspiracy theorist (not saying that you're already one).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gorehound (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."
    We do not want to have the ITU/UN put in charge of the Internet or have the ability to Control it.
    We will not want Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, ETC laying Laws down concerning the Internet.
    
    This whole thing happening is a Combo of Two things:
    Money............the usual reason throughout our known History.Money makes the greedy Happy !
    
    Control:
    Those in power can see the Natives are getting Restless ! And they have ways to get their Platform Out thru the Internet.Those in power do not like that Upstart pesky Internet.They want to Control it and Silence Dissent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 13 Dec 2012 @ 9:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."
      "Control:
      Those in power can see the Natives are getting Restless ! And they have ways to get their Platform Out thru the Internet.Those in power do not like that Upstart pesky Internet.They want to Control it and Silence Dissent."
      
      This moreso than money. After all, they've already consoldated most of the wealth. As you mentioned, they sense the growing dissent and want to clamp down on it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:49am
  
  Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."
  You'd argue if Mike said the sky was blue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:54am
    
    Re: Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."
    The sky is brown! That blue crap is a lie that google paid Mike to say to futher the world into a global dictatorship!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tunnen (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."
      As a Vancouverite, I'd have to disagree and say the sky is gray not blue! =P
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:53am
  
  Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."
  Your tinfoil hat is loose, let me tighten it for you
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:19am
  
  Out_of_his_gourd is an
  IGNORANUS - n: A person who is not only ignorant, but is also an asshole. eg: out_of_the_blue is absolutely and unashamedly an Ignoranus
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:55am
    
    Re: Out_of_his_gourd is an
    Without addressing his points, you run the risk of being called the same thing. Personally, I have to agree that any ITU action is an international joke and holding out the US as a leading light in the area of human rights is laughable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:10am
      
      Re: Re: Out_of_his_gourd is an
      Blue's reputation is so great and his writing is so disorganized that in certain cases it's difficult to understand his rants or rebuttals to the article. OOTB, I do have respect for your gull this time around, my only tip is to get a college level English writing class under your belt and take a communications class.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 9:28am
      
      Re: Re: Out_of_his_gourd is an
      His 'points' have been proven false time and time again to the point that his name is associated with lying and misinformation. His 'points' no longer need to be addressed and he only need further be mocked and ridiculed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused in Absentia, 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:36am

Authority?
I have been following TD's articles about the ITU, but it seems to me there's a logical leap that has not been explained.

Suppose the ITU ratifies its resolution to govern the Internet. How then does it have the authority to govern? Who will enforce the rules on every ISP around the world? What penalties apply for not following the rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:58am
  
  Re: Authority?
  Suppose the ITU ratifies its resolution to govern the Internet. How then does it have the authority to govern? Who will enforce the rules on every ISP around the world? What penalties apply for not following the rules?
  
  It is true that it does not have authority directly to govern or enforce -- but it is generally considered the rulemaking body for many of these issues -- and the rules it comes up with quite frequently then show up in laws and treaties around the globe.
  
  Could a country (i.e., the US) ignore them? Yes, but it would be a big deal, as the ITU's rules tend to be generally accepted...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:08am
    
    Re: Re: Authority?
    The ITU rules tend to be generally accepted because people respect them. Bad moves like this one can make them lose that respect.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Authority?
      Who's "them" if the majority of these countries seemed to have agreed to expanded control over the Internet?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Authority?
        Spain and the rest of Europe and probably parts of SEA, Japan, South Korea and oceania. I will admit that many of even those countries politically want a more international governing body as opposed to the existing purely UK/US bodies, but I am certain that they have dropped the idea of using ITU after China and Russia has embraced ITU as the savior of all good in the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:43am
    
    Re: Re: Authority?
    Wasn't there a unanimous Congressional resolution telling the ITU to back off? Seems like a big joke, as Congress is already on the record calling bullshit. Not once have I seen the US placidly accept a UN resolution that it didn't agree with. Why would this be different. This story seems like alarmist nonsense and a waste of time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Authority?
      And the other 200 countries care about what US did...because?!
      
      US doesn't have veto power here. All the other countries can adopt the proposals if they want. Stop thinking that just because US rejected it, it means the whole thing fell. It didn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 10:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Authority?
        90% of the internet is based in, passes through or is managed by US-based organizations, entities, infrastructure et. al.
        
        If the US decides that this will not happen, those 200 are pretty powerless to do anything about it without enormous downside.
        
        You may not like that, but that's the reality. It's also true in a lot of other areas, not just the internet. Despite Europe & China and others, the US still has tremendous power, more than any other single entity. With the internet, it has dominance if not complete power.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Authority?
      The Congress doesn't even seem to support an UN Resolution, that is modeled on American Law, with bi-partisan support.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:03am
    
    Re: Re: Authority?
    Mike there are some variable factors about the US that the ITU hasn't counted on. We account for over 60% of the world's web server traffic. We own over half the connecting nodes at a global scale and websites, and I'm absolutely sure that the ITU can suck it when it comes to the authority that the US actually holds over the rest of the world over the World Wide Web. I'm not talking about US government agency control, I'm talking about our nation's netizens.
    
    As far as the ITU is concerned to the US senate, I had my uncle, who is a retired economics lawyer, look over the US senate resolution against ITU control of the internet over and over again. His conclusion is that it was not just a vote to vote no to the WITC resolution, but flat out boycott the ITU for trying to regulate Internet traffic.
    
    As for my opinion, the ITU can go F**K itself for this. There have been many instances where they have messed with the global economy on a disastrous scale.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bill Price, 14 Dec 2012 @ 12:42am
    
    Re: Re: Authority?
    Years ago, when I was involved with international standards-setting organizations (SSO), one of the first things we were told was that an international SSO derived such legitimacy as it had by the consensus process, rather than a 'majority rules' scheme. Consensus was (rather loosely) defined as the absence of significant opposition. This is the process that the ITU meeting was operating under � until the chair surprised everyone by declaring a straw poll to be a 'majority rules' decision, despite significant opposition from multiple member countries.
    If what we were told was true for all international SSOs (I found it affirmed in e. g. the ISO directives) and if it still holds, then ITU may have declared itself to be illegitimate by its own rules.
    Of course, ISO de-legitimized itself by the way it allowed Microsoft to buy the IS26900 (is that the right number?) adoption some years ago, by the chair refusing to recognize significant opposition — and IS26900 has still not been implemented by anyone, including its buyer.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:54am
  
  Re: Authority?
  You don't understand how UN works. These are basically national governments deciding this stuff. THEY will enforce it in each country where they agreed to do it. And the ISP's will fully support it, too, especially if they get their part about killing net neutrality and charging all content providers for the content ran through their network.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:06am

ISO shenanigans all over again
This reminds me of all the ISO shenanigans during the OOXML process. It seems the way these old technical bodies are designed does not resist well against malicious manipulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:21am
  
  Re: ISO shenanigans all over again
  Of course they don't because the committees and representatives are the power seekers, and not the technicians. They are more interested in how do we maintain control, that in what works best.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 6:13am

Late into the night in Dubai
Late into the night in Dubai... (what a magical scene!)

How much had they been drinking? Was there dancing, too? Or just a fine meal�before getting down to the very serious business.

And are they hung-over and foul-tempered in the morning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:11am
  
  Re: Late into the night in Dubai
  Blow and hookers of course
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:00am

Does anyone here believe the United Nations has credibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re:
  Does anyone here believe the United States has credibility?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 10:23pm
    
    LOL!
    CF: http://ansonalex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/underwater-internet-cable-map.jpg
    
    See "World's Cables by Bandwidth" bottom right.
    
    UN, meet the middle finger.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:04am

How did anyone not see this coming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:22am
  
  Re:
  1. Blind
  2. Hiding under a rock.
  3. The Internet, is that thing still around?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 7:50am

How are those petitions and peaceful protests working out for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 9:32am
  
  Re:
  Excelent, thank you!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 10:01am

This is exactly why people should never trust bureaucracies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Dec 2012 @ 10:06am

Who cares what the ITU says?
the world ends in a week anyway!

/sarcasm

The US should just leave the U.N. and stop paying their way. We have mostly lost our influence, and I doubt we will be getting it back anytime soon, our leaders are too busy fighting among themselves to even see what is going on around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2012 @ 3:14pm

Oh great, the Islams control the internet. I can't wait for my Google start page to be replace with pictures of Muhammad and verses from the Qur'an about how women have to wear GPS tracking devices that page their husbands when they cross state lines. This is what the ITU has turned into. I think it's time for America to exit the ITU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 13 Dec 2012 @ 4:45pm
  
  Re:
  *eyeroll*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carl, 13 Dec 2012 @ 3:47pm

What a great Christmas present! I was hoping the ITU would oppress my internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 5:11pm

Don't mess with my internets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]