[kictanet] The UN : A Threat to the Internet freedom?? and WCIT-12

[Barrack Otieno]

Dear Alice,

That sounds good, i suppose the same case should apply to every other
nation with a local and regional IGF, it would also be a great
opportunity for Africa to speak in one voice.


Best Regards


 Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Alice Munyua <alice at apc.org> wrote:
> Hi McTim  and all,
>
> Our assumption is the national position on the upcoming WCIT-12 will be
> developed with stakeholder input and we should all look forward to
> contributing to shaping our national position before the second Africa
> regional meeting in 21-24 May 2012 in South Africa.
>
> More information on WCIT Visit:
> http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx
>
> best
>
> Alice
> -------------------
> A different view on the article:
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119481-fcc-fires-fud-at-the-idea-of-a-un-controlled-internet
>
> FCC fires FUD at the idea of a UN-controlled internet
>
> In a recent editorial at The Wall Street Journal, FCC Commissioner Robert
> McDowell blasted the upcoming ITU World Conference on International
> Telecommunications (WCIT-12). According to McDowell, Russia, China, and
> their allies at the ITU want to monitor all internet communications, allow
> foreign companies to charge for international internet traffic “perhaps even
> on a per-click basis,” impose economic regulations, take over ICANN
> (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), and conquer the
> Internet Engineering Task Force.
>
> McDowell reaches a bombastic crescendo by claiming that the treaty will
> more-or-less destroy everything, everywhere, writing: “Productivity, rising
> living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the
> developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business
> decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.”
>
> The FCC Commissioner’s threat assessment is completely out-of-step with the
> US government’s opinion, as shown in a leaked memo from January 23, 2012.
> The memo notes that while there was “great and widespread concern” a year
> ago that WCIT-12 would be a battle over the role the ITU should play in
> internet governance, the US spent 12 months working to limit the scope and
> nature of the issues that will be considered at the treaty negotiations. As
> a result, “There are no pending proposals to invest the ITU with ICANN-like
> Internet governance authority. Neither cybersecurity nor Internet governance
> predominate discussion in any region.”
>
> Among the charges leveled at the ITU are claims that the treaty could
> “Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms
> and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known
> as ‘peering.’” As we’ve said, there’s literally no such agreement under
> consideration — but the inclusion of this point sheds light on why certain
> parties are so interested in keeping this issue in the news.
>
>
> Under the current unregulated peering system, foreign ISPs pay US ISPs a fee
> to carry internet traffic, which means US companies make a tidy sum of cash
> off foreign access. If internet servers were truly decentralized — the
> “Balkanization” McDowell fears — US ISPs would end up paying considerably
> more money to their foreign counterparts.
>
> Those bright white lines aren’t just revenue sources, they’re control
> linkages. If you work for the MPAA/RIAA or back laws like SOPA and PIPA,
> those links are absolutely vital. Any attempt to create an international
> system of internet governance would weaken the RIAA and MPAA’s efforts to
> implement SOPA-style censorship. Both bills were aimed at restricting and
> controlling foreign internet traffic, which means both intrinsically assumed
> that such traffic would be flowing through the United States.
>
> An equally distributed intra-planetary internet would still take geolocation
> into account for routing and access purposes, but would effectively
> eliminate the concept of “foreign” websites. SOPA and PIPA were meant to be
> palatable to the general US population precisely because they exploited an
> us/them mentality and claimed to be protecting America. If internet control
> were to shift towards nations that favored fewer copyright restrictions,
> internet access as a human right, and limited punishment for piracy, it
> would be a serious threat to content distributors.
>
> McDowell’s claims are factually inaccurate and hyperbolic. They paint a
> false dichotomy between the idea that the internet today is a free-wheeling,
> uncontrolled frontier, while the alternative is a fascist state. The
> internet, as it exists today, is highly regulated. Some of that regulation
> was inherited or expanded from the old laws governing telephone access and
> line-sharing, some of it is applied via laws like the DMCA. ICANN is not a
> direct arm of the US government, but it’s a far cry from a private
> corporation. The publicized debates around net neutrality and the FCC last
> year are further evidence that the idea of an unregulated internet is a
> fallacy.
>
> At the other end of the equation, no one advocates handing over complete
> control of the internet to the likes of Russia, China, Myanmar, and Iran.
> There’s no reason not to open internet governance slowly and gradually,
> unless you represent a faction who views such a process as an unacceptable
> loss of control. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, McDowell’s
> editorial only clouds the debate with demagoguery. It’s a blatant attempt to
> fire people up emotionally with virtually no grounding in objective fact.
> The internet is going nowhere, regardless of what happens at the upcoming
> meeting. Ultimately, however, this isn’t a debate about whether the internet
> is regulated, but an argument over who should control the regulatory
> process. If US lawmakers continue pushing bills like SOPA and PIPA, they may
> find an increasing number of US citizens who think the UN is a more
> attractive alternative — a concept editorials like this are meant to thwart.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering what the offical KE position on this is going to be in
> the ITU, especially in the upcoming WCIT meeting where the ITRs will
> be re-negotiated.
>
> Anyone with insider knowledge?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for
> people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.



-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno
http://www.otienobarrack.