<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi McTim and all, <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
More information on WCIT Visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx">http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx</a><br>
<br>
best <br>
<br>
Alice<br>
-------------------<br>
A different view on the article: <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119481-fcc-fires-fud-at-the-idea-of-a-un-controlled-internet">http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119481-fcc-fires-fud-at-the-idea-of-a-un-controlled-internet</a><br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div class="content">
<h2>FCC fires FUD at the idea of a UN-controlled internet</h2>
<span id="intelliTXT">
<p>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. </p>
<p>McDowell reaches a <a
href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.html">bombastic
crescendo</a> 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.”</p>
<p>The FCC Commissioner’s threat assessment is completely
out-of-step with the US government’s opinion, as shown in a <a
href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/1/30/4988735.html">leaked
memo</a> 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.” </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Those bright white lines aren’t just revenue sources, they’re
control linkages. If you work for the MPAA/RIAA or back laws
like <a
href="http://www.extremetech.com/computing/114411-sopa-blackouts-begin-as-mpaa-calls-foul">SOPA
and PIPA</a>, 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 <em>foreign</em> internet traffic, which means
both intrinsically assumed that such traffic would be flowing
through the United States. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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 <a
href="http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/107527-att-slams-fccs-t-mobile-merger-investigation-as-lacking-all-credibility">governing
telephone access</a> 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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
</span></div>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxhCPdB5q91DPVQzXZt4DY0A24v7Y1tLT9=UXG72GLbPyQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>