Two items regarding the U.N. and the internet:
***
On 10/22, Declan McCullagh reported for CNet on how the U.N. issued a report advocating for greater data retention by ISPs. That report, titled “The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes,” concludes that “one of the major problems confronting all law enforcement agencies is the lack of an internationally agreed framework for retention of data held by ISPs.” McCullagh goes on to explain that the U.N. is interested in data held by websites like Dropbox, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and even Skype.
***
On 10/31, Grant Gross reported for ITWorld on the U.S. delegation’s proposal to the ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). The fear has been that the WCIT will see a U.N. power grab for control of the internet supported by regimes like China and Russia. According to Gross, the U.S. is taking a free market approach, urging the ITU to “embrace free and open broadband markets and allow individual countries to reform their telecommunications regulations instead of attempting to centrally regulate the industry.” Moreover, the U.S. wants to keep issues of cybersecurity, cybercrime, and national defense out of the discussion. The text of that proposal should be coming officially later this week.
While I’m on the subject, here’s a link to WCIT Leaks, a website that aims to bringing transparency to the ITU. Good source of news and documents. In that vein, here’s what purports to be the U.S. proposal. An interesting portion:
The United States also notes, however, that the Internet has evolved to operate in a separate and distinct environment that is beyond the scope or mandate of the ITRs or the International Telecommunication Union. Specifically, it emerged from multi-stakeholder organizations such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). These organizations have played a major role in designing and operating the Internet and have succeeded by their very nature of openness and inclusiveness. The United States believes these existing institutions are most capable of addressing issues with the speed and flexibility required in this rapidly changing Internet environment. As a decentralized network of networks, the Internet has achieved global interconnection without the development of any international regulatory regime. The development of such a formal regulatory regime could risk undermining its growth.
Therefore, the United States will not support proposals that would increase the exercise of control over Internet governance or content. The United States will oppose efforts to broaden the scope of the ITRs to empower any censorship of content or impede the free flow of information and ideas. It believe s that the existing multi-stakeholder institutions, incorporating industry and civil society, have functioned effectively and will continue to ensure the continued vibrancy of the Internet and its positive impact on individuals and society. Furthermore, recalling that Member States agreed in Plenipotentiary Resolution 130 (Guadalajara, 2010) that “legal or policy principles related to national defense, national security, content and cybercrime . . . are within [Member States’] sovereign rights,” the United States will oppose any provisions that interfere with those rights. The United States invites other administrations to engage in dialogue consistent with these principles, which are vital to the continuing development of international telecommunications.
Leave a Reply