UK and US refuse to sign as UN web treaty is passed
By Stewart Mitchell
Posted on 14 Dec 2012 at 09:28
A controversial plan to update a 24-year-old telecommunications treaty to bring the internet under the overall control of the United Nations is in chaos after the US, UK and Canada refused to sign up to a treaty.
The treaty brings the web under control of the International Telecommunications Union, a UN backed body, but has been criticised for giving too much control to officials in countries who could use the treaty to justify censorship and snooping.
According to a report from Bloomberg, the treaty was approved by the majority of members of the ITU, but delegations for the UK, US and Canada walked out, with several other European countries also holding off signing the treaty.
We prefer no resolution on the internet at all, and I'm extremely concerned that the language just adopted opens the possibility of internet and content issues
The talks over the last two weeks have been marred by differences between countries against web regulation and a core of countries pushing for more controls to be in place, including standards that could be used for monitoring web traffic.
"It’s with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunity that the US must communicate that it’s not able to sign the agreement in its current form," the US delegation said in a statement after the final changes were adopted. "We candidly cannot support an ITU treaty that is inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model."
Any country that doesn't agree to the new treaty will continue to be bound by the 1988 version, which doesn't address internet regulation.
Although the treaty will be signed by several countries, it has been watered down, and could cause problems during negotiations in the future.
"It will bring some legal concerns between countries that have and haven't signed the treaty," one South American delegate told the Reuters news agency.
Among the items under discussion were changes that would give governments the right to access international communications networks, a motion that was passed by a vote of 77 to 33, and came under criticism from US and UK delegates, according to Bloomberg.
The US in particular resented the involvement of national officials in a system that has previously been run by multiple stakeholders, many of which are US based.
"A majority of the ITU member states, including many countries that purportedly support internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing international consensus to keep the internet insulated from inter-governmental regulation," Robert McDowell, commissioner at the US Federal Communications Commission, said.
"By agreeing to broaden the scope of the ITU’s rules to include the internet, encompassing its operations and content, these nations have radically undermined the highly successful, private sector, non- governmental, multi-stakeholder model of internet governance."
The UK delegation said it was not prepared to sign up to the deal because it came at too heavy a price.
"My delegation came to work for revised international telecommunication regulations, but not at any cost," said UK delegation head Simon Towle.
"We prefer no resolution on the internet at all, and I'm extremely concerned that the language just adopted opens the possibility of internet and content issues."
It's unclear how the treaty will affect the web in real terms, but as UK delegate Dominique Lazanski told PC Pro, it creates a divide in the way the web will be regulated.
"If a number of countries don't sign it will cause a schism," she said before the conference. "If people can't agree on an effective treaty there will be no common ground going forward."
Is your business a social business? For helpful info and tips visit our hub.
Democracy Our Way
US, Uk and Canada walk out.... when Democracy does not favour them. Fake Democracies which still insist on dictating to others.
By Manuel on 14 Dec 2012
The ITU voting is on a one country one vote basis regardess of population. Furthermore many of the countries voting in favour of this treaty are not themselves democratic so their votes are not representative of the populations of those countries. So this is be a very strange definition of democracy!
By JohnAHind on 14 Dec 2012
- CeBit 2014 diary: Cameron comes to town
- The 5 most interesting UK businesses at SXSW
- Quickest way to upload 1GB? Hop on a train
- Move over Delia: IBM Watson is cooking tonight
- Eric Schmidt on the double-edged smartphone: friend and foe
- Getty joins the race to the bottom
- Hour of Code: five steps to learn how to code
- Sony Xperia Z2 Tablet review: first look
- Sony Xperia Z2 review: first look
- Samsung Galaxy Gear 2 review: first look
- Headings vs headers: how to use both in Word
- Windows Server 2012 R2: how the Datacenter edition could change SMBs
- Invoices and VAT: how to set up your documents correctly
- Nexus 5 vs Samsung Galaxy S4 Active: the best phone for avoiding screen burn
- How much is a social user worth?
- The key to choosing a secure password
- Thunderbolt Bridge: a fast Mac migration tool
- Should you advertise on Twitter?
- How to track a lost smartphone
- Self-publishing success: the best way to sell your book