Tag Archive for United Nations

UN Tries to Control the Internet Again

UN Tries to Control the Internet AgainInfoSecurity reports that even after much of the free world refused to sign the controversial new ITU WCIT-12 treaty in December 2012, U.S. Many argued this would give the UN control of the Internet. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Robert M. McDowell warned, ‘the worst is yet to come.’

ITU logoThe United States,” he said, “should immediately prepare for an even more treacherous ITU treaty negotiation that will take place in 2014 in Korea. Those talks could expand the ITU’s reach even further.” McDowell seems convinced that the ITU’s desire to control the internet is not a passing fancy, but a long-term intent. He may be right, and it may come before 2014.

Last week the ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré released his draft report for the Fifth World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology Policy Forum 2013. “This draft report of the Secretary-General to the WTPF-2013,” it states, “aims to provide a basis for discussion at the Policy Forum, incorporating the contributions of ITU Member States and Sector Members, and serving as the sole working document of the Forum focusing on key issues on which it would be desirable to reach conclusions.

ITU’s takeover attemptSuggested themes for discussion include, “Global Principles for the governance and use of the Internet,” and “On the basis of reciprocity, to explore ways for greater collaboration and coördination between ITU and relevant organizations – including, but not limited to, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Society (ISOC) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) – involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future internet, through cooperation agreements, as appropriate, to increase the role of ITU in Internet governance to ensure the largest benefits to the global community.”

This is exactly what caused disarray in December’s WCIT in Dubai the commissioner states.

Meanwhile, a ‘de-fund the ITU petition has appeared on the White HouseWe the People’ website. A supporting website gives full details. “Fighting on behalf of the Internet,” it states, The United States government and fifty-four other countries rejected the ITU’s takeover attempt, but this is a single battle in a war that the ITU will continue to fight. The ITU is spending more than $180M/year to oppose the Internet and is drawing from its reserves more heavily each year ($9M in 2010, up from $5.5M in 2009), as progressive countries withdraw their payments from the ITU’s war-chest.

The ten most oppressive countries in the Open Net Initiative’s ranking of online freedom all sided against the internet, and none of them are giving the ITU as much as the U.S. is. If all the countries that stood with the Internet against the ITU’s attack withdraw their funding, it claims, “the ITU’s membership revenue will be reduced by 74%.

The petition also calls for future U.S. delegations to be reduced “to no more than one USG representative, tasked primarily with communicating a U.S. position that the ITU’s only legitimate area of authority is radio communications.” The long-term danger from such entrenched views on both sides is that the worldwide nature of the internet might fracture into one internet under multi-stakeholder governance in the ‘free’ world, and a series of heavily government-regulated Internets elsewhere.

Freedom and prosperity are at stake,” warned Commissioner McDowell.

rb-

I have warned about the United Nations’ attempt to take over the Internet since November.

Related article

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Who supported the ITRs at WCIT-12

Who supported the ITRs at WCIT-12Byron Holland, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) speculated what the results of WCIT-12 mean for the Internet in the article, “Observations on WCIT-12.” Mr. Holland says the results of WCIT-12 will lead to a two-tiered Internet.

One tier consisting of the countries that supported the new ITRs and ratified the resulting agreement. He believes that these governments will use the United Nations agreement to limit and watch, if not censor, Internet traffic transiting across its borders.

censor, Internet traffic transiting across its bordersThe CIRA CEO states that governments that did not support the new ITR’s and the resulting treaty will continue to have access to the free and open Internet and all of its benefits. The governments that rejected the WCIT power grab are primarily in the developed world.  The rest of the world, primarily those that live in the developing world, will have access to some lesser version of the Internet.

There is a clear correlation between a state’s ranking in the Democracy Index and how their place on the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the International Telecommunication Union‘s (ITU) World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT-12) according to the article. The following chart compares those countries that supported the ITRs with those that did not or deferred their vote until after consulting with their home country.

The author concludes that some of the larger content producers are simply just not going to bother offering content or services to much of the world. This could very well mean that a content producer will be subject to the ITRs if it is available in those countries. Mr. Holland explains that Internet traffic doesn’t travel point-to-point. The traffic is broken into many packets of information which individually take the most efficient route possible. What if that route transits through a country that has signed on to the new ITRs?

content producerThe CIRA CEO urges everyone to think about how the Internet works against the backdrop of the above info-graphic. It is primarily countries in the developing world that supported the new ITRs. This means that it will be the developing world that will not have access to the same information, free and open democracies, like Canada, do.

The article concludes that the result of Dubai is that the free and open Internet – the Internet that has allowed free speech, democracy, and economic development to flourish – will only be available to the citizens of the developed world. The citizens of the developing world – the people who could most benefit from the free and open Internet, from the free flow of information, and from access to global markets for their products and services – will be deprived of these benefits.

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

UN Wants to Put the Internet Behind Closed Doors

UN Wants to Put the Internet Behind Closed DoorsThe United Nations (UN) is calling a meeting between the world’s governments starting December 7th, 2012. It could very well decide the future of the Internet through a binding international treaty.

The Internet is in danger

It’s called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), and it’s being organized by a government-controlled UN agency called the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

If some proposals at WCIT are approved, decisions about the Internet would be made by a top-down, old-school government-centric agency behind closed doors. Some proposals allow for access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimize monitoring, and blocking online traffic. Others seek to impose new fees for accessing content, not to mention slowing down connection speeds. If the delicate balance of the internet is upset, it could have grave consequences for businesses and human rights.

This must be stopped

Only governments get a vote at WCIT. We need people from all around the world to demand that our leaders keep the internet open.

Log your objections to the UN and the ITU putting control of the Internet behind closed doors at www.whatistheitu.org

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

ITU Regs Bad for Cybersecurity

ITU Regs Bad for CybersecurityEmma Llansó at the Center for Democracy & Technology writes that the International Telecommunication Union is ill-suited to regulate cybersecurity. The United Nations-backed ITU will meet in December to try to expand its control over the Internet. The CDT believes that the issue of cybersecurity perfectly illustrates why the ITU should not be given expanded regulatory authority to include matters of Internet governance.

Center for Democracy & TechnologyThe UN body is holding the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) this December in Dubai, UAE to renegotiate the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), the UN’s core telecommunications treaty. The ITRs were in 1988 and sets forth general principles for the operation of international telephony systems. The CDT reports that some Member States of the ITU want to use the WCIT to expand these regulations to Internet matters by amending the ITRs. The CDT and others have warned of the risks to online freedom and innovation if the UN is allowed to regulate the Internet. The CDT has released a paper (PDF) that examines in detail some of the proposals pending before the ITU relating to cybercrime and cybersecurity.

The CDT states that cybersecurity is undeniably a critical issue for the future of telecommunications and indeed for global commerce, development, and human rights. On the other hand, it is ill-suited to the kind of centralized, government-dominated policy-making that the ITU represents.

ITU logoCybersecurity requires agility: Given the pace of technological change, governmental bodies are not likely to be the source of effective technical solutions. The CDT predicts those solutions will emerge from multi-stakeholder efforts, involving ICT companies, technologists, academics, and civil society advocates, as well as governments.

Moreover, the cybersecurity issue inevitably leads straight into questions of human rights and governmental power: surveillance, privacy, and free expression. None of these are issues the ITU has any expertise in or any ability to assess and balance. The CDT suggests, rather than adopting vague wording that could be used by governments as justification for repressive measures, the ITU should endorse existing standards initiatives such as those underway at the IETF and continue to serve as one forum among many for the development of consensus-based, private sector-led efforts.

According to the CDT briefing, the Arab States regional group has offered a proposal to amend the ITRs to require Member States to “undertake appropriate measures” to address issues relating to “Confidence and Security of telecommunications/ICTs,” including “… online crime; controlling and countering unsolicited electronic communication (e.g Spam); and protection of information and personal data (e.g. phishing).” The governments of the middle-east have a history of manipulating the Internet to silence dissent.

Another example of why the UN should not control the Internet comes from the African Member States cybersecurity proposal which deals with data retention. The CDT reports the requirement will force communications companies to retain data about customers and communications for the benefit of the government rather than for business purposes.

UN against U.S. ConstitutionAnalysis by CDT says that this requirement goes against American criminal laws. This data retention law turns the presumption of innocence on its head since these cybersecurity data retention laws apply to every citizen regardless of whether they have committed a crime. Further, because data retention laws require service providers to store information that identifies people online, they threaten anonymity online, implicating the rights to both privacy and free expression.

The CDT writes that several cybersecurity proposals to amend the ITRs refer to the routing of communications. One proposal from the Arab States regional group would amend the ITRs to specify that “A Member State has the right to know how its traffic is routed.”

national securityThe proposal is justified on the grounds of security, according to the CDT which some Member States clearly interpret to mean national security. In its comments, Egypt argued, “…  Member States must be able to know the routes used … to maintain national security. If the [Member State] does [not] have the right to know or select the route in certain circumstances (e.g. for Security reasons), then the only alternative left is to block traffic from such destinations…”

The brief explains that Internet protocol (IP) networks transmit communications and interconnect entirely differently than traditional telephone networks; in that context the Arab States proposal to “know how traffic is routed” simply would not work and could fundamentally disrupt the operation of the Internet. If the Arab States proposal were applied to all Internet communications, the requirement that countries be able to “know” how every IP packet is routed to its destination would necessitate extensive network engineering changes, not only creating huge new costs but also threatening the performance benefits and network efficiency of the current system.

The brief goes on to explain that the Arab States proposal could also serve to legitimize governmental efforts to set up controls on the Internet traffic, by enshrining in an international treaty. Changes to IP routing rules to carry out the Arab States’ cybersecurity proposal could give the Member States more technical tools to use to block traffic to and from certain websites or nations. The regulations on routing that the Arab States proposal condones could take a variety of forms, from prohibiting certain IP addresses from being received inside a country to tracking users by IP addresses and blocking specific individuals from sending or receiving certain communications. “Knowledge” of IP routing could also encompass countries keeping track of what websites their citizens visit or with whom they email – all in the name of national security.

These types of regulations, which could be legitimized if the Arab States proposal is adopted, could threaten user rights to privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet.

rb-

The UN must not be allowed to expand its control over the Internet.  ITU regulation will be bad for cybersecurity.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

UN Internet Takeover

Network neutralityNetwork neutrality. The idea is that an ISP can’t discriminate against the traffic traveling over its network. Network neutrality is an enshrined legal right in some areas and a hotly contested regulatory fight in others. post over at TechDirt that details the UNs efforts to undermine network neutrality. The articles say the International Telecommunications Union is trying to dictate terms that will affect how traffic flows on the Internet.

UN Internet power grab

UN Internet TakeoverNetwork neutrality opposition at the United Nations arose earlier this month. The power grab started with proposed rules from the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO). The article says ETNO wants to gut network neutrality. Glyn Moody at TechDirt has read those documents. He clipped the relevant segments to argue that these proposals would effectively make network neutrality illegal. As he writes at TechDirt:

“That may sound innocuous enough, but “supporting innovation to provide a value-added service” is a coded way of saying that the telcos should be allowed to abandon net neutrality, something confirmed in one of the accompanying proposals… “

The author says the key sentence in this proposal is “Nothing shall preclude commercial agreements with differentiated quality of service delivery to develop.

Comcast network neutrality power grab

Net Neutraility RIPGigaOm says that here in the US Comcast (CMCSA) has created a value-added service. Comcast decided to exempt Xfinity traffic delivered via the Microsoft (MSFT) Xbox from its 250 GBPS/month broadband cap. The U.S. version of network neutrality regulations allows Comcast to exempt that traffic. The loophole is the Xbox traffic doesn’t travel over the public Internet. The anti-net neutrality loophole exists because the FCC didn’t want to deal with the concept of value-added services on an ISP’s network when it made its network neutrality regulations.

rb-

GigaOm calls on the UN and the ITU to open up its process. Maybe then UN member countries will think twice about the types of rules they want to enshrine. Or maybe they’ll keep listening to the people who run the networks instead of the people who use them and depend on them for their businesses.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.