Post-WCIT civil society statement: A way forward (December 14, 2012)

At the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) conference in Dubai, ITU member states tried to negotiate new International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). We as civil society organizations want to express our concern at the lack of transparency, openness, and public consultations that marked the national preparatory processes and the WCIT discussion in Dubai, despite some efforts to open the process to civil society.

Mindful of the upcoming review of the World Summit on the Information Society process we call upon states to recognize the importance of upholding human rights in all spheres, including the Internet

We further call upon governments to recognize the importance of ensuring meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in all internet governance and policy-making processes which should be both transparent and accountable.

• We urge governments to promote universal, affordable, high quality and equitable access to the internet
• Recognizing the necessity of net neutrality for protection of human rights and for innovation we call for the promotion of network equality so that access is free from discrimination, filtering or control on commercial, political or other grounds.
• Noting that the internet is a medium for both public and private exchange of views and information across boundaries, we call on governments and non-state actors to respect and protect freedom of expression online.
• Taking into account that privacy is a fundamental human right, we urge the governments and service providers to take all legal, procedural and technical steps necessary to guarantee the right to protection of personal data, including traffic and indirectly identifiable data; the right to secure private communications, including the right to online anonymity and pseudonimity; and the right to be free from unwarranted surveillance and all forms of eavesdropping
• Realizing that the cultural and linguistic diversity should be protected as legitimate speech, but also as common cultural heritage that enriches humankind as a whole, exhort
• Governments and service providers to foster and promote the expressions of such diversity without constraints based on cultural, religious or gender bias.

 

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Endorsed by:

1. Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil
2. Nupef, Brazil
3. Intervozes, Brazil
4. Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor, Brazil
5. Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina
6. Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE), University of Palermo, Argentina
7. Via Libre Foundation, Argentina
8. Centro de Estudios Legales Y Sociales, Argentina
9. ONG Derechos Digitales, Chile
10. Colnodo, Colombia
11. Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa, Colombia
12. Fundación Karisma, Colombia
13. Association for Progressive Communications, Global
14. Cooperativa Sulá Batsú, Costa Rica
15. Fundación Social TIC, Mexico
16. Creative Commons Guatemala, Guatemala
17. Global Partners & Associates, U.K.
18. Open Society Foundation, Global
19. KICTANet, Kenya
20. Consumers International, Global
21. Center for Democracy and Technology, U.S.A.
22. Internet Democracy Project, India
23. CELS, Argentina
24. IT for Change, India
25. Open Technology Institute USA

 

Behind closed doors at the UN’s attempted “takeover of the Internet” Conflicting visions for the future of the Internet collide in Dubai.

by Eli Dourado – Dec 21 2012

DUBAI, UAE—In early December, I found myself in an odd position: touching down in Dubai with credentials to attend a 12-day closed-door meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). It’s a meeting I spent the last six months trying to expose.

Though the world had been assured that WCIT would not attempt to mount a “UN takeover of the Internet,” that was in many ways what happened. As the conference ended, I watched US Ambassador Terry Kramer abandon months of preparatory work and almost two weeks of intense negotiations to announce, as his words echoed through hundreds of headsets in six languages, that the US simply would not sign the resulting deal.

“Mr. Chairman, as head of the US Delegation, I wanted to start out and thank you for your tireless work and leadership,” Kramer said. “Your personal commitment to a successful outcome here is very impressive. However, I do need to say that it’s with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the US must communicate that it’s not able to sign the agreement in the current form.”

He went on to say the adopted treaty text was incompatible with the existing multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Internet policy, he said, “should not be determined by Member States, but by citizens, communities, and broader society, and such consultation from the private sector and civil society is paramount. This has not happened here.”

Fifty-four other countries took the same position, drawing sharp battle lines over the Internet and its future governance.

How did a “consensus-driven” UN process that would not, we were told, involve the Internet end up this way?
Sticky wicket

When I first heard about the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) early in 2012, I understood it vaguely as the event at which the United Nations would try to “take over the Internet.” But the experts I met with soon admitted they didn’t know what would happen at the WCIT (wicket, as they pronounced it).The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the UN agency convening the meeting, vigorously denied that the conference would have anything to do with the Internet at all. The purpose of the meeting, claimed ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré, was simply to update the treaty that governs international phone calls; it had last been revised in 1988, when most phone companies were state-owned monopolies. Claims that the conference would implicate the Internet were part of a misinformation campaign pursued by unnamed opponents of the ITU, Touré said. In any case, the ITU was just a convener of the WCIT, and actual decisions would be made by member states on a non-voting, consensus-driven basis. The ITU, it was said, had no agenda of its own.

Because the proposals for the updated treaty stayed secret, however, the public had no way to judge the claims of the ITU and its critics. On a Tuesday morning in June, my colleague Jerry Brito stopped by my office and said, “We have to make a leaks site for WCIT proposals. We can call it WCITLeaks!” Armed with the perfect name, we spent the rest of the day putting together a site where insiders could anonymously upload documents related to the WCIT.

We launched on Wednesday and, within hours, we had our first leak—a draft of the new treaty containing several options for revisions to each provision, including some that addressed Internet issues. The next day, we received the infamous ETNO proposal drafted by European telecom giants, which would have applied the “sender-pays” rule from telephone service to Internet data transfers. A few days later, we posted a compilation of every single proposal that had been made so far.

The increased transparency did have an effect on the ITU. A mere two weeks after we launched our site, Touré announced that he would recommend making WCIT-related documents public—a recommendation largely rejected by the ITU Council, which released a single document that was already available on WCITLeaks. The additional transparency also had an effect on some ITU member states, which simply withheld their most heinous proposals until the conference neared. Not until mid-November, for instance, did Russia put forth its proposed revisions. These contained an entire new article called “Internet.”
Off to Dubai

In the meantime, I began to participate in State Department public consultations about the WCIT. By merely expressing enough interest, I was eventually allowed to join the US delegation and travel with them to Dubai. The US government never expressly condoned WCITLeaks’s activities, but it never expressly condemned them, either.

The first few days of the conference were mostly, for me, spent figuring out how everything worked. The highest-level meeting was the Plenary, which established several committees, of which Committee 5 (COM5) did the substantive work of revising treaty text. As a result of criticism over transparency, Plenary and COM5 meetings were webcast and open to those who only had observer status.COM5 established two working groups that split up the treaty text between them; these meetings were not webcast or open to unaffiliated attendees. Fortunately, as an official member of a delegation, I was able to attend them.

At each official meeting, the name of the game was consensus. Where consensus could not be reached on a particular issue, an ad hoc group was created to deal with that issue. The ad hoc group would spend additional time trying to forge a consensus. If a particular meeting could not find language that every member state could agree to, it would report back to the next-highest level meeting with the contentious text in square brackets.

The first five days of the conference followed a pattern. Any issue not immediately agreed to on the first day was referred to COM5. Any issue not immediately agreed to in COM5 was referred to a working group, which referred them to ad hoc groups. Because there was little consensus, the ad hoc groups reported back to the working groups with proposals that were filled with brackets, and this bracketed text likewise worked its way back up through COM5 to the Plenary.

Everyone grew frustrated and tired. After working long hours each day, text was beginning to trickle back up to Plenary still laden with brackets, and it was clear that consensus would be difficult, if not impossible, to reach. The US pleaded for everything to be handled in Plenary, rather than cascading down and back up through the chain of groups with little progress.

Amid this frustration, host country United Arab Emirates (UAE) dropped a bombshell. It announced that it was putting forward a new “multi-regional common proposal,” a complete rewrite of the treaty to substitute for all the bracketed text we had worked on. It had support from numerous member states. Bahrain, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Oman all expressed support for the document, which was not yet available for inspection.

The US delegation went to bed on Friday evening still not having seen the new document. It was not available in the ITU’s document system, despite promises from the UAE to submit it immediately following the Friday Plenary. On Saturday morning, I heard from a few people that they had seen it in paper form. Finally, around noon on Saturday, WCITLeaks received and posted a version of the multi-regional proposals.

The document indicated that it was to be submitted jointly by Russia, UAE, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt. It read like a compilation of the most objectionable proposals—it would have nationalized key aspects of Internet governance, including naming and numbering (currently handled by the nongovernmental ICANN), and it created new member state obligations with respect to Internet security. Despite the ITU’s claims that WCIT was not going to be about the Internet, there we were, halfway through the conference, and the Internet was still on the table.

The WCITLeaks version of the multi-regional proposal began to circulate widely among delegates from all countries. Within minutes of posting it, people sitting near me told me that they were receiving e-mails that linked to the document. With the document available for anyone to read, at least one delegation grew worried. By 4:30pm, WCITLeaks received a tweet from an Egyptian delegate saying, “On behalf of the Head of the Egyptian Delegation, we would like to announce that Egypt never supported that proposal.”

On Sunday afternoon, the ITU announced via Twitter that the multi-regional proposal had been withdrawn. At the next Plenary meeting, on Monday night, Egypt distanced itself further:

Egypt would like to clarify its position with regards to the unofficial multi-country draft proposal regarding the review of the ITRs. That was submitted—that was circulated back last Saturday.

This document has spread unofficially, and we notice that it contains the name of Egypt among its proponents. Egypt would like to reiterate that we never supported this document…

Egypt has always supported and will continue to support the concepts of free Internet and has exerted all efforts to develop the Internet and its wide spread among its citizens. Content Regulation and censorship are not within the scope of ITRs [International Telecommunications Regulations].

With that statement, which was met by applause, the multi-regional proposal looked dead—and the Internet seemed safer.

source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/behind-closed-doors-at-the-uns-attempted-takeover-of-the-internet/

Eli Dourado is a research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a co-founder of WCITLeaks, and a member of the US delegation to the WCIT. The views expressed here are his own.

Hasil Sidang World Conference on International Telecommunication 2012 di Dubai : Siaran Pers KOMINFO

Memasuki minggu kedua Sidang World Conference on International Telecommunication Tahun 2012 (WCIT-12) yang berlangsung di Dubai, United Emirate Arab, pembahasan proposal dari satu negara maupun kawasan (regional proposal) sudah berkurang intensitasnya. Namun pertemuan-pertemuan konsultatif baik di tingkat kawasan maupun di rapat pleno untuk menyamakan pandangan dan kompromi mengenai isu-isu sensitif dan krusial, baik tingkat frekuensinya dan lamanya pembahasan semakin meningkat. Beberapa isu sensitif dan krusial tersebut mencakup antara lain :

1. Isu hak asasi manusia yang kembali diperdebatkan saat negara-negara seperti Malaysia, Cina, Iran menolak wording “Human Right” masuk dalam dokumen ITR karena secara konstitusi aturan hak asasi manusia sudah diatur dalam level konstitusi yang lebih tinggi dan berlaku bagi semua negara. Sedangkan negara-negara maju seperti Amerika Serikat, Belanda dan negara-negara Eropa pada umumnya tetap menginginkan prinsip-prinsip hak asasi manusia masuk dalam Preamble dokumen revisi ITRs. Dalam perkembangannya, pencantuman prinsip-prinsi hak azasi di Preamble ITRs menjadi isu sentral dan alot diperdebatkan sehingga dikhawatirkan isu ini akan membuat Sidang WCIT-12 menjadi deadlock . Untuk mengatasi hal tersebut, negara-negara yang menolak hak azasi dimasukan ke ITRs menawarkan solusi kompromi yakni akan menerima usulan Amerika Serikat dan pendukungnya tetapi dengan syarat masalah hak akses setiap negara terhadap telekomunikasi internasional juga dimasukan di masukan dalam Preamble ITRs. Namun usulan tersebut ditolak sehinga pimpinan sidang menunda pembahasan isu ini dan beralih ke isu lain.
2. Isu keamanan (security) dan spam kembali dibahas namun kembali terjadi perdebatan baik antara negara-negara berkembang dan negara-negara maju seperti Amerika Serikat dan Organisasi Regional Eropa yang membatasi isu security hanya dalam konteks technical infrastructure saja dan mengusulkan istilah baru “security” menjadi “robustness”.  Sedangkan mayoritas negara-negara berkembang yang dipelopori negara-negara Arab dan Iran termasuk RRC dan Indonesia lebih cenderung pada penggunaan istilah “security” dalam dokumen ITR , ketimbang “robustness” karena istilah tersebut merupakan istilah resmi yang telah disyahkan dalam dokumen WSIS.
3. Draft resolusi internet terkait upaya mendorong berkembangnya Internet Environment yang kondusif yang diminta dimasukkan dalam draft resolusi ITR , dalam pembahasannya terjadi perbedaan pendapat yang cukup tajam. Draft resolusi yang berjudul “to foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet” didasarkan pada mandat WSIS yang menegaskan bahwa semua pemerintah di dunia harus memiliki peran dan tanggung jawab yang sama dalam rangka tata kelola Internet internasional yang aman dan menguntungkan semua negara dengan mengajak semua stakeholder untuk berperan aktif dalam tata kelola internet internasional yang berbasis multi-stakeholder. Setelah melalui perdebatan yang panjang dan pembahasan yang melelahkan, pimpinan sidang Mr Mohamed Nasser Al Ghanim meminta kepastian posisi negara-negara yang pro dan kontra , dan hasilnya mayoritas negara yang dipelopori oleh negara-negara Arab, Iran, Rusia, RRC termasuk Indonesia mendukung draft resolusi tersebut masuk dalam dokumen ITR. Sedangkan negara-negara maju umumnya seperti Amerika Serikat, Jepang, Uni Eropa menolak draft resolusi tersebut.

 

Kekhawatiran akan deadlock -nya pembahasan mengenai perlu tidaknya prinsip-prinsip hak azasi manusia dimasukan dalam Preamble ITRs menjadi kenyataan. Sebab dalam sidang yang akan membahas dan memutuskan substansi tiap pasal, resolusi dan appendix dari draf ITRs, Amerika Serikat dan pendukungnya meski tidak mempermasalahkan substansi draft ITRs, tetapi khusus permintaan untuk memasukan hak akses telekomunikasi internasional ke dalam Preamble tetap ditolak Amerika Serikat dan pendukungnya, sehingga pimpinan sidang memutuskan melakukan voting.

 

Hasil sidang ternyata mayoritas negara-negara ITU menghendaki hak akses telekomunikasi internasional ke publik dimasukan dalam Preamble ITRs, namun keputusan tersebut berakibat Amerika Serikat dan Inggeris menolak menandatangani ITRs hasil voting, sedang pendukungnya yang lain seperti Kanada, Swedia, dan Belanda menyatakan akan berkonsultasi dengan pengambil kebijakan di negaranya masing-masing sebelum memutuskan untuk menandatangani ITRs hasil voting.

 

Setelah voting terhadap hasil revisi ITRs, Hamadoun Tour selaku Sekjen ITU menyampaikan sambutan yang pada intinya menyatakan bahwa revisi tersebut mengandung banyak manfaat dan capaian diantaranya peningkatan kompetisi dan transparansi penetapan tarif international mobile roaming yang sangat menguntungkan konsumen. ITRs versi baru tersebut tidak hanya meningkatkan keterhubungan para penyandang cacat dan negara-negara kecil kepulauan dan tak berpantai yang sedang berkembang, tapi juga mendorong investasi dan pengembangan broadband dan mobile broadband sehingga membuat masyarakat yang saat ini tidak terhubung bisa memperoleh layanan berbasis pita lebar, termasuk memicu pembangunan berkelanjutan lewat program e-aste dan efisiensi dalam penggunaan energi.

 

Selanjutnya Sekjen ITU menegaskan bahwa Konferensi WCIT-12 ini sama sekali tidak berkaitan dengan pengaturan internet dan ITRs hasil revisi tidak mengandung pengaturan internet, termasuk masalah content. Lampiran ITRs juga bukan resolusi yang mengikat namun bertujuan mengatasi hambatan pertumbuhan dan pengembangan internet, yang merupakan tugas dan mandat yang telah diberikan negara-negara anggota ITU untuk menghubungkan seluruh dunia, termasuk dua per tiga penduduk dunia yang belum terkoneksi dengan internet. Sidang diakhiri dengan acara mengesahkan Final Act ITRs WCIT-12 dan sekaligus ditutup secara resmi pada hari ini Jumat tanggal 14 Desember 2012 pukul 15.30 waktu setempat.

________

Kepala Pusat Informasi dan Humas Kementerian Kominfo (Gatot S. Dewa Broto, HP: 0811898504, Email: gatot_b@postel.go.id , Tel/Fax: 021.3504024).

sumber: http://kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/3728/Siaran+Pers+No.+96-PIH-KOMINFO-2012++tentang+Hasil+Sidang+World+Conference+on+International+Telecommunication+2012+di+Dubai+