WCIT-12 leak shows Russia, China, others seek to define 'government-controlled Internet'
Summary: Leaked proposals from the U.N. WCIT-12 summit show Russia, China, and similar regimes are making a bid to define the Internet as a system of government-controlled networks. UPDATED.
New proposals submitted to the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) aim to redefine the Internet as a system of government-controlled, state-supervised networks, according to a leaked document.
The WCIT-12 summit in Dubai is currently where the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is being held, where member state countries are going head-to-head about proposed revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR), a legally binding international treaty signed by 178 countries.
The leaked document [PDF] was proposed by a member state bloc comprised of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Updated Monday, December 10th, at 3:13 a.m. PST:
According to ITU's Twitter feed, TechWeek Europe and The National, the proposal has now been withdrawn. Additionally, the Egyptian delegation has communicated to WCITleaks via Twitter that, despite its name on the document, Egypt claims it "never supported the document."
Both Russia and China have been criticized in the past for various actions over their legislative approaches to their citizens' Internet access. Russia recently enacted a 'blacklist' law that sparked parliamentary scrutiny over the country's plans to censor the Russian Web, while China has for years impeded citizens' access to a free and open Web thanks to the state-run so-called 'Great Firewall'.
The leaked proposal specifically defines the Internet as an: "international conglomeration of interconnected telecommunication networks," and that "Internet governance shall be effected through the development and application by governments," with member states having "the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance."
The secretly drafted proposal were posted on WCITLeaks, a Web site where conference proposals are being anonymously leaked, partially due to the fact that WCIT-12 conference proposals have not yet been made available to the general public.
The document also reflects one country's relentless push to redefine the Internet -- most recently seen in Russia's original proposals for WCIT-12 [PDF].
In June 2011, Vladimir Putin met with ITU's Secretary-General, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, where the then-Russian Prime Minister reminded the Toure that Russia co-founded the ITU. Putin then made headlines after stating that Russia intends to actively participate in, "establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)."
With the secretive nature of WCIT-12's proposal system, there is a growing sense that certain countries are prepared to move quickly in hopes that drastic proposals will slip through unnoticed.
In late November, the Arab States made a last-minute play to have the ITU become a national registry in the standards-setting summit the ITU facilitated just before WCIT-12 began only a week ago.
According to Dot Next, attendees at the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA) were "surprised" with an aggressive last-minute proposal by the Arab States that the ITU become a provider of IP addresses, citing "historical imbalances" relating to the allocation of traditional IPv4 addresses.
The proposal was halted when the U.S. threatened that it would refuse to accept the decision if it were passed. In a softening move, the ITU then decided it would, "conduct a feasibility study on the necessary action that would enable ITU-T to become a registry of IPv6 addresses" for the ITU Council to consider in 2013.
It's outrageous to think that any country would propose "state surveillance," or "the sovereign right to force Internet companies to hand over private information." But, this seems to be just what this document is proposing:
It cannot be understated the damage such a proposal could do to the free and open Internet, online privacy and anonymity, with access to the Internet at risk from an array of oppressive governments.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
No surprises
The more things change...
To be fair, current system of Internet control in USA is governmental, too
The USA Gov controlling the Net?
Just as Google tries to do.
internet
keep it up, Violet
This is going to happen ... eventually
Not in the next year or two, but certainly in your lifetime.
All countries, whether authoritarian or not, want to control the portion of the Internet in their own country. (That includes the US, by the way.)
All these countries want to control what you see hear, or view on the Internet, and want to keep track of you to see if you are doing anything "subversive" (as they define it).
Not so eventually
Americans' view of the world
Today it is a problem that the enforcement of national laws is difficult in relation to internet companies and services. What is legal and what is illegal differ across the world, and this can also vary considerably within established and functioning democracies. For example, the U.S. will probably want to control access to child pornography in the U.S., and when these services are provided by foreign companies, and from servers in countries where child pornography is legal. The answer is that the U.S. already does this, but this is not censorship? Other contries now want the same ability to enforce national legislation on internet use. That is what this is all about.
In Norway and in large parts of Europe all advertising directed at children is illegal. This prohibition is easy to enforce when it comes to newspapers, magazines, TV channels, etc.. It is very difficult to enforce when disney.com and other sites directs its services towards the Norwegian market, and where their servers are located in the U.S.. The same applies to the advertising of alcohol and gambling.
Tax evasion is also difficult to attack. A common measure is to prohibit products from the marked when foreign companies do not follow national legislation. This is easy for physical products. It is almost impossible for products and services delivered over the Internet without international agreements. The U.N. can be a good instrument for achieving an international agreement on these matters.
Thank you for your sane input, reidar76
Feel free then...
Then get back to us a couple of years later, if you're allowed to.
You over simplify, way way too much.
If you think thats where their ideas begin and end your drunk, absolutly drunk.
Just look at the countries litterally doing all they can to change the internet so they have more control! China Russia and others who pride themselves in having obediant citizens. Thats what they are up to in the long run.
Nobody wants unchecked crime and similarly unsavory things they have little to no control over, but sometimes you have to weigh out the good and the bad and if you think all these countries want is to be able to enforce the good...well, you really need to wake up because your in dreamland.
Almost there
Earlier comments.
The USA is the best place that will preserve, enhance, and increase access.
Anyone who beleives...
What a crock of crap! They only want to fairly enforce their laws? Thats the idea they are floating is it??? Really?
Wow. Anyone who buys into that, its already to late for them, they have been brainwashed.
Key
Paging George Orwell!
Forget it, gentlemen! The WorldWideWeb was created by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Swiss government (DARPA started it and the Swiss grabbed the idea and ran with it, at warp speed - who says all they know is chocolate and money?) and it has since become the de facto international mode of communication.
Of course, The Ministry of Truth, in Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, don't WANT communication, do they, George? NONE of Orwell's dictatorships want people to REALLY KNOW what's going on in the world - and so, all of them try to muzzle free speech, close the lines of communication, and shut down all the windows (or Windows). Not to mention throwing Julia and Winston into Room 101.