ITU discussions not going well for US/Internet

U.S. and Canadian policy suggestions have apparently been rejected by the International Telecommunications Union negotiators. Stay tuned.
Written by David Gewirtz, Senior Contributing Editor

UPDATE 8:24am: Someone who claims to be part of the U.S. delegation has reached out to me. I'm waiting to validate that person's involvement, and if I can validate, may have an update or clarification to this story.

UPDATE 9:07am: I'm told things might not be going as badly as Reuters reported. I have confirmed my correspondent, and I have offered the opportunity to print a statement on behalf of the delegation, if it's provided to me. I'm now waiting to see if such a statement is forthcoming.

UPDATE 2:03pm: We've received an official statement from the U.S. delegation, which supercedes the content of this article. Please read the link below.

Breaking news: U.S. Position on Foundational Issues at the WCIT

Previous discussion, now clearly out-of-date and inaccurate:

Well, it looks like the forces of oppression and darkness may be winning so far.

As we've covered before, the UN and International Telecommunications Union (ITU) are meeting secretly-ish in Dubai, and are trying to establish new and frankly unacceptable guidelines over how the Internet will operate in the future.

See Also: Take action before the UN, Russia, and China hijack the Internet
See Also: U.N. readies for protests on eve of secret Internet regulation treaty 
See Also: Don't let the UN steal the Internet

It's been very difficult getting much useful inside information on the potentially dastardly doings in Dubai, but apparently Reuters managed to get some intel from U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer. This is one of those good-news-bad-news stories.

The good news is that the United States and Canada made a proposal to protect the Internet from restrictive and discriminatory international regulation. The bad news is that the proposal apparently fell on deaf ears.

Stay tuned. The future of the Internet as we know it may be at stake.

Editorial standards