WCIT 12

Note: I have done my best to express both sides argument, going into great detail for the ITU argument simply because there was so much to get across if I was going to represent the argument properly. I've added links to Wikipedia's statement on the treaty, Google's objections, and ITU's side.

My main reason for adding this now is that google has put up a request for signatures to block this treaty. I'm trying to get a balanced argument.

Wikipedia link

I was informed of this by google's advert about it, which accuses this upcoming change to the 1988 International Telecommunications Regulations treaty of attacking the freedom of the internet. Google argues that the treaty would allow governments to censor information and even cut off internet access.

Google's argument.

The ITU have put forward their own argument, which can be found here.

They argue that the treaty will give national governments the ability to implement the following measures.

• Greater transparency of mobile roaming charges, preventing a "bill shock" from using your mobile overseas. Prices may also be capped.

• Preventing misuse of numbering resources; apparently a common source of fraud. Someone technically minded come in and tell us what this means. I think it has to do with fraudulently using numerical signatures that indicate what country the sender of information across the web is sending that information from. Presumably used to cover that person's tracks. I'm probably horribly wrong, hence why it would be nice to have someone knowledgeable come and explain this. If it's something I learned back in Intermediate 2 IT I'll be so embarrassed.

• Combating fraud: Identifying the origin of a senders communications and sending that information to the receiver. Straightforward enough; tells you where all those scams are coming from.

• Taxation; ensures you can't get taxed by two different nations for using a service that operates in both. Also, prevents or discourages taxation of incoming international calls; presumably so you don't get hit with a massive bill for some idiot calling you from overseas.

• General Economic Issues (Rather general; read the fine print).
  • Price Transparency
  • Cost Orientation, intended to include...
    • Return on investment
    • Taxes
    • Creation of reserves for future investment
    • Risk Premiums.

I'd wager this relates to the ITU's stated goal of allowing countries to get more out of the investments they make in telecommunications infrastructure, particularly as it relates to the internet.

• Foster agreements in high-bandwidth infrastructure; ensures adequate return for infrastructure investment, as well as traffic carried and terminated on that infrastructure.

A proposal that national governments should implement the measures, not an international body. (Potentially worrisome, but apparently no different to what already happens according to the ITU; governments have always been the ones to implement these rules, the rules are simply changing.)

• Possibly, new or revised ITU-T Recommendations. (I have... no idea what this is).

That's it.

What does everyone think about this?

Bumping this as it's only just been opened.

I'm all for net neutrality and freedom of information, but Google's campaign is quite disturbing, more so to me than WCIT 12 itself. Whatever its intentions are, Google is still a business corporation; this campaign shows how much influence they have and how they are willing to use it to advance their interests in the political sphere, something that can quite rightly be called an abuse of power. And their intentions might not be pure; new taxes introduced by the conference could very well cut into their revenue.

Googles own behavior hasn't exactly endorsed freedom and neutrality lately...

No, I don't want your fucking toolbar for the 4th time. No, I do not want to use my real name on my Youtube Account, and NO I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU WHY I WON'T USE MY IRL NAME!

Google, contrary to their mission statement, is just as evil as the people they are railing against.

Well, this is sure reassuring. Seriously? This is pretty much SOPA 2.0. Governments ignoring the pleas of their citizens, stupid decisions being made, people making stupid comments that are so flawed that it questions their position at all, and also the internet is at risk.

Given the sponsors of the proposal, no one should really be surprised at that kind of skullduggery taking place. I mean, none of the countries supporting it (Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Nigeria) are exactly known as bastions of honesty, or for having a commitment to free and open speech.

Add to that the general habit of bureaucracies seeking more control, the odds of getting anything out of this actually beneficial to the internet as a whole were pretty long, like say making the odds that Han Solo didn't want to hear look like "a sure thing" in comparison.

edited 13th Dec '12 6:54:24 AM by Nohbody

The U.S. Congress passed a resolution saying something along the lines of "Ha ha, no." to the negociators, and since the U.S., for the better and worse, control a lot of the web, the negociations won't change anything for it. Russia, China and Saudi Arabia will grumble, and that'll be it.

I guess this is a good thing? I mean, the governments aren't acting like buffoons now, so that's a good sign.

Without looking up the details, it looks like the list of refusals covers a clear majority of the places where the internet's infrastructure is physically located, so if that list doesn't shrink by countries changing their minds the ITU is pretty much irrelevant whatever regulations they may pass. Possession is, after all, 9/10ths of the law, and the signing countries don't really possess all that much internet infrastructure.

(Apparently Nigeria did sign, so does that mean we can totally ignore them and in the process cut off the source of 419 Scam spams? )

edited 14th Dec '12 8:42:48 AM by Nohbody

Oh, man... when those guys realise that, the right bribes will be heading to the right people, pronto. I expect a policy change in the near future.

It doesn't even sound like the ITU has any power, they just felt like calling a meeting on internet policy. And then no one with the ability to actually sway things their way refused to sign the agreement.

The U.S. refused to sign the latest version of the treaty. They want all Internet talks off the table before they will consider it.

So...uh, yay?

It's not just the US. It's actually a handful of countries. At that point, I assume the only ones wanting to sign the treaty are the same guys that have internet censorship.