[AfrICANN-discuss] ITU redundant?

[Seun Ojedeji]

Thanks for the share...good to read how this finally turn out. Although I
wonder if USA hadn't rejected, whether the other voices would have been
loud enough to repel the move. Does anyone has an info on where i can find
the list of countries that refused signing?
Congratulation to the netizen of the Internet!
Have a wonderful celebration and new year ahead.

Regards
On Dec 14, 2012 10:33 PM, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el at lisse.na> wrote:

> Alex (Ntoko)
>
> excellent analysis, by Kieran Mc Carthy, wouldn't you agree?
>
> el
>
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a
>
>
> ITU forced to face modern realities as WCIT conference implodes
>
> Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has
> claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations'
> International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the
> World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai
> earlier today.
>
> No sooner had applause run out after a vote on what to include in the
> preamble to an updated global telecoms treaty than the United States took
> the floor and announced it would not sign it.
>
> The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit
> during these past 24 years. All without UN regulation"It's with a heavy
> heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the U.S. must communicate
> that it's not able to sign the agreement in the current form," said
> Ambassador Terry Kramer. "The Internet has given the world unimaginable
> economic and social benefit during these past 24 years. All without UN
> regulation. We candidly cannot support an ITU Treaty that is inconsistent
> with the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance."
>
> The US was then followed by the UK, Sweden, Egypt, Canada, Poland, the
> Netherlands, Denmark, Kenya, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Qatar, and the Czech
> Republic, all of whom expressed regret that the conference had not been
> able to effectively tackle the issues in front of it and warned they would
> not be able to sign the final text.
>
> *Living in the past*
>
> The collapse will come as a severe embarrassment to the ITU. Efforts to
> bring its core telecom regulations into the Internet era had exposed the
> organization to modern realities that it was incapable of dealing with. In
> the end, they proved overwhelming.
>
> The warning signs were apparent months before the conference took placeThe
> warning signs were apparent months before the conference took place. The
> technical community and civil society had complained bitterly that they
> were not even allowed access to the documents that outlined government
> suggestions for change. It was confirmed that only government
> representatives would be able to provide proposals, speak and vote.
> Preparatory meetings were closed.
>
> Under increasing pressure, the ITU at first dismissed the complaints
> before belatedly trying to open up. But it was too little too late. If the
> preparatory work was out-of-step with modern policy systems, attendees to
> the meeting were stunned to find a conference style and approach stuck in
> the 1970s.
>
> A constant stream of information was available only in downloadable Word
> documents; disagreement was dealt with by increasingly small, closed groups
> of key government officials; voting was carried out by delegates physically
> raising large yellow paddles, and counted by staff who walked around the
> room; meetings ran until the early hours of the morning, and "consensus by
> exhaustion" was the only fall-back position. Government speakers spent long
> hours debating single words and playing strategic games with one another,
> pushing everyone closer and closer to the end of the conference without
> tackling any of the main points of contention.
>
> *The crying game*
>
> This approach stunned attendees who were forced to sit for hours in huge
> meeting halls, listening to events unfold at a frustratingly slow pace
> through their headsets while unable to interject. Then there were the
> actual proposals.
>
> Russia first submitted, then revised, then pulled, then resubmitted an
> explosive contribution that effectively undermined the existing global
> structures that make the Internet workRussia first submitted, then
> revised, then pulled, then resubmitted an explosive contribution that
> effectively undermined the existing global structures that make the
> Internet work. The ITU's Secretary General foolishly insisted on
> including text on the unrelated matter of human rights in an effort to see
> off media criticism that some of the other proposals would allow
> governments to monitor people online. Old telco companies tried to rewire
> the Internet so they received millions of dollars in revenue from Internet
> companies such as Google and Facebook.
>
> Mistake piled on mistake and yet the ITU seemed incapable of responding,
> relying on member states to arrive at their own solutions and ignoring
> civil society, the technical community and even hundreds of thousands of
> concerned global citizens that took to online petitions to express their
> disgust at decisions being made over the Internet in closed, government
> groups.
>
> In the end, the ITU and the conference chair, having backed themselves to
> the edge of a cliff, dared governments to push them off. They duly did. And
> without even peeking over, the crowd turned around and walked away.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20121215/f7d29776/attachment.htm