<table class="contentpaneopen"><tbody><tr><td class="contentheading" width="100%"><a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/11338-us-reps-introduce-resolution-to-bar-un-regulation-of-internet" class="contentpagetitle">U.S. Reps. Introduce Resolution to Bar UN Regulation of Internet</a>
</td>
<td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%">
<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/11338-us-reps-introduce-resolution-to-bar-un-regulation-of-internet?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=" title="Print" rel="nofollow">| Print |</a> </td>
<td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%">
<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy50aGVuZXdhbWVyaWNhbi5jb20vdGVjaC1tYWlubWVudS0zMC9jb21wdXRlcnMvMTEzMzgtdXMtcmVwcy1pbnRyb2R1Y2UtcmVzb2x1dGlvbi10by1iYXItdW4tcmVndWxhdGlvbi1vZi1pbnRlcm5ldA%3D%3D" title=""> </a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<table class="contentpaneopen">
<tbody><tr>
<td valign="top">
<span class="small">
Written by Raven Clabough </span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="createdate" valign="top">
<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/11338-us-reps-introduce-resolution-to-bar-un-regulation-of-internet">http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/11338-us-reps-introduce-resolution-to-bar-un-regulation-of-internet</a><br>
Wednesday, 28 March 2012 15:24 </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<p><img src="http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories2012/10aMarch/michaelmccaul-t.001.jpg" style="float: left; margin-right: 4px; margin-left: 4px;" height="117" width="85">Citing
a September letter from China, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan
outlining their plan to introduce a UN resolution on Internet
governance, U.S. Representatives Michael McCaul (R-Texas, left) and Jim
Langevin (D-R.I.) have <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/218539-lawmakers-push-bill-to-oppose-un-internet-regulation" target="_blank">sponsored </a>House Concurrent Resolution 114 to prevent such an action. </p>
<p>According to the <a target="_blank" href="http://congressionalcybersecuritycaucus.langevin.house.gov/news/press-releases/2012/03/mccaul-langevin-lead-bipartisan-effort-to-prevent-international-internet-regulations.shtml">Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus</a>,
the pair, "Co-Chairs of the House Cybersecurity Caucus, introduced
legislation [Mar. 27] urging the United States Permanent Representative
to the United Nations to oppose any resolution that would allow
regulation of the Internet."</p>
<p>McCaul and Langevin note that HCR 114 is consistent with President
Obama’s policy to “preserve, enhance and increase access to an open,
global Internet.” In a statement, McCaul added:</p>
<p style="margin-left:40px">Any action taken by the United Nations to
attempt to limit Americans’ right to free and open Internet content is
unacceptable. The Internet’s current multi-stakeholder model has
provided an unburdened environment for ideas and inventions to thrive.
No single state should have control over content and information must be
freely disseminated.</p>
<p>Likewise, Langevin asserted:</p>
<p style="margin-left:40px">The proposals by some nations to gain
international approval of policies that could result in Internet
censorship would be a significant setback for anyone who believes free
expression is a universal right. It must be made clear that efforts to
secure the Internet against malicious hacking do not need to interfere
with this freedom and the United States will oppose any attempt to blur
the line between the two.</p>
<p>Langevin and McCaul are not the only ones concerned about the
potential for a UN resolution to censor the Internet. FCC Commissioner
Robert McDowell has issued repeated warnings against the United Nations’
regulation of the Internet.</p>
<p>The fear appears to be well-founded and has been expressed by critics from across the political spectrum. The<em> Huffington Post</em> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_1332768.html">reports</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:40px">Internet freedom is in the international
crosshairs of a large group of nations, including many of the world's
most undemocratic governments, seeking to give themselves control over
Internet policy. Their target is the creation of new international legal
rules that would allow them to legitimately impose censorship and
monitor users' online activities.</p>
<p>The<em> Post</em> notes that even when Internet regulation is passed
for seemingly noble reasons, such as the protection of intellectual
property, it can then be used for a variety of reasons beyond its
original purpose.</p>
<p>Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and a number of other
nondemocratic-to-tyrannical governments are pushing for an international
regulation of the Internet through an agency of the United Nations: the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). They want a “cyber arms
control treaty,” which would give governments the power to censor any
online information they do not like as “a danger to the state.”</p>
<p>These authoritarian countries have pushed an agenda to censor the
Internet in a variety of forums. In 2011, they suggested at the UN
General Assembly that a code of conduct be introduced for the use of the
Internet through international law. They also proposed the creation of
a separate UN “super agency” to be responsible for managing all
aspects of Internet policy.</p>
<p>According to a 2010 article in the <i>World Affairs Journal</i>, "If
diplomats are not careful, one by-product of a push to regulate
state-on-state cyber conflict could be a new effort to subject Internet
activity to political scrutiny." It also pointed to the efforts at the
ITU as a telling example of this trend.</p>
<p>Last year, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin met with the head of
the ITU and declared “international control over the Internet” to be
vital.</p>
<p>Former UN Ambassador David Gross contends that in the upcoming major
ITU conference being planned by officials — the World Conference on
International Telecommunications (WCIT) — countries such as China and
Russia will once again attempt to expand the authority of the ITU.</p>
<p>The <em>Huffington Post</em> observes:</p>
<p style="margin-left:40px">Russia, China and their partners are
expected to use this conference intended to renegotiate the ITU's
telecommunications regulations to expand its mandate to regulate the
Internet. To succeed, they need a majority of the 193 member states to
agree. The proposals could dramatically change everything from access
and affordability of the Internet to oversight by the ITU — and
therefore governments — of ICANN, the IETF and other organizations
responsible for elements of the Internet's architecture. Unlike the ITU,
these organizations use a multi-stakeholder approach where all voices
are a part of the process of decision-making — but none control the
others.</p>
<p>FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell pointed out in a <i>Wall Street Journal</i>
editorial last month that those who support Internet freedom should be
playing “offense,” not “defense,” when it comes to the Internet.</p>
<p>Both the House bill Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Senate bill
Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) were allegedly intended to
combat piracy of intellectual property; however, both measures contain
dangerous provisions that would require Internet service providers to
block offending sites and search engines. The result of such legislation
would amount to virtual censorship.</p>
<p>On January 18, thousands of websites, including Reddit and Wikipedia,
blacked out in protest against the two bills and posted messages urging
users to oppose them as well. Millions of Americans signed the
anti-SOPA/PIPA petitions that circulated throughout the Internet that
day, and as a result of the massive protest, the two measures were put
on hold indefinitely.</p>
<p>However, while the American people were focused on SOPA and PIPA, President Obama signed an <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/10685-obama-tries-to-bypass-congress-with-deadly-global-internet-treaty-acta">international treaty</a>
that would permit foreign companies to demand that Internet service
providers (ISPs) remove web content in the United States without any
legal oversight and without significant attention. Entitled the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the treaty was signed by the
President on October 1, 2011, but it is currently a subject of
discussion as the White House is circulating a petition demanding that
Senators ratify the treaty.</p>
<p>What’s worse is that the White House has done some maneuvering so
that the treaty can be implemented without being confirmed by the
Senate, as the Constitution requires. Instead, it is presenting the
treaty as an “executive agreement.” By doing this, the entire
legislative process has now been circumvented, bypassing the required
Senate approval — a concern raised by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).</p>
<p>“That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/00065113017/eu-acta-is-binding-treaty-us-acta-is-neither-binding-treaty.shtml" target="_blank">binding treaty</a>), there is a very real <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100325/1848528722.shtml" target="_blank">Constitutional question</a> here:
Can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is
clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements
are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s
mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the
things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual
property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given
to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument
that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property
agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to
the Senate.”</p>
<p>There are currently 26 European Union member states, in addition to
the European Union, that signed the treaty at a ceremony in Tokyo on
January 26. Other nations interested in signing the agreement have until
May 2013 to do so.</p>
<p>According to Wikipedia, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
“creates a governing body outside national institutions such as the
World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.” The scope of the agreement
includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines, and pirated copyright
protected works.</p>
<p>However, it seems some of America’s lawmakers have been awakened to
the attack on the Internet and to the American people's opposition to
it. Whether that will ensure that the Internet remains safe, however,
remains to be seen.</p></td></tr></tbody></table>