October 10, 2024

News Analysis: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World

At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff.

What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world?

It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network.

The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached.

The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control.

Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty.

The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty.

A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.”

Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet.

What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users.

Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada?

In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech.

But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter.

It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bits Blog: Wikipedia to Go Dark on Wednesday to Protest Bills on Web Piracy

The wave of online protests against two Congressional bills that aim to curtail copyright violations on the Internet is gathering momentum.

Wikipedia is the latest Web site to decide to shut on Wednesday in protest against the two Congressional bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act, often called SOPA, and the Protect IP Act, which is often called PIPA. The bills have attracted fierce opposition from many corners of the technology industry. Opponents say several of the provisions in the legislation, including those that may force search engines and Internet service providers to block access to Web sites that offer or link to copyrighted material, would stifle innovation, enable censorship and tamper with the livelihood of businesses on the Internet.

Nearly 800 members of Wikipedia have been debating and voting  whether the site should participate in a blackout since December.

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, confirmed the site’s decision on Monday on Twitter, writing: “Student warning! Do your homework early. Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday!”

In a phone interview late Monday, Mr. Wales said that the Wikipedia community hoped to send a clear message to lawmakers and regulators in Washington that people who worked on the Internet and used it daily were not happy about the potential effects of the bills.

“What will make a difference is for ordinary people to pick up the phone and send an e-mail or a letter to their representatives about this,” he said. “When you consider the magnitude of how many people use Wikipedia globally, there is a potential here for really creating some noise and getting some attention in the U.S.”

Mr. Wales said that if passed, the bills could censor what information and links that sites like Wikipedia would be permitted to publish.

“The government could tell us that we could write an entry about the history of the Pirate Bay but not allow us to link to it,” he said, referring to the popular file-sharing site. “That’s a First Amendment issue.”

Wikipedia will go dark at midnight Eastern time on Tuesday and remain unavailable until midnight Eastern time on Wednesday. Visitors who try to reach the Wikipedia home page will be greeted with information about the bills and details about how to reach their local representatives. Mr. Wales said 460 million people around the world visited the site each month, and he estimated that the blackout could reach as many as 100 million people. Right now, the blackout is planned only for American visitors to the Web site. The Wikipedia community is still deciding whether or not to limit access internationally to the English-version of the site, he said. Some international Wikipedia communities, including the one in Germany, have decided to post notices on their home pages leading to information about the protests, although they will remain functioning as usual.

Mr. Wales said the decision to take the site down was an unprecedented move by Wikipedia. In October, the Italian version of Wikipedia staged a similar online protest in response to a similar bill proposed by the Italian Parliament, but the scale of Wednesday’s demonstration would be significantly broader, he said.

Wikipedia’s protest will join several other Web sites, including Reddit, the social news site, and BoingBoing, a technology and culture blog, that also plan to black out their sites on Wednesday. Some sites that are not planning to go offline are still finding ways to participate in the protest. For example, WordPress, a blogging platform, is supplying its users with a widget that will add a banner to their Web sites and blogs showing support for the protest.

It is not yet clear whether any of the biggest Internet companies, like Facebook or Google, will also participate. Dick Costolo, chief executive at Twitter, responding to inquiries on Twitter, suggested that although the company had been among those in the industry to oppose elements of the bill, it would not  follow in Wikipedia’s footsteps.

The groundswell of technology leaders, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and public policy advocates galvanizing around a central political issue is unique to the technology industry, which has largely been inactive in lobbying and activities in Washington.

But that is changing, Mr. Wales said.

“What we’ve seen across the world, with the Arab Spring, is that people are now more aware of the tools that are available for people to make a big noise and make their voices heard,” he said. “Ten years ago, the Internet was quite big and didn’t have the infrastructure for the public to express their voice in this way, and that’s fundamentally changing.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1699fae27b0f58a99b7a8ee3d7039aff