89 Nations Sign Revised ITRs at WCIT, 55 Opposed or ‘May Sign Later’

Most of the eligible delegations at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) signed on to the revised International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Friday in Dubai during a ceremony to close out the conference, but a significant number of nations outright refused to endorse the controversial treaty or were still consulting with their national governments. Of the 144 nations with signing rights in the ITU, 89 signed onto the ITRs Friday. An additional 55 “may sign later,” the ITU said, but that figure includes the U.S., Australia, Canada, the U.K. and others that have outright committed to not sign the document (http://xrl.us/bn6iov). The figure also includes the nations consulting with their governments, including the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Poland. The EU condemned the attachment of a non-binding Internet governance resolution to the ITRs (see separate item in this issue). That resolution was one of several provisions included in the revised ITRs that prompted the U.S. decision not to sign (CD Dec 14 p1).

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement Friday he’s disappointed the WCIT discussions resulted in “the creation of a new layer of international Internet regulation, instead of focusing on the need to spur global growth through the expansion of international telecommunications networks. The U.S. and a substantial number of other like-minded nations simply could not sign such a treaty. We will remain strong and vigilant advocates for a free and open Internet."

The U.S. delegation went to WCIT dedicated to achieving a successful conference, but was “just as committed” to keeping the Internet out of the ITRs, NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling said Friday during a joint Practising Law Institute-Federal Communications Bar Association event. “The [ITU] had made two important promises in advance of the conference. First, that it would operate by consensus and second, that Internet issues would not be appropriate for inclusion in the ITRs. As it turned out, the ITU could not deliver on either of these promises. When around 40 percent of the participating countries do not sign the final documents of the conference, it is obvious that the ITU did not achieve the consensus it had promised."

Only about 20 national delegations saw the compromise ITRs before WCIT Chairman Mohamed Al Ghanim introduced them to the full WCIT session Wednesday, Strickling said. “Through the plenary debate on Wednesday, countries that had not been given that privileged access were constantly being chastised by countries as upsetting the ‘careful compromise’ reached on Tuesday to which these other countries had not been a party."

Citing positive outcomes from the treaty were ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré and WCIT Chairman Mohamed Nasser Al Ghanim, who is also director general of the regulatory authority of conference host nation United Arab Emirates. Touré expects a lot of positive effects from the treaty, he said during a news conference prior to the signing ceremony. “Global roaming costs will go down, there will be more investment in broadband, there are measures for landlocked countries and measures for better accessibility of persons with disabilities,” Touré said. The treaty will especially help developing countries, where two-thirds of those still unconnected to the Internet live, he said. “ITU has received a strong support from all our members for the treaty, even those that decided not to sign or have to first notify their national parliaments."

Those administrations “not wishing to sign will deprive their citizens from any of the good things coming out from this treaty,” Al Ghanim said. He rejected the notion there has been a “split” between member states. “In fact, there was a compromise,” he said. “I was happy that all regional groups worked together in the spirit of compromise and we came up with a text that is suitable to all that we have in front of us."

Al Ghanim was surprised by the objections made in plenary. Al Ghanim and Touré rejected the notion of closed negotiations, as all plenaries and Committee 5 meetings had been webcast and open to civil society and the media. “I got messages during the conference to my BlackBerry,” Al Ghanim said. “Some people tweeted about every statement made in plenary, even country by country.” Touré said he had intervened where civil society members had difficulties joining their national delegations. Being under close scrutiny from the public and the media also put a lot of pressure on the conference and sometimes made it difficult to get to middle ground from an extreme position taken at the beginning of the treaty negotiations, he said.

The U.S. government is united in its opposition to Internet provisions included in the revised ITRs, said House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a statement Thursday. “The [U.S.] has made no apologies for advancing this clear position, and I applaud this Administration for defending these core principles in Dubai,” said Waxman. “Though the WCIT negotiations have concluded, we must continue to engage with other countries and international stakeholders through the multi-stakeholder process to advance our shared goal of a free and open Internet accessible to all.” Republicans on the House Commerce Committee also praised the U.S. delegation Thursday for deciding not to sign the treaty.

The “overly burdensome regulations” included in the revised ITRs cannot become the norm for Internet governance, said House Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., in a statement Friday. “I commend the U.S. delegation for taking a stand in the name of a free and open Internet by not agreeing to the proposed resolution."

Internet Society President Lynn St. Amour said Thursday she was disappointed WCIT “has not been successful in reaching consensus” in the revised ITRs. “While progress was made in some areas such as transparency in international roaming fees, fundamental divides were exposed leaving a significant number of countries unable to sign the ITRs. Statements made by a host of delegations today made it very clear that Internet issues did not belong in the ITRs and that they would not support a treaty that is inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance."

Al Ghanim and Touré said the treaty was not about the Internet. “The treaty text does not include the Internet, it does not include content,” Touré said. On the question how spam could be controlled without weighing the content of emails, Al Ghanim told us that “there are technical solutions.” The UAE had legislation allowing users to opt out from getting ads they didn’t want, he said.

The Russian Federation delegation, which signed the revised ITRs, said in a reservation that that it “reserves for its Government the right to establish and implement public policy including international policy on matters of Internet Governance and ensure security of the national Internet segment as well as regulate within their territory the activities of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic.” In the lead up to WCIT, the Russian Federation had submitted an entire section on Internet governance for proposed inclusion in the ITRs, drawing criticism from the U.S. and its allies (CD Nov 30 p9).

While controversial paragraphs in the ITRs’ Article 3 on naming and numbering and non-discriminatory access for countries “were removed and a bunch of other stuff was watered down, there are still numerous issues that give me great concern,” Byron Holland, CEO of the Canadian country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) registry CIRA, told us in an email. The U.S. delegation’s concern over the rejection of “correspondence” as a further limitation of the providers to be governed by the text was correct, he said. The Internet governance resolution, while non-binding, could open the door for ITU members to reference it and overstep into areas of Internet governance, Holland said. The biggest problem was that “some of these states now will see Internet as much more under state control and start making it difficult for the multi stakeholder model,” he said. Ondrej Filip, CEO of the Czech ccTLD registry cz.NIC, said he was especially concerned about mentions of Internet exchanges in the revised ITRs.

While most countries have already signed on to the revised ITRs, the fact that the U.S. and other major countries refuse to sign make the document “effectively a nullity except for some possible feeble attempts to use them to justify ongoing projects within the ITU,” Tony Rutkowski, a senior research fellow at the Georgia Institute of Technology who worked in the ITU secretariat when WCIT last met in 1988, told us. “It should be noted that Russia attempted a similar stunt in the 1930s in what then [were] the early days of the modern ITU. The technology was medium-wave broadcasting. They ended up creating their own treaty instrument and organization among their allies. History tends to repeat itself."

The gap between signatories and non-signatories of the revised ITRs represents part of an ongoing “digital cold war,” Rutkowski said. “Most of it has been sealed by the U.N.,” he said. “The Russians using Touré and allies simply attempted to shift some it to the ITU beginning in 2002, and then scaled it dramatically after he was elected and Russia began to take over key positions in the ITU.” Those discussions will likely shift back to other U.N. venues now that WCIT is finished, Rutkowski said. “Recall also that [Touré] is out in two years. Arguably, the person and country most hurt here is China. [ITU Deputy Secretary-General] Houlin Zhao had a fair chance of getting elected, and could have potentially led the ITU through a difficult transition toward finding something relevant to do. When China, who had been relatively dormant at WCIT, joined Russia and their allies, Houlin was effectively sacrificed.”