Anyone following
the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) World Conference on
International Telecommunications (WCIT) over the last 36 hours knows this has
become a moment of high drama around the International Telecommunications
regulations (ITRs) and the role of the ITU for internet-related issues.
Unfortunately, that is probably the only thing anyone can
say for certain. Even the member states on the ground have expressed confusion
on critical matters, such as whether the widely reported “vote” on a resolution
that included express language relating to the internet was really a vote or
not.
Public Knowledge does not want to pre-judge any final
outcomes while everyone remains in negotiation and debate. We are also mindful that the 8 hour time
difference between Washington, DC, and the conference in Dubai, and the
incredible speed with which events keep unfolding, has made us hesitate to say
anything. But at this critical juncture we need to emphasize some important
points.
First, we remain committed to the Civil Society declaration
at Best Bits in Baku, Azerbaijan last month. Consistent with this, we continue to urge the
ITU members to reject any version of the ITRs or any resolutions that would
expand the scope of the ITU to Internet governance or Internet services. We
want to highlight that this does not just mean any explicit reference. As an
organization that has fought against the expansion of copyright maximalism in
international agreements as a threat to internet freedom, we are well aware of
how parties with agendas try to create ambiguities that they can subsequently
leverage to advance that agenda. Any ambiguity about words and phrases that
would support an argument that actions at WCIT opened the door for ITU
expansion of its jurisdiction in these areas need to be either clarified or
rejected.
Second, we want to emphasize that nothing is gained for
anyone if the conference resorts to dubious procedures. We recognize that in
the thick of things, after many hours of intense negotiations, some things are
genuinely unclear. We are very glad that the Chair clarified at the Plenary,
following the “vote v. temperature” controversy, that it was not a vote. But
the incident serves as a warning that the legitimacy of the conference outcomes
– and the ability of the ITU Secretary General to maintain its role as an “honest
broker” among the member states – depends on keeping the process crystal
clear.
This is not a time to try to get something passed in a
dubious manner so that the ITU or member states can declare the WCIT a “success.”
Adopting something through confusion, or questionable procedure, would create
an atmosphere of distrust that would potentially poison ITU deliberations on
these issues for years to come.
We at PK understand that the ITU Secretariat and the Chair
of any ITU conference always play a role in pushing delegates hard to reach
consensus. But Chairman Al-Ghanim and Secretary General Touré need to be very
conscious in these final hours that – for the first time in ITU history – the whole world is watching these events
unfold in real time.
This places a special responsibility on them to make it
clear to people generally unfamiliar with the ITU and its processes that what
comes out of the WCIT – whether consistent with the Best Bits Civil Society Declaration
or not – genuinely comes from the ITU’s member states and not because the ITU
or the Chair tipped the scales procedurally.