
Leaked Documents Show the U.N.'s Internet Power Grab... - jsherry
http://thenerfherder.blogspot.com/2012/06/leaked-documents-show-uns-internet.html?m=1
======
DanielBMarkham
This is the third article I've read from various sources underlying the
importance of the upcoming Dubai meeting. To me it sounds a heckuva lot worse
than SOPA/PIPA was in the states. I tire of breathless articles, but
unfortunately we are living in a time where multiple interested parties are
all trying to use their political power to control what we see, read, think,
and share. Hopefully this ITU/UN move will get the international press
attention that it looks to me like it deserves.

On a tangential note, Google reports a record number of requests from
governments to remove things from their search results. Not just places we
normally associate with censorship, but lots of supposedly more "liberal"
western democracies as well. Control over the net is simply too powerful of an
incentive for governments to maintain the principle of keeping their hands
clear.

~~~
jbooth
Well, if UN laws had much practical effect, then we'd have peace in the middle
east and Africa right now, and we don't.

A UN resolution means zip-all for US law, French law, Chinese law, etc. So by
definition it can't be as bad as SOPA/PIPA in the us or ACTA in europe.
However it might give some cover to those who are pursuing those types of
policies.

If this resolution is being pushed mostly by Russia/China, I'd look at it the
same way I look at arab league censures of Israel. It's more indicative of the
countries that voted for it than some abstract concept of "the UN", and won't
have much effect on reality.

~~~
abruzzi
Except that if as the article suggests, ICANN is replaced by a UN agency, UN
law would become, in some ways, directly enforceable by that agency (at least
insofar as the replacement agency has the ability to enforce.)

~~~
jbooth
There's no such thing as UN law. There are treaties between nations,
frequently brokered at the UN, and there are UN resolutions, which are more
like "this statement was not vetoed by anyone" than they are rulings of law.

Any devolution of ICANN's powers to the UN (which, if not massively fucked up,
is probably healthier for the internet than keeping it under one country)
would likely be an administrative handover. I seriously doubt it would be done
on the basis that the G77 voting as a block could take control of the net.

For an analogy, look at the way the UN peacekeepers typically handle things.
They go someplace where there's peacekeeping.. and then they sit there. They
don't do anything and avoid taking a side at all costs. If either side says
they're not welcome anymore, they're gone.

The UN isn't a government, it's a really big conference room.

~~~
SkyMarshal
The objective of some is to turn it into a world government. This is just one
more little step in that direction.

Having the Internet controlled primarily by the US and US-friendly
organizations may not be ideal, but it would be better than having it
controlled by a China, Russia, Mid-east dominated body.

~~~
jbooth
"The objective of some" is another way of saying "I have no justification for
this but want to say it anyways." Useless conspiracy theorizing and straw-
manning.

The objective of whom? Please, name names. Or don't bother.

~~~
SkyMarshal
I did name names, right there in my post. So did the article. But clearly I
should have known better than to have used 'world government', too much of a
loaded, and lazy, term. But I do think there is a push to increase the UN's
power in the world, to the point where some or all of it is binding.

If I don't trust the motives and agendas of some of the regimes behind that
push, so sue me? The US isn't exactly a paragon these days, and our political
system somewhat corrupted by the influence of highly-concentrated wealth, but
I also see signs of a long-overdue self-corrective reaction to that, enabled
in large part by the open Internet.

Is such a reaction possible in other more restrictive, more authoritarian
regimes? Doesn't look like it, and ones like China are doing all they can make
sure it stays that way, but who knows. We shall see...

~~~
snowwrestler
Russia and China have no interest in increasing the power of the UN; they want
to increase their own power relative to other nations, and in this particular
case they think that the UN will be a useful channel to do so.

In other situations Russia and China fight to reduce the power of the UN.
Mostly situations where western powers are seeking UN legitimacy for piercing
national sovereignty, such as in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Today Russia opposed UN intervention in Syria, and I think China does as well.

------
Apocryphon
How ironic they do not listen to the great U.N. Commissioner Pravin Lal.

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of
information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people
whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with
freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on
public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who
would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your
master."

------
doktrin
Does anyone sincerely believe this obscure UN body stands a snowball's chance
in hell of actually snatching authority from Icann? The only reason the US
response has been lackluster is because the threat is _insignificant_.

It's also quite surprising to see Crovitz's WSJ editorial referred to as an
"article". It's classic unsubstantiated fear mongering, typical of the
editorial section of that paper.

~~~
trebuch3t
The issue is less about the UN trying to take control of Internet authority,
it is more about what seems to be growing discontent with the US having all of
the control. See the Chinese RFC about "internal internets" mentioned
yesterday.

This seems to come up every few years ago, then there's buzz about it, and
then everyone realizes that the Internet works just fine and everything goes
back to normal.

~~~
grecy
> the Internet works just fine.

From a technology standpoint, sure.

From a jurisdiction, big brother, we hold all the power standpoint, the
current setup of "the Internet" is dysfunctional at best.

------
brown9-2
It seems to me like this article confuses one member country proposing
something as that proposal being accepted. Members at a meeting are free to
propose all sorts of wacky stuff - that is why they are meeting to discuss the
merits of the proposals.

Also -

 _China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and
communication infrastructure within their state"_

Isn't this already the case? Who has authority for communication
infrastructure within a country if not the government of that country? Or is
the insinuation that the government would seize _ownership_ of the
infrastructure?

~~~
wmf
_Isn't this already the case? Who has authority for communication
infrastructure within a country if not the government of that country?_

Basically. A lot of people have been pretending that the Internet (even the
part inside your country) is exempt from all laws... because it's the
Internet.

~~~
dhughes
Not every country has the same laws as every other country.

~~~
snowwrestler
But every country has laws, and the Internet is not exempt just because we
want it to be.

------
zeruch
I am less concerned about the machinations of a bunch of second tier states
trying to put the internet genie back in a bottle via largely toothless
legislation, than I am concerned it will get used as a thin end of a wedge for
those in the US who want some data autarchy imposed here at home.

My belief is that the reason there is a lack of pushback by the US is because
the elements most in line with this ignorant proposal are those at the helm.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Personally, I think we should encourage using Tor for all internet use.

It seems crazy, but if lots of people start using it, and more people provide
relays, then it will be faster AND less likely to be blocked.

EDIT: Actually, I2P, since it's P2P and fully anonymous.

~~~
eloisius
Tor is a bandaid. We need a truly p2p infrastructure.

~~~
waqf
I2P! (www.i2p2.de)

------
jessriedel
Does this blog post add anything to original Wall Street Journal article?

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577470532859210296.html)

~~~
jaaron
No. In fact, it's not much more than a cut and paste job.

------
tzs
I don't have time to read such a long document now. Can someone who has tell
us if there is really something worrisome here, or if this whole fuss is just
more noise from the same crowd that thinks bike lanes are a UN plot to strip
us of our rights. (I'm not making that up:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-
green-p...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-
projects-seeing-un-plot.html?pagewanted=all))

~~~
forgotusername
Did you read the post?

~~~
tzs
Yes. I've never heard of the author, and based on the other HN comments some
of his points appear a bit exaggerated. Hence, my question.

~~~
elssar
Exaggerated? Here's a link to the Chinese proposal to give each government
control over the internet in it's country - DNS and all -
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00> This is the abstract -
"With the reality of Internet, Autonomous Internet technology in this article
constructs independent autonomous extensible domain name architecture and
domain name hierarchy through current domain name architecture, provides
independent root DNS server, inner/outer DNS resolution mechanism for each
autonomous internet network system, and provides reformation and transition
solution from current Internet to realize autonomy even in unilateral action."
If you read the WSJ article linked, you'll see the ridiculous proposals like
making snooping on email legal, and charging a fee on internet traffic that
crosses national borders. Imagine having to pay for a google search, not to
google but to your government. Actually that'd make google search payed,
because they'd have to pay to crawl sites that are hosted in servers outside
the US. And if you're under the impression that all of this is too ridiculous
and surely sane politicians will not back this, you're underestimating the
assholery and idiocy of politicians.

------
digitalengineer
"Well, we can't have all these people communicating directly with one-an-other
now can we? Next thing you know they'll be exchanging ideas and experiences or
organizing things on their own! Better regulate it".

~~~
mtgx
"..and destroy the unity of our country".

That's always the excuse authoritarian leaders give when they crack down on
dissidents.

~~~
sageikosa
Now that reminds me of the (somewhat chaotic) ending of the original
"Prisoner" TV series: "We want in formation...", not information.

------
michaelfeathers
I wonder why there hasn't been much US response? Maybe the US isn't planning
to be a signatory or isn't planning to legitimize it?

~~~
leonlee
Nothing that ECOSOC (and by extension UNDG and ITU) pushes forth is legally
binding and even if this particular trend gains momentum the USFG can always
bargain with its wallet (assuming they aren't complicit).

Plenty of crazy drafts get passed around in the UN all the time, but the
beauty of it all is that no entity is forced to change. Instead you get plenty
of gawking and reprimanding that doesn't have any enforcement. The noteworthy
exception is the SC, but its permanent members can veto anything that they
disagree with.

~~~
JimmyL
This.

When it comes to the UN, nothing matter if it doesn't come from the UNSC (and
even then, it only really matters if everyone's OK with it). ECOSOC and the
ITU have a bunch of treaties underpinning them, but they've all got enough
cave-outs to drive a supertanker through. The ITU can hem and haw all it wants
about how ICANN should be turned over to them, and nothing will happen save a
follow-up report coming out in a year about how this hasn't happened, and how
unfortunate that is.

The larger issue, as other have alluded to, is that this is more evidence that
the global south isn't happy with the US-centric management of the Internet
(which isn't news), and that they'r getting organized to try and make this an
issue (which is). Having said that, if you'd like to see how well that group
does getting things of substance passed when the US isn't interested, check
out most things the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs leads end up.

~~~
caf
Even SC resolutions, which are in theory binding, are frequently ignored.

The brass tacks reality of the internet is that the ICANN roots only have
power because individual networks expliticlty cede them that power. If you
want to secede from the ICANN DNS, you can replace your root.hints file
anytime you want.

------
aubergene
Who are the U.N. supposedly going to grab power from then? Why shouldn't ICANN
be under the ITU? How is the ITU "obscure"? Do they do a bad job of regulating
telecomms at the moment?

Launch of wcitleaks [http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-
launching-...](http://jerrybrito.org/post/24541436396/today-were-launching-
wcitleaks-org)

another article I found interesting
[http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-s...](http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/officials-
say-threats-from-net.php)

~~~
wmf
Isn't ITU in charge of making international phone calls artificially expensive
by funneling money to kleptocratic PTTs? And now they're proposing to bring
the same caller-pays settlement to the Internet.
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-
tax-u...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-
tax-u.s.-based-web-sites-leaked-docs-show/)

------
Uchikoma
On the other hand, astonishing reading the blog post:

"First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information
and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online
companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way"-
in short, to legitimize full government control."

It's ok if the US censors sites and takes down websites by changing DNS data,
but it's not not ok for other countries - and I do not express any opinion
about China in this - to request this to do?

------
hexagonal
Blogspam.

Rewrite of
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230382220457747...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577470532859210296.html)

------
elidourado
Just wanted to let everyone here know that you can access the documents
directly on our site at wcitleaks.org, or follow @wcitleaks on Twitter for
updates.

------
huxley
I agree with the need for discussions like this to take place in the open so
that people can be informed about what their representatives in government are
discussing. International treaties are very important.

However, both this article and the WSJ seem to take the quotes very much out
of context. For example:

'What it shows is breathtaking. First, China is proposing "to give countries
authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their
state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use
the Internet "in a rational way" - in short, to legitimize full government
control.'

I could only find a similar quote in the alternate version of the document
linked: <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/CWG-WCIT12_TD-62E.pdf> and only in
a section discussing network security and cross-border network attacks:

\---

"a) Member-States have the responsibility and right to protect the network
security of the information and communication infrastructure within their
state, to promote the international cooperation to fight against network
attacks and disruptions.

b) Member-States have the responsibility to require and supervise that
enterprises operating in their territory use ICTs in a rational way and
endeavour to ensure the effective functioning of ICTs, in secure and
trustworthy conditions.

c) User information in information and communication network should be
respected and protected. Member-states have the responsibility to require and
supervise that enterprises operating in their territory protect the security
of user information."

\---

Which in the context where it appears seems to be a discussion on a Chinese
proposal about the need for countries to have policies and procedures to deal
with cross-border network attacks. In any case, it seems like there are calls
for clarification and some discussion that it is unnecessary, especially this
portion:

\---

"We believe the proposed text in C 59 imposing new treaty rights and
obligations on Member States regarding domestic network security is both
unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope of the ITRs. The United States
looks forward to a further explanation from China with regard to the proposed
amendments, and we note that we may have further reaction at that time. Source
C 75 (USA)"

"The intention of the proposal is to refer only to network security and not
content, that is, to the security of the infrastructure. The intention is to
encourage Member States to cooperate to improve infrastructure security.
Further, article 8 should concern only dissemination of information and a new
article should be envisaged for security matter. (China)"

"Portions of the proposal (e.g. rights at national level) are already covered
by the Preamble and should not be added here. Provisions regarding
responsibilities of Member States excessively expand the scope of the ITRs.
(USA)"

\---

In those contexts, the statement seems much less nefarious, and as the US
representative mentions, probably unnecessary.

I don't have the time to source the other quotes and summaries but I can't
help but think that the articles are poorly researched at best.

~~~
elidourado
WCITLeaks.org cofounder here. You're right that the language _sounds_ more
benign than they way it is described, but remember that this is diplo-speak
and it is occurring in a pre-existing context. The Chinese proposal is
actually pretty sweeping when properly interpreted, and is cause for some
concern.

~~~
huxley
Okay ... I can accept the idea that diplo-speak is often a cover for power-
grabs and may certainly be the case here, but how do you go about this "proper
interpretation"?

I find any secrecy like what happens in many treaty negotiations to be
concerning, I don't need to be sold there, but to trust your interpretation I
need more transparency from you.

How does your secret decoder ring work?

------
Uchikoma
Irrelevant.

What will happen though, the US has peaked in power, will censor more sites
through DNS, Asia and Europe will be fed up at some point and the internet
(DNS) will break up. In the long run power will balance itself with the amount
of people in countries and economic power.

------
ksadeghi
Just another reason to adopt Namecoin as an alternate DNS provider. Lots of
work still needs to be done though for it to be easy enough to use by the
average user.

