
Behind closed doors at the ITU's attempted “takeover of the Internet” - jewbacca
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/behind-closed-doors-at-the-uns-attempted-takeover-of-the-internet?
======
jacques_chester
Ah, conference manoeuvring. It's as old as politics. Sounds like the Spanish
did everyone a favour by asking whether "the feeling of the room" was a vote
or not, because _gosh_ it'd be easy to "accidentally" mark it down as a vote
in the minutes.

Other tactics I recognised from my student politics days:

* Proposing a batshit crazy option, then offering a "compromise". See also: anchoring tactics.

* Having various scapegoats who can be sacrificed as the bad guy if and when something comes to light.

* Springing documents at the last minute, so there's no time for detailed review. Good old false-sense-of-urgency.

* Wearing attendees down by meeting into the wee hours of morning.

* Whack-a-mole motions: keep bringing up the same proposal in different language. One of them might eventually slip through, especially if you "accidentally" lock out those opposed or send them to the wrong address.

Speaking tactically, it seems from this account that the USA didn't work the
conference the way it ought to have. I will now go on to be a condescending
ass (as befits someone with student politics experience).

As soon as it was clear what was afoot (a power-grab), you can safely assume
that your counterparties are not acting in good faith and you begin to
deliberately disrupt proceedings.

For example: endless points of order. Bring them up on the slightest
technicality. Get an ally to do it.

Constant procedural motions. Move that the subject be tabled. Move
foreshadowing. Move that the speaker be no longer heard. Move that the
chairman be replaced. Move that the meeting be adjourned. Move that the
meeting be relocated. Move everything in the book that can be moved.

~~~
teh
Interesting! Do you have ideas on how one could be constructive even if other
parties are acting in bad faith?

~~~
jacques_chester
Yes, well. I was in _student_ politics, so I have no such experience :)

Constructive conversations generally move much faster. You still need some
formality to ensure people come out of a decision process with something that
can be verified later. And generally the process of doing _that_ helps clarify
what, in fact, are the points of difference.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
Nice to see another (former) student politican on HN, I thought I was the only
one.

I completely agree with you here, this was typical conference behaviour.

Nonetheless, lets not kid ourselves that the US had the interests of the world
at heart here. Essentially the internet is controlled by the states through
ICANN and the registries. I don't have that much of a problem with this, but
it would be foolish to think that their disagreements were not based in
_realpolitick_ rather than idealism.

~~~
jacques_chester
It's definitely _realpolitik_. By retaining control the USA can forestall
actions which hurt their companies (eg sender pays).

On the other hand, I'd _much_ rather have the USA in control than _any_ number
of of Russias, Saudi Arabias, Uzbekistans etc etc etc.

------
belorn
> The US government never expressly condoned WCITLeaks’s activities, but it
> never expressly condemned them, either.

I suspect this will be a common theme by the US government for the next 20
years or so. During the Wikileaks scandals, the US government took an
absolutist position in regards to leaks. On other hand, Wikileaks showed how
political useful leaks can be, to force peoples hands and to push from a
political high-ground. This I think is forcing them to silently support leaks
site when its beneficent, but never, ever, publicly announce it or admit any
such support.

Thus I believe this wikileaks sounding site, pronounced "wicketleaks" was
allowed to join the US delegation, but was not expressly condoned or
condemned.

~~~
protomyth
One of the rules of all partisan politics:

if it happens to me, it is an outrage

if it happens to my opponent, it is regrettable, but we should concentrate on
how corrupt it shows my opponent to be

~~~
jacques_chester
aka "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

------
GabrielF00
There's a lot here that reminds me of why I'm suspicious of the UN. At this
conference it seems that many countries treated concepts like "democracy",
"human rights" and "transparency", as a veneer, not as concepts that they
actually believed in but as weapons that they could cynically manipulate in
order to get what they wanted. The following countries spoke in favor of a
"human rights" proposal that would provide for a national right to access the
Internet: Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Togo, China, Sudan, South Africa, Saudi Arabia,
and Burundi.

Iran wants to create its own Halal Internet. China and Saudi Arabia are also
notorious for their censorship regimes. Isn't there something wrong with
restricting your citizen's access to the Internet and then turning around and
demanding that others give you the right to access Internet resources?

