Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Russia, China alliance wants greater govt voice in Internet oversight

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by Sinchan, Dec 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sinchan

    Sinchan Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    151
    DUBAI (Reuters) - A Russia-led proposal calling for sweeping new governmental powers to regulate cyberspace could enable countries to block some Web locations and wrestcontrol of allotting Internet addresses from a U.S.-based body.
    The proposal, co-signed by Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates, addedto fears in some Western countries of a stalemate midway through a 12-day conference in Dubai to rewrite a longstanding treaty on international communications.
    Russia and its supporters, which include many African and Arab states, seek to formally extend the remit of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to govern many aspects of the Internet.
    The United States, Europe and other allies including Australia and Japan insist the treaty should continue to apply only to traditional telecommunications such as international wireline and wireless calls.
    Countries can opt out of parts of the revised treaty when it emerges or refuse to sign it altogether.
    "If we have no agreement it will create political tension around the Internet," said Markus Kummer, vice president for public policy at industry think tank The Internet Society.
    A leaked draft of the Russia-led proposals would give countries"equal rights to manage the Internetincluding in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering."
    This could allow governments to render websites within their bordersinaccessible, even via proxy servers or other countries. It also could allow for multinational pacts in which countries could terminate access to websites at each others' request.
    Such moves would undermine ICANN, a self-governing nonprofit organization under contract to the U.S. Department of Commerce, which is ultimately responsible for making sure that people trying to reach a given website actually get there.
    "Much of the Internet was developedfrom U.S. research funding, and the U.S. has kept a residual role, so manyother governments say it's not right that one government 'controls' the Internet," said Kummer.
    "The irony is the U.S. has a very laid-back role and protects the Internet from political interference, but the fact it's the U.S. makes it highly political."
    'ANOTHER POINT OF CONTROL'
    "The reason some countries want to create national control over addresses is so they can have another point of control," said Rod Beckstrom, until recently chief executive of ICANN, which currently sits atop the addressing system.
    Decentralizing the process could prove chaotic if many countries demand that companies use only their national system, he told Reuters.
    Beyond web locations and addresses, the Russia-led coalition document says ITU member states should be able to control other elements of the Internet's infrastructure within their borders, as Russia has sought for months.
    The revision would give nations the explicit right to "implement policy" on net governance and "regulate thenational Internet segment," the draftsays.
    "If you throw in addressing and naming, that puts the entire ecosystem in play, which is what theU.S. and E.U. said they would never agree to," said a Western participantat the conference who asked not to be named to maintain his ability to negotiate.
    "You're almost guaranteeing lock-upin certain areas that might prevent the other areas from easily going forward," he said.
    The coalition wants the new treaty to include measures to combat spam email, but its definition of spam is so broad that it could be applied to almost any emailed message.
    That would provide a pretext for authoritarian regimes to suppress opponents, critics warn, while also doing little to solve what is a technical problem.
    Another clause states any country should have the right to know the route of telecom traffic "where technically feasible," which differs from an earlier submission and appears to acknowledge tracing Internet traffic is impractical.
    "Internet networks don't follow national borders and a lot of governments are not happy with that notion, that they don't have control over their territory," said Kummer. "Some governments feel threatened, which they see as undermining their national sovereignty."
    SIGN OF CRACKS?
    Egypt was named as a co-author of the Russia-led submission, but on Sunday it disavowed the document in what may be a sign of cracks emerging in the loose anti-U.S. coalition.
    "Our name was associated to this proposal by mere misunderstanding," Nashwa Gad, a department manager at Egypt's Ministry of Communications & Information Technology (MCIT), said in an emailed statement to Reuters.
    "Egypt has always been supporting the basic Internet principles that ... the Internet should remain free, open, liberal. We do not see that the ITU mandate deals with the Internet."
    The United States has made a counterproposal co-signed by Canada that would stop the treaty being applied to Internet companiessuch as Google or government and business networks.
    It say increasing the treaty's scope could provide a platform for governments to stifle free speech, reduce online anonymity and censorInternet content.
    But Russia and its supporters argue they need new powers to able to fight cyber crime and protect networks.
    After six days of largely private talks,very little seems to have been agreed, with the main plenary committee meeting on Monday to again consider the U.S.-Canada proposal among others.
    The ITU usually agrees decisions by consensus, but the intransigence of both sides means it could come down to a vote, which may leave theUnited States and its allies in the minority.
    "The U.S. is not considering walking out of the conference and is still participating as normal," a U.S. spokesman said in an emailed statement, denying an earlier reportthat the United States could quit the summit, which ends on Friday.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page