The battle for the internet

Back in July, Brendan Sasso and Jennifer Martinez wrote for The Hill on the battle over internet governance.  Specifically, the article noted that Sen. Marco Rubio introduced a resolution “urging the Obama administration to fight efforts to give a United Nations agency more control over the Internet.”  Rep. Mary Bono introduced a similar resolution which achieved House passage.  The debate centers over proposals backed by China and Russia to give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over “cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system.”  The article noted that the Obama administration opposes the Chinese/Russian proposals.

The Rubio resolution, S. Res. 446, is still in committee.  You can find the full document here, but a few interesting portions:

RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the Senate that the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations should not be allowed to exercise control over the Internet.

Whereas market-based policies and private sector leadership have given the Internet flexibility to evolve;

Whereas the position of the United States Government is and has been to advocate for the free flow of information, Internet freedom, and multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet internationally;

Whereas the current multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance has enabled the Internet to flourish and allowed the private sector, civil society, academia, and individual users to play an important role in charting the direction of the Internet;

. . .

Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

That the Senate calls on the President–

(1) to continue to oppose any effort to transfer control of the Internet to the United Nations or any other intergovernmental organization;

(2) to recognize the need for, and pursue, a continuing and constructive dialogue with the international community on the future of Internet governance; and

(3) to advance the values of a free Internet in the broader trade and diplomatic efforts of the United States Government.

Mack’s resolution reads substantially the same.  You can find H. Con. Res. 127 here.

***

And now things are heating up . . . Computerworld’s Loek Essers explained how the ITU “has called for a public consultation on a draft document ahead of a December meeting to finalize a new treaty for regulation of the Internet.”  Via Computerworld, a draft document from the ITU.  It’s a mess right now, but there is some interesting stuff in there.

***

According to BetaBeat’s Steve Huff, the conference will take place December 3rd through the 14th of 2012.

***

Jennifer Martinez reported for The Hill that trade groups are calling on both Democrats and Republicans to oppose the ITU . . .

***

. . . and for those interested, a sort of Wikileaks for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT).  The goal of the website:

The forthcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications is marred by a lack of transparency. Access to preparatory reports, as well as proposed modifications to the ITRs, is limited to ITU member states and a few other privileged parties. This leaves civil society groups, and the public in general, in the dark. To foster greater transparency, we are offering a way for those in possession of such documents to make them publicly available. They can be anonymously submitted to us, and we will publish them here.

This is apparently the US proposal for the conference, found off the same website.

***

What’s amazing to me is the amount of attention this is not getting.  SOPA/PIPA/ACTA comes around, and everyone gets their pitchforks.  CISPA/Secure IT/CSA are discussed, and we’re convinced the government really just wants to monitor its citizens.  However, when the prospect of an international body strictly regulating the internet looms large  . . . silence.  Where’s Anon on this one? Where’s the epic YouTube videos and Guy Fawkes masks?