World Conference on International Telecommunications: What happened and what it means for the Internet
The conference has been hailed as a success by the ITU with 89 Member States signing the treaty. Meanwhile, others have pointed out that it failed to achieve consensus leading to 55 Member States, including the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and several other EU countries not signing the treaty.
So what happened in Dubai? Clearly, at the heart of the negotiations was the question whether the ITRs were going to cover the Internet and broader Internet policy issues. Despite repeated assurances of the ITU Secretary-General, Dr Hamadoun Toure, that the ITRs were not about the Internet or Internet Governance, it was abundantly clear that the 'I' word was on the minds of delegates as they set to discuss the Preamble to the ITRs and various other provisions about spam and security.
After over a week of stalemate, matters came to a halt when the Iranian delegate called for a vote on the inclusion of the 'right of access of Member States to access international telecommunications services' in the Preamble to the ITRs. The proposal came in as delegates were debating the inclusion human rights language in that same Preamble. The amendment was passed by a vote of 77 for, 33 against and 8 abstentions. For several western Member States this crossed a red line amid concerns over several other provisions and a controversial Internet Resolution contained in the 'package' proposed by WCIT Chair Mohamed Nasser Al Ghanim (UAE).
As the Chair highlighted several times, the 'package' was a compromise text, which was meant to achieve a 'delicate balance' between the various interests at stake. In particular, it introduced a reference to 'human rights obligations' in the Preamble to the ITRs, partly with a view to assuage concerns about the possible negative implications for freedom of expression and the right to privacy which may arise as a result of the provisions on security and spam. Another clause was also added making clear that the ITRs did not address the content-related aspects of international telecommunications services.
At the same time, these elements failed to address the basic objection of several Member States led by the US that spam brought in content-related issues, which was inconsistent with the new clause excluding content from the ambit of the ITRs. Moreover, there were continuing concerns over the vague language used in Article 5A in relation to 'network security', which was seen by many as legitimizing censorship and sweeping surveillance practices by Member States.
Finally, the 'Internet Resolution' proved to be a particularly sticking point for non-signatory countries, not least because of the way in which it was adopted. The resolution 'to foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet' had been included as part of a deal whereby the word 'Internet' would be kept out of the treaty text and pushed back in a Resolution. On 13 December 2013, the Chair baffled EU delegates and others by passing the Resolution after 'taking the temperature of the room' - without a vote - just minutes before the close of a plenary session in the wee hours of the morning.
While the Resolution is non-binding, it overly emphasised the role of States in Internet-policy making at the expense of the multi-stakeholder model, which has been the hallmark of Internet Governance. It also unduly broadened the mandate of the ITU beyond its traditional technical remit to include Internet public policy matters despite assurances of the ITU Secretary-General to the contrary.