FCC boss applauds moves to block UN internet controlITU headman warns of trouble from 'credulous members of the public'



FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has issued a public statement of
support after a senior Congressional committee unanimously approved a
resolution condemning moves to bring the internet under new management.

Government representatives should "continue working to implement the
position of the United States on Internet governance that clearly
articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States
to promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve
and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the
Internet today," the resolution reads.

Congress has recently been holding hearings
on proposals that will be put forward for the 2012 World Conference on
International Telecommunications (WCIT) to be held in Dubai this
December. The proposals are for the UN's International Telecommunication
Union to have a revised role in the governance of the internet, rather than the current model, and – among other things – possibly include changing the payment systems for online traffic.

'Get your Commie hands off our interwebs,'


says former wife of Cher's former husband


"Despite denials, the Russians and Chinese are working quietly behind
the scenes – and have been for years – to exert control over Web
content and infrastructure," said
resolution sponsor Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (widow of Sonny,
formerly of Cher fame). "This could lead to human rights abuses in the
future and effectively put a spigot on the free flow of information. We
can't let that happen."

The so-called 'Father of the internet' and Google's chief internet evangelist Vint Cerf warned Congress
that such a move would destroy the system of "meritocratic democracy"
that had made the internet such a success. It seems he now has a
supporter at the FCC as well, judging from Genachowski's statement.

"I applaud the Energy and Commerce Committee for its bipartisan
resolution supporting the successful multistakeholder model of Internet
governance and rejecting proposals that could stifle the free and open
Internet," Genachowski wrote.

"Proposals to abandon the multistakeholder model would be devastating
to the future of the Internet," he said, "and I will continue to work
with my colleagues at the FCC and throughout the U.S. government to
oppose such proposals."

But at a speech in Geneva on Wednesday, the ITU Secretary-General Dr
Hamadoun Touré said that the proposals had not even been published yet –
although he urged that they should be. They are designed to stimulate
growth in the telecommunications sector as a whole and allow for further
expansion, he said.

"It has come as a surprise – and I have to say as a great
disappointment – to see that some of those who have had access to
proposals presented to this working group have gone on to publicly
mis-state or distort them in public forums, sometimes to the point of
caricature," he said.

"These distortions and mis-statements could be found plausible by
credulous members of the public, and could even be used to influence
national parliaments, given that the documents themselves are not
officially available."

'Trust me, I'm with the UN,' says Touré (EDIT: I wouldn't trust this guy with my gardening. He reminds me of one of those African leaders who sit there looking all placid and benevolent whilst 10,000s are slaughtered on his watch...and what's the bet he's a Muslim?)





Touré harked back to the historic 1988 WCIT meeting, which laid out
the ground rules for the current internet-regulation system, and said
that many of the same concerns had been raised at that meeting. Concerns
over control and charging expressed then hadn't turned out to be a
problem then, he said, and he hoped for a similar resolution in
December.

Nevertheless, Touré said that the Article 34 of the ITU's
constitution was very clear, and it could not stop member states from
censoring their networks "in accordance with their national law, any
private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security of
the State, or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency." ®