December 5, 2012

STOP THE MADNESS: An #Anonymous Counterproposal to the #ITU

STOP THE MADNESS: An #Anonymous Counterproposal to the #ITU
In one way, this could be summed up as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But there's actually much more to this.  The reality is that our sentiments are completely oppposed to the statist model that is represented by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and many of the "member states'" proposals that address the Internet at the WCIT.  It's not enough for us simply to say "Don't fix it." We understand a need for a counterproposal to the nation and state-driven model of voting by governments on Internet as a "solution."

Even if governments in such a statist model opened the (ITU) system fully to a true multistakeholder system of comment and input, it would be an unwelcome system which we would reject.  A 'representative' system in which governments hold full voting power over policies governing network using justifications such as "cybersecurity," "spam," while all the while using the system to conduct surveillance, deep packet inspection, and banning of specific types of software such as TOR and services including VPNs, all is unacceptable to us.

Aside from this, even if by some miracle none of these proposals (all of which we have seen through leaks coming out of the ITU) were to ever be approved, the notion of "one government, one vote" which the ITU currently utilizes inside of its own secretive halls (which have only recently been forced out slightly into the open by incessant pounding from a combination coordinated action of technology thought leaders and civil society groups, inclusive of #Anonymous collective(s)) is a pointless, antiquated notion.  Not only does the concept of "one government, one vote" in essence ensure that (in today's age) successful and advanced governments that provision internet services freely to the people are marginalized, it means that oppressive governments (of which there is now a majority in the world, especially if we look at the WCIT participants) will dominate the course of such proceedings.  Even if no concurrences or even if no high level principles for ITRs on the internet are agreed to at the WCIT due to the concurrence and voting provisions of the ITU, the worst and most oppressive governments (which again, are in the majority) come away having had the opportunity of a convention at which they have deliberated and agreed about the policy that they will set for their internet future.  The ITU's introduction of the discussion of internet at the WCIT proceedings has caused a great deal of harm even before the beginning of WCIT12, for example, as the Russian Federation has already made plans to outlaw TOR software on the basis of its actions within the context of ITU / WCIT.  The Netherlands raised this as a concern very early in the process of WCIT review.

What, then, is the #Anonymous counterproposal?

If it is the insistence of statist organizations such as the ITU and what it refers to as "member states" (a term which we object to, since it implies a concept of belonging that the ITU has no right or privelege to claim) that there be some concurrence on ITRs and that the so-called "member states" should have the ability (not granted by the rest of us in the world, that much is certain) to mystically ordain through some arcane ITU ritual, some new Internet principles in your ITRs or TD64 documents, REMEMBER: that there are only 190 or something of you who are voting or reaching concurrence on it, and there are over 7.056 billion people in the world, and so basically you do not count for shit if you are one of the "member state" voting representatives, sorry to say ~ this is particularly true if you are one of those state representatives proposing to trace, filter, conduct surveillance, or otherwise mess with the Internet as part of your proposals through the ITU / WCIT.  We know who you are, because it has basically all leaked by now.

Our counterproposal therefore is this.

We all count.

We all have a vote.  Everybody.  All over the world, whoever has access to the internet.

If you don't like it, too bad for you.

We'll stick with a broad-based coalition of people who can work with organizations like ICANN, ISOC, Regional Internet Registries, OpenNIC, civil society groups, and pretty much anyone all over the world that's ready to handle the business of governance of internet proposals in a serious way.  We disagree that there should be a "new season of cooperation" between ICANN and the ITU.  We don't think that the ITU can nor should handle "cybersecurity" nor "spam" type regulation nor should these issues be addressed in the ITRs or TD64s as principles either.  To the extent that these issues are problems they can be discussed, debated, and "policy-ized" in multistakeholder institutions that have worked in the past (the ones mentioned above are fairly good, even if they need improvement) but quite frankly, most people who raise the specter of "cybersecurity" problems are really trying to make a bid for control for elements of the internet, and if you're smart you know that it can't be controlled by governments.  But if you're honest you also know that governments that develop national laws by and large haven't resulted in a balkanized internet (even China is having to face the music, the great firewall can't last forever) but that they will each always have their laws.  The real problems begin if you abandon elements of the governance of the internet to a statist institution, the ITU, which essentially through the WCIT is serving as a convention of deliberate restraint upon the internet, not incremental but immediate, in a fashion that should concern all people.

If you are the U.N. ITU or frankly any U.N. organization, you are not the right people to be handling these matters. You don't have any experience in it.  You've shown how closed off you are.  Just keep on doing satellite registration and working on getting grants for expanding broadband for internet in rural areas and stuff like that.  You've done some OK work there, but your other stuff sucks.  We've had to fight tooth and nail for the better part of a year just to get you to open up a touch.  Not exactly the sign of an open organization ready to handle "internet governance" of any kind.  Also, you are statists.

Again, if it wasn't already clear:

There are something like 190 of you at the UN ITU that "vote" or come to concurrence in arcane and secretive processes that you believe should affect the rest of the entire world.  We do not have to and will not accept the results of your deliberations.  We categorically reject your statist shit.  For those of you who are there who are arguing against the proposals at the ITU WCIT that would impact the Internet, thanks - that is much appreciated.  Sorry you had to be there.

This is just a small sample of us that oppose what you are doing at the ITU, but here:
Something like 2,397,000 (Two million, three hundred and ninety-seven thousand) people want a #freeandopen web and stand in opposition to the #ITU model as of the time this pastebin was launched into the interwebs.  Obviously, that's a lot more than 190 or however many government representatives there are that "vote" or "concur" at the ITU WCIT. 

So take note. 

The ITU is irrelevant.

The people of the world are relevant.

The #Anonymous counterproposal to the #ITU is simple, that that the people of the world count.

That every voice counts, and that it will be counted in a multistakeholder process not governed by governments nor by the ITU.

That is all.


- #Anonymous

No comments:

Post a Comment