How Will The Internet Change In Thailand?

[yourauntbob]

So, Thailand signed onto the ITU (http://news.softpedia.com/news/89-Countries-Signed-the-ITU-s-Controversial-Treaty-55-Didn-t-315061.shtml?utm_source=ForumSoftpedia&utm_medium=ForumSoftpedia&utm_campaign=ForumSoftpedia)

Does anyone care to take a guess at the new amount of censorship? I am worried that many of the international websites may disappear from Thailand. Obviously not in the next few months, but how many and how quickly. What effect will this have on TV?

Ok.... discuss.

[Tywais]

Mozilla Wants You to Fight Against Governments Taking Over the Internet

Mozilla doesn't necessarily make it a habit of supporting Google or Google's views, but the two companies are very closely linked on several planes. And their opinions on all matters related to the web mostly coincide. Case in point is the ITU's attempt at seizing control over the internet.

Granted, pretty much everyone is against this proposal, so the fact that Mozilla is criticizing it as well is no surprise.

The UN body that is supposed to govern telecommunications, wants to expand its reach beyond radio and phone lines.

Currently, the internet as a whole isn't governed by anyone, there are several bodies that manage aspects such as domain names and IPs, plus some for all the standards stuff, but not one group can make big decisions unilaterally.

Even if it could, it would have no way of enforcing that decision unless everyone involved agreed.

With the ITU in charge that would change, anything it would deem necessary, ISPs would have to implement. It's a simplified view, but that is the danger, in essence.

More here

[Tywais]

The Internet's Future and Freedom Is Being Decided in Dubai

The fight for the internet, as it's being framed, is on as representatives from 200 countries and various groups meet in Dubai to discuss the future of the global network. The debate has been heated leading up to the event and it's going to get even hotter.

On the one hand, pretty much the entire western world is against it, on the other increasingly powerful countries like China and Russia want to have a say.

Meanwhile, all the smaller countries feel caught in a war of the giants, but one where they may have a voice, albeit a small one.

Each country gets one vote in the proceedings, putting superpowers on the same level as small African nations. The summit in Dubai is organized by the ITU, the International Telecommunications Union, a UN body.

The ITU doesn't have any powers by itself, it serves as a way to get all the stakeholders together to negotiate agreements. These agreements govern things like radio spectrum, international phone calls and so on.

Now, the telecoms that are represented in the ITU want standards that would regulate the internet as well. Several of the ideas put forward though are quite controversial.

For one, it would put power over the internet into the hands of one body. This has never been the case and many argue that's the big reason behind the internet's success.

More here

[Tywais]

This is a scary one. I remember long time ago that China, possibly Russia also, wanted to create their own Top Level Domain Server (Root Servers) where at the moment the US is the only one that has it. That could potentially cause serious fragmentation and isolation.

Russia, China and the UAE Want to Control DNS and Domain Names Now As Well

The World Conference on International Telecommunications organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is still underway in Dubai. It's scheduled to end on December 14th and the parties involved are still discussing the proposals and even making new ones.

It's hard to know how the process is going since it's all behind closed doors.

What's clear is that the future of the internet is at stake and that, so far, things aren't looking good.

The conference is supposed to decide whether telecommunication companies, the old legacy ones, get to govern the internet as well and to what extent.

There have been plenty of troubling proposals and it's probably going to get even worse. With no warning, several countries have made a proposal which would make it possible to effectively control IPs and domain names on a local level, superseding what ICANN and IANA are currently in charge of.

There are plenty of problems with ICANN and IANA and their close ties to the US government, despite their supposed independence, is cause for concern for many.

But no one thinks handing over control to countries such as Russia, China, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Sudan, the countries that are backing the proposal, is a good idea.

More here

[yourauntbob]

Good info Tywais. Do you think this will affect the way the internet is, for lack of better term, administered in Thailand?

[StreetCowboy]

So just to get it clear, we are supposed to be in favour of very loose control by non-governmental organisations in the USA, and opposed to governments controlling tthe internet within their own borders, right?

Do the same principles apply to railways?

SC

[Tywais]

Good info Tywais. Do you think this will affect the way the internet is, for lack of better term, administered in Thailand?

My guess it will be a very, very long time before it is either implemented or become any kind of true standard considering the power houses that object to the current wording. Thailand has it's own way of handling, or administrating it's own form of "Internet justice" already.

[Tywais]

So just to get it clear, we are supposed to be in favour of very loose control by non-governmental organisations in the USA, and opposed to governments controlling tthe internet within their own borders, right?

I take it you haven't actually looked into this issue. Being an IT & Internet manager I have been following it. If you take a look at a map of the signatories of the 2012 ITU, something you might notice is heavily weighted with countries with not the best track record for human rights and freedom of expression. Anyway, some more specific info.

Internet remains unregulated after UN treaty blocked

Failure to sign agreement at ITU conference stops governments having greater powers to control phone calls and data

A proposed global telecoms treaty that would give national governments control of the internet has been blocked by the US and key western and African nations. They said they are "not able to sign the agreement in its current form" at the end of a International Telecoms Union (ITU) conference in Dubai.

The proposals, coming after two weeks of complex negotiation, would have given individual governments greater powers to control international phone calls and data traffic, but were opposed as the conference had seemed to be drawing to a close late on Thursday.

The move seems to safeguard the role of the internet as an unregulated, international service that runs on top of telecoms systems free of direct interference by national governments.

The US was first to declare its opposition to the draft treaty. "It is with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that I have to announce that the United States must communicate that it is unable to sign the agreement in its current form," Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation, told the conference, after what had looked like a final draft was approved.

"The internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years. All without UN regulation. We candidly cannot support an ITU Treaty that is inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance."

The US was joined in its opposition by the UK, Canada, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Qatar and Sweden. All said they would not sign the proposed final text, meaning that although a number of other countries will sign it, the treaty cannot be effectively implemented.

"In the end, the ITU and the conference chair, having backed themselves to the edge of a cliff, dared governments to push them off," commented Kieren McCarthy, who runs the internet consultancy dot-nxt. "They duly did."

But Access Now, a lobbying group against ITU oversight of the internet, said that "despite all of the assurances of the ITU secretariat that the WCIT wouldn't discuss internet governance, the final treaty text contains a resolution that explicitly 'instructs the [iTU] secretary-general to take the necessary steps for the ITU to play and active and constructive role in... the internet.'" It urged governments not to sign it.

The ITU is a UN organisation responsible for coordinating telecoms use around the world. The conference was meant to update international treaties which have not evolved since 1988, before the introduction of the internet.

But the conference has been the source of huge controversy because the ITU has been accused of seeking to take control of the internet, and negotiating behind closed doors. Google has mounted a vociferous campaign against conference proposals that would have meant that content providers could be charged for sending data and which would have given national governments more control of how the internet works. Instead, lobbyists have said the treaties should simply not mention the internet at all because it is a service that runs atop telecoms systems.

More here

[Tywais]

[NeverSure]

This wouldn't mean chit to the US. It's just a treaty which has to be ratified anyway.

In the US, any treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, or 67 of the 100 senators. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. The.People.Would.Shit.A.Brick and a bunch of Senators would be out. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are sacrosanct with the People.in.the.US.

If the Ambassador to the UN from the US had signed that thing it wouldn't be binding on the US unless ratified, and he'd be looking for a hole to hide in. I ain't kidding.

The internet belongs to the people and the people know it. It was first made practical with the invention of TCP/IP with too much use of public money meaning it is public, and the infrastructure is privately owned. Some country start it's own domain service and DNS? It would get ignored world wide. You're either in or you're out.

Not since the Wild Wild West in the US 150 years ago has there been so much freedom and so much movement. This is The People's internet and that ain't gonna change. Various countries can indeed block IP addresses effectively censoring, but they have to be basically dictatorships like China.

</rant>