Part 13 (2/2)

This statement comes from the government that, more than any other, tries to interfere with and sabotage the Internet. Beijing employs tens of thousands of specially trained hackers whose job is to pry loose military and technological secrets from American and European governments and companies. Now this Internet pirate-regime is calling for greater ”security”!

But the reality, of course, is that the only ”hostile behavior” or ”act of aggression” that is likely to invade Chinese cybers.p.a.ce is the truth. Facts, accurate reporting, correct data, and public debate are the only acts of aggression China is trying to regulate. Indeed, China wants the ITU to collect IP addresses of Internet users so it can identify dissidents, whom it will move to suppress.

AMERICA SEEMS TO BE ACQUIESCING

As you are reading these outrageous proposals, you are probably saying to yourself what we said when we first saw them-that the United States and the European Union would never permit these changes and regulations to take effect.

But not so fast. Crovitz reports that while the leaked doc.u.ments suggest that US negotiators are objecting to the regulatory changes behind closed doors, they are doing so ”politely.”22

Very politely. Apparently, the US called the Chinese proposals for Internet control ”both unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope” of UN regulation. Then, to soften the blow, the leaked doc.u.ment notes that ”the US looks forward to a further explanation from China with regard to the proposed amendments, and we note that we may have further reaction at that time.”23

American delegates also objected to proposals to give the ITU a role in regulating Internet content, tamely noting that they do ”not believe” the ITU can play such a role.

Crovitz writes that the American objections are ”weak responses even by Obama administration standards.”24

From Was.h.i.+ngton, the Obama administration's response to the Internet governance proposals has been muted and laggard. Amba.s.sador Phil Verveer, deputy a.s.sistant secretary of state for international communications and information policy, noted that some of the pending proposals, if adopted, ”could limit the Internet as an open and innovative platform by potentially allowing governments to monitor and restrict content or impose economic costs upon international data flows.”25

But, in the next breath, he denied that any of the pending proposals would give the ITU ”direct Internet governance authority.”26

Verveer's circ.u.mspection in attacking the regulatory proposals-and his use of wording such as ”could limit” and ”potentially allow”-indicates less than hard and fast opposition. And the administration's willingness to keep secret the negotiations themselves suggests that Hillary Clinton's State Department and Barack Obama's White House may be slender reeds to rely on in keeping the Internet open and free.

Both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama owe us an explanation of why they countenanced secrecy in these negotiations during which our free speech is on the line!

Indeed, as of this writing, the only statement from the administration on the possible UN Internet controls came from a May 2, 2012, blog entry by the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, which read: ”Centralized control [of the Internet] would threaten the ability of the world's citizens to freely connect and express themselves by placing decision-making power in the hands of global leaders who have demonstrated a clear lack of respect for the right of free speech.”27

Again, what is worrying is the muted nature of the administration's objections. So radical a proposal as to put the Internet under UN control and to give Russia and China the ability to restrict the flow of information to their citizens would seem to call for opponents to be shouting their objections from the rooftops. Instead, there has been no presidential statement or comment from Secretary Clinton, just a blog entry by a minor White House office.

Fortunately, a more robust response to this erosion of Internet freedom came from the House of Representatives, where a bipartisan group of congressmen on the House Energy and Commerce Committee introduced a resolution calling on the Obama administration to oppose efforts to turn the Internet over to UN regulation. The resolution called on the US delegation to the ITU talks to ”promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet today.”28

The resolution is sponsored by Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) and has the support of Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), ranking member Henry Waxman (D-CA), Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), and ranking subcommittee member Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

Sounding a clarion call, Congresswoman Bono Mack said that ”[t]his year, we're facing an historic referendum on the future of the Internet. For nearly a decade, the United Nations quietly has been angling to become the epicenter of Internet governance. A vote for my resolution is a vote to keep the Internet free from government control and to prevent Russia, China, India and other nations from succeeding in giving the UN unprecedented power over Web content and infrastructure.”29

Bono Mack warns: ”If this power grab is successful, I'm concerned that the next 'Arab Spring' will instead become a 'Russian winter,' where free speech is chilled, not encouraged, and the Internet becomes a wasteland of unfilled hopes, dreams and opportunities. We can't let this happen.”30

The resolution's Democratic cosponsor, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, added that ”this resolution reaffirms our belief and sends a strong message that international control over the Internet will uproot the innovation, openness and transparency enjoyed by nearly 2.3 billion users around the world.”31

More and more voices are suddenly speaking out against the UN regulation of the Internet. At a congressional hearing in June 2012, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell asked, ”Does anyone here today believe that these countries' [Russia's and China's] proposals would encourage the continued proliferation of an open and freedom-enhancing Internet?”32

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said that an ”international regulatory intrusion into the Internet would have disastrous results, not only for the US, but for folks around the world.”33

But statements from American politicians are not going to derail this effort at global censors.h.i.+p. Only the full mobilization of the more than two billion Internet users worldwide will suffice. It is time they learned of the threat to their liberty and battled to defeat it!

<script>