As thoughts turn to the 2013 Morocco Diplomatic conference for the VIP Treaty next June, there was

an article in ArsTechnica on the recently completed ITU Conference in Dubai to which I will excerpt 2 salient points. "Behind closed doors at the UNs attempted 'takeover of the Internet' -- Conflicting visions for the future of the Internet collide in Dubai" by Eli Dourado of WCITLeaks and unofficial member of the US delegation to the ITU http://t.co/EU9iMdBG (link via @jrandomf Twitter post) Regarding 'human rights' proposals at the Dubai meeting from the article main body: After a number of countries spoke in favor of the compromise text in general, Nigeria rose on behalf of the Africa region to add a clause to the new, controversial human rights language that would support a new human right: the right of all Member States to access international telecommunication services. This language was controversial for three reasons. First, it was a version of a proposal made by Cuba earlier in the conference, directed at the sanctions imposed on it by the United States; it would make those sanctions illegal under international law. Second, it seemed to establish the ITU, a technical forum, as a new arbiter of human rights. The heads of delegations of most countries were typically communications ministers; they were not empowered to set human rights policy for their countries. Third, the human right it purported to establish was a collective one, located in the state rather than in the individual.

The SCCR/25/2 Draft text for the Diplomatic Conference still contains (in brackets) Article I. which states: ARTICLE I INTERPRETATION OF THE THREE-STEP TEST [The three-step test should be interpreted in a manner that respects the legitimate interests of third parties, including: interests deriving from human rights and fundamental freedoms;] From a comment posted to the ArsTechnica article by John Day (Mr. Day was Head of US Delegation, ISO JTC1/SC21/WG1, 1980 1992.): Making documents available at the last minute is also a common ploy. Most committees have a rule that everything must be available well in advance of the meeting. As I assume this meeting did. But there is always someone who will want to play on good will to bring in something late. I remember once, the chair was asking to allow late documents (to be a nice guy), as head of delegation I objected. The chair was going to anyway. At which point, I promised that if he did, I would guarantee that no one would see any US contributions (of which there were always many) for the next meeting before the first day. He backed down. And I have to admit to using them successfully myself. ;-) The Final Decision of the Dec 17-18 ExGA states (in part) at 5.: The Preparatory Committee shall incorporate in the Basic Proposal such further agreements of the SCCR as are

reached pursuant to paragraph (4) above with the understanding that any Member State and the special delegation of the European Union may make proposals at the Diplomatic Conference. As this is a Decision of the General Assembly, it is not subject to revision at the Special SSCR in February, 2013.