The United States Congress should restrict the National Security Agency’s ability to collect “bulk data” without a warrant

1NC AT IFreedom- ITU Conference Solves

ITU proves no threat

Guardian 11/7/14 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/07/how-will-internet-governance-change-after-the-itu-conference

If internet governance were a James Bond movie, ITU would be cast as the cat-stroking villain with an intricate and ambitious model laid out before her (we can always hope) plotting world domination through seizing control of global communications. “The whole world will listen to me, and only me! Ha ha!” The reality, as ever, is far less dramatic and not significantly less sinister. Internet issues do form a minor part of ITU’s mandate, and were overshadowed at the Busan event by a range of other issues: political disputes over Crimea and Palestine, resolutions to address Ebola and better ways to track planes, a four-year debate on how to define “ICT”, public access to ITU’s documents, and an unexpected 30m Swiss Franc reduction in ITU’s budget for the next four years ITU is not taking over the internet Member States often presented as the foes of the internet (Russia, the Arab states, India and, on occasion, Brazil) submitted some proposals that had a few liberal western countries wringing their hands in earnest before the plenipot had begun. Russia proposed that ITU begin allocating internet protocol (IP) addresses, which is a function already performed by other non-intergovernmental organisations. The Arab states had submitted proposals that would have strengthened the role of governments in making decisions about the internet and would have given the ITU a role in developing legal and policy frameworks to combat illegal international online surveillance. Brazil made proposals for ITU to work on online privacy issues. Advertisement And India submitted a last-minute proposal that would have required some major changes to the way the internet works. (The proposal aimed to keep all domestic internet traffic within national borders, so citizens would have to use a telephone-style international dialling code to access a site outside the country. Most of the proposal is possible to implement, but would require work outside ITU’s current mandate.) These were proposals that had the US administration in a bit of a spin, with Penny Pritzker, US secretary of commerce, telling a key group of internet folk at the opening ceremony of the most recent ICANN meeting, “We will see proposals to put governments in charge of internet governance. You can rest assured that the United States will oppose these efforts at every turn.” However, anyone with any experience of intergovernmental negotiations knows that proposals start off fairly strong, then get watered down to the politically homeopathic levels. This is what happened at the plenipot. For example, both the proposals to give governments a more active role in the internet as well as the proposals to give non-governments a more active role in ITU kind of neutralised each other. Also, back room negotiations spearheaded by the US delegation meant many of the changes proposed by other countries were taken off the table. Those negotiations took placed behind closed doors, but it is understood that the US gave up its demand to have non-governmental groups invited into ITU’s council working groups, which were designed to be for governments only. In return, other states withdrew proposals about online privacy, cybersecurity and other internet proposals. No major threats to the internet have emerged as a result of the conference. Instead, many of the hottest internet issues have been shunted off to a small group of the ITU, known by the convoluted name of the Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues, or CWG-Internet for short. As a result of compromises made at the plenipot, this group, which is attended by barely more than a handful of states, will decide at the beginning of each year what its topics of discussion will be.

Multistakeholder winning now

Szyndler 11/13/14 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141113_why_we_dont_stick_to_our_knitting_auda_role_in_internet_governance/ Paul Szyndler, GM of International & Govt Affairs, AUDA

Every four years, these Resolutions are meticulously pored over by Member States, with every phrase and section analysed and debated. Agreed words are very powerful in inter-governmental fora, and the importance of such a granular and detailed debate should not be under-estimated.

This is where the fear and loathing comes in — the ITU is not a multi-stakeholder body. It is multi-national. It is a forum for governments and those of us (ccTLD managers, ICANN, civil society, business, academia) from the broader community that has successfully steered the technical and policy development of the Internet don't have a seat at the table. Aside from lobbying our national governments and weaselling our way on to delegations, we cannot directly influence the direction of the ITU. This is why the recent Plenipotentiary was so significant, keenly followed and generally distrusted.
However, an interesting thing happened in Busan. While there was the usual level of debate around Internet issues, a far greater proportion of governments spoke in favour of the current multi-stakeholder model for Internet Governance. A far greater number of governments are now meaningfully engaged with our community, trust our processes and work with stakeholders to improve the current model, rather than re-invent it with national administrations in control. Far more governments get it.
Our Government, like Britain's, is committed to freedom on and of the Internet. That means the governance of the Internet should not be in the hands of any government or group or organisation of governments.

—The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Australian Minister for Communicatios.

Chatham House speech, May 2014

[Emphasis from the Minister’s original speech]

This was particularly evident at PP-14 when a bunch of wacky [author’s expert opinion only] Internet-related proposals were tabled from usual suspects such as Russia, the Arab States and India. These proposals would have significantly increased the ITU's mandate but, instead of just being opposed by the U.S. and a handful of nations in Europe, many more Member States played a vocal role in ensuring these ideas did not proceed.

No uniqueness – Bhusan consensus

Sepulveda 12/16/14 https://openinternet.state.gov/message-ambassador-sepulveda/ Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda United States of America

The Plenipotentiary Conference occurs every four years and is a treaty level conference that sets the ITU general policies, scope of authority, and course of work for the next four years. Going into the Plenipotentiary Conference, there was considerable concern that it could end with member states divided, which could adversely affect the work of the ITU, or create uncertainty for the future of the global Internet. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of our delegation and our partners, this division didn’t happen. Instead, the conference concluded with strong consensus, the Busan Consensus. In Busan, we established a basis and process that enables the ITU to work within its mandate to promote global connectivity while leaving decisions about how people use that connectivity to more appropriate institutions and deliberations.

Plenipotentiary conference established free internet – checked ITU threats to internet freedom

European Institute 12/18/14 http://www.euintheus.org/event/the-busan-consensus-a-turning-point/ The EU is represented in the United States by the Washington, DC Delegation of the European Union, which works in close coordination with the Embassies and Consulates of the 28 EU Member States.

Following 800 hours of negotiations on 452 proposals over three weeks, delegates to the ITU’s (International Telecommunications Union) 19th Plenipotentiary Conference reached consensus on continuing the ITU’s mandate to promote global connectivity, while ensuring that the international body’s role would not expand beyond telecommunications and into the Internet content or core functionality. Internet governance and cyber security issues will be addressed in other international fora, and the ITU’s own work will be given greater transparency. The panelists will address the outcomes of the ITU Plenipotentiary, and what implications they have for the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, in which openness, transparency and democratic principles can sustainably prevail in the digital age.