As you all may know, I’ve been attending the WCIT-12 in Dubai. We are at the very end of the treaty negotiation and the UK will not be signing. Here is a transcript of the UK’s intervention making that statement (from the ITU’s transcript service)
UK: thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you for your continues — continuing efforts to find an acceptable outcome.
Like the United States, I now find myself in the position and with enormous regret of having to explain the position of my delegation.
I have brought from the United Kingdom a multistakeholder delegation with broad expertise who are really and prepared to negotiate on all issues.
— who are ready and prepared)
We have taken part actively in many discussions and sought come proceed mis and sought to understand the issues and concerns of other regions and Member States, and tried to find a text wherever we could.
We were willing to try to find a Treaty that we could live with in the interest of consensus, and in the interest of developing an International Telecommunications Regulations fit for the 21st century. But there are elements that we find impossible to accept.
We all agreed that content was not intended to be part of the ITR, but content issues keep coming up. We preferred no text on security but in the interest of compromise we worked towards language we could accept.
Unfortunately, the language that we proposed and the various alternatives we proposed were constantly rejected and the compromise that we have before us we could only possibly accept in the context of a Treaty that was acceptable in all other respects.
On the Internet itself, our position is clear. We do not see the ITRs as the place to address Internet issues. The proper place is multistakeholder fora, the IGF, the ICANN GAC, the CTS T would all have been possibilities.
We were prepared to see an acceptable resolution in the context of an overall acceptable text, about you that option was foreclosed.
So my position now is we prefer no resolution on the Internet at all and I’m extremely concerned that the language just adopted for the Preamble opens the possibility of Internet and content issues.
We looked also to see if there was language that we could accept on the thorny issue of ROA versus OA. We preferred ROA and were advised there was an inconsistent see between the Constitution and ITRs. As far ooe as we continue to see all of the solutions caused to a greater or lesser extent the same problem. Of an inconsistency between the ITRs and the Constitution, and that remains the case in the text before us.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, my delegation came to work for revised ITRs. But not at any cost. We’re not able to sign a bad agreement that does nobody any favors and makes nobody happy. That does not mean that we will not continue to work with all delegates, all Member States and regions on these important issues of concern to many.
We will work with colleagues in the ITU and Study Groups and plen pots, in the IGF and in ICANN GAC, in the continued positive spirit and the will to work for win/win solutions in a we came here with.
I request that this statement is reflected in the minutes of the plenary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.