<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Confusion and disarray took hold late Wednesday night at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT, a United Nations conference in Dubai which may determine the future of the Internet.\nWCIT's purpose is to update the International Telecommunication Regulations, or ITRs, a global treaty that facilities international communication and was last updated in 1988.\nSome countries, including the United States and many European states, believe the Internet is outside the proper scope of WCIT. Thus, they refuse any mention or definition of \"Internet\" in the new treaty at all. They have been sparring with other governments, including Russia and China, which are pushing proposals with language about the Internet that some observers believe would allow for more censorship on the web.\nIn a last-minute action late Wednesday, the chair of the conference announced he \"wanted to have the feel of the room on who will accept\" a compromise draft resolution which would allow counties to discuss \"international Internet-related technical, development and public policy issues\" at United Nations fora, which is exactly the result the United States wants to avoid.\nThe draft would also calls upon governments to \"foster the enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet,\" according to Access, an Internet advocacy group that tends to side with the American perspective towards the conference. \nThose in favor of the draft proposal raised placards, as one would do at an auction. The chair then asked for \"the feel of the room, who is against this resolution.\" Other placards were raised. Then, after this simple vote, the chair declared \"[t]he majority is with having the resolution in\" and moved to other business.\nThe process left participants shellshocked and confused. Spain immediately put the process into question. \n\"I would like you to clarify whether the temperature you were taking was simply a taking of the temperature,\" said the Spanish delegation. \"Has it now been interpreted as a vote and had we known that it was a vote, we might very well have acted differently.\"\nThe chair's response? \"It was not a vote, and I was clear about it.\u201D\nHowever, the chair's previous declaration that the \"majority is with having the resolution in \"the updated treaty could easily be interpreted as an official and final statement of fact \u2014 in other words, the result of a vote. \nSEE ALSO: Time Running Out for Open Web Advocates at UN's WCIT Internet Conference\n\nThe unorthodox procedure angered many participants. The New York Times reported the United States is threatening to withdraw support for the conference if it \"did not receive concessions on the key sticking points,\" citing \"two people briefed on the situation.\"\nThe draft proposal is not technically official until the whole of the treaty is adopted, which may or may not happen by the end of the week. As the second-to-last day of the conference begins Thursday, those involved with the conference expect the Wednesday controversy to take center stage as partipants seek clarification and understanding.\nPhoto via Karim Sahib/AFP/Getty Images"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2012/12/13/controversy-wcit/>