I agree with the need for discussions like this to take place in the open so that people can be informed about what their representatives in government are discussing. International treaties are very important.
However, both this article and the WSJ seem to take the quotes very much out of context. For example:
'What it shows is breathtaking. First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way" - in short, to legitimize full government control.'
I could only find a similar quote in the alternate version of the document linked: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/CWG-WCIT12_TD-62E.pdf and only in a section discussing network security and cross-border network attacks:
---
"a) Member-States have the responsibility and right to protect the network security of the information and communication infrastructure within their state, to promote the international cooperation to fight against network attacks and disruptions.
b) Member-States have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory use ICTs in a rational way and endeavour to ensure the effective functioning of ICTs, in secure and trustworthy conditions.
c) User information in information and communication network should be respected and protected. Member-states have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory protect the security of user information."
---
Which in the context where it appears seems to be a discussion on a Chinese proposal about the need for countries to have policies and procedures to deal with cross-border network attacks. In any case, it seems like there are calls for clarification and some discussion that it is unnecessary, especially this portion:
---
"We believe the proposed text in C 59 imposing new treaty rights and obligations on Member States regarding domestic network security is both unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope of the ITRs. The United States 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. Source C 75 (USA)"
"The intention of the proposal is to refer only to network security and not content, that is, to the security of the infrastructure. The intention is to encourage Member States to cooperate to improve infrastructure security. Further, article 8 should concern only dissemination of information and a new article should be envisaged for security matter. (China)"
"Portions of the proposal (e.g. rights at national level) are already covered by the Preamble and should not be added here. Provisions regarding responsibilities of Member States excessively expand the scope of the ITRs. (USA)"
---
In those contexts, the statement seems much less nefarious, and as the US representative mentions, probably unnecessary.
I don't have the time to source the other quotes and summaries but I can't help but think that the articles are poorly researched at best.
WCITLeaks.org cofounder here. You're right that the language sounds more benign than they way it is described, but remember that this is diplo-speak and it is occurring in a pre-existing context. The Chinese proposal is actually pretty sweeping when properly interpreted, and is cause for some concern.
Okay ... I can accept the idea that diplo-speak is often a cover for power-grabs and may certainly be the case here, but how do you go about this "proper interpretation"?
I find any secrecy like what happens in many treaty negotiations to be concerning, I don't need to be sold there, but to trust your interpretation I need more transparency from you.
However, both this article and the WSJ seem to take the quotes very much out of context. For example:
'What it shows is breathtaking. First, China is proposing "to give countries authority over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and require that online companies "operating in their territory" use the Internet "in a rational way" - in short, to legitimize full government control.'
I could only find a similar quote in the alternate version of the document linked: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/CWG-WCIT12_TD-62E.pdf and only in a section discussing network security and cross-border network attacks:
---
"a) Member-States have the responsibility and right to protect the network security of the information and communication infrastructure within their state, to promote the international cooperation to fight against network attacks and disruptions.
b) Member-States have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory use ICTs in a rational way and endeavour to ensure the effective functioning of ICTs, in secure and trustworthy conditions.
c) User information in information and communication network should be respected and protected. Member-states have the responsibility to require and supervise that enterprises operating in their territory protect the security of user information."
---
Which in the context where it appears seems to be a discussion on a Chinese proposal about the need for countries to have policies and procedures to deal with cross-border network attacks. In any case, it seems like there are calls for clarification and some discussion that it is unnecessary, especially this portion:
---
"We believe the proposed text in C 59 imposing new treaty rights and obligations on Member States regarding domestic network security is both unnecessary and beyond the appropriate scope of the ITRs. The United States 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. Source C 75 (USA)"
"The intention of the proposal is to refer only to network security and not content, that is, to the security of the infrastructure. The intention is to encourage Member States to cooperate to improve infrastructure security. Further, article 8 should concern only dissemination of information and a new article should be envisaged for security matter. (China)"
"Portions of the proposal (e.g. rights at national level) are already covered by the Preamble and should not be added here. Provisions regarding responsibilities of Member States excessively expand the scope of the ITRs. (USA)"
---
In those contexts, the statement seems much less nefarious, and as the US representative mentions, probably unnecessary.
I don't have the time to source the other quotes and summaries but I can't help but think that the articles are poorly researched at best.