Is the United Nations trying to take over the internet? Read anything in much of the western media about the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and you might think so, especially in the lead-up to the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 just wrapping up in Busan, Korea.

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.

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.

ITU is about far, far more than just the internet

The feel-good resolution was about using technology to combat the spread of viruses such as Ebola. Unfortunately, none of the three countries most affected by Ebola attended, having been asked by a panicked South Korean government to “minimise” their participation.

Another notable new resolution was passed on global flight tracking. Malaysia’s very recent experience with flight MH370 meant that although aviation isn’t usually part of ITU’s activities, member states found a way for ITU to, in a small way, work with the aviation industry to help improve flight tracking in future.

Look, no vote! A present to me!

The plenipot is the last meeting for the outgoing ITU secretary general Dr Hamadoun Toure, who wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Toure did everything to ensure the event wasn’t a repeat of the highly divisive World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in 2012 - and largely succeeded. No member states pushed for a vote, even on the Crimea and Palestine.

Toure described this lack of voting as a wonderful present to himself at his last plenipotentiary as secretary general. But it’s unlikely that Ukraine, Russia, Palestine and Israel weren’t thinking of Toure as they engaged in very intense discussions in Busan.

ITU is certainly not the correct venue to solve territorial disputes like Crimea and Palestine, but aggrieved countries in such disputes traditionally try to have any and all UN bodies produce resolutions that support their claim to sovereignty and disputed lands.

Using ITU resolutions about recognising the right to use telecommunication resources (including phone numbers and radio spectrum) may sound like a fairly odd way to solve such disputes. Yet the USA has said it will withdraw funding from the ITU if Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state, while Russia’s President Putin sent one of his private secretaries to negotiate on Russia’s behalf - both demonstrating how seriously governments viewed the proposed resolutions.

More difficult moments

Intense political negotiations about Crimea and Palestine were predictable. What the layperson may not have predicted were intense debates about the definition of “ICT”. One state asked if the term “ICT” meant the same as the acronym “ICT”: the next state on the microphone, perhaps as stunned by this question as many others in the room, suggested it was time for a coffee break.

There were also intense debates about how to deal with counterfeit devices, such as mobile phones. Bean counters, though, could have predicted that the budget and a new office for ITU would be trigger points. Particularly given the fact that ITU was facing a budget reduction of 30m Swiss Francs in member state contributions over the next four years.

Which states came out on top?

Not the USA, despite the fact that Toure gave the USA credit for helping with the Crimea and Palestine negotiations. USA tainted its image early in the conference, when it criticised the chair of the group handling internet and cybersecurity related issues.

The USA was also a little too aggressive in some of its responses to proposals it didn’t like and a bit too keen to hint to others that it had done deals to get proposals it disliked off the table. In contrast, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden all appeared to come out of the plenipot with greater respect of other member states, including some traditional foes of the internet.

What’s next?

Discussions on internet issues were intense, but the outcomes were fairly insubstantial. It suggests the internet cold war is definitely thawing after the key battle at WCIT in 2012. States will still need to posture and clearly state their policy positions in proposals, but are more willing to let them go by the wayside … as long as proposals by those with opposing views also aren’t incorporated. This doesn’t mean that states don’t want to pursue their goals - it simply means they are being more patient about how long it will take to get there.

The next big meeting to discuss technology and internet issues in the UN world is the General Assembly’s special high-level meeting in December 2015. That will review a decade of activities since the World Summit on the Information Society was held in Tunis in 2005.

It is at this meeting, the highest level of the UN family of agencies, that many governments may choose to take up internet issues again - though without secretary general Toure. In one speech in praise of him, a South African delegate said: “We’re not going to part with him. He’s just being recycled within the ITU space and the ICT space.”