Article content continued

The head of the U.S. delegation, Ambassador Terry Kramer, described it as a “crossroads over the collective view of the Internet.”

He said the stumbling blocks were disagreements over whether the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) should have jurisdiction over Internet firms such as Google, whether the treaty allows for the regulation of content such as spam, and whether the organization should weigh in on cybersecurity.

The Western bloc also feared any UN rules on cyberspace could squeeze Web commerce, open the door for more restrictions and result in monitoring by authoritarian regimes that already impose wide-ranging clampdowns. The head of one tech industry group said it could “forever alter” the Web.

“It’s with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunity that the U.S. must communicate that it’s not able to sign the agreement in its current form,” the U.S. delegation said in a statement. “We candidly cannot support an ITU treaty that is inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model.”

Mr. Kramer said, “No single organization or government should attempt to control the internet or dictate its future development. We are resolute on this.

“Internet policy should not be determined by member states, but by citizens, communities and broader society … the private sector and civil society. That has not happened here.”

‘Internet policy should not be determined by member states, but by citizens, communities and broader society … the private sector and civil society’

Many disputed clauses were quashed or watered down during 10 days of negotiations, but the non-Western bloc managed to win support for wording that supported governments’ rights to have access to the Web. This was viewed by the U.S. and its allies as a backdoor attempt to gain UN sanction for more government controls over the Internet, adding to earlier objections about references that could suggest UN backing for more state authority over content and commerce.