Last Wednesday's Free State Foundation seminar, "The
Multi-Stakeholder Privatized Internet Governance Model: Can It Survive Threats
From The UN?", was educational concerning threats to the current
"bottoms up" privatized Internet governance system posed by the
upcoming WCIT 2012 international conference in Dubai. In short, other countries
may put forward proposals at WCIT 2012 this December that could alter the
current multi-stakeholder Internet model by revising the existing international
telecommunications regulations in ways that would sanction inter-governmental
control over important aspects of the Internet.
The WCIT – "World Conference on International
Telecommunications" – is run by the International Telecommunications
Union, a United Nations treaty organization with 193 member countries. Each of
these countries has one vote at ITU conferences.
At FSF's seminar, the nature of the potential changes to
Internet governance, and their implications, were ably explained by the panel,
which included FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell and Richard Beaird, the U. S.
State Department's Senior Deputy Coordinator for International Communications
and Information Policy. I was pleased, and grateful, that C-SPAN broadcast the
event live, and you can watch the C-SPAN video here.
The video is an excellent resource for understanding what's at stake in the
upcoming WCIT.
I just want to emphasize one point here. At the seminar, I
suggested that, in addition to changes that could impact matters such as the
assignment of domain names, technical standards, and the like, some proposals,
if adopted, could impact the free flow of information that, for the most part,
currently characterizes the Internet.
Google's Rick Whitt provided an
example of one such proposal that, in effect, would confer explicit authority on
governments to censor speech. Rick quoted a Russian proposal that would alter
the current text of the ITU regulations so they would state:
“Member
States shall ensure unrestricted public access to international
telecommunication services and the unrestricted use of international telecommunications,
except in cases where international
telecommunication services are used for the purpose of interfering in the
internal affairs or undermining the sovereignty, national security, territorial
integrity and public safety of other States, or to divulge information of a
sensitive nature.”
Obviously,
this is a case in which the "exception" might easily be invoked to swallow
the rule. If this formulation were to be embodied in the ITU treaty, repressive
regimes around the world – no need to name them here, and there are far too
many – would be given a ready cover for censoring speech they would prefer to
keep from their citizens.
Now
I am not naïve. I understand that any country, if it wishes to do so, can
attempt, through technological means, brute force, or otherwise, to censor
Internet speech within its borders, for example, by requiring Internet
providers within the country to use government-sanctioned and
government-monitored speech filters. Some repressive regimes will try to censor
Internet speech whether or not the ITU regulations are revised along the lines
proposed by Russia.
But
that is not the point.
Rather
the point is that presently the ITU regulations do not sanction governmental
interference with communications on the basis that a communication's purpose is
to interfere "in internal affairs" or "divulge information of a
sensitive nature" or the like. Under the Russian proposal, the regulations
would do so explicitly, providing a nation inclined to inhibit the free flow of
information and to suppress free speech cover for doing so.
This
is just one example – but an important one – concerning why the U.S.
government, and private organizations representing all facets of civil society,
should work hard to prevent proposals from being adopted at WCIT, or at other
future ITU conferences, that would confer governmental control over the
Internet. Commendably, this is an issue that enjoys broad bipartisan support in
the U.S.
As
long as governments keep their hands off and do not seek to control or manage the
Internet, it will remain a marvelous instrument for facilitating free
expression and the free flow of ideas here and around the world.
Posts
