With the opening of WCIT 2012 today,
presumably the U.S. delegation (and interested U.S. parties) are safely
ensconced in Dubai and ready for action. Readers of this space know that WCIT is
the acronym for the World Conference on International Communications convened
by the International Telecommunications Union, an organization with 193 member
countries established under the auspices of the United Nations.
In the past couple of weeks, much has been written about the
possible perils to the Internet posed by proposals put forward by some
countries. These perils include proposed changes to the Internet's prevailing mode
of governance, along with forced changes to its existing technical operations
and economic arrangements. And they include proposed changes that would
diminish the Internet's utility as a platform for the free exchange of
information. Because the potential threats are real, and because some proposals,
if adopted, would fundamentally alter the character and working of the Internet,
it is understandable that alarm bells have been ringing.
Indeed, the Free State Foundation held a seminar at the
National Press Club back on May 30 to address the potential adverse impacts
from the WCIT 2012 conference. We were pleased to have FCC Commissioner Robert
McDowell and Richard Beaird, Senior Deputy United States Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy at the Department of State,
as speakers, along with other notables. We also were pleased that C-SPAN appreciated
that the seminar was important enough to be broadcast live. You can find the
C-SPAN video here.
And a complete transcript of the proceedings is here.
I don't want to repeat at any length the various points made
by many of my think tank colleagues and others over the past few weeks, but
rather offer a few observations to highlight certain points, especially points
that translate into lessons that ought to be instructive going forward.
First, having in mind the various proposals that have raised
concerns – ranging from proposals to amend the ITU international
telecommunications regulations to give sanction to outright government
censorship of free expression on the Net to others that would sanction new forms
of economic and/or technical Internet regulation, it is important not to lose
sight of this central point: What is at stake is the continued existence of the
current bottoms-up, privatized, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model as
opposed to one featuring top-down government controls. In this regard, recall
that the proposals to be offered at the WCIT are to amend the
"international telecommunications
regulations" adopted in1988 when generally monopolistic telecommunications services were
offered, at least in most countries around the world, under stringent regulatory
controls.
Second, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, who more than
anyone else early on sounded
alarms concerning the potential for WCIT mischief, points out, correctly,
that proposals in international forums to abandon the current multi-stakeholder
Internet governance model are likely to be ongoing. So, when the U.S.
delegation heads home after Dubai, hopefully with a successful result, there
will be no reason to celebrate any "final victories." Continued
vigilance will be required.
Third, the broad bipartisan support for the U.S. position
opposing proposals inconsistent with the current privatized, multi-stakeholder
model has been commendable – not only commendable, but important in
strengthening the United States' bargaining position. All FCC commissioners,
regardless of party, oppose changes to the ITU regulations that would sanction
increased government control of the Internet. Both the House of
Representatives and a Senate
panel unanimously adopted resolutions expressing support for maintaining
the current governance model and urging a hands-off ITU regulatory policy.
In today's dynamic, competitive communications marketplace,
this broad bipartisan support opposing WCIT-sanctioned control of Internet
providers ought to translate into a shared commitment by our U.S. policymakers
that, absent market failure and demonstrable consumer harm, Internet providers
should not be subject to government-imposed common carrier-like regulations.
This means they should not be subject to FCC net neutrality mandates that
resemble legacy regulations applied to last century's common carriers a la the ITU's international telecommunications
regulations. It was the Clinton Administration that forcefully articulated this
deregulatory position in a White Paper as the Internet developed in the
1990s, and it deserves much credit for doing so. If the U.S. is going to lead
the fight for a deregulatory Internet governance model around the world, it
should make sure it leads by example here at home.
I have no doubt that the U.S. delegation in Dubai will work
hard to preserve the privatized, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model by
opposing changes to the ITU telecommunications regulations that would give international
sanction to top-down government control of the Internet or that would give official
sanction to government censorship of free expression.
We should commit to working equally hard here at home to do
the same.
Posts
