WCIT 2012: Observations and Lessons

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.

     

WCIT – A Hot Topic

Free State Foundation President Randolph May will participate as a panelist, Thursday, June 28, 2012, at the Federal Communications Bar Association’s program, “The 2012 WCIT: Crafting International Telecommunication Regulations for the Twenty-First Century.” The program focuses on the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), at which Internet governance issues will be addressed. 

The Free State Foundation recently held a standing-room-only seminar at the National Press Club on the December 2012 WCIT conference taking place in Dubai. The FSF program was broadcast live on C-SPAN. 

You can also read Mr. May’s blogs on the WCIT conference here, here, and here.

Don't Let W-C-I-T Become W-I-C-K-E-D

In anticipation of the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications ("WCIT") in Dubai this December, the House Energy and Commerce Committee today approved by voice vote a resolution to “preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived." The WCIT conference is conducted under the auspices of the UN's International Telecommunications Union. The House of Representatives is expected to consider the resolution, H. Con. Res. 127, in fairly short order. 

Introduced by Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California, the resolution states that the U.S. Government "should continue working to implement the position of the United States on Internet governance that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today." 

The vote commendably was entirely bipartisan, with the leaders of both parties speaking in favor of the resolution in the Commerce Committee. 

It is very important for the future of the Internet and its multistakeholder governance model that the U.S. continues to fight hard at the WCIT conference and beyond for the position stated the resolution. 

And it bears pointing out that if the U.S. truly is going to be effective in asserting leadership in this area on a long-term basis – because the threats to the Net will not likely end with the WCIT conference – the U.S. government must lead by its own example. Thus, when the concern is to maintain the Internet "free from government control," the U.S. government must be mindful of its own actions. For instance, the FCC's adoption of net neutrality mandates and data roaming regulations are problematic in this respect in that each action asserts government control over aspects of Internet services. 

Perhaps one salutary byproduct from the bipartisan effort to ensure the U.S. leads the fight abroad to keep the Internet free from government control will be to make the FCC more aware than it heretofore has been that it should refrain from taking actions that denigrate the same freedom from control here at home. 

This is an issue that ought to engage all U.S. citizens. If you want to learn more, please watch the C-SPAN video of the Free State Foundation's May 30 seminar at the National Press Club. The program features an outstanding panel including, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell and Richard Beaird, the U. S. State Department's Senior Deputy Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy. 

And my recent blog, "Free Speech on the Internet, Except in Cases…" explains how some of the proposals put forward for consideration at the WCIT conference would directly threaten the free speech that today largely characterizes the Internet. 

Another venue for keeping up with developments is the newly-established WCITLEAKS.ORG site. 

Stay tuned for more on this as preparations continue for the WCIT conference.   

Free Speech on the Internet, Except in Cases...

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.

Internet Freedom, At Home and Abroad

As regular readers of this space know, since its founding in 2006, the Free State Foundation has played a leading role advocating for an Internet environment here in the United States free from government control and regulation. Thus, we have opposed imposition of "net neutrality" mandates by the FCC and other forms of government regulation that have the effect of restricting the freedom of Internet service providers to respond to the needs of consumers and the demands of a constantly evolving Internet ecosystem.

While most of our focus has been on U.S. domestic policies, the Internet, of course, is an interconnected "network of networks" that spans the globe. The Mona Lisa in the Louvre is just a click away. And you can easily have a video conversation via Skype with your third cousin halfway around the world, or with political dissidents fighting for freedom, and perhaps their lives, in a faraway repressive regime. No one today needs any more examples of the international nature of the Internet. You can quickly come up with hundreds on your own.

But there are challenges looming from abroad that could impact the functioning of the Internet as we know it today, including the communication of the free flow of ideas that generally prevails across the Net. Most immediately, proposals may be put forward by several countries at the World Conference on International Communications (WCIT) 2012, to be held this December in Dubai. These proposals, if adopted, would fundamentally alter the existing privatized, multi-stakeholder governance model that characterizes the Internet and under which the Net has flourished.

The WCIT conference will be convened by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which itself is an organization operated under the auspices of the United Nations. This December's WCIT conference will be considering changes to international telecommunications regulations that were adopted by the ITU in 1988 - well before the development of the Internet as we know it today.

The 1988 ITU regulations represented a liberalization in some respects of prior international regulations. But they nevertheless generally treated telecommunications services, consistent with the then-prevailing generally monopolistic telecom environment, as subject to government regulation or outright government control. Fortunately, as the Internet grew in the 1990s, it did so outside of this framework of international inter-government control. Instead, the modern Internet has been "governed" by a "bottoms up" multi-stakeholder approach under which interested parties from various industry sectors, public interest groups, engineering societies, and the like collaborate in various private forums and associations to adopt the technical standards and other policies that keep the Internet functioning well.

The Clinton Administration deserves credit for playing a central role in implementing this multi-stakeholder privatization model that became the existing Internet governance model. Its "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce," issued in 1997, declared: 

"Though government played a role in financing the initial development of the Internet, its expansion has been driven primarily by the private sector. For electronic commerce to flourish, the private sector must continue to lead. Innovation, expanded services, broader participation, and lower prices will arise in a market-driven arena, not in an environment that operates as a regulated industry. Accordingly, governments should encourage industry self-regulation wherever appropriate and support the efforts of private sector organizations to develop mechanisms to facilitate the successful operation of the Internet."

This self-regulatory, multi-stakeholder model has worked - marvelously.

Internet statistics are dizzying, of course, and one could go on and on. Just this much here: There are now 2.2 billion Internet users across the globe, an increase of over 500% over the past decade. At the end of March 2012, there were 900 million Facebook users, over 80% of whom are outside of the U.S. and Canada.

But now there are some countries around the world, especially less developed ones, which are likely to try to use the upcoming WCIT conference to adopt new regulations that would give the ITU and their governments control over elements of the Internet. This control might include regulation of rates, supervision of the assignment of Internet domain names, and even adoption of policies concerning the types of speech that would be deemed "acceptable" on the Net.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has performed a service in sounding early warnings about the threats that may arise at the WCIT conference. Here is his op-ed, "The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom," published on February 21 in the Wall Street Journal. His piece, which discusses the issues in more detail, should be widely read.

And you'll be able to hear Commissioner McDowell discuss the challenges to Internet freedom posed by the WCIT conference at the Free State Foundation's lunch seminar next Wednesday, May 30, at the National Press Club. As you can see from the sidebar at the right, we have an outstanding lineup of speakers, including the State Department's international communications expert, Richard Beaird.

Sure, the Internet is not a panacea for solving all the world's problems. And I understand that, depending on circumstances, the Net may even make it easier for those who wish to cause trouble or commit crimes to do so. But there is no doubt that, overall, the continued development of the Internet, and the continued increase in the number of people who are "online," connected with people around the corner and around the world, contributes positively to the promotion of human freedom and prosperity.

That's why it is important the Internet not be given over to inter-governmental supervision or control through action at the International Telecommunications Union, or through the actions of any other international body.

If you wish to join us at FSF's May 30 seminar addressing these issues, you must RSVP to Kathee Baker at kbaker@freestatefoundation.org