Is the U.N. a threat to the open Internet?

Is the U.N. a threat to the open Internet?

Jan Flodin

This is a rough translation of the blog in Swedish I posted at the ISOC-SE site this morning, June 7. I have run it through Google translation, got some very silly sentences that I tried my best to make at least understandable. Since there was an urgent demand to read it in English (and certainly not through Google translate as is!), here it is, in my second editing round (thanks, Joly, for your help.).

It’s probably clear to most, especially after the “Arab spring” that national states with a strong need for control over its citizens in different ways have been trying to take control over the Internet, as the open Internet is perceived as a threat to these regimes ability to limit free speech and public dissemination of what is happening in their own country.

Those of you who followed ISOC-SE twitter are certainly aware that there is now something in the debate that some see as yet another attempt by these countries to gain control over the  Internet . This time they want to use the UN renegotiation of the International Telecommunication Regulations of 1988, the International Telecommunications Regulations, ITR, for that purpose.

In 1988, telecommunication was still essentially completely managed by government acencies. In the U.S., AT & T (Bell companies), had the same position, with a monopoly, and was therefore included, along with other states’ PTT (Postal, Telegraph and Telecommunications), authorities in the International Telecommunications Union, ITU, a U.N. body. The ITR was and is a voluntary regulation primarily for  international interconnection between telecommunications systems, and how to charge each other for international traffic. Today, Sweden is represented mainly by the Post and Telecom Authority, PTS.

The negotiations are done, now as it was in 1988, only between states without visibility from the general public. Negotiation Rounds is set to finish in Dubai in December at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, WCIT, followed by decisions on the new ITR.

It is easy to instinctively argue that because the Internet did not exist in 1988 but is now available and is a telecommunication system, it must be included in the ITR. However, the Internet existed in 1988 and is a virtual network that is not a telecommunications system according to the ITR, but data processing in computers, now as in 1988.

Internet , since the late 90s, has become an important public function to individual citizens, businesses and even government agencies. It is therefore important and only natural for states to participate and take responsibility for its stability and availability. Internet computers are dependent on good telecommunications, even internationally, and in that respect it is related to the ITR.

National State’s legitimate responsibilities and obligations to the Internet as a resource for the society as a whole can not be questioned, but rather that  some states try to exploit the ITR for their own purpose. It is quite evident,  when I look at the proposals for change, and see which states want to include regulation of the Internet. The ITR88 definition of Telecommunications does not include what the Internet is (data processing) and they want to change that, and even the definition of the International Telecommunications Service. Some will even make the ITR mandatory for Member States. This would imply that states, in some cases, may need to change their law to adapt to the new ITR. There is also a clear proposal that Member States have to change their national law according to the ITR if  another Member State would otherwise consider itself “to suffer harm”.

Based on  these proposals, there are several detailed requests for change that would give states the right and opportunity to regulate the Internet in different ways. Of course it is not certain that all these proposals are accepted, but that they are requested by a group of members is interesting enough.

The Internet Society, ISOC, is recognized by the ITU as a sector member and participates in the ITU meetings without ability to vote. It has insight, but not in all matters, from what I can see. As a member of ISOC, I see, in the  ISOC summaries and analysis, which Nations want to utilize ITR in this way. The pattern is clear and there can hardly be any doubt about the purpose.

Among the states that are among the proponents for increased management and control of the Internet or those who support it, I find the “Russian Federation, the Arab States, Iran, Cuba,” and among those who oppose, I find “The United States, Australia, Canada and Portugal.” Portugal represents the CEPT, European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations and acts on behalf of Europe, which is more than the EU.

On June 7 (after I wrote this) I see on twitter #wcit that the ISOC summary is now published  on twitter for everyone to see!

ISOC has a very good partnership with the more democratically-minded Member States. At the CEPT COM-ITU (which incidentally is coordinated by a highly experienced person from PTS) meeting in late May, where they worked with a European Common Proposal, it seems ISOC had a good consistency with the CEPT view. In Sweden we have an excellent relationship with, among others, PTS and are essentially in consensus for the “multi-stakeholder” model of Internet governance that the UN said some years ago that they support.

What is the ISOC position?

ISOC has a start page for their information about WCIT, with extensive material. Sally Wentworth, ISOC Senior Manager of Public Policy at the Internet Society, recently made a speech in which ISOC clearly stated its position. I believe that the following two extracts are the most significant:

“As a Sector Member, we have significant concerns that, rather than
enhancing global interoperability, the outcome of WCIT could undermine
the security, stability, and innovative potential of networks worldwide.
In short, we are concerned that some government proposals would threaten
the viability of the existing and successful global multistakeholder
model for standards-setting and Internet policy development, and, by
extension, would pose a direct threat to the innovative, collaborative,
and open nature of the Internet itself.
. . .
Despite a formal 2005 consensus by ITU member states that Internet
governance should follow a multistakeholder model, the very nature of
the WCIT negotiations, which vest discussion and decision making in the
hands of only government stakeholders, runs counter to that
multistakeholder model, and threatens to undermine its effectiveness.
Furthermore, the substance of the WCIT negotiations, which will likely
include efforts to apply old-line, legacy telecommunications regulations
to Internet communications, could lead to a more fragmented, less
interoperable global network.”

So, what will happen now ?

Here the field is open to speculation, ranging from a doomsday scenario for the Internet as we know it, to that the new ITR will not substantially change anything on the Internet. I imagine that at least the extreme proposals will not be adopted. That the ITR would be binding, with the impact on national law, is hardly possible, from what I can see. To do that, the state’s legislatures, in our case the Swedish Parliament would have to ratify a such a decision.  In that case, I believe the new ITR  would suffer “the ACTA death.”

It’s a new era now, a growing number of nationals of countries with freedom of speech do not accept that far-reaching decisions that affect their daily lives are negotiated and settled without transparency. The mere presence of these “closed rooms” may be sufficient to create a strong opinion which may avert decisions.

An international public opinion around the ITR and the WCIT is emerging. If it will be able to influence the ITR remains to be seen. At the same time the closed negotiations continue until WCIT in December.

Jan Flodin

PS I found now, June 7 pm, on wcitleaks.org that even ETNO takes the opportunity to utilize the ITR renegotiations for their purpose. DS