The struggle of the powers-that-be to get a grip on the most disruptive information technology since the invention of the printing press continues to go on. This time it’s the United Nations making an attempt to get regulatory control over the Internet.
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations body, convenes at the World Conference of International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, 3– 14 December. The aim of the conference is to renegotiate the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which were adopted in 1988 in Melbourne.
Together ITRs form a binding treaty for the 193 member states of the ITU. In its current form the treaty only covers telephone, television and radio networks, but now several members are proposing to broaden its scope to include the Internet. If the folks gathering in Dubai agree on this, it would extend government control over the Internet. Pushing back the decentralized, tech-minded, solution-driven coordination that made the Net what it is today.
So. In Dubai the UN will decide if the UN should get control over the Internet. Should it decide in favor of itself the next question it will ask itself is what it should do with its newly gained power. There are many proposals ranging from changing the way the Internet operates to regulating content.
Proposals
Iran and Russia propose to define the Internet as a ‘international telecommunication service’. As a consequence internet traffic would be billed the same way as international phone calls: paying extra for your data crossing a border.
The proposal of ETNO, a trade organization representing European network operators, exposes a similar nostalgia for the good old days of the telephone. They want to see the implementation of a ‘sending party network pays’ model. This would mean a drastic departure from how data is trafficked now. The Internet is a network of networks that voluntarily connect with each other. The exchange of data takes place based on ‘settlement-free peering’, meaning the networks don’t charge each other for data traveling through their wires. And in most cases no one even keeps count of how much data originates from a particular network.
Besides architectural changes to the networks implied in the proposal it would also affect the spirit of the Internet. Companies with huge data streams like Google or Facebook may decide not to make their content available to certain groups or areas because they expect a negative return on investment.
There is a proposal to define spam as ‘causing harm to the network or personnel’. Consequently member states should actively prevent it. With this proposal the ITU crosses the line from a hardware regulator ensuring interoperability and harmonization to an agency regulating content. The USA objects to the proposal saying: ‘this text suggests that the ITU has a role in content related issues. We do not believe it does’.
Equally, the proposal against online crimes point towards a broadening of the scope from hardware to content regulations.
Lack of transparency
More generally, it can be expected UN-regulations will lead to a bureaucratic lockdown of the technology’s development. Innovation is moving so fast, no one can anticipate the next iteration of the Internet. Let alone a sluggish institution like the ITU keeping up regulatory-wise.
Another concern is the lack of transparency. None of the proposals or working papers that will be treated at the conference have been made public. Even something as general as the agenda is behind a wall requiring a password. Much of the information available has come through wcitleaks.org, a site dedicated to bring transparency to WCIT by making leaked documents available online.
The next two weeks will be yet another decisive episode for the future of the Internet.
Sources: Techliberation.com, wcitleaks.org
Image: source Cesc.kth.se
About Tessel Renzenbrink
Tessel Renzenbrink holds an MA in philosophy and specialized in metaphysics. She writes about technology, energy and the changes in the cultural mindset that mark the shift towards the information age. 
“Pushing back the decentralized, tech-minded, solution-driven coordination that made the Net what it is today.”
That claim is not something I would brag about, given the decadence & areas that have been exploited by unscrupulous users. I have used internet facilities since their inception, even before that one private banking systems like Commonwealth Bank’s Viatel. I am sorry that human behaviour has yet again abused our creation once again, it was always thus e.g., atomic power. This system is certainly crying out for relief from unregulated chaos; let us hope that the United Nations will provide a carefully tailored body. If organisations like Google suffer, there will always be an alternative waiting for a chance to fill the void. By the way, I am a technician who was involved in its beginnings.
Hey Frank, imo, the architecture of the internet as a network of networks voluntarily communicating with each other over TCP/IP, is -and should be- reflected in its governance where stakeholders develop the system collaboratively based on best practice. The idea that one body, operating behind closed doors, should decide about a technology that enables billions to access and share information seems wrong to me. Especially, when the focus of that body is not primarily improving the technology itself, but rather regulating how it should be monetized and what data is allowed to flow through the wires, as becomes clear from the proposals.
But I’m interested to hear your point of view. What do you mean when you say ‘this system is certainly crying out for relief from unregulated chaos’ and ‘given the decadence & areas that have been exploited by unscrupulous users.’?
Frank is correct in that there are activities on the internet that should be curtailed. He is wrong is accepting that the UN, (made up of countries like N.Korea, Iran, Russia, China, etc., that have too much sway,) and that has proven that the overall UN agenda (eg Agenda 21, Climate Change scam, etc.) is not compatible with Western ways, should have any say in anything to do with it.
You can always trust politicians and other control freaks to wind the clock back. That which they can’t do they must control. From a social perspective, what is so great about the society that their laws have shaped and governed for decades (i.e. the one which recognizes economic imperatives over all others; the one which treats explosive human population growth as a non-issue etc. etc.)? Regulating the internet will, like everything else that has been regulated lead to money wasted on legislating a perpetual raft of amendments, a transfer of wealth upwards and not solve anything. Making burglary a crime didn’t stop it.
I see that we have personal biases creeping into the pro arguments above “(made up of countries……that have too much sway)”. How much is “too much”? Whose morality will shape the proposed laws? Why should that particular morality have sanctitude above others? And how does legislation kill the creativity in the minds of people who are determined to “abuse” the system?
You can never trust something as large as the internet to be governed by one single body, how ever big it is. The internet is much too vast to successfully be controlled without destroying the reason for its being : sharing data and communication.
I too agree that there is content on the internet that is not for everyone, but much like in life where you teach your child not to walk into the road before making sure it is safe to do so, so should there be general cautions of what not to do on the internet so as not to fall victim to sites you would rather have never seen. Oh wait there already are, in the form of do’s and dont’s for protection against viruses and phishing etc. There are also general do’s and dont’s for Google searches etc.
I am failing, thus far, to see what it is the UN want to control the internet for…
…other than the obvious money making opportunity.
Even coming down to the viruses out there, get an anti virus program and don’t download that cute cursor theme pack and you are pretty much safe.
YET MORE CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!