Last month there was an historical moment of unanimous agreement among parties that at other times never seem to agree on anything. All the member states of the European Parliament voted unanimously 27-0. The United States House of Representatives voted unanimously 397-0. Mexico, Canada, Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand all stood together in agreement. What is it that could cause all of these parties to so solidly agree on anything? Answer: they are against the ITU taking over governance of the internet.
The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is a venerable 19th century organization, headquartered in Switzerland, and now a part of the United Nations. Last month they hosted the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai to hear some 900 proposals from UN members and mostly to discuss their bid to assume control of the worldwide internet.
Proposals from countries, most notably oppressive regimes, would impose levies on internet traffic and adopt standards that would facilitate imposing censorship, quash dissent, and make it even easier for governments to track individual internet users’ activities. These issues brought the European Parliament, U.S. Congress, and the governments of many other democratic countries together in monolithic opposition to changing the status quo. Since the U.S. Commerce Department turned over control of the internet in 1998 it has been administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a nonprofit private organization headquartered in California. Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Algeria, Sudan and others have been pushing hard to have the United Nations take over control.Many of the proposals from oppressive regimes and developing nations would impose levies on internet traffic and adopt standards that would make it easy to track internet user’s activities, as well as squeeze more money from them. These proposals would give governments more effective control over their citizens’ access and use, as well as establish an infrastructure for telephone-style fee collection for internet use.
Those governments intent upon censoring, controlling, and monitoring how their citizens use the internet want standards put in place to enhance their ability to do this. This is a slippery slope because what some governments want to be able to do is to regulate internet content that is physically located outside their borders.
Some developing nations are looking to the internet as a revenue source and want to see standards put in place that would permit their being able to charge fees not to just their own citizens but to you and other internet users living anywhere outside their borders. Today if you make a long distance phone call to Pakistan you pay a ridiculously high price; some of which goes to your local phone company but most of which is paid to Pakistan. Now some countries are pushing for a similar infrastructure to be put in place to permit billing such extra charges to your local internet bill should you surf by their web page.
Still other countries are advocating cell-phone-style pay-per-minute plans that would do away with “unlimited” internet access. This is another way some states look to generate more revenue.
Neelie Kroes, who as the EU Digital Agenda Commissioner is in charge of Europe’s internet policy, said the ITU proposals “risk damaging the Internet’s evolution as a critical piece of global commercial infrastructure and a network for the free flow of information and data.” She went on to say “The European Union’s firm view is that the internet works. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Occasional Reporter contributor Charles Miller is a freelance computer consultant with more than 20 years IT experience and a Texan with a lifetime love for Mexico. The opinions expressed are his own. He may be contacted through his web site at SMAguru.com.