Lobbying among countries and various special interests to"take control"of the internet is intensifying in advance of the International Telecommunications Union(ITU)World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai next week.
The main purpose of the World Conference is to review the current International Telecommunication Regulations(ITRs),which serve as the binding global treaty intended to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of telecoms networks.
The last major changes to the ITRs were ratified in 1988,well before internet rose to prominence,now eclipsing the traditional telecoms structure.
A number of authoritarian countries therefore plan to use the conference to wrest control of the internet,making a case that has been pushed for more than a decade that it should be put under the control of a global organisation,such as the United Nations-controlled ITU.Failing that,the countries seek to win the right to control it even more tightly within their own borders.
The charge is being led by Russia,whose President Vladimir Putin has stated that it is a foreign policy goal of Russia–and its allies–to establish"international control over the internet"via the ITU.
Russia's original proposals claimed that,as the internet formed a"vitally important"part of the world's telecoms infrastructure,it should be put under the auspices of the ITU.Its plans proposed that:
"Member States shall have the sovereign right to regulate the activities of operating agencies providing Internet access services within their national territory......the sovereign right to manage the Internet within their national territory,as well as to manage national Internet domain names....should ensure that administrations and operating agencies cooperate with the aim of developing the Internet within their national territory....should ensure that administrations and operating agencies cooperate with the aim of maintaining the security,integrity and reliable operation of the national Internet segment."
If accepted,the proposals would have represented a power grab,not just by the UN-controlled ITU,but also by states such as Russia,bidding to take full control of the internet and all the traffic that might pass through the internet in their territorial jurisdiction.
After those proposals were leaked,Russia amended them in order to water them down,but they amounted to pretty much the same thing–national control of the internet.
However,Russia is just one among many authoritarian countries seeking to exert greater national control of the internet,its operations and the traffic that passes through the internet within their territory.
A grouping of Arab states has also advocated universal identification of internet users,while others are demanding that content providers,such as the BBC and Google,pay for transmission–not end users.
Taking control
The ITU itself has been leading efforts to take control of the internet on behalf of countries such as Russia,China and others.At a"senior management retreat"in September,intended to thrash out the organisation's strategy,it highlighted the likelihood that the conference consensus would probably support ITU control,as well as major changes to the ITRs that the US would oppose.
Many countries already impose stiff controls on internet usage and engage in widespread surveillance of users to a lesser or greater extent.Indeed,for users in some 40 countries,the internet is so tightly controlled that it amounts to a de facto"walled garden".
Russia now has laws that allow the government to order a website offline without even a court hearing,while China routinely blocks access to websites that might disseminate information unfavourable to the government.
But the proposals at the conference will formalise government control and facilitate the development of standards to tighten control.
However,global debate among those most affected by the plans–ordinary internet users–has been stifled by the traditional secrecy surrounding proposals submitted to the ITU.These are not published in advance and debate among non-participants is deliberately stifled,not encouraged.
The ITU's secrecy prompted the establishment of a WCIT-leaks.com website by activists Jerry Brito and Eli Dourado,where many of the proposals have been published.
"Access to preparatory reports,as well as proposed modifications to the ITRs,is limited to ITU member states and a few other privileged parties.This leaves civil society groups,and the public in general,in the dark,"Brito and Dourado claim on the site.
Writing recently in the New York Times,internet legend Vint Cerf wrote:"The'net prospered precisely because governments–for the most part–allowed the Internet to grow organically,with civil society,academia,private sector and voluntary standards bodies collaborating on development,operation and governance.In contrast,the ITU creates significant barriers to civil society participation."
In the past,a failure to reach unanimous agreement at the ITU has resulted in vague"agreements to cooperate",rather than binding global agreements.
Underscoring concerns about a political takeover of the internet another UN agency,the Internet Governance Forum(IGF)2012,was hosted in Baku,Azerbaijan,a country effectively controlled by the Aliyev family under one of the most repressive regimes in the world.
The IGF was founded by the United Nations with the aim of fostering"bring[ing]people together from various stakeholder groups as equals,in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet".
The UN stakes its claim to the internet under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on freedom of opinion and expression,despite the fact that a majority of UN members manifestly do not respect freedom of opinion and expression,while those that do are arguably going backwards.
And hosting an IGF summit in Azerbaijan,of all places,underlines just how much respect both the UN and the IGF actually accords such high ideals.
