Vigilance, Diplomacy Key to Preventing ITU Internet Regulations, Says Verveer

Verveer said he’s seeing “very substantial support” for the broad views that the U.S. has about the Internet. The U.S. has “a good deal of support from Japan ... a good deal of support from Canada and Mexico ... and many of the European countries are aligned with us,” he said. He said he hopes the administration in June will name its head of delegation for the December World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT).

There’s “no daylight” between House Democrats and Republicans and the administration on the issue of Internet freedom and openness, said Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif. He and a bipartisan group of subcommittee members touted a recently introduced resolution to express Congress’s opposition to any proposal that would exert ITU control of the Internet in the WCIT (http://xrl.us/bm9vwo). HRes-127 urges the State and Commerce departments to convey the “consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet, free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet today."

"A vote for our resolution is a vote to keep the Internet free from government control and to prevent Russia, China, India and other nations from succeeding in giving the U.N. unprecedented power over Web content and infrastructure,” said Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., a sponsor of the resolution. “If this power grab is successful, I'm concerned that the next ‘Arab Spring’ will instead become a ‘Russian winter,’ where free speech is chilled, not encouraged.” The bill was co-sponsored by Waxman, Walden, Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell reiterated his opposition (CD May 31 p3) to proposals from Russia, China and other nations to create an international code of conduct that would set international norms and rules for countries’ behavior concerning information and cyberspace (http://xrl.us/bm9xwf). “Does anyone here today believe that these countries’ proposals would encourage the continued proliferation of an open and freedom-enhancing Internet?” he asked. “Or would such constructs make it easier for authoritarian regimes to identify and silence political dissidents?” McDowell warned lawmakers about a Russian Federation proposal to give ITU jurisdiction over Internet Protocol addresses to address the looming shortage of phone numbers (http://xrl.us/bm9xvi).

Russian President Vladimir Putin has advocated establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the ITU (http://xrl.us/bm9x42). Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., colorfully voiced his opposition to any Russian governance proposal. “When I hear comments from Vladimir Putin saying international regulation over the Internet is one of [his] stated goals. ... I want to put [him] on notice that when it comes to regulating the Internet, the answer is ‘nyet.'"

Verveer said the ITU successfully “turned back” the Russian Federation’s effort to create a new framework for international telecom regulations that could directly regulate the Internet. “It seemed to us to be remarkably dangerous and undisciplined to throw open this whole thing and say to the treaty conference ‘let’s start over, let’s start a whole new treaty for telecommunications,'” he told us. Verveer urged vigilance against such proposals, which he said could return in some form or another. He told lawmakers the motivation behind such proposals from Russia and China stems from their desire for regime stability and regime preservation. McDowell suggested “totalitarian” regimes hope to “snuff out” political dissent. Eshoo warned against villainizing other nations who seek to broaden the scope of Internet governance into the international sphere. “I don’t think this can be America against the rest of the world,” she said. “We need to form coalitions around the ideas that we know have worked.”

McDowell said the most troubling of the “small changes” proposed by ITU member nations was the Arab states’ proposal to change the International Telecommunication Regulations’ definition of “telecommunications” to include “processing” or computer functions. Such a proposal “swallows the Internet into ITU governance,” he said. McDowell also warned against any effort by foreign telecom companies to push for international mandates that would charge certain Web destinations on a per-click basis to fund the buildout of global broadband infrastructure. “That is a concern. We don’t need an international regulatory body to destroy the marketplace.”

Google Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf said he’s “very nervous” about the proposals being offered by ITU member states like Russia and China. He’s worried about the butterfly effect of even small changes to international policy regarding the Internet: “I do worry that small changes can be used and interpreted in ways that could be quite deleterious to the utility of the Internet.”