No subject

e engineers who designed it and who continue to enhance and extend its capa=
bilities. The core standards and protocols are overseen by the Internet Eng=
ineering Task Force. Website domain names and IP addresses are registered b=
y ICANN. And the constant redesign of the Web itself is the job of the Worl=
d Wide Web Consortium. These are all multi-stakeholder, non-governmental or=
ganizations, beholden only to the over two billion Internet users around th=
e world.=0A=
=0A=
It=92s not much of a stretch to say that the Internet works as well as it d=
oes precisely because it has managed to stay largely immune from interferen=
ce and oversight from traditional governments=97slow-moving, expensive, sec=
retive, jealous, partisan governments.=0A=
=0A=
You know, like the U.N.=0A=
=0A=
But dramatic changes to that governance model are now being proposed by a d=
angerous coalition of repressive national governments, highly-regulated ove=
rseas telephone companies, and the ITU itself. All of them would like to se=
e the agency=92s authority over the Internet expand, albeit for different r=
easons.=0A=
=0A=
Countries like Russia, Iran, and China hope to co-opt the ITU into an agenc=
y that provides cover for their long-standing efforts to censor Internet co=
ntent. The phone companies, meanwhile, are using the WCIT process to propos=
e new ways to tax the most popular Internet content, nearly all of which or=
iginates in the U.S.=0A=
=0A=
And the ITU itself is hoping to wrest power from the existing engineering-d=
riven organizations, hoping that countries hostile to the U.S. will help th=
em gain some measure of authority over core Internet functions, including a=
ddressing, naming, security and standards.=0A=
=0A=
Success for the ITU and its members on any of these fronts would mean disas=
ter for Internet users worldwide. Because the Internet has done such a good=
 job of governing itself, traditional regulators including the ITU know nex=
t to nothing about its basic technology=96packet-switched networks, settlem=
ent-free peering, and IP over everything. So even if the agency grants itse=
lf minimal new authority, it could never exercise it in an informed, timely=
 and non-partisan basis.=0A=
=0A=
That should have been reason enough to make ITU members skeptical about ste=
pping into such deeply technical waters.=0A=
=0A=
But it hasn=92t. As Americans learned in last year=92s fight over SOPA and =
PIPA, and as advocates around the world continue to discover in protests ov=
er secret global intellectual property treaties including ACTA and the Tran=
s Pacific Partnership, a lack of expertise with the technologies being regu=
lated is no obstacle for would-be regulators. Especially when they see an o=
pportunity to reassert their relevance, and in the process tap a new vein o=
f taxable activities.=0A=
=0A=
That=92s precisely what=92s going on in the run-up to WCIT. As its traditio=
nal areas of oversight have migrated to the Internet, the ITU is increasing=
ly without much to do. And international regulatory bodies, like nature, ab=
hor a vacuum. So subtly and explicitly, the ITU is looking for ways in whic=
h it can extend its authority to the only communications platform that has =
much of a future=97the Internet.=0A=
=0A=
And it has plenty of allies, many of whom would like to see the Internet di=
sappear and who see the ITU as a preferable alternative to an Internet gove=
rned by its users.=0A=
=0A=
The Worst of the Worst Proposals Reveal Potential for Disaster at WCIT=0A=
=0A=
The worst proposals so far offered by ITU members would expand the scope of=
 the ITRs from establishing general rules for international interchange to =
a set of mandatory content-based regulations imposed on member states.=0A=
=0A=
These proposals, supported by Russia, China, and several Arab nations, woul=
d require extensive network engineering changes that would give national go=
vernments an easy way to act as gatekeeper to Internet traffic coming in or=
 out of their citizen=92s computers. Though the proposals are characterized=
 as combating malware, spam, or other inappropriate content, they are clear=
ly aimed at providing U.N. cover for expanded censorship by national govern=
ments.=0A=
=0A=
Evidence of elaborate and extensive Internet censorship, much of it politic=
ally-motivated, is not hard to find in many of these countries already. Egy=
pt, of course, shut down Internet connections during its popular uprising. =
China makes little effort to hide its =93great firewall.=94=0A=
=0A=
And Russia recently enacted new legislation that gives the central governme=
nt extensive new powers to block content deemed =93extremist.=94 Within wee=
ks, the government had used the hastily-enacted law to block all content fr=
om LiveJournal, the country=92s most popular blogging site.=0A=
=0A=
Russia in particular has been unapologetic about its ambitions for ITU cove=
r. Last year, during a meeting between Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Puti=
n and ITU Secretary-General Toure, Putin bluntly told Toure that Russia was=
 keen on the idea of =93establishing international control over the Interne=
t using the monitoring and supervisory capability of the International Tele=
communications Union.=94=0A=
=0A=
European Telcos Double Down on Dangerous=0A=
=0A=
The U.S. delegation, led by Ambassador Terry Kramer, has made it clear that=
 it will fight all content-based expansions of ITU power. =93The United Sta=
tes,=94 according to a document released last week, =93will oppose efforts =
to broaden the scope of the ITRs to empower any censorship of content or im=
pede the free flow of information and ideas.=94=0A=
=0A=
Anti-speech proposals, however, are getting unintended support from members=
 hoping to hijack WCIT for economic gain, granting new regulatory powers to=
 the ITU in the process. In particular, a controversial proposal submitted =
by the European Telecommunications Network Operators=92 Association and mad=
e public by WCITLeaks, has been gaining traction.=0A=
=0A=
ETNO describes its proposal as a response to =93the challenges of the new I=
nternet economy and the principles that fair compensation is received for c=
arried traffic.=94 In essence, it wants the ITU to oversee new taxes for ne=
twork operations in heavily-regulated European markets=96taxes that would b=
e paid by the most popular providers of Internet content.=0A=
=0A=
Specifically, ETNO wants the ITRs changed to require member states and thei=
r private network operators to implement a =93sending-party-network-pays=94=
 model, in which content providers and their ISPs would pay overseas networ=
k operators for data requested by their own subscribers, at rates establish=
ed by the receiving network and enforced by the ITU. The ETNO proposal woul=
d effectively tax popular content providers, including Google, YouTube, Fac=
ebook and others for the privilege of reaching non-U.S. Internet users.=0A=
=0A=
In some sense, ETNO is trying to impose a Frankenstein version of the long-=
standing and deeply corrupt settlement regime for international long distan=
ce, where phone companies (many of them still wholly or partially owned gov=
ernment monopolies) establish and charge per minute rates for incoming call=
s from other countries.=0A=
=0A=
That system didn=92t even work for long-distance, which relies on dedicated=
 circuits and was thus easy to track and to meter. Many countries set absur=
dly high rates on incoming calls, gouging foreigners, many of them expatria=
tes calling home. Often, the rationale for these charges was that the money=
 would build better communications infrastructure for developing nations. B=
ut much of the net settlement money disappeared in the slush funds of corru=
pt regimes.=0A=
=0A=
The ETNO proposal has been roundly criticized by technology and engineering=
 groups. Now, in a detailed report published last week, ISOC takes strong e=
xception to the technical and business merits of the proposal, which it dis=
misses as an attempt at =93importing the compensation schemes, scams and ar=
bitrage that plague the traditional communications model to the Internet.=
=94=0A=
=0A=
It=92s actually worse than that. What ETNO proposes is the reverse of the f=
ailed long-distance system. Under the long-distance settlements process, th=
e calling party pays for the call=97at rates established by the receiving t=
elco. Under ETNO=92s sending-party-network pays scheme, however, the networ=
k that responds to a local user=92s request for data will be required to pa=
y the receiving network for the privilege of supplying it. When a local use=
r requests a (free) YouTube video, in other words, the cost of fulfilling t=
hat request would be borne by the network that answered the call.=0A=
=0A=
Even if it made good business sense, the ETNO proposal, according to ISOC, =
would be =93extremely expensive to implement.=94 That=92s in part because m=
ost exchanges between networks rely on settlement-free peering arrangements=
, many of which aren=92t even in writing. And unlike the dedicated circuit =
of a phone call, the packet-switching architecture of the Internet, compris=
ed of some 40,000 smaller networks, makes it impossible to keep track of ho=
w and from what pathways a response travels.=0A=
=0A=
According to ISOC, =93retro-fitting a =91sender pays=92 settlement regime t=
o the Internet is not possible without extensive changes to the infrastruct=
ure of the global Internet.=94=0A=
=0A=
ISOC is also concerned that the ETNO proposal, on the surface, may be attra=
ctive to developing nations, who have largely lost the ability to tax inter=
national long distance calls. Since the ITRs were last modified in 1988, Sk=
ype, Google Voice and other IP-based phone services have turned the long-di=
stance model on its head. Increasingly, phone calls are just another form o=
f data traveling over the Internet.=0A=
=0A=
Developing nations may see sending-party-network-pays as a return to the go=
od old days. But the more likely outcome is that content providers will sim=
ply refuse requests from countries where the expected revenue from its user=
s (e-commerce, ad revenue, subscriptions) is less than the cost imposed by =
the receiving network. As the ISOC report puts it, =93Sending-party-network=
-pays could therefore reinforce and make much worse the existing =91digital=
 divide.=92=94 Countries who today may largely be requesting content withou=
t providing much in return may find their citizens cut off.=0A=
=0A=
The WCIT Mantra: =93Please Regulate My Rival=94=0A=
=0A=
Despite a firestorm of criticism over the ETNO proposal, the organization c=
ontinues to insist on the =93need for a new eco-system for the Internet,=94=
 one that recognizes an =93increasing role for the ITU=94 in global IT issu=
es. Sources within the WCIT process confirm that ETNO is working hard to bu=
ild a coalition of countries who might benefit economically or politically =
from its proposal, including some who don=92t fully understand the differen=
ces between telephone calls and Internet transit.=0A=
=0A=
So it=92s worth asking why ETNO=92s European telco members are so determine=
d to extract tribute from largely U.S.-based Internet companies, perhaps at=
 great harm to their own subscribers and those of other countries that are =
net importers of content.=0A=
=0A=
In part the answer comes from the failure of Europe=92s internal scheme for=
 micromanaging prices that incumbent wireline operators charge for access t=
o their networks by local competitors. ETNO members operate under a highly-=
constrained set of rules that its members believe make it impossible to jus=
tify investment in next-generation networks, including fiber optics and adv=
anced mobile protocols such as LTE.=0A=
=0A=
Recently, in fact, the EU=92s top technology regulator acknowledged the uni=
ntended disincentives of EU communications regulations and vowed to fix the=
m. In a briefing on proposed changes to EU policy, Neelie Kroes, Vice-Presi=
dent of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda, acknowl=
edged that current regulations were too invasive and effectively picked tec=
hnology winners. She proposed changes that would make is possible for landl=
ine, cable, and mobile networks to compete more freely.=0A=
=0A=
=93[W]e cannot predict with any certainty what the best technological solut=
ions will be, nor how they will compete and interact,=94 Kroes said. =93Inc=
remental solutions may help to address weak demand in the short term =96 fo=
r example, new technology combining fiber and copper, or upgrading TV cable=
, can be very cost-effective in delivering higher download capacity.=94=0A=
=0A=
For now, faced with a crushing burden of internal regulation, ETNO is looki=
ng to the ITU to make life equally difficult for everyone else. The =93send=
ing-party-network-pays=94 proposal, in the end, is an archetypal example of=
 what FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell recently called the =93please regula=
te my rival=94 approach to policy change.=0A=
=0A=
McDowell sees the ETNO proposal specifically as a dangerous move to make ot=
her network operators suffer the same limitations that plague them. =93I ca=
n=92t imagine why network operators would consciously surrender their auton=
omy to negotiate commercial agreements to an international regulator,=94 Mc=
Dowell said in a recent speech. Unless, that is, they have been =93regulate=
d too much and for too long=94 to think of any other way out of their own p=
redicament.=0A=
=0A=
McDowell, who was among the first to warn the Internet community of a poten=
tially catastrophic outcome for WCIT, also connects the dots between ETNO=
=92s economic proposals and the political objectives of some ITU member nat=
ions. To be effective, the ETNO proposal would require =93an intrusive new =
mechanism for recording Internet traffic flows on the basis of the value of=
 traffic delivery, presumably determined by the ITU,=94 McDowell said.=0A=
=0A=
=93Such expanded =91monitoring capabilities=92 for the ITU fit perfectly in=
to Mr. Putin=92s vision of the Internet of the future,=94 he said.=0A=
=0A=
For his part, ITU Secretary-General Toure told a Brazilian interviewer that=
 he =93welcomed=94 the ETNO proposal. As for McDowell, Toure dismissed his =
criticisms, noting that the ITU, unlike the FCC, operates on a =93consensus=
=94 model.=0A=
=0A=
But that will come as cold comfort in December to billions of Internet user=
s, when a secretive UN agency will convene a rogue=92s gallery of repressiv=
e governments and economic opportunists, closes its doors, and decides the =
future of a technology it knows nothing about.=0A=
=0A=
That is, unless Internet users around the world wake up and put a stop to t=
his nonsense.=0A=
=0A=
###=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
_______________________________________________=0A=
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed=0A=
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society=0A=
Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org=0A=