[kictanet] Who controls the internet?

[McTim]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Omo, John <Omo at cck.go.ke> wrote:
> Thanks Nd Kivuva. Somehow, I didn't receive Nd Ali's response to mine which
> you seem to have responded to and for which I thank you.
>
> CCK had posted the AfCPs inviting views in order to prepare for the Ghana
> meeting and also the meeting in Dubai. We indicated that we subscribed to
> the same, having contributed to their development. There was also a request
> that we study Proposals from other Regions. Further, there was a promise
> then, and still is, that CCK would convene a meeting of Stakeholders before
> the meeting in Dubai. Giving or taking credit for pushing Government on its
> views on ITRs is inappropriate when the initiative was itself from
> Government/CCK.
>
> To date, much of what I hear is not on substantive input,

My "substantive input" is identical to the position of the Internet
Society, so I am re-posting that below since I am not in nairobi these
days:


---------------


"The Internet Society remains hopeful that the ITU Member State
delegations to the WCIT will agree to a treaty that enhances rather
than restricts international telecommunications.  As the Chair of the
Internet Society Board of Trustees recently stated,

“The Internet Society believes that the International
Telecommunication Regulations should contain high level principles and
that revisions should focus on things that have clearly worked in the
field of global communications: competition, privatization, and
transparent and independent regulation.  It is our sincere hope that
revisions to the ITRs will not interfere with the continued innovation
and evolution of telecommunications networks and the Internet.” [ISOC
- Board]

Our contribution to the WCIT strives to outline a positive way forward
for the ITRs; to emphasize the things that have worked in the field of
telecommunications; to make a case for why the Internet should not
fall within the scope of the ITRs; and, to highlight specific
proposals where the Internet Society has strong positions.   We
contribute to this process with a strong hope that the results of the
WCIT will enable the continuing growth and innovation of international
telecommunications but also with significant concerns that, if care is
not taken, the outcome of the WCIT could undermine the innovative
potential of networks worldwide.

We respectfully request ITU Member States’ consideration of the
Internet Society’s contribution and we stand ready to play our part in
the process and to assist governments as they prepare for this
important conference.
Changes since 1988
Since 1988, the technology, providers, users, and regulators of
telecommunication networks and services have changed in ways that
would have been unimaginable to delegates who attended the World
Administrative Telegraphy and Telephone Conference (WATTC) in
Melbourne. A wave of privatization and competition in the 1990s
replaced many of the traditional government monopolies that dominated
the international telecommunications landscape in 1988, paving the way
for lower prices, new services, and greater connectivity.  Regulatory
reforms like the introduction of independent regulators, rules to
promote and safeguard competition, and greater transparency in the
regulatory process have all served to benefit the public interest and
contributed significantly to the growth in telecommunications the
world over.  In 2011, an Analysys Mason report underscored the
importance of competition and transparent policy frameworks in
supporting broadband deployment in Sub-Saharan Africa [Analysys
Mason].  Indeed, the 2010 ITU-D Hyderabad Declaration emphasized the
role that fair, transparent, stable, predictable, and
non-discriminatory legal and regulatory environments have in promoting
competition and affordable access [ITU-D]. WCIT-12 is an opportunity
to build on the 1988 ITRs and to apply the lessons learned in the
years since then to further expand access to international
telecommunications infrastructure.

There is still more work to be done to lower connectivity costs and to
expand the benefits of communications to all people, and to this end
there are many important policy lessons we can learn from the past 25
years.   The concepts of competition, regulatory independence, and the
engagement of all stakeholders in transparent governance would be an
excellent starting point for any revision to the treaty.  Further, the
ITRs should enshrine a commitment to the use of open and voluntary
international standards in support of global interoperability.
Finally, we note that the 1988 ITRs were short, concise, and at a
sufficiently high level to serve the Member States of the ITU for
nearly a quarter of a century without being revised.  We encourage ITU
Member States to retain the high level nature of the ITRs and resist
the temptation to lock in specific business or commercial models,
technologies or regulatory approaches that will likely not withstand
the test of time.
The Internet is Different
People around the world have come to interact and communicate in ways
that were unimaginable to negotiators at WATTC. Although the Internet
was already nearly 20 years old in 1988, it was still a little known
research-driven network with limited impact on the world’s population.
 Since 1988, the Internet has grown into a major force in the worlds
economic and political systems, as well as in how people live, work
and play.  With over 2 billion users worldwide, the Internet still has
huge capacity for growth and users have tremendous opportunities today
to leverage the technology to develop game-changing innovations that
could radically change the communications landscape once again.  In
economic terms, a recent report from McKinsey noted that the modern
Internet is integral to GDP growth, economic modernization, and job
creation, generating over 10 percent of GDP growth in the past 15
years in the countries studied [McKinsey]. The UNESCO and
ITU-organized Broadband Commission’s recent report highlighted the
myriad of ways that broadband access is transforming education,
health, government services, and finance [Broadband Commission].  And
yet, in many ways, society is only on the cusp of fully recognizing
and integrating the Internet’s full potential.

The Internet Society fundamentally believes that the growth of the
Internet is good for humanity.  Globally interconnected networks have
empowered citizens, transformed economies and brought enormous
benefits to communities worldwide.  The expansion of
telecommunications networks throughout the 1980s and 1990s combined
with the ingenuity of the technical community, the liberalization of
policy frameworks worldwide, and a competitive marketplace for new
communication services all have contributed to the success of the
Internet.

At the same time, we that recognize greater global connectivity has
raised a host of new policy challenges for governments. Clearly,
developing countries face very real economic challenges in bridging
the digital divide. Throughout the WCIT preparatory process,
governments have raised important concerns about spam, security, and
connectivity costs. We understand and, in some cases, share these
concerns; however, we do not believe that a binding intergovernmental
treaty is the best mechanism to solve these complex and evolving
issues.  The reality is that technology moves faster than any treaty
process ever can.  It is also important to recognize that there is
rarely a one-size-fits-all solution to the kinds of policy challenges
outlined above. Local policy environments, market conditions, and the
development context are important factors in any policy process.
Solutions need to work locally.

In light of this, we encourage governments to work through a
multistakeholder process to develop flexible policy solutions that
both support innovation and stand the test of time.  In our
experience, global, regional, and national Internet policies that work
harmoniously with the Internet are more effective in developing
solutions that are both responsive and effective.  Policymakers, the
Internet community, the donor community, industry, civil society and
users all need to work together to tackle these challenges.

Some have questioned whether the modern Internet is sustainable in
light of ever-increasing demands for new data intensive services,
whether there remain sufficient incentives for further investment, and
assuming the negative, wonder whether the WCIT provides an opportunity
to address these challenges through regulation.  There have been
assertions that new global regulations are needed in order to preserve
the revenue streams for some players and to prevent an impending
collapse of the global Internet.  These are not new claims.  Indeed,
fears about the sustainability of the Internet have come and gone over
the history of the Internet as market forces bring about new kinds of
investments, pioneering technologies, and innovative business models.
It is the very nature of the Internet – a distributed and open network
of networks – that enables this kind of innovation and evolution.
Indeed, as a recent report by the OECD on Internet traffic exchange
concludes, “the Internet model of traffic exchange has produced low
prices, promoted efficiency and innovation, and attracted the
investment necessary to keep pace with demand”  [OECD]. The last thing
governments should do is lock-in a regulatory approach that may have
significant and unpredictable negative consequences for the ability of
networks to evolve, for new services to come about, for new businesses
to be formed worldwide.

In short, the Internet Society does not believe that a new
treaty-based global regulatory approach that seeks to regulate how IP
networks are managed, to alter network architecture, and/or to
determine how commercial agreements between network operators should
be conducted is good for the long term prospects of a global, open
Internet that benefits everyone [ISOC - Interconnection].  Rather,
policymakers should focus on policy approaches that have clearly
worked to enable the growth in communications to date – competitive
markets, liberalization, reliance on open standards, support for the
free flow of information, and multistakeholder dialogue.
Internet Society Perspectives
While we think that there may be opportunities for useful revisions to
the ITRs to reflect changes in the international telecommunications
sector since 1988, we have deep concerns that some of the proposals to
the WCIT would have serious negative implications for the global
Internet. In our view, it is impossible to draw analogies between the
traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and the Internet
because the basic concepts, architecture, and operation are very
different. The current ITRs were produced with the PSTN in mind. By
explicitly or implicitly extending some of the current articles and
related approaches to cover the Internet, and, using seemingly similar
terms and concepts, there is a great danger of misinterpretation and
confusion.

In this regard, we have identified a number of proposals that we
believe could undermine the security, stability, and innovative
potential of networks worldwide.  Yet there are also some proposals
and updates to the treaty that we believe could enable growth and
support continued innovation.  Below, we outline the Internet
Society’s position on several key proposals that have been submitted
to date.  This list is not inclusive of all proposals on which the
Internet Society may have views.

Scope of application of ITRs – Operating Agency  / Recognized Operating Agency
Recognizing that the ITRs are a binding treaty between ITU Member
States, the Internet Society believes that the ITRs and the
obligations they convey should only apply to Member States as
signatories to the treaty.  Further, we believe that replacing the
current term “Recognized Operating Agencies” with the term “Operating
Agencies” throughout the ITRs would broaden the scope of the treaty to
a wide range of companies and services not currently covered by the
regulations.

ISOC supports application of ITRs to Member States and use of the term
Recognized Operating Agency.

Voluntary Nature of ITU-T Recommendations
The Internet Society believes that all ITU-T Recommendations should
continue to be voluntary and should not be elevated to a mandatory
status or codified in any treaty.  Further, we believe that voluntary
open standards processes built on cooperation, consensus, transparency
and due process are the most effective way to support interconnection
and interoperability.
ISOC supports: MOD 1.4 References to CCITT ITU-T Recommendations in
these Regulations are not to be taken as giving to those
Recommendations the same legal status as the Regulations.

Private Commercial Arrangements

The Internet architecture does not conform to national boundaries.
The ITRs should recognize that the global interconnection marketplace
is highly diverse, constantly changing, and driven by contractual
commercial agreements between operators as well as by technological
changes. Together these factors contribute to a highly flexible global
Internet interconnection market where IP traffic moves via the most
commercially efficient route possible.

ISOC supports MOD 1.5… the provision and operation of international
telecommunication services in each relation is pursuant to mutual
agreement between Administrations Recognized Operating Agencies.

We do not support international, treaty-level regulation of private
commercial agreements. Countries need the flexibility to set domestic
policies that reflect local market conditions rather than locked-in,
one-size-fits-all, global regulations that may have broad, unintended
consequences. There are, in fact, many standards bodies involved in
the technical work that facilitates interconnection  - some, like the
ITU-T or the IETF are global in nature while others are highly
localized such as the regional Network Operator Groups.  It is also
the case that there is a tremendous amount of interaction and
collaboration between the various groups, all in support of global
interconnection and global interoperability.

ISOC does not support new provisions to regulate IP interconnection
via the ITRs (i.e. new definitions in Article 2 and new provisions
related to IP interconnection in Article 3, 4 and 6).

Definitions of Telecommunication and International Telecommunication

The Internet Society believes that the definitions of
“telecommunication” and “International Telecommunication” should not
change.  These terms have been clearly defined within the ITU context
as part of the ITU Constitution and Convention.

ISOC supports NOC 2.1 and 2.2.

Addition of ICT to the ITRs

Adding ICT (telecom/ICT) throughout the treaty could significantly
broaden the scope of the treaty beyond international
telecommunications networks.  As ITU Resolution 140 notes, the term
ICTs is not defined in the ITU context.  In fact, study activities in
the ITU-D have begun in order to craft a working definition of ICTs.
In particular, we are concerned that the term ICTs could be understood
to include IP networks, content, equipment, and services which would
not be appropriate or even workable in the ITRs.

ISOC does not support inclusion of a new term, Telecommunication/ICT
in the ITRs.

Addition of provisions related to spam

ISOC understands that spam continues to be a technical, economic and
security challenge for many countries, and we have prepared an
information sheet that includes a sampler of policy and technical
resources for countries to use should they wish to tackle this
difficult problem [ISOC - spam].  We do not, however, believe that it
is appropriate to include issues related to spam in the treaty, as
this would dangerously extend the treaty into areas of content,
potentially impacting free expression online.

ISOC supports multistakeholder approaches to spam rather than treaty provisions.

Role of competition

Competition in the provision of international telecommunications
services has been a key driver in lowering network connectivity costs
and expanding access worldwide.  The Internet Society believes that it
would be useful to include concepts of competition and market
liberalization in the updated treaty.

ISOC Supports MOD 3.2 Administrations Member States shall endeavor to
provide encourage the provision of sufficient telecommunication
facilities to meet the requirements of and demand for international
telecommunication services inter alia through the fostering of
competitive and liberalised telecommunication markets.

Quality of Service

A number of proposals for new ITR provisions or modifications to
existing provisions (i.e. Articles 3.1, new 3.1b, 3.4, new 4.7)
related to quality of service suggest that internationally mandated
network management and configuration parameters/standards will allow
for network development, better traffic management and routing, and
will bring down costs. To the extent that these proposals relate to
quality of service on the Internet, we note that the Internet
architecture and traffic flows are not architected like circuit
switched telecommunications networks.  Proposals to overlay
architectural and traffic flow standards/parameters on the Internet
would fundamentally change the nature of interconnection and transport
and increase the cost of traffic termination.

ISOC does not support proposals in Article 2, 3 or 6 to define or
mandate IP interconnection quality of service.

Traffic Routing

Some proposals suggest that Member States have the right to know how
traffic is being routed to their countries. To the extent that these
proposals refer to Internet traffic routing, ISOC reiterates the point
that routing in the Internet does not conform to national boundaries
and is very dynamic by nature, which is the basis of its resiliency.
Networks often span across national boundaries, and data packets
usually cross three-to-five networks leaving no footprint on the
networks travelled over to reach their destination [ISOC -
Interconnection].

ISOC does not support ITR regulations as applied to IP traffic routing.

Naming, Numbering and Addressing

A number of Member States have identified issues related to telephone
number misuse as a key issue for the WCIT.  ISOC understands that
ITU-T Study Group 2 has done significant work to address the misuse of
E.164 numbers, including producing the E.157 Recommendation on
International calling party number delivery [ITU-T].  However, other
proposals to the WCIT appear to address issues beyond the resources
for which the ITU has responsibility, namely, E.164 numbers.  The
proposed inclusion of the term ICT into the treaty further underscores
our concern that WCIT proposals related to naming, numbering and
addressing would, in fact, extend the scope of the treaty to include
Internet naming, numbering and IP addressing resource management. In
some cases, proposals explicitly call for government control of these
resources.  We note that resource management for Internet naming,
numbering and addressing has well-established, multistakeholder
governance structures and policy development processes. The Internet
Society does not support ITR Regulations related to Internet naming,
numbering or addressing.

ISOC supports: ADD 3.4 Member States should encourage the appropriate
use of those numbering resources which are the responsibility and
remit of the ITU, in order that they are used only for the purposes
for which they were assigned. Member States shall endeavour to ensure
that resources, which are the responsibility and remit of the ITU, are
not used until they are assigned.

Cybersecurity

Policymakers are understandably focused on issues related to the
security, stability, and reliability of the communications
infrastructure.  However, security is a multi-faceted issue that
brings together a host of stakeholders, including the technical
community, industry, civil society, end-users, regulators, law
enforcement, etc.  Thus, we do not believe that the ITRs are the place
to settle issues related to cybersecurity.  Consistent with our view
that the ITRs should remain high-level, it is possible for the treaty
to recognize the need for Member States to cooperate with all
stakeholders to address telecommunications network security.  In the
end, any text in the ITRs related to security should be narrowly
focused on international telecommunications networks, should not
involve content or information security, should avoid topics related
to law enforcement or national security, and should be fully
consistent with Member State commitments under the UN Declaration on
Human Rights.

ISOC only supports inclusion of provisions in the ITRs as related to
furthering the robustness of international telecommunication networks.
Proposals related to national defense, national security, content, and
cybercrime should be out of scope for the ITRs."

-------------------



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel