[kictanet] The Hypocrisy Threatening the Future of the Internet

[Alice Munyua]

Another view

best
Alice
----------------------------------------

http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/904/


The Hypocrisy Threatening the Future of the Internet
by Jean-Christophe Nothias - Editor NOVEMBER 22, 2012


The upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications 
(WCIT-12) in Dubai looms as a moment of truth for the Internet’s 
governing rules and economic model. In all, representatives of 193 
countries will come together to review the International 
Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) agreed in Melbourne 25 years ago.

The United States (US) government, a leading voice in the sector, is 
strongly opposed to any changes to the treaty (itself an update of an 
earlier agreement), arguing the Internet has nothing to do with 
‘traditional’ telecommunications, and – more ominously – that freedom is 
at stake. In contrast to this ‘no changes proposed’ plan, other member 
states are likely to bring different perspectives and ideas to feed into 
discussions at the 11-day December event, which will be moderated by the 
International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a specialized United 
Nations (UN) agency. The fight is growing increasingly vocal, while 
raising questions of concern to all about the overwhelming power of the 
US in relation to the Internet and the need for structural re-balancing.

Before looking at the critical proposals to be discussed in Dubai, as 
well as the arguments now flooding the public sphere, however, let’s 
first survey the battlefield where this war is raging.

The ITU Secretariat itself has no power to propose amendments to the 
ITR, nor has the organization expressed a desire to control the 
Internet. The ITU, as an institution, has the power to adopt amendments, 
on the basis of consensus of the membership. As a UN body, the ITU’s DNA 
is rooted in notions of human rights and human development, alongside a 
technical cooperation mandate. None of this would allow room for a power 
grab. In fact, the ITU is focused on reaching out to voting member 
states, as well as other concerned players, in order to facilitate an 
honest, fair-play approach to international telecommunications regulation.

All member states have had the right to circulate proposals to be 
discussed in Dubai. Each has also been encouraged to launch national 
consultation processes prior to WCIT-12. The ITU itself has shared 
preparatory documents online, and initiated a public forum to collect 
comments and proposals from any interested party. The agency represents 
a large and open coordinating point where not only governments, but also 
over 500 private sector entities, members of academia and civil society 
have been preparing the debate to come. It is noticeable, however, that 
the most influential non-government player – Google – has never sought 
to become a consulting member, and in fact has declined several 
invitations from the ITU Secretariat to do so. At this stage, nobody is 
able to say with any certainty which proposals, often dramatically 
opposed, will be adopted at the conference, with any treaty amendments 
requiring a simple majority.

Five key issues form the focus of international wrangling ahead of 
WCIT-12: net neutrality, payment principles for senders and receivers, 
control, cyber security and censorship, even though the last three are 
not on the agenda. Despite the headline-grabbing implications of the 
latter, however, it is the first two that shape as perhaps the most 
critical to the future of the Internet as we know it.

At the most basic level, ‘net neutrality’ refers to non-discrimination 
in transiting data packets. The Internet today is going through critical 
transformations that threaten to create, if left unaddressed, issues of 
even greater magnitude. For years, data delivery was based on a ‘best 
effort’ principle – every connected network operator would do their best 
to transfer data, with no timing guarantee, defined hierarchy, nor 
specific quality requirement. Two major challenges, however, are now 
transforming the industry.

In the context of data, speed is money: all web-based businesses are 
well aware that speed improves end-user experience, and boosts revenues. 
On top of constant increases in traffic, video streaming has also 
emerged as a significant bandwidth consumer. Fierce competition is 
pushing the market to secure ‘quality of service’ guarantees around 
resolution, smooth play and start-up time. A portion of the data 
circulating today over the Internet will increasingly be subject to 
contractual commitments, and will need, therefore, to secure 
top-priority laissez-passer. Step by step, the speed issue is creating a 
split between ‘economy class’ data, and ‘premium’ and ‘first class’ 
data. Those with the money to pay will be able to afford the best speed 
and quality. For others, it will be a case of ‘we’ll take care of you 
when we have the available bandwidth.’

Arbitrage over which data goes first is an issue impacting all Internet 
users worldwide. Previously, this was not the case (and no one could 
complain) due to the ‘best-effort’ approach. It is clear to many of the 
Internet industry’s major players dealing with Content Delivery Networks 
(CDNs), Front End Optimization, a new protocol challenging the 30-year 
old Transmission Control Protocol and other emerging technologies, that 
the next competitive battleground is quality, and therefore the need for 
reserved bandwidth.

This will dramatically change the use of the Internet, as well as the 
revenue share between players. Another significant element of the ‘speed 
battle’ relates not to data flows, but to infrastructure capacities. We 
know that emerging and developing economies are already slow on their 
own infrastructure development, and facing challenging conditions to 
identify additional funds to build necessary facilities and purchase 
equipment to increase broadband access. A parallel infrastructure divide 
between broadband and non-broadband countries will exacerbate the split 
in data ‘classes.’ Similarly, revenues will inevitably follow technology 
– more to the rich, less to the poor.

Many proposals are on the table ahead of WCIT-12, and it would be 
meaningless to look into each, as only a few have a chance to achieve a 
voting majority. One idea by ETNO, the 50-member European 
Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association driving broadband 
growth in Europe, however, has gained some support and visibility from 
the ITU membership. African and Arab states have made proposals 
equivalent in intent, albeit using different language. ETNO's idea 
concerns Article 3 of the Melbourne treaty:

“Operating Agencies shall endeavor to provide sufficient 
telecommunications facilities to meet requirements of, and demand for, 
international telecommunication services. For this purpose, and to 
ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth 
infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial 
agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for 
telecommunications services and, where appropriate, respecting the 
principle of sending party network pays.”

A non-voting member of the ITU, ETNO can, like any other entity, defend 
and push its ideas to all member states. The organization’s argument 
appears reasonable in terms of principle, but is unacceptable to the US. 
A ‘paying sender’ principle would place the US in a premium position as 
a payer. The current situation is actually the opposite: in effect, a 
‘paying receiver’ system. When, for example, a citizen of Botswana uses 
Google’s search engine, the relevant operating agency of Botswana will 
ultimately have to pay the operator sending the data. Consequently, when 
a massive spam campaign is enacted, the consumption of bandwidth is 
assigned to the receivers. Few people realize that the largest share of 
spam is sent from servers based in the US. Naturally, these servers are 
paid for the service. Yet, this also creates a ‘consumption of 
bandwidth’ for the receivers, resulting in greater usage charges.

Critically, the connections between the approximately 40,000 autonomous 
servers at a global level are ruled by contractual agreements between 
operating agencies. All are linked to a national territory and must deal 
with the regulations in their home jurisdiction. The commercial 
agreements between operating agencies are secret. It is very difficult – 
if not impossible – for a journalist, academic or public official to 
access such information. While video pricing is known, we still have no 
clear picture of the revenues flowing from the interconnections between 
bandwidth operators.

Switching to a model that combines both principles – that is, where 
sending and receiving parties each contribute to infrastructure costs – 
would modify the distribution of revenues between operating agencies. 
Most significantly, American actors would have to pay other national 
operators. Part of the redistribution could be used to assist emerging 
and developing countries develop broadband infrastructure, reducing the 
technological deficit and boosting economic growth. Google – amongst 
other big senders – would be unable to continue using freely ‘collective 
global capital’ (the worldwide infrastructure network) for which it did 
not spend a penny. The fact that Google is building its own CDN centers 
is not comparable, albeit the company’s actions may indirectly help to 
resolve data ‘traffic jams’ by locating content closer to end users, and 
reducing the ‘journey’ of data packets. Amending the ITR to introduce a 
new payment approach would be revolutionary – a revolution not welcomed, 
however, by US interests.

Listening to the assembled US voices preaching against any changes at 
WCIT-12, a central argument is based around the notion of defending the 
Internet as a pure and perfect example of a democratic, decentralized 
system, allowing all users a controlling stake in some kind of balanced 
and participatory wonder. The old credo by David Clark in 1992 – “we 
reject presidents, kings and voting; we believe in rough consensus and 
running code” – is part of the web wonderland hagiography, but not 
reflective of today’s Internet reality. Even The Economist appears blind 
to the fairytale: “for something so central to the modern world, the 
Internet is shambolically governed. But sometimes chaos... is not 
disastrous: the Internet mostly works. And the shambles is a lot better 
than the alternative – which nearly always in this case means 
governments bringing the Internet under their control.” The Internet 
works because it operates according to agreed principles, rules and 
centralized control – one must maintain a clear-eyed perspective.

Amongst the voices speaking in foreboding terms of potential WCIT-12 
outcomes is Joe Waz, who co-wrote a blog in the Huffington Post with 
Phil Weiser, former Senior Advisor for Technology and Innovation to the 
National Economic Council’s Director at the White House, and now Dean of 
Law at the University of Colorado. “The least understood or appreciated 
factor in the Internet's growth and success is its amazing capacity for 
self-governance, and its ability to resist the traditional tools of 
government regulation.” This might be true when speaking about a web 
where users can create and participate in unlimited communities, 
websites or blogs, but this does not equate to control over the only 
critical command center of the Internet – its rooting system. Without 
the right IP, domain and link, the Internet goes nowhere.

Despite the fact that the US government never really owned the Internet, 
it ‘offered’ control of its backbone and policy-generating function to a 
private Californian association – the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers (ICANN) – that has engaged in activities representing 
“US governmental regulation in all but name” according to Michael Froomkin.

The first question one must ask is: how can you give something away that 
doesn’t belong to you? The second: how do you maintain control once 
you’ve handed it over to friendly private entities? By controlling the 
private entities one would assume! Having done so, the cherry on the 
cake would be announcing to the public at large that the transfer of 
control from governmental to private hands should be viewed as a great 
success story. This is what happened in 1998, despite fierce resistance 
from Jon Postel. As one of the founding fathers of the Internet and 
‘ruler’ of its early governance structure, Postel attempted to save the 
Internet from falling into the control of US government hands. Postel 
died, however, just weeks before the White House Special Advisor heading 
an ad hoc interagency task force on electronic commerce was able to 
claim full victory over the academics who were, until then, managing the 
central rooting system.

Postel entered the Internet Society’s (ISOC) Hall of Fame in 2011, along 
with Vint Cerf, Google’s ‘Chief Internet Evangelist’ and cardinal des 
basses oeuvres, now a key player in campaigning for the regulatory 
status quo. Ironically, Postel was nominated alongside Cerf. Similarly 
ironic – and tragic – was the fact that Ira Magaziner, the White House 
Special Advisor once depicted as Hillary Clinton’s ‘Rasputin’, deliver a 
speech at Postel’s memorial ceremony in Los Angeles in 1998, at the same 
time the US government officially transferred Internet governance powers 
to ICANN. Both Cerf and Magaziner were instrumental in the take-over. 
Foreseeing these developments, Postel himself had turned to the UN and 
ITU, but to no avail.

Constructing a fairytale usually requires a cast of ‘bad guys.’ Vladimir 
Putin declares that WCIT-12 should address Internet governance, and you 
get the plot line that Russia wants to control the Internet and its 
infrastructure networks. Ditto China. Finally, add the influence of Dr 
Hamadoun Touré, ITU’s Malian Secretary-General who received his PhD in 
the former USSR, to the mix. Now we have all the necessary threads to 
point to a thinly-disguised attempt by the dark forces of 
totalitarianism to seize cyber control in the best Cold War style. What 
a nice (paranoid) story – supported by no substantive evidence.

This brings us to the fourth issue identified at the outset – cyber 
security. Each of the US, Israel and Japan have developed official cyber 
military doctrines, though the US is by far the country with the largest 
budget devoted to digital or cyber war resources. Like air or naval 
power, the Pentagon has now added cyber power to its five major domains 
of military action. Eleanor Saitta, Technical Director of the 
International Modern Media Institute, has warned about the increasing 
militarization of the Internet. "Even as the 193 nations of the ITU meet 
in December, some will be silently unleashing state-sponsored cyber 
attacks upon each other, as well as mass surveillance and intervention 
targeting their own citizens".

The fifth issue is censorship. As most are aware, any country today has 
the ability to control its own cyberspace, blocking or censoring any of 
its citizens. At the same time, censorship of Internet-based speech has 
proven difficult, as recent global tumult toppling repressive government 
regimes has shown. A Russian and Chinese proposal for a code of conduct 
serves to both challenge the US, as well as attempt to add legal weight 
to Moscow and Beijing’s national censorship toolkits used to restrain 
citizen freedom. “It is obvious that this kind of proposal will have no 
support from the developed countries” acknowledges Alix Desforges, from 
the Institute Français de Géopolitique at Université Paris 8. “Today, 
countries prefer to sign bilateral agreements on security issues. We’re 
miles away from international cooperation.”

Touré himself emphasizes that according to the prevailing international 
regulatory framework, such national “restrictions are permitted by 
article 34 of the ITU’s Constitution, which provides that the 193 member 
states reserve the right to cut off, in accordance with their national 
law, any private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the 
security of the state, or contrary to its laws, to public order or to 
decency. And the International Telecommunications Regulations cannot 
contradict that provision, either.”

With the clock ticking down to Dubai, Cerf is very busy coordinating a 
global campaign against any revision of the ITR. Only a few days ago he 
was video-linking with Sharan Burrow and Paul Twomey before an audience 
of international correspondents based in London. Twomey is a former 
ICANN CEO and President (2003-09). In 1997, as CEO of the National 
Office for the Information Economy, an Australian government unit 
developing Internet policy, he befriended Magaziner, leading to his 
initial involvement with the nascent ICANN. The two later partnered in a 
consultancy called Argo P at cificLondon. Burrow, also an Australian, is 
the Secretary General of the International Trade Union Confederation 
(ITUC) – strangely, a group now fighting against revision of the 
Melbourne treaty.

“An unfettered internet, free of political control and available to 
everyone could be relegated to cyber-history under a contentious 
proposal by a little known United Nations body” writes the Equal Times, 
an online publication of the ITUC. Burrow has launched a ‘Stop the Net 
Grab’ campaign, which has registered a little over 1,000 supporters (as 
of 18 November). She also convinced Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of 
Greenpeace International, to co-sign a letter to the UN Secretary 
General, Ban Ki-moon, urging his intervention to maintain a 
“multi-stakeholder approach” – a view endorsed and supported by Cerf, 
who has denied the legitimacy of governments in the context of Internet 
matters. According to Cerf, the Internet should be governed by rules set 
by “the Internet community,” which rightly override national 
regulations. Such an approach would need much clarification. For 
instance, what would be the representative principles of such a community?

The grey zone where US officials and people like Cerf mingle is larger 
than meets the eye. There are many (disconcerting) examples. Take the 
Congressional hearing back in May, which called upon the US to defend 
its position over the Internet and led to the approval of a bipartisan 
resolution opposing proposals in a “UN Forum.” Before passing the 
resolution, three speakers participated in the hearing: Vint Cerf, Sally 
Shipman Wentworth, a senior manager at ISOC and a former State 
Department Official, and David A Gross, also a former State Department 
official turned lobbyist, representing all the major private sector 
players (including Google). Another example of Google’s omnipotence is 
an article by a Google employee (Patrick S Ryan) published in the 
Stanford Technology Law Review, which strongly attacks the WCIT-12 
process, the ITU and any envisaged reform of the ITR.

Ultimately, all Cerf’s efforts may only end up focusing more attention 
on the current ‘non-democratic’ nature of Internet governance, as well 
as the associated inequalities of the business side of the web. They may 
also raise legitimate concerns over Google’s power to finance 
behind-the-scenes maneuvering to preserve a favorable regulatory 
environment. Google is a giant of email, personal data, mobile 
telephony, content diffusion, cloud computing, the digitalization of 
books, intellectual property rights, search engines and advertising 
revenues, aggressively aggregates media content, and exploits global 
telecommunications network infrastructure without contributing to costs. 
A handful of countries like Germany and France are now launching legal 
action on behalf of their content producers and Internet users to stop 
these strong-arm tactics.

As WCIT-12 approaches, it is clear that telecommunications networks are 
entering the fray, ready to fight for their own future. On the media 
front, the issue goes far beyond the fact that over 80 percent of global 
digital revenues flow to Google and Facebook. Democracy requires 
independent media. Almost all are now lost to the law of the click for 
the sake of being seen by Google News, while dreaming of catching a 
scrap of Google’s leftover advertising revenues. We all know about these 
developments, but feign to ignore them. Even amongst the most prominent 
human rights defenders one can observe a surprising attitude: every 
month Amnesty International UK’s Head of Marketing spends approximately 
US $10,000 to secure key words to link to the NGO’s website. One can 
only wonder how much money Amnesty International contributes on a global 
level to Google’s deep pockets, which bulged to the tune of nearly US 
$38 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Democracy is at stake, when many of us are asleep or comforting 
ourselves with benign fairytales.

(Photos: DR)


--