Subject: Internet Society Submission for the ITU World Conference in International Telecommunication Regulations (WCIT-12)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:20:22 -0400
Internet Society Submission for the ITU World Conference on International
Telecommunication Regulations (WCIT-12)
The Internet Society (ISOC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to
ensuring the open development, evolution, and use of the Internet for the
benefit of all people throughout the world. Since 1992, ISOC has served as a
global clearinghouse for technically sound, unbiased information about the
Internet, as an educator, and as a focal point for a broad based community of
interest engaged in Internet-related initiatives around the world. It
provides the organizational home for the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and the Internet Research Task
Force (IRTF).
As a Sector Member of the ITU Telecommunication public consultation. We
commend the ITU Secretariat and the ITU Council for taking action to allow
public input into the WCIT process. We think this is an important way to
encourage inclusion of differing opinions as part of an open and healthy
policy discussion. Through our Sector Membership, we have participated in the
Council Working Group on WCIT and regional and national dialogues on the ITRs
over the past several years with the aim of making a constructive
contribution to the work of the Conference.
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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
Conclusion
The Internet Society hopes this contribution is useful for Member States as
they prepare for the WCIT. Our delegation looks forward to having
opportunities to interact with Member State delegations during the course of
the Conference and to a successful outcome of the WCIT.
References:
[ISOC - Board] Internet Society. August 2012. “Internet Society Board of
Trustees Expresses Concern about the Potential Impact of the World Conference
on International Telecommunications on the Internet”.
[Analysis Mason] Analysis Mason. December 2011. “Driving Broadband
Connectivity In Africa: Regulatory Issues And Market Challenges”.
[ITU-D] International Telecommunication Union (ITU). June 2010. World
Telecommunication Development Conference, Hyderabad Declaration.
[McKinsey] McKinsey Global Institute. May, 2011. “The Internet Matters: The
Net’s Sweeping Impact on Growth, Jobs and Prosperity.
[Broadband Commission] Broadband Commission. September, 2012. “The State Of
Broadband 2012: Achieving Digital Inclusion For All.”
[OECD] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. October 2012.
“Internet Traffic Exchange: Market Developments and Policy Challenges.”
[ISOC - Interconnection] Internet Society. July, 2012. “Internet
Interconnections Proposals For New Interconnection Model Comes Up Short.”
[ISOC – Spam] Internet Society. October 2012. Combating Spam: Policy,
Technical and Industry Approaches.
[ITU-T] International Telecommunication Union. November 2009. ITU-T E.157,
International Calling Party Number Delivery.
Internet Society Submission for the ITU World Conference in International Telecommunication Regulations (WCIT-12), Sally Wentworth, 10/31/2012