The ITU role in Internet governance

The latest in a line of innovative technologies

Like most technology-driven industries, the telecommunications sector has historically been characterized by steady growth punctuated by an occasional leap forward, usually when a new communications technology is introduced. Over the last 140 years, ITU has had to rapidly adapt to and embrace all relevant technological innovations. The Internet is certainly one of the most powerful and far-reaching of them.

The growing popularity of the Internet and other Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks has driven rapid growth in demand for telecommunication capacity and bandwidth, resulting in fast innovation in access and transport networks. Historically, service providers used different types of networks to deliver voice, video and data, and end-users typically used different equipment to receive these services. Today, old copper networks are being upgraded and re-fitted as digital subscriber line (DSL) broadband networks, enabling high-speed Internet access for multimedia applications, such as video clips and music downloads. In addition, television cable networks are increasingly being redesigned to support two-way IP-based services, and optical networking technologies have improved dramatically. As one illustration, ITU standards for DSL and cable technologies have, since 1999, brought broadband access to over 100 million new users globally. Concurrently, intense standardization work is under way at ITU, and in other standards bodies, to further the integration and interoperability of IP-based networks with the public switched telephone, mobile and broadcast networks.

All major telecommunication operators and equipment manufacturers are now investing their resources in what is referred to as “next-generation networks” (NGN). These can be seen as a logical progression from public switched telephone networks (PSTN) and IP-networks that are separate, to a unified telecommunications network for electronic communications based on IP. The fundamental difference between NGN and today’s telecommunication networks is a shift from “circuit-switched” single service networks (focused on voice) to “packet-based” multi-service platforms (of which “voice” is only one of a palette of available services).

The transition to NGNs makes possible a common network infrastructure for many communication services and applications. This reduces capital and, particularly, operational costs, compared with separate service-dedicated networks. As such, NGN is also a promising platform upon which to build cost-effective “triple-play” network infrastructure (voice, data, video) in developing economies with limited human and financial resources.

These developments demonstrate that support for IP-based technologies is now a strategic element in the design, development and use of telecommunication networks, and this has had a broad and increasing impact on ITU’s mandated work programmes in its radiocommunication, telecommunication standardization and development-focused activities.

Governing the Internet
Essential, national infrastructure at stake

For those who know the history of telecommunications, there is little surprise that there are strongly felt debates as to how to address the numerous policy and regulatory issues that often emerge with new communication technologies. As one of the early pioneers of the telephone said in 1910: “The problems never were as large or as complex as they are right now.” There is always the eternal struggle between the large and little ideas — between the people who can see what might be and those who only see what is. For example, when the telephone was introduced into the United Kingdom, the Postmaster General immediately ruled that it was a new species of telegraph and thereby fell under his jurisdiction.

These historical debates in telecommunications have many parallels with modern day debates about “Internet governance”. This should not be a surprise: the telecommunications sector has always had a variety of interest groups who have clashed over its rules. This was one of the foremost reasons that the establishment of independent regulators was seen as a prerequisite to liberalization and privatization in the sector. And what is at stake has gone up considerably: today, a robust national telecommunications infrastructure is much more important than simply a platform for voice — it is now the fundamental underpinning layer of networked economies and information societies, a key policy objective for almost all governments. Not only are these networks seen as an important determinant of national competitiveness in an increasingly globalized knowledge economy, they are seen as offering new opportunities in areas such as education, health and social advancement.

If we examine history, the rise of all new communication technologies is inevitably accompanied by a belief that everything has changed and none of the old rules or systems have relevance. In the 1980s and 1990s, many — particularly the engineers and academics behind the Internet’s creation — idealized the Internet as a vast electronic exchange of ideas that should ultimately regulate itself. Many argued that government had no role to play in cyberspace and the dominant culture was one of common accepted norms, free speech, free information and technical coordination with little outside interference.

Today, just as in the 1920s with the advent of radio broadcasting, there is passioned debate as to the role of governments in the Internet as a new communication medium. But it is easy to see that the grounds of the debate have already shifted significantly. In the 1990s, a common question was “should the Internet be regulated?” This now seems somewhat naïve when one examines the increasing level of Internet-related legislation and regulation now being enacted daily around the world. The reality is that the Internet has now simply become far too important and far too mainstream to be treated as radically different from the rest of society and the economy. This trend will continue. In particular, as the Internet evolves into a public infrastructure necessary for the general functioning of society and which people depend on, governments will increasingly impose certain capability requirements on the infrastructure. These requirements relate not only to the important issue of robust performance for daily business and personal activities, but also inevitably raise issues of protecting critical infrastructure, law enforcement and personal and national security.

For better or for worse, each nation and society is already applying its collective wisdom, misconceptions, preferences, prejudices and interest-group lobbying to the process of devising rules for the Internet. As the shift occurs to an NGN infrastructure, on which critical public services are increasingly based, each country will make the transition to policy or regulatory requirements that may be similar, or identical, to existing rules applied to services offered over the circuit-switched networks of today. Examples might include provisions for public safety needs, disability assistance, law enforcement support, competition considerations, fraud prevention, prioritization during emergencies, privacy and data protection, and consumer protection against unwanted intrusions.

It follows naturally, therefore, that the concept of the nation State and its sovereignty over communications policy and regulation — a premise on which ITU is founded — is likely to serve as the foundation of multilateral cooperation in the future governance of the Internet.

Whose domain is it?

There are those who think that “Internet governance” should be treated from a wide perspective and include topics such as management of resources, interconnection arrangements and exchange points, spam, cybersecurity, universal access/service, intellectual property rights and privacy. Others think that a narrow definition should be taken: namely, the management of Internet names and addresses only. The highest decision-making body of ITU, its Plenipotentiary Conference has outlined the role that the Union should play with respect to Internet matters.

Management of Internet domain names and addresses

Resolution 102 of the Marrakesh Plenipotentiary Conference contains an important statement by the ITU membership to reform the current system of managing Internet domain names and addresses. The resolution recognizes that growth of the Internet is essentially market-led, under both private and government initiatives. But it also stresses that international cooperation is required in managing the Internet, which is a valid subject of international interest, and it points out that allocation of Internet domain names and addresses should not favour any country or region to the detriment of others. In addition, it emphasizes that ITU Member States represent the interests of the people living within the territories for which a country code top-level domain (ccTLD) has been designated. This means that Member States should play an active role in coordinating the resolution of management problems arising with respect to their ccTLDs.

Resolution 102 also recognizes that:

• ITU is dealing with issues related to IP-based networks in general, and the Internet in particular, and that the Union performs worldwide coordination of a number of name-and-address allocation systems and acts as a forum for policy discussion in this area.
• ITU can play a positive role by offering a platform for encouraging discussions and for disseminating information, (particularly to developing country governments) on the management of Internet domain names and addresses.
• Through international cooperation, ITU should contribute to policy development related to the management of Internet domain names and addresses.
• The management of Internet domain names and addresses includes technical and coordination tasks, for which the technical private bodies can be responsible, and public interest matters, for which governments or intergovernmental organizations are responsible and to which qualified international organizations contribute.
• The role of governments is to provide a clear, consistent and predictable legal framework to promote a favourable environment in which global information networks are interoperable and widely accessible to all citizens and to ensure adequate protection of public interests in the management of Internet domain names and addresses.
• It is in the public interest that the system that manages Internet domain names and addresses has transparent rules and procedures, including dispute resolution procedures to facilitate the protection of intellectual property rights.
• Governments are expected to promote a fair competitive environment among companies or organizations responsible for resource allocation.

Management of multilingual domain names

The Marrakesh Plenipotentiary Conference also addressed the issue of how diverse languages can be used in cyberspace. Resolution 133 notes that, increasingly, most Internet users will expect to conduct online activities in their own languages, but issues concerning intellectual property rights need to be overcome in the area of internationalized domain names and addresses. The resolution emphasizes that ITU must help Member States to promote the use of their respective languages, especially because the current Domain Name System (DNS) does not reflect the growing diversity of users’ linguistic needs. It also calls on the Secretary-General to ensure that the sovereignty of ITU Member States is maintained with regard to country code numbering plans and addresses (in whatever application they are used), as enshrined in ITU-T Recommendation E.164, which defines the international public telecommunication numbering plan.

Based on the mandate from Resolutions 102 and 133 of the Plenipotentiary Conference, ITU has undertaken a number of activities, which are outlined in “ITU and the Internet”.

The future

As always, the Union’s future role in Internet governance, including its activities, policies and strategic direction, will be determined by the membership (both public and private sector) through well-defined decision-making processes. To this end, ITU has encouraged all its Member States to participate in the World Summit on the Information Society and in the continuing debates on Internet governance, particularly on the issue of international management of Internet domain names and addresses.

Contributed by Robert Shaw, ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor.