The Resolution No. 3 called "To Foster an Enabling Environment for the Greater Growth of the Internet" became the subject of a rather substantial controversy during the recent World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) which ended last week in Dubai. Some people have argued that they did not understand the noise around the short text... However a second reading of the ten paragraphs makes you sensitive that this "harmless resolution" could become also a "Trojan Horse".
It is midnight in Dubai and I am listening to the final readings of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR). This instrument is the final output of two weeks of negotiations at the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT), a gathering of the world's nations to update the the ITRs. The Chair goes through the document article by article, section by section, and with each passing "thank you", this Conference draws to a close. Many in the room are elated.
It puzzles me to watch Governments introducing or subscribing to proposals that would in effect smoothly concede part their sovereignty to the ITU -- in an area that is central -- Communications. The WCIT 2012, in the middle of its second week, would now discuss Document DT/51-E 11, which is said to be a "package" of not-yet-compromised draft proposal for revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations, which inevitably makes ITU the control center of all communications in the known Universe.
In the latest development from the World Conference on International Telecommunications, a new "compromise proposal" has been leaked to wcitleaks.org. This proposal is certainly no compromise, as it not only is a bald faced power grab by the sponsors (Russia, UAE, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan at this point), but shows a stunning lack of comprehension of how the Internet works and how it is currently governed. It also shows that the coalition of Civil Society groups and private sector organisations that have focused on WCIT have been correct all along.
So far the world has survived WCIT-12 and the internet has not been taken over by anybody. So, in the end, what was all the fuss about? Those who have followed my reporting on these issues from the very beginning more than a year ago - long before the media frenzy on this topic started - will have seen that we never took the sensational approach. We fully understood the issues that were emerging, but at the same time we could also place them in the right context, to explore how they should be addressed.
A key element of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is to connect the people around the world who are not yet connected. These are people in developing economies, but also people in rural areas within developed economies, as well as the 650 million people with disabilities. The question is whether the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) that are being discussed at WCIT can assist in this. If we go back to 1988, when the current ITRs were first established, the focus was on access and interoperability.
The afternoon of 13 December in Dubai is notable for one important deadline -- "declaration" if a Nation State is willing to accept the obligations of the resulting treaty instrument and if so, subject to what conditions. It is worth emphasizing that multilateral treaty instruments are serious constraints on a Sovereign's powers, and most nations even if they do sign, make general declarations that provide escape routes to the obligations.
Hurricane Sandy caused major damage in both the Caribbean and the North-Eastern part of the USA. In an earlier article (RIPE Atlas - Superstorm Sandy) we showed data on 15 RIPE Atlas probes that are located in or near the affected areas in the USA. Most of these locations now appear to be back to normal round trip times to targets we monitor. But the effects of Hurricane Sandy were felt beyond the immediately affected area.
Recent events relating to the network plans of AT&T and Verizon are extraordinary: it appears that the commercial and lobbying clout of two major telcos is determining the telecom services which their customers can receive, the technology they will receive them with, and whether they will receive them at all. Already a large number of states have agreed to dismantle Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations on them, while the FCC itself is being advised to change the rules to suit the business interest of the telcos.
I'm writing this in the midst of policy discussions between the Internet world (as embodied in ISOC) and the Telecommunications industry (ITU). The Internet and Telecommunications are very different concepts. The Internet allows us to focus on the task at hand. That's why it is so exciting. Historically telecommunication assumed value was created inside the network and this creates conflict with creating value outside the network.