Virtual Freedom

From December 3rd to 16th, Dubai hosts the World Conference on International Communications (WCIT-12). Organized by the International Telecommunications Union, an agency part of the United Nations system, this meeting has the main purpose of approving the new International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR), updating the existing ones that have been untouched since 1988. Of course, one of the most important topics is a central technology today that was not available to the public 24 years ago: the internet.

Some activists and analysts have published columns in newspapers or been interviewed in this occasion, sharing concerns about the meeting. The reason for their fears is that the new ITR might represent tighter controls over the internet by means of governments having direct participation over its governance, now in the hands of diverse institutions with varying degrees of formalization. In The New York Times, Jeremy Brooks mentions that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (which regulates the permanent numerical address of websites) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (in charge of sharing practices on the design, use, and management of internet) work well and include the participation of governments, individuals, and the private sector. Vint Cerf, co-designer of the first transmission control protocols, the basis for information sharing on the internet, has commented that the “free and open internet is under threat”.

The draft of the new ITR is divided into two parts: the ITR proper, with a preamble and ten articles, and annexes. It might be possible that without the caveats mentioned above an overview of the 238 page-long draft does not seem particularly menacing (it is that long because it includes all the suggestions made by states participating in the conference; it does not include detailed technical terms). Article 1 begins by saying that member states must commit to protect the right of freedom of expression, regardless of the media any individual choses to use. Other articles deal with, for example, the dissemination of information on telecommunications statistics and the attention to environmental and energy issues, or on the primordial use of telecommunications to safeguard life in risk situations.

However, it is interesting to notice that on the section of Article 3 corresponding to the internet, Russia suggested that “member states shall have equal rights to manage the Internet, including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources and to support for the operation and development of basic Internet infrastructure.” An ulterior proposal for this article, also Russian, says that “member states should endeavor to establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use, and at assisting, including through international cooperation, administrations and operating agencies in supporting the operation and development of the Internet.”

After this reading, and knowing it comes from Russia, it is not difficult to understand the concerns of some people in relation to the new ITR. In the Russian context of de-democratization, as some have called it, or in the Chinese environment of information censorship, phrases such as “policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use” move the question to interpreting what “public requirements” are or who will determine that. Furthermore, it can be argued that the maintenance of parity between the state, the private sector and individuals or civil society cannot be taken seriously in places like Russia, where businesses are colluded with public authorities and civil society is either not free or co-opted.

In addition, one of the most simple and direct critiques of the meeting and the new ITR is that if the existing system works (no international agreements on governments exercising regulatory activities on the internet, leaving this to, as mentioned, other rather informal governance bodies) it should not be changed. It is still necessary to wait until December 14 to see the results of the meeting, as it might well be that the voice or critics is heard. However, if countries like Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia want to impose more controls on the internet, they can do that at their will. The difference is that with the new ITR they can say that they interpret those controls as being sanctioned by the international legislation.