Kathy Brown is proving far more responsive to members and is doing a remarkable job bringing people into the Internet Society. That makes it even more crucial they align policies with their slogan, "The Internet is for Everybody." At the ITU, they are among the strongest supporters of the new U.S. position, "Hands off the Internet, ITU and governments." (Few remember that in 2006, U.S. Ambassador Gross applauded the ITU effort to be more involved with the Internet.}

   Kathy hasn't changed ISOC policies largely determined by the worry that ITU Governments will have too much power. We all know governments have the ability to foul things up in a major way, but corporate domination and economic power are also issues. 

    Net Policy News will work hard to present informed opinions that disagree with our point of view. Here's Kathy's widely distributed note and their official ITU presentation, in full.

The Internet Society’s Views on the 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference

In a few short weeks, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), will host its quadrennial Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Republic of Korea.  This is an important treaty-level event where ITU Member States will map out plans for the ITU’s activities and strategic plan for the coming four years. As a Sector Member of the ITU, the Internet Society has developed this paper to share our perspectives and to contribute to a positive outcome at the conference in Busan.   In preparation for the Plenipotentiary Conference, we have been working closely with our members and partners in the Internet community, including with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.   This collaboration has been important in the run up to the Conference and will continue in Busan.

The Internet Society, like the ITU, believes that global communications create opportunity for growth, creative expression and innovation that should be available to all the world’s people.  To that end, we are committed to collaborating with partner organizations in every region of the world, each within its area of responsibility and expertise, in order to increase access to the Internet to further spur economic and social development.  Based on its current remit, the ITU has an important role in the Internet ecosystem; promoting core infrastructure development and cross-border connectivity, allocating spectrum to enable the deployment of new technologies and services, and providing technical assistance and capacity building in developing countries.  We believe that the current ITU mandate is sufficient to carry out the critical tasks outlined above both today and into the future.

The Growing Promise of the Internet

As shown in the Internet Society’s recent Global Internet Report, the last ten years have seen almost unimaginable growth and development: in that period, fixed broadband access overtook dial-up, mobile broadband access then overtook fixed, video became the largest source of traffic, and the number of users in developing countries overtook those in developed countries.  Overall, the number of Internet users has grown from under 1 billion ten years ago to an expected three billion by early 2015[1].

Beyond the data, we know that access to connectivity transforms the lives of individuals worldwide.  Whether we look at opportunities for education, trade or healthcare, there is no sector of global society that is untouched by the power this global network of networks. 

One trend is clear: this is an exceedingly complex and dynamic environment where new users are coming online everyday with new ideas and new expectations for how the technology should grow and evolve. Within this complex environment, an ecosystem has emerged in which a diverse set of organizations and communities need to work together and, through this collaboration, ensure that the Internet operates smoothly for the individuals and organizations that depend on it every day.

The organizations and processes that shape the Internet have proven to be resilient and adaptable in large part because they are based on an understanding that the Internet is constantly evolving and a realization that the best solutions to new issues stem from willing collaboration between engaged and informed stakeholders.  At its heart, the Internet is a decentralized system that allows policies to be defined by those who require them for their operations, and ensures that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin. 

In short, this enormously successful ecosystem is tailored to the requirements of the Internet itself, and draws its strength from the involvement of a broad range of actors working through open, transparent, and collaborative processes to innovate and build the network of networks that is the cornerstone of the global economy.

As organizations like the Internet Society and the ITU carry out their respective roles within this broader ecosystem, we should be mindful that openness, agility, respect for roles and responsibilities and expertise, and collaborative partnerships are the building blocks of the global information economy.  The challenges are great – connecting the unconnected, creating an environment of trust, ensuring global interconnection and interoperability, allowing the Internet to continue to evolve – and no single organization can achieve these goals alone.  We must leverage our areas of expertise, be humble in our approach, avoid duplication, and find ways to collaborate and work together to create a truly global information society.

For the Internet Society, our work over the past twenty years has been guided by seven core values: 

  1. The quality of life for people in all parts of the world is enhanced by their ability to enjoy the benefits of an open and global Internet.
  2. Well-informed individuals and public and private policy makers are the essential foundation of an open and global Internet society.
  3. The genius of the Internet is that its decentralized architecture maximizes individual users’ power to choose (or create) and use the hardware, software, and services that best meet their needs, and if the Internet is to continue to be a platform for innovation and creativity, its open, decentralized nature must be preserved.
  4. Enduring and sustainable progress toward our vision is best achieved by a combination of global initiatives and activities at a local level that engage people in their home regions.
  5. Technical standards and Internet operating procedures should be developed and asserted through open and transparent processes, with minimal barriers to participation or access to information.
  6. The social, political, and economic benefits of the Internet are substantially diminished by restrictive governmental or private controls on computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or Internet content.
  7. Rewarding and productive use of the Internet depends on the ability to trust critical services. 


Looking Forward: Building upon existing strengths

As we look across the vast opportunities and challenges of the global information society, the Internet Society believes that the ITU has relevant work to do to that is well defined within its mandate.  The ITU should continue to promote the development of the underlying global infrastructure that enables connectivity to the global Internet.  The growth of the Internet relies upon ubiquitous connectivity, access to spectrum, and globally interoperable telecommunications standards. And the ITU’s development work helps to ensure that we don’t leave countries behind and that we are creating opportunities for the next generation.  The ITU can accomplish its mission and purpose by fulfilling its core mandate within the framework of a stable Constitution and Convention.

From the work of the Maitland Commission in 1984 that identified telecommunications as the “Missing Link” in our countries’ quest for social and economic development, to the recent 2014 World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) that addressed issues involving, “broadband for sustainable development,” the ITU has helped to spur a global dialogue on technology and economic development.  The convening role of the ITU, in partnership with UNESCO, helped to form the UN Broadband Commission. The Commission rightly recognized that broadband networks and services offer transformative solutions, in the Commission’s words, “to address the key challenges of our time, including eradicating poverty and malnutrition….”.  This work is buttressed by decades of critical ITU work in the Radiocommunication Sector to efficiently allocate the spectrum needed to support new technologies.  And, collaborative international telecommunications standards development continues to form the core of the global network that we all depend upon.  

The history of the ITU shows that its Members have acted collectively to advance the core purposes of the Union while maintaining a stable Constitution and Convention, particularly with respect to the founding principles of the Union in Article 1 of the ITU Constitution.  Importantly, the current ITU Constitution and Convention has stood the test of time and we believe that there is no need to amend it or change the scope of the ITU’s mandate - it is sufficient to carry out the critical tasks outlined above both today and into the future.  It is clear that the ITU has made, and will continue to make, a useful contribution to the infrastructure that supports the global Internet and should successfully do so within the existing mandate of the Union. 

Looking Forward: Enabling Connectivity

We are mindful that, despite the progress that has been made in the communications sector, whole communities remain disconnected from the value of the global Internet.   Removing barriers to connectivity is one of the most critical digital divide issues of our time.

For example, cross border connectivity remains a serious challenge in many parts of the world.   In too many countries, taking fibre across a border is still an enormous task.  All too often, bureaucratic roadblocks, insufficient cross-border agreements, and lack of regional cooperation lead to delays that slow down or even deter investment.  One only needs to hear the stories of multi-year delays for cross-border connections to be established across the span of a single river – delays caused not by technology but by policy and regulatory obstacles that halt progress – to know that we can, and should, do better.

The Internet breaks down all kinds of barriers – we just need to create the enabling environment for it to do so.  We believe this is a critical area where the sustained focus of the ITU can have a significant impact.  The Internet Society was pleased that the 2014 ITU World Telecommunications Development Conference committed to focusing on these issues for the coming period and we stand ready to join that work. 

Looking Forward: Strengthening Collaboration 

As the ITU embarks on a new era at the Plenipotentiary Conference, this is an important opportunity for Members to reassess and refine the Strategic Plan based on the core competencies of the Union.  We suggest that certain core principles and approaches should guide the implementation of the ITU Strategic Plan and its accompanying resolutions and decisions:  inclusiveness, transparency, and collaboration.  These principles will enable the ITU to partner effectively in pursuit of a truly shared vision.

  • http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/all/themes/isoc/images/bullet-grey.gif) 0px 7px no-repeat;">Inclusive engagement: Bringing experts together from a broad range of communities can help produce policies that are robust, sustainable, and that enjoy the support of a wide range of stakeholders.   We urge the ITU to incorporate this approach into its strategic vision and activities going forward.
  • http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/all/themes/isoc/images/bullet-grey.gif) 0px 7px no-repeat;">Transparency:  Understanding how decisions are reached can be as important as the outcome.  By allowing greater access to input documents and meetings, the ITU can provide greater transparency in its work.  Further, outputs should be made accessible to the public in an open and timely fashion.
  • http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/all/themes/isoc/images/bullet-grey.gif) 0px 7px no-repeat;">Collaboration: In an era of limited resources and increased technical complexity, all organizations in this field should adopt a collaborative approach to their activities while at the same time also respecting each other’s roles and responsibilities.  In some cases, an organization may take the lead; in others, that same organization can play a crucial supporting role.   By teaming with other organizations—in government, in the private sector, and in the non-profit sector—the ITU will be contributing more towards progressing connectivity for all than it could do alone.  

Looking Forward: Respecting Roles and Responsibilities 

The incredible benefits that the Internet has provided over the last quarter century are vast.  This success has been supported by a robust, successful ecosystem of organizations and processes that are suited to meet the unique needs of a dynamic, global, and growing Internet. The ITU can contribute to this complex ecosystem by promoting the development of the underlying infrastructure, by strengthening the environment for cross-border connectivity, by allocating spectrum for the next generation of wireless technologies, by facilitating the development of high-quality telecommunications standards in an open and collaborative manner, and by offering technical assistance and capacity building in developing countries. 

To achieve this mission, however, this is the time to think differently.  There is too much work to be done and we cannot afford to stymie growth by returning to top-down policy and regulatory models of the past that are inappropriate for and inadequate to meet the promise of tomorrow's Internet.   It has been the Internet Society’s experience that, in order to enable development and access to communications, it is essential to build upon the strengths and contributions of partners. The ITU’s core mandate to help facilitate global telecommunications is vital and it should carry out its roles and responsibilities as a valued partner within the broader ecosystem and be willing to collaborate as others fulfill their tasks.  

Furthermore, policies and approaches that are sustainable and effective must be inclusive of the vital expertise and focus of different stakeholders and organizations.  Enhancing cooperation means that we need to double our efforts to work together as stakeholders in the multistakeholder ecosystem.  We look forward to a positive and constructive dialogue in Busan as ITU members map out a strategy for the ITU that is forward looking, agile and based on a spirit of collaboration and partnership.


On the Road to Busan

Dear Colleagues,
Many of us are preparing this week to leave for Busan, South Korea to the 2014 Plenipotentiary of the ITU, a meeting held every four years to elect the officers of the ITU and to assess its working mandate by the Member States. This is a treaty conference; by design, it is a multi-lateral meeting where only governments can make decisions.
The ITU is responsible for a number of important functions that have supported an interconnected telephone system across national boundaries including the allocation of spectrum and development of globally interoperable telecommunications standards. It has promoted the development of communication technologies around the world and has provided financial and technical assistance to regulators, particularly in developing countries. More recently, the ITU has offered important leadership for the deployment of broadband technologies, the underlying infrastructure necessary for deeper deployment of the Internet. On this basis, the Internet Society has indicated its support <http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/toward-collaborative-internet-development> for the ITU's continuing role in helping to create the enabling environment in which the Internet can flourish.
Notwithstanding the ITU's important role in the Internet ecosystem, there is wide consensus that there is no single "governance" structure for the Internet. Nor is there a single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the issues that may arise. That is because the Internet is an exceedingly complex and dynamic network of networks that has resulted in a borderless marketplace where new users are coming online every day with new ideas and new expectations for how the technology should grow and evolve.
At its heart, the Internet is a decentralized, distributed system that allows policies to be defined by those who require them for their operations and that ensures that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin. The ecosystem draws its strength from the involvement of a broad range of actors working through open, transparent, and collaborative processes to innovate and build the network of networks that is the cornerstone of the global economy.
This multistakeholder model has worked to evolve, expand and elevate the Internet to a global information, communication and social phenomenon never before seen on the planet. Our embrace of the multistakeholder model is grounded in the understanding that the Internet has different characteristics from communication and societal models of the past and thus, cannot be "regulated" from the top down but must be "governed" through processes that are designed to be inclusive of all stakeholders and driven by consensus.
Thus, the Plenipotentiary should not adopt policies that lead to a regulatory role for the ITU in the governance of the Internet. The respective roles and responsibilities of multiple and different actors in the Internet ecosystem must be respected.  Proposals by some Member States that could give the ITU operational jurisdiction over the technical aspects of the Internet, such as IP addresses, domain names, routing, and pricing should be rejected in order to preserve the Internet ecosystem with all its diversity. Similar proposals that have regulatory implications concerning Internet content and user behavior should also be rejected by the Conference.  And finally, based on our support for the bottom-up, multistakeholder model for the Internet, we would not support proposals that give the ITU or the UN system the obligation to develop intergovernmental legal norms or rules for the Internet.
I have confidence that the Plenipotentiary will not agree to place the future of the Internet policy development under the control of an inter-governmental organization. The Internet's open and diverse ecosystem has proven its extraordinary capacity to advance the evolution of the Internet to the benefit of all.  The ITU is an essential part of that ecosystem but only one part. The spirit of cooperation and collaboration must be the principles that guide the Plenipotentiary in its decisions, to enable governments, users, civil society, business and the Internet technical community to work together to preserve the Internet for future generations.
We welcome and applaud Secretary General Toure's efforts to make the Plenipot more transparent, to listen to the voices of stakeholders and to be responsive to the concerns we and other stakeholders have brought to the ITU with respect to our respective roles. Indeed, we are encouraged by the good will extended to the Internet Society by both Dr. Toure and Deputy Secretary Zhao in the preparations for this meeting and support their intent to have a successful meeting. We are hopeful for a good outcome and we will respectfully continue to urge that proposals that are out of scope do not thwart that outcome.
We recognize that there are legitimate questions to address as the Internet grows and evolves. But the process by which we address these concerns is as important as the outcome. Where inclusive, collaborative processes are adapted to fit community and cultural needs, the Internet will remain open and it will expand and thrive.  A top-down, government-only decision-making environment will not serve to preserve and evolve an open Internet because it cannot and will not foster participatory decision making by all those with a stake in an open Internet.
As a community, we must stay true to our values and to commit to participate in our own future. It is important that we collaborate and coordinate with as many stakeholders as possible in the coming weeks, notwithstanding our limited ability to participate directly in the discussions at the Plenipot. We need to make our voices heard with respect to the positive outcome we desire for the Conference.
Thank you all for your dedication, passion and work as members and Chapters of the Internet Society.  See you in Busan.

From the editor:    I believe affordability is one of the most important issues, so taking "price" off the table is a mistake. I believe "Democracy" is important, but the word is nowhere here. Like Tim Berners-Lee, I fear corporate power as well as government. The World Economic Forum, controlled by corporations of $5B and up, is two weeks away from a big splash. It's so far from "bottom-up" that it doesn't belong in the system Kathy is supporting here. I bet I'll see ISOC and ICANN among their supporters, along Verizon and other giants. Adding a few tokens to corporate/government meetings is pr, not multi-stakeholder as Brown describes it above. 


The world needs a good news source on Internet and telecom policy. I hope to create one. Catch a mistake? Email me please.  Dave Burstein


Professor Noam's "Many Internets" http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Until about 2010, everyone agreed the Net was a "network of networks," not a monolithic entity. There was a central authority, ICANN, keeping track of domain names, but that was a minor administrative function.
Columbia Professor Noam suggests we might be better off accepting that some nations or groups might want to organize their networks differently. It's easy to see demand for an Internet with much more effective filters against material some think harmful to children. (Any 10 year old can easily find porn today. Many do.)
Internet translation is getting better very quickly. You might want an "Internet" that translates everything into your language. Google Chrome translation isn't perfect but I was able to research most of this story on Russian language sites. With a few more years progress, I might welcome an alternate that brings me everything in English, including caching for better performance.
De facto, Internet news is already split, as hundreds of millions only get their news from Facebook. Google AMP pages, including for news, also favor selected parts of the net
Centralizing the DNS doesn't prevent censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. There are many Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists who want to block what they consider blasphemy and limit free speech. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-hold-rally-on-internet-at-citi-field.html . More from Noam http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Russia Orders Alternate Root Internet System http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS
It's actually practical and not necessarily a problem.The Security Council of the Russian Federation, headed by Vladimir Putin, has ordered the "government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions ... This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa." RT
Columbia University Professor Eli Noam and then ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé have both said such a system is perfectly practical as long as there is robust interconnection.
Actually, the battle over ICANN and domain names is essentially symbolic. Managing the DNS is a relatively insignificant task, more clerical than governing. ICANN Chair Steve Crocker pointed out they had very little to do with policy.
Some will claim this is about blocking free speech but that's rhetoric. Russia doesn't need to fiddle with the DNS for censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. The wonders of the Internet will continue so long as the resulting nets" are robustly connected. The ICANN and U.S. policy goal should be to help create that system for interconnection.
I expect contentions that “The Russians are taking over our Internet” and “They are splitting the Internet.” The Internet is a “Network of Networks.” It is not a monolith so what would “splitting” it mean or do?
After the WCIT, China realized that ICANN and the DNS are side issues not worth bothering about. They have been building alternate institutions including the World Internet Summit in Wuzhan and the BRICs conferences.  The Chinese have put their main work where decisions that matter are made. Wireless standards are set by 3GPP, where nothing can be approved without China's consent.
The American battle at ITU is proving to be a historic mistake.
Why does Russia want an independent Internet?
They fear that Western sanctions on Russia could cripple the Russian Net. Communications minister, Nikolay Nikiforov, worries about, "a scenario where our esteemed partners would suddenly decide to disconnect us from the internet." I think that's highly unlikely but Nikiforov points out, “Recently, Russia is being addressed in a language of unilateral sanctions: first, our credit cards are being cut off; then the European Parliament says that they’ll disconnect us from SWIFT."
It makes sense for the Russians to be prepared for such a contingency as the Cold War has been warming up on both sides. "Britain's top military chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach just made headlines warning Russian subs "could CRIPPLE Britain by cutting undefended undersea internet cables." Much more http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS

ICANN Continues Excluding Russia & China From the Board http://bit.ly/CEOPromises
No wonder Russia wants an alternate root. Three years ago, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé promised "a seat at the table" to Chinese Premier Li. ICANN welched and this year added two more Americans.
Almost all the ICANN board is from the U.S. and close allies; only about 4 of the 18 board members are from countries on the other side of the North/South divide in Internet policy.  Claiming ICANN represents the Global Internet is inappropriate. China is 1/3rd of the Internet but has no representation on the board.
I know many of the board members. They are all basically honorable but generally share a strong opinion on North-South issues.
Larry Strickling of the U.S. government knew just what he was doing with the IANA transition. He handed over to a board with similar positions as the U.S. government.
"The system is unsustainable while it excludes half the world," I have been saying since 2012. More, including the transcript of Fadi's statements,http://bit.ly/CEOPromises

Sorry, Ajit Pai: Smaller Telcos Did Not Reduce Investment After NN Ruling http://bit.ly/SorryPai
Pai justifies his NN choice with the claim, "The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers." #wrong (Actually, NN has minimal effects on investment, up or down, I’m convinced. Competition, new technology, customer demand and similar are far more important.)
The two largest suppliers to “smaller ISPs” saw sales go up. Adtran's sales the most recent nine months were $540M, up from $473M the year before. 2016 was $636M, 2015 $600M. Calix the last nine months sold $372M, up from $327M. The full year 2016 was $459M, up from $407M in 2015. Clearfield, a supplier of fiber optic gear, was up 8% in sales in the smaller ISPs.
There is nothing in the data from others that suggests an alternate trend. Anyone could have found this data in a few minutes from the company quarterly reports.
The results in larger companies are ambiguous. I can "prove" capex went up or went down by selecting the right data. The four largest companies' capex - two/thirds of the total - went up from $52.7B in 2015 to $55.7B in 2016. The result remains positive after making sensible adjustments for mergers and acquisitions. That's as close to "proving" that NN led to increased spending as the facts chosen to prove the opposite.
Actually, whether capex went up or down in 2016 tells us almost nothing about the choice on neutrality. Everyone knows a single datapoint could be random or due to other causes. Much more, including the source of the errors http://bit.ly/SorryPai

Elders Bearing Witness: Vint, Timbl, & Many More http://bit.ly/VintTim
Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak and more than a dozen true Internet pioneers wrote Congress to protect Neutrality. The best Congress money can buy didn't listen but I wanted to reproduce their letter.
I hope they are wrong believing "is an imminent threat to the Internet we worked so hard to create." My take is the impact will be moderate in the short run.
From the letter:
We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood. ... The FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.
Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order ... More, including the full list, http://bit.ly/VintTim