‘Interesting Paths Forward’ Emerging in Talks to Revise ITU Treaty, Executive Says

There has been some concern that the conference could lead to some form of intergovernmental controls over the Internet, said Philip Verveer, the U.S. State Department coordinator for international communications and information policy. There is a “unanimous view” in the U.S. that it would be a bad thing, he told us Friday by telephone.

"The imposition of intergovernmental controls at the world conference is a low probability, but a high consequence,” Verveer said. It would be “a very negative outcome to virtually essentially everybody with an interest in the Internet,” he said. Steps are being taken to counter the occasional assertion that the Internet needs some form of U.N. or other inter-governmental control, he said.

A revised treaty could impact the global Internet, said Sally Wentworth of the Internet Society. The Internet Society wants to look at the revision as an opportunity to articulate high-level principles to spur further growth of networks, she said. The treaty’s aim to spur interconnection and interoperability “are incredibly important principles,” she said. Proposals should be measured against that goal, she said.

"No, or a light regulatory touch” has been the global consensus for about 30 years to spur Internet-related technology, said William Kennard, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. “Regulation lags far behind technology, said Kennard, who is a former FCC chairman. The best outcome would be to set up a framework to spur new entrants, innovation and investment, he said.

Talks on revising the regulations contain “echoes of the past,” Kennard said. Efforts to change regulation to capture new revenue streams, “recreating in some sense the old accounting rate system” is “very worrying,” Kennard said. Dismantling the system “is widely acknowledged” as one of the “great global achievements in telecom policy,” he said.

"Today’s Internet business models are becoming unsustainable in the face of an exponential growth in data traffic,” said Luigi Gambardella, ETNO chairman of the executive board. Speakers said there is a need to address the current disconnect between sources of revenue and sources of costs, an official said.

ITU members face a choice, Wentworth said, referring to either applying the legacy regulatory structure to new technologies such as the Internet, or incorporating what’s worked into the treaty. Proposals have raised concerns, she said referring to content and charging arrangements.

"Think different” is an important message when talking about revising the regulations, said Naser Al Rashedi, manager of ITU affairs in the UAE national regulatory authority. Al Rashedi supported the idea of regularly updating the regulations to account for new technological environments. Cyberspace needs to be kept clean, he said.

Many of the areas proposed for treaty revisions are already being worked on “well and legitimately” in the ITU, said David Gross, an attorney with Wiley Rein. Codifying technical work at a treaty level runs the risk of “requiring that the world of tomorrow look like the world of today,” said Gross, who is a former U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy. “That is a fundamental error,” he said. Work on the treaty revision should spur flexibility, creativity and a better world, he said.

The growth of technology, wealth creation and increased consumer welfare has occurred primarily because of regulatory restraint, Kennard said: “Let’s not … kill the golden goose."

"Some interesting paths forward are starting to emerge,” Gross said. Much of the credit for changes made during the 1988 conference goes to things that are implicit in the treaty, he said. Perhaps some of the things people assume are in the treaty should be made explicit, Gross said. He referred to the importance of liberalization. The landscape has changed since 1988, he said. The importance of private sector leadership, apart from liberalization, should perhaps be recognized, he said. Perhaps the desire for market-based solutions rather than top-down regulatory approaches to “solve many of the problems” could be explicit, he said.

Governance however, still plays “a key role,” Gross said referring to the catalytic role governments can play. The important government role “doesn’t automatically translate into the need for global unanimity and global treaties to regulate,” he said. “Quite the opposite,” he said. Governments need to operate where they operate best, he said. Government work in local areas can help reflect local needs, concerns, cultures and societies, he said.

Perhaps the role of competition, privatization and liberalization is “ripe for discussion,” Wentworth said. Regulatory transparency, independence and the need for flexibility to allow network changes to spur innovation could also be considered, she said.

The regulations “in a sense have to sell themselves” and “in a sense, [be] self-executing” to be effective and lend themselves to positive results for all, Verveer said. One-sided arrangements “are going to fall into disuse,” he said.

Workshop speakers said the treaty should ensure a “win-win” approach for all the relevant players, he said. It should spur the benefits of the Internet to all by encouraging broadband rollout and investment, they said.

Speakers said talks should focus on telecom issues without involving the geopolitical agenda “in particular Internet governance issues.” They also said it should emphasize the importance of liberalization, privatization, and recognize needed flexibility, the role of the private sector and market-based solutions. It should remain as high-level principles providing light touch regulation encouraging investment and innovation, he said. “Any economic aspects should have a stringent impact analysis” that accounts for different levels of development, he said. It should also spur markets. Speakers said industry should be active in the preparatory process.

The treaty conference will define a set of commitments that participating nations will make to each other, not to the ITU, Verveer said. Government and the private sector in a U.S. group are following the various proposals to the regional groups, Verveer said. The U.S. will float proposals during a May meeting of the Americas region, he said.