---
abstract: |
  The International Telecommunication Union's World Conference on
  International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is currently under way in
  Dubai, after a gap of 25 years. At this conference, the International
  Telecommunication Regulations --- a binding treaty containing
  high-level principles --- are to be revised.
archive-url: "https:
  //cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-pranesh-prakash-december-10-2012-the-worldwide-web-of-concerns"
author:
- Pranesh Prakash
authors:
- Pranesh Prakash
categories:
- Telecom
- Freedom of expression
- Net neutrality
citation:
  accessed: 2019-01-13
  archive: "https:
    //cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-pranesh-prakash-december-10-2012-the-worldwide-web-of-concerns"
  author: Pranesh Prakash
  available-date:
    date-parts:
    - - 2012
      - 12
      - 10
    iso-8601: 2012-12-10
    literal: 2012-12-10
    raw: 2012-12-10
  citation-key: prakashWorldwideWeb2012
  container-title: Asian Age
  issued:
    date-parts:
    - - 2012
      - 12
      - 10
    iso-8601: 2012-12-10
    literal: 2012-12-10
    raw: 2012-12-10
  language: en
  license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
    International License (CC-BY-NC-SA)
  title: The worldwide web of concerns
  type: article-newspaper
  URL: "http://web.archive.org/web/20121212012715/http://www.asianage.com/columnists/worldwide-web-concerns-007"
comments:
  hypothesis:
    theme: clean
date: 2012-12-10
engines:
- path: /opt/quarto/share/extension-subtrees/julia-engine/\_extensions/julia-engine/julia-engine.js
license:
  text: CC BY-NC 4.0
  type: creative-commons
  url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"
listing-page: ../press.html
original-url: "http://web.archive.org/web/20121212012715/http://www.asianage.com/columnists/worldwide-web-concerns-007"
publication: Asian Age
title: The worldwide web of concerns
title-block-categories: true
toc-title: Table of contents
---

# The worldwide web of concerns

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much has changed since the 1988 Melbourne conference. Since 1988, mobile
telephony has grown by leaps and bounds, the Internet has expanded and
the World Wide Web has come into existence.

Telecom­muni­ca­tions is now, by and large, driven by the private sector
and not by state monopolies.

While there are welcome proposals (consumer protection relating to
billing of international roaming), there have also been contentious
issues that Internet activists have raised: a) process-related problems
with the ITU; b) scope of the ITRs, and of ITU's authority; c)
content-related proposals and "evil governments" clamping down on free
speech; d) IP traffic routing and distribution of revenues.

## Process-related problems

The ITU is a closed-door body with only governments having a voice, and
only they and exorbitant fees-paying sector members have access to
documents and proposals. Further, governments generally haven't held
public consultations before forming their positions. This lack of
transparency and public participation is anathema to any form of global
governance and is clearly one of the strongest points of Internet
activists who've raised alarm bells over WCIT.

w Scope of ITRs: Most telecom regulators around the world distinguish
between information services and telecom services, with regulators often
not having authority over the former. A few countries even believe that
the wide definition of telecommunications in the ITU constitution and
the existing ITRs already covers certain aspects of the Internet, and
contend that the revisions are in line with the ITU constitution. This
view should be roundly rejected, while noting that there are some
legitimate concerns about the shift of traditional telephony to IP-based
networks and the ability of existing telecom regulations (such as those
for mandatory emergency services) to cope with this shift.

ITU's relationship with Internet governance has been complicated. In
1997, it was happy to take a hands-off approach, cooperating with
Internet Society and others, only to seek a larger role in Internet
governance soon after. In part this has been because the United States
cocked a snook at the ITU and the world community in 1998 through the
way it established Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) as a body to look after the Internet's domain name system. While
the fact that the US has oversight over ICANN needs to change (with
de-nationalisation being the best option), Russia wants to supersede
ICANN and that too through current revisions of the ITRs. Russia's
proposal is a dreadful idea, and must not just be discarded lightly but
thrown away with great force. The ITU should remain but one among
multiple equal stakeholders concerned with Internet governance.

One important, but relatively unnoticed, proposed change to ITU's
authority is that of making the standards that ITU's technical wing
churns out mandatory. This is a terrible idea (especially in view of the
ITU's track record at such standards) that only a stuffy bureaucrat
without any real-world insight into standards adoption could have dreamt
up.

## Content-related proposals

Internet activists, especially US-based ones, have been most vocal about
the spectre of undemocratic governments trying to control online speech
through the ITRs. Their concerns are overblown, especially given that
worse provisions already exist in the ITU's constitution. A more real
threat is that of increasing national regulation of the Internet and its
subsequent balkanisation, and this is increasingly becoming reality even
without revisions to the ITRs.

Having said that, we must ensure that issues like harmonisation of
cyber-security and spam laws, which India has been pushing, should not
come under ITU's authority. A further worry is the increasing
militarisation of cyberspace, and an appropriate space must be found by
nation-states to address this pressing issue, without bringing it under
the same umbrella as online protests by groups like Anonymous.

## Division of revenue

Another set of proposals is being pushed by a group of European telecom
companies hoping to revive their hard-hit industry. They want the ITU to
regulate how payments are made for the flow of Internet traffic, and to
prevent socalled "net neutrality" laws that aim to protect consumers and
prevent monopolistic market abuse. They are concerned that the Googles
and Facebooks of the world are free-riding on their investments. That
all these companies pay to use networks just as all home users do, is
conveniently forgotten. Thankfully, most countries don't seem to be
considering these proposals seriously.

## Can general criteria be framed for judging these proposals?

In submissions to the Indian government, the Centre for Internet and
Society suggested that any proposed revision of the ITRs be considered
favourably only if it passes all the following tests: if international
regulation is required, rather than just national-level regulation
(i.e., the principle of subsidiarity); if it is a technical issue
limited to telecommunications networks and services, and their
interoperability; if it is an issue that has to be decided exclusively
at the level of nation-states; if the precautionary principle is
satisfied; and if there is no better place than the ITRs to address that
issue. If all of the above are satisfied, then it must be seen if it
furthers substantive principles, such as equity and development,
competition and prevention of monopolies, etc. If it does, then we
should ask what kind of regulation is needed: whether it should be
mandatory, whether it is the correct sort of intervention required to
achieve the policy objectives.

The threat of a "UN takeover" of the Internet through the WCIT is
non-existent. Since the ITU's secretary-general is insisting on
consensus (as is tradition) rather than voting, the possibility of bad
proposals (of which there are many) going through is slim. However, that
doesn't mean that activists have been crying themselves hoarse in vain.
That people around the world are a bit more aware about the linkage
between the technical features of the Internet and its potential as a
vehicle for free speech, commerce and development, is worth having to
hear some shriller voices out there.

*The writer is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society,
Bengaluru*