U.S. ‘Disappointed’ by Russia’s Proposed Revisions to ITRs

Russia’s proposals began to receive public scrutiny after WCITLeaks.org published an ITU-translated English version of the original set of proposals. An English translation of the later-revised version is also available. The proposals taken together would give the ITU the authority to handle Internet addressing and other core Internet governance matters, U.S. WCIT delegation head Terry Kramer told us. Throughout the preparations for WCIT, the U.S. has said it is seeking to prevent any changes to the ITRs that would affect the current multistakeholder model of Internet governance, which he said has aided in the Internet’s exponential growth (CD Nov 15 p11).

The revised version of the proposals is more objectionable for the U.S., Tony Rutkowski, a senior research fellow at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, told us in an e-mail. The original version included a proposal that would give ITU member states “the sovereign right to manage the Internet within their national territory, as well as to manage national Internet domain names,” according to a copy of the text of both versions of the proposals Rutkowski sent us. The revised version contains a proposal that says “shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance, and to regulate the national Internet segment, as well as the activities within their territory of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic.” Another proposal in the original version would give member states “equal rights in the international allocation of Internet addressing and identification resources.” The revision has a provision that says 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."

Kramer said he was “surprised and disappointed” by the Russian proposals. He had met with members of Russia’s delegation in Baku, Azerbaijan, during the Internet Governance Forum meeting earlier this month. The two nations had a “productive and engaging” discussion about the issues to be confronted at WCIT, but members of Russia’s delegation never mentioned the specific proposals outlined in their WCIT filing, Kramer said.

Nobody is happy with the Russian proposals -- probably not even the ITU, FCC International Bureau Chief Mindel De La Torre said Tuesday at a Broadband Breakfast Club event. The Russian proposals represent the diametric opposite of what the U.S. believes should be included in the treaty, she said. “The good news is it’s only one country.” That’s rather than a joint proposal from the entire Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communication, whose members are all located in Central and Eastern Europe, she said. “It’s a lot easier to deal with an outlier country than it is to deal with a whole region at one of these conferences."

Russia may have felt “emboldened to make their takeover provisions more explicit and far reaching” in the revised version, Rutkowski said. “They are looking at the announced delegation information and realizing that the numbers both as to countries and delegates significantly favor them.” The proposals are “part of an array of Russian initiatives in play” on Internet governance, a subject Russia’s government has worked on for the last 10 years, he said. Rutkowski worked in the ITU secretariat during the original WCIT meeting in 1988, and is the ITU-T’s rapporteur for cybersecurity. The U.S. is still gauging whether the Russian proposal has significant support from other national delegations, De La Torre said.

The ITU could always decide to remove the Russian proposals from consideration at WCIT if the U.N. agency decides they fall outside the scope of the ITRs, Kramer said. He’s had a direct conversation with ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré about Russia’s new proposals, and said he is encouraged by Touré’s past statements about WCIT not being an appropriate forum for addressing Internet governance issues. Touré has said in the past that WCIT would not consider proposed revisions to the ITRs that would affect Internet governance, which he defined as any issue dealt with by the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers. Gary Fowlie, head of the ITU’s liaison office in the United States, said at the Broadband Breakfast event Tuesday that speculation about WCIT becoming an attempt for the ITU to take over the Internet were completely off-base. “This is not the ITU as a U.N. agency taking over the Internet,” he said.

Russia could choose to withdraw the proposals entirely before WCIT convenes, but Rutkowski said he does not believe that will happen. If the Russian proposals or others the U.S. finds objectionable make it into the revised ITRs, Rutkowski said he does not believe the U.S. or most other Western nations will sign onto it. Even if they do sign, “they will make blanket reservations to everything,” he said. If the U.S. or other Western nations decide to make reservations on the treaty or not sign it at all, it could lead to a “bifurcated” or split Internet, said Fiona Alexander, associate administrator for the NTIA’s office of international affairs. “That’s bad in the context of economic development, economic growth, freedom of expression.”