The fight to keep a state-free Internet

[Commentary] The first gathering of world governments to debate the future of the internet has ended in dramatic discord, with 55 member states of a UN body refusing to sign a global treaty on international telecommunications. The collapse of the talks marks just the first battle in what will be an enduring global contest to define the governance and control of the internet in the 21st century.

States dissenting from the new treaty cited a deep commitment to the internet’s dynamic governance model, which has emerged organically over the past two decades. Based on co-operation among civil society, global technical bodies and the private sector, the internet has flourished beyond the control of governments, fostering staggering innovation and growth through its flat, open and globally unregulated structure.

The final version of the treaty impinges on that paradigm in four critical ways.

• First, at the insistence of Russia, China and several Arab states, the treaty includes a provision mandating co-ordination on cybersecurity, defined euphemistically as “network” security.
• Second, encouraged by African nations and supported by countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, the treaty creates a requirement that member states seek to defend against internet spam, which is imprecisely defined as “unsolicited bulk electronic communications.”
• Third, the treaty has a resolution calling on the ITU and its members to play an enlarged role in “international internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the existing internet and its future development.”
• Finally, a new formulation of the treaty changes the definition of its scope and authority in ambiguous ways, creating a class of entities falling under its jurisdiction, potentially including internet service providers, private networks and even government networks.