Why the ITU is the wrong place to set Internet standards

The International Telecommunication Union as an organization doesn't have any direct regulatory powers. It can't fine anyone or put them in jail for defying its rules. Moreover, the proposals under discussion at Dubai, a proposal by the ITU's chairman, don't give the Geneva-based ITU Secretariat new powers. They merely declare that "member states" shall have the power to regulate the Internet to promote security, fight spam, and so forth. But the "member states" are sovereign nations.

They've been regulating the Internet for years without the ITU's blessing and are going to continue doing so regardless of what is decided at the conclusion of this week's conference. So why is there so much controversy over a treaty that will largely say governments have powers they're already wielding? A big reason is that in the Internet's consensus-based governance model, precedents and symbolism matter. The ITU can't force the world's governments to sign on to, or abide by, any treaty that's negotiated in Dubai this week. But if the world signs on to a treaty that purports to govern the Internet, it will help establish a precedent that the ITU is the appropriate forum for setting Internet standards. The Internet already has standard-setting organizations that are inclusive and transparent, inviting participation from private companies, non-profits, and others with a stake in the Internet's future. The Internet's existing consensus-based standards-setting process works well. In contrast, the ITU's deliberations are largely carried out behind closed doors, with only governments and major telecommunications incumbents invited to participate. There's no danger of a "UN takeover" of the Internet in the short term. But in the long run the ITU could emerge as a rival to the Internet's established standard-setting institutions. And that could harm the open Internet by politicizing the development of future Internet standards.