<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"The list of Internet luminaries warning about a United Nations conference about the Internet and telecommunications is growing by the day: Google and Mozilla have spoken out against the conference. Vint Cerf, Google VP and \"father of the Internet\" wrote against it two days ago. World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee did the same on Tuesday.\nThe conference in question is the International Telecommunication Union's WCIT, or the World Conference on International Telecommunications. WCIT's purpose is to update a decades-old international treaty that sets standards for cross-border communications, among other purposes. As the treaty hasn't been updated since 1988, high on the list of priorities is determining whether the treaty should be updated to include language about the Internet, and if so, to determine what that language should be.\nMany of the warnings about WCIT have been vague \u2014 Google's official petition, for example, speaks of \"governments\" that \"want to use a closed-door meeting in December to increase censorship and regulate the Internet.\" \nFor now, let's put aside the point that Google has commercial interests in maintaining the status quo at WCIT (one proposal would tax global Internet traffic, which would cut into the company's profits) and accept Google's interest here is solely in keeping the web open and free. The language above does little to shed light on WCIT. What governments? Increase what censorship? Regulate the Internet how?\nTo help clear things up, let's take a look at one proposal in particular that open Internet advocates are almost universally shunning: that of Russia.\nThe first contentious issue is that Russia proposes including the Internet in WCIT's business at all.\n\"Currently, Internet regulation falls outside the scope of the [International Telecommunication Regulations],\" wrote Emma Llanso, policy counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. \"The Russian proposal is one of the most overt proposals to bring aspects of Internet regulation into the treaty, so it's become one of the focal points for the whole debate over the role of the ITU in Internet governance. It sets out a number of definitions that don't exist in the current treaty, including 'Internet,' 'Internet traffic', 'basic Internet infrastructure' and 'national Internet segment.'\"\nSecond, Russia proposes moving Internet governance away from private-sector non-profits such as ICANN and towards United Nations member states. It argues ICANN and similar bodies are too closely tied to the United States, giving Washington outsized influence in those organizations. That's arguably true, albeit a product of the United States' leading role in developing the Internet. \nRegardless, Russia argues that spreading the responsibilities among different countries would democratize the Internet. Moving Internet governance away from Washington would also be a strategic benefit to Moscow.\nWhy are open Internet advocates against changing the current model of Internet governance? Many, including Vint Cerf, simply argue \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\" \u2014 that is, the current multi-stakeholder model works fine. \n\"The multi-stakeholder model of internet policy development. . .is the only sensible way forward,\" wrote Cerf in a recent editorial.\nIt's important to note, however, preservation of the status quo in Internet governance does stand to benefit some of those arguing against the proposed changes \u2014 Cerf himself was chairman of ICANN for seven years.\nFinally, the Russian proposal calls for governments to have the \"sovereign right to. . .regulate the national Internet segment.\"\nRussia has a less than stellar record with free speech, both online and offline. Thus, many observers argue Russia is advancing this language to afford governments the legal authority to monitor and censor the web as they see fit.\n\"It's even more worrying seen in the context of other proposals,\" said Jochai Ben-Avie, senior policy analyst at Access, an open Internet NGO, in reference to rules that gives states the right to know where Internet traffic is being routed in combination with the already-mentioned proposals shifting Internet governance to UN member states.\n\"This would open the door to widespread pervasive surveillance and would require costly and incredibly inefficient overhaul to try and change the Internet architecture to be more like traditional telephony architecture,\" added Ben-Avie. \"When you take it together. . .it's deeply concerning.\"\nSEE ALSO: Google's Vint Cerf: Keep the Internet Free and Open\nWhere does the Russian proposal stand now? China and several other less influential countries support all or some of its language. The United States, Europe and Portugal, meanwhile, voiced strong opposition. \nFurther discussion over the proposal is scheduled for Friday, when we'll likely understand more about its chances for success. For now, Llanso said it was \"unlikely\" the current text of the Russian proposal would make it into the treaty. \n\"But this proposal raises some of the biggest questions that will determine the impact of the treaty for the Internet, and it's no surprise that it's contentious,\" she added. \"We've known for a long time that some countries are looking at this treaty as a way to re-orient and centralize control over certain aspects of global Internet governance.\"\nPhoto via AFP/Getty Images"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2012/12/05/russia-internet-proposal/>