<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"> <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/</a></span><br clear="all">
<br><br><h3>
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/" class="blue">On the Need to Separate the Telecom Business Agenda from Government Policy</a>
</h3>
<div class="date pipedLinks">
<ul><li>Oct 08, 2010 3:32 PM PDT</li><li>Comments: <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/#comments" class="blue">4</a></li><li>Views: 1,785</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="byline">
<div class="postTools">
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/" target="_blank" class="print red last">Print</a>
<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/#add_comment" class="comment red">Comment</a> </div>
By <a href="http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/" class="blue"><strong>Sivasubramanian M</strong></a> </div>
<img src="http://www.circleid.com/images/member_photos/photo_3601.jpg" alt="Sivasubramanian M" class="memPhoto" border="0" width="80"> <p><em>At
Guadalajara, Mexico this week, in the policy debate kicked off by the
ITU, Russian Federation's Minister of Communications proposed that the
ITU should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions.
</em></p>
<p>
<em>This proposal by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of
Communications (RCC) calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee
(GAC) to be scrapped and replaced by an ITU group.</em>
</p>
<p>
ITU's formation and existence deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the philosophy (not quote verbatim) that "<strong>a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea shore as possible</strong>”:
(merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is close to the sea,
merchants would have proximity to the members of the Government, so
there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the
politicians). In violation of this ancient wisdom, Telecom corporations
have been inexplicably granted the unique advantage of being seated
alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it
possible for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence in government
Policy.
</p>
<p>
The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be
standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established
standards for telegraphic and phone communication.
</p>
<p>
Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom
corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in
their telecommunication corporations, but haven't detached themselves
from the business that no longer was owned by Governments. (The
co-participation of Government and Business at the ITU is quite
different from a multi-stockholder model where ALL stakeholders are
seated around a table with a definite balance)
</p>
<p>
This status for telecoms at the ITU is a rare status, not conferred upon
the business unions of any other industry, for instance on the
Association of Airlines or Ocean Liners. From this one of a kind
business-Government relationship, theoretically a lot of good could
happen, but in reality, it is a situation of a persistent danger of
government policy being influenced and steered in the direction desired
by commercial interests.
</p>
<p>
The ITU has the facade of an inter-governmental Treaty organization
making Inter-Governmental Public Policy but in reality it is
overwhelmingly a commercial business union driven more by commercial
pursuits than by non-commercial public interest.
</p>
<p>
The concern of the telecom members of the ITU is that they should govern
and control the entire realm of communications, wired and wireless,
terrestial and spatial. The ITU already sets policies and rules in all
communication, with the exception of the Internet: Telegraphs,
telephones, mobile phones and it also manages satellite communications
and the RF spectrum.
</p>
<p>
Spectrum allocation hasn't been a fair and transparent exercise, and the
Industry has been resistant to the idea of an open spectrum eco-system.
For the sake of argument, if we consider a situation where Civil
Society partnered with Governments in place of telecoms, we would have
made greater progress toward an open spectrum policy. But this does not
happen when inter-governmental policy is made at the ITU where the
Telecom Businesses virtually draft policy on Government Paper.
</p>
<p>
Another area where the ITU effectively misleads Governments in making
policy is in the area of Internet Security. ITU's Security focus appeals
to the Governments; Conversely, the Security concerns of Governments
suit the business participants of the ITU. The game plan adopted by the
ITU is to disproportionately exaggerate the security concerns with a
view to position itself as defenders of Internet Security and bring in
ITU's Security centric re-architectural proposals which would ultimately
migrate the Internet to Telecom friendly business models. ITU's
security agenda requires special attention and a separate analysis.
</p>
<p>
ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom
companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of
the Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the
Internet took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to
be way beyond the purview of the ITU and it took shape on its own.
</p>
<p>
The Internet, as a free and open medium, threatened the business models
of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP began to be
adopted worldwide. New Internet technologies that gave birth to
Innovative Internet enterprises such as Skype became phenomenally
successful. These enterprises did not obey ITU rules and significantly
threatened telecom revenues.
</p>
<p>
The freedom of the Internet is because of its open architecture and due
to such principles as the end to end principle, all of which could be
easily redefined to suit ITU's commercial interests if the task of
Internet architecture and Internet standards comes under the ITU
umbrella. So the ITU tried to interject itself in the Internet Standards
process. This did not happen.
</p>
<p>
The Critical Internet Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella
by taking over ICANN which the ITU considers vulnerable. That could
ensure a technical dominance of the Internet by the ITU. This was not
easy when the <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081115_take_over_internet_governace_itu_icann/">ITU made its bid</a> on its own.
</p>
<p>
Now the proposal for veto powers to ITU over the decisions of GAC comes from a Government participating at its Plenipotentiary.
</p>
<p>
ITU's World Telecommunication Policy Forum and its Plenipotentiary are
its major events that project the ITU as a Policy making organization
and to further its role in policy making. As an ITU organized event, the
Plenipotentiary has the Agendas of the Telecom Businesses subtly
interwoven in all policy debates and proposals. The Russian proposal
arises in this telecom setting, so it is difficult to see this as a
Government proposal free of business influence.
</p>
<p>
The answer has to The Guadalajara proposal may have to come from GAC.
GAC could respond by prompting their Governments to review the role of
the ITU in Government Policy. It is time The ITU is balanced to the fair
level of any other Business Association such as Airlines or Ocean
liners.
</p>
<p>
It is time that the Governments reminded themselves of the ancient wisdom of "staying father away from sea shore".
</p><br>