Public%20Interest%20Considerations%20on%20Next%20Generation%20Networks%20ITU%20Workshop,%20What%20Rules%20for%20IP-enabled%20NGNs?%2023-24%20March%202006

1
Public Interest Considerations onNext Generation
NetworksITU Workshop, What Rules for IP-enabled
NGNs?23-24 March 2006

• William Drake 
• Director, Project on the Information  Revolution
  and Global Governance  Graduate Institute for
  International Studies  Geneva, Switzerland
• President, Computer Professionals for    Social
  Responsibility
• drake_at_hei.unige.ch
• www.cpsr.org/board/drake

2
On the Public Interest

• 30 years ago, fair degree of consensus on its
  meaning
• Today far less consensus, some view the term as
  quaintly archaic
• Views vary widely among and within various
  groupings, e.g. ideological, professional,
  scholarly disciplines
• Variable geometry of political alignments per
  issue
• NGO perspective offered here
• Irrespective of ones views on them, public
  interest concerns will be raised and could become
  politically salient as NGN roll-out and policy
  making accelerate
• Better to address now than to settle for post hoc
  reactions dialogue constructive engagement
  needed

3
The Current Political Context

• Concerns about regulatory/legislative capture and
  industry concentration are common
• Citizens groups, aka civil society organizations
  increasingly attentive and mobilized in many
  countries
• Merging of computing and communications
  environments, Internet, personalization of
  technology, etc. have empowered users, altered
  their expectations, increased their sense of
  being stakeholders whose freedoms are impacted by
  government and industry decisions gt digital
  rights
• Aspects of NGN development will be seen through
  these prisms

4
Some Potential Hot Spots

• Market power, vertical integration, competition
• Universal service universal access
• Interconnection, settlements
• Charging
• New digital divides
• Interoperability open standards, proprietary
  platforms walled gardens (where real choice is
  absent)
• Net neutrality QoS
• Freedom of speech access to diverse information
• Privacy protection vs. public/private sector
  surveillance
• Intellectual property restrictions
• Consumer protection

5
Networked Globalization

• Many of the above issues have transnational
  dimensions
• In which cases do asymmetric national policies
  matter?
• Some issues may require new international
  frameworks
• Bilateral, plurilateral, regional, multilateral
• Intergovernmental, private sector,
  multistakeholder
• In parallel, some specifically international
  issues, e.g. cross-border trade
• Content without frontiers, cultural and
  linguistic diversity concerns
• domestic regulation of content services
  (educational, medical, gambling, etc.)
• Jurisdiction choice of law

6
Open Questions Relationship to the Public
Internet

• Some lack of clarity in discussions to date
• Conflict, coexistence, or convergence?
• Is the Internet really broken? For whom? Are we
  at an inflection point?
• If it is broken, are NGNs as currently envisioned
  the optimal fix?
• Any potential risks to the medicine?
• Will preserving the widely valued aspects of
  todays Internet require more regulation, or less?

7
A Tale of Two Networlds Disconnects

• Beyond the IETF, many stakeholders in the
  Internet environment seem unaware of NGN
  developments
• Ex While NGN potentially of direct relevance,
  little mention in the global Internet governance
  debate, e.g. in WSIS, WGIG, ICANN nexus, other
  relevant forums
• Ex 8 March 2005 OECD Workshop on The Future of
  the Internet ITU presentation the only mention

8
and Misconnects

• Among the Internet mavens who are aware of NGN,
  widespread uneasiness even distrust
• Viewed through the prisms of old nethead vs.
  bellhead divide as an ITU-based telco power
  grab
• Press coverage and Internet buzz a factor
• Some of this may be more instinctive than thought
  through, mid-1990s mindsets locked in place
• Nevertheless, many unanswered questions,
  ambiguities information perceptions tend to
  fill vacuums
• And in some cases, these may indeed be legitimate
  ground for public interest concerns

9
A Cautionary Tale?

• 33 years ago, ITU participants began to develop
  the concept of Integrated Services Digital
  Networks (ISDN)
• Within ITU and PTT/telco circles, viewed
  positively as comprehensive, forward-leading
  platform for voice/data
• Outside those circles, ISDN often was viewed as a
  response by threatened monopolies to the growth
  of private leased circuits, networks gt derided
  as Innovations that Subscribers Dont Want
• Issue became contentious controversy and
  subsequent market liberalization technological
  change significantly decoupled implementation
  from the initial vision

10
Hence, a Need for Transparency Inclusive
Dialogue

• ITU other relevant bodies should provide free
  open access to information on NGN work, e.g.
  standards, contributions reports
• Initiate dialogue with concerned stakeholders in
  the Internet environment, including diverse
  business constituencies civil society
  organizations
• Interested parties should anticipate and address
  up front potential concerns
• Absent this, probability of increasing divergence
  that could become salient for market plans and
  policy discussions later on, per ISDN yesterday,
  or the net neutrality debate today

11
Conclusion

• First, do no harm to the Internet people have
  come to know and value, e.g. the right to
  tinker at the edges
• Supplier solutions to suppliers problems will
  not be inspiring to users if perceived as being
  at expense of their current capabilities
• Think of empowered citizens, not just consumers
• Transparency inclusive dialogue on the full
  range of policy issues in everyones interest