Jerry Brito

Announcing the new WCITLeaks.org

As you might know, a few months ago Eli Dourado and I launched WCITLeaks.org, a site meant to bring transparency to the UN’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT, pronounced wicket). Today we’re relaunching a new and improved version of the site.

At the conference in December, world governments will consider proposals to increase government control of the Internet. The father of the Internet, Vint Cerf, has warned that “Such proposals raise the prospect of policies that enable government controls but greatly diminish the ‘permissionless innovation’ that underlies extraordinary Internet-based economic growth to say nothing of trampling human rights.”

Sadly, though, those proposals have been kept secret by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is hosting the meeting. WCITLeaks.org gave those in possession of such documents a way to make them available to the public. To date we have published about 11 percent of ITU documents related to the WCIT. But we think there’s more we can do.

The new WCITLeaks also provides a resource bank with links to analysis and advocacy materials from civil society, and a news page populated both with broad overviews of the issue and recent headlines. The hope is that WCITLeaks.org can serve as a clearinghouse for information related to the conference, as well as future efforts by the ITU to regulate the Internet.

In a couple of weeks, the ITU will be holding a press conference to discuss the WCIT because, they say, “there is quite a lot of misinformation being circulated concerning the agenda and process of the conference.” They invite journalists to “Join this global discussion to find out what’s REALLY going to be discussed[.]”

It’s amazing, but they are holding a press conference to dispel “misinformation” about what’s going to be discussed at the conference, and what’s going to be discussed at the conference is—wait for it—in the documents they keep secret! If the ITU is serious about dispelling any misinformation, the best way to do that is not with a press conference but by making all documents related to the WCIT public.

Until then, WCITLeaks.org will continue to serve as a resource where citizens can inform themselves by reading the secret government’s proposals, and now also by perusing news, policy analyses, and advocacy materials from a broad spectrum of civil society groups. We hope you will help us spread the word about the site, and submit documents and links you think should be included. Thanks for your help!

Today we’re launching WCITLeaks.org

As you may have heard, the UN is trying to take over the internet. Well, that’s not really true, but member states of the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU) are definitely going to negotiate an agreement related to the Internet at the World Conference on International Communications (WCIT - pronounced ‘wicket’) this December in Dubai. U.S. officials have warned that some member states, including Russia and China, have put forth proposals to regulate the Internet. Vint Cerf has warned that “Such proposals raise the prospect of policies that enable government controls but greatly diminish the ‘permissionless innovation’ that underlies extraordinary Internet-based economic growth to say nothing of trampling human rights.”

So what are these proposals? Well, we don’t know exactly. To see them, you have to have access to the ITU’s password protected website. This lack of transparency brings to mind secret negotiations like the one that gave us ACTA, and several civil society groups have written to the ITU demanding access to the documents.

The proposals are not classified and it’s not illegal to share them. In fact, they often are shared. At a recent panel discussion that I attended, the State Department’s Richard Beaird said, “Access to the proposals, of course, as I have done and others have done, is if you ask me, I will give you those proposals. I don’t want to have a flood of requests coming in from the room or those int he television audience.”

At the time, I tweeted: “If someone will pass them to me, I volunteer to host a site with gov WCIT proposals.” It seemed weird to me that someone wasn’t collecting and publishing the documents, like how opencrs.com does with Congressional Research Service reports. I promptly forgot about the idea, but was reminded yesterday when Milton Mueller wrote this post urging the U.S. to make documents available. He wrote:

Today, IGP has learned that the U.S. government is in possession of a document that brings together descriptions of all the WCIT proposals emerging from the ITU’s Council Working Group. The document, known as TD 64, compiles all the proposals on the table into a single document without attributing them to any specific government. No law or treaty stops the US government from making this document available to the public. We urge the U.S. government to release TD 64 of the ITU Council Working Group immediately.

Of course, while it’s not illegal, publishing these documents is probably not considered polite in the rarefied diplomatic circles of the ITU. So, I thought we’d give folks with access to the documents a helping hand.

Yesterday Eli Dourado and I spent a couple of hours putting together a website at WCITLeaks.org. The idea is simple: If you have a WCIT or ITU related document you’d like to share, submit it anonymously and we will publish it. That’s it. We hope you find it useful and that you’ll spread the word.

Genachowski: Open Internet a paramount value over cybersecurity

So as stakeholders address the challenge of cybersecurity, it’s vital that we preserve the ingredients that have and will fuel the Internet’s growth and success. Specifically, it’s critical that we preserve Internet freedom and the open architecture of the Internet, which have been essential to the Internet’s success as an engine of innovation and economic growth. Preserving the openness of the Internet is not a concern to be balanced with security risks, it is a guiding principle to be honored as we seek to address security challenges.

That was FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in an address on cybersecurity this morning at the Bipartisan Policy Center (emphasis mine). Bravo. I’m glad he said it because that’s now the standard I’ll use to judge any regulatory proposals on cybersecurity, especially those from the FCC.

One other thing to point out: While the Chairman’s calls for ISPs to adopt DNSSEC is welcome, he should remember that the FCC has no authority to regulate the Internet. We shouldn’t forget that, either, as the Commission begins to dip its toes into the cybersecurity waters.

How does the UN take control of the Internet?

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell warns that several countries, including Brazil, Russia, China, and India, would like the UN to have a larger role in Internet governance. McDowell makes many of the same points I made in TIME.com last week and I agree with him completely. Here’s one thing he says that I find interesting:

Merely saying “no” to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

I’m not so sure about that. SOPA/PIPA showed that a “no compromises” approach can sometimes work. And it seems like the news today that the EU is pulling out of ACTA under pressure from netizens underscores that. ITU control of the Internet is ten times the threat that SOPA ever was, so I’m not sure we should rule out merely saying “no”. Dialog is always a good thing, but why should we enter a conversation agreeing we’re going to give in on some margin to states like China and Russia?

Here’s a question that remains a mystery to me: Assuming every other country agrees to centralize control of the Internet, wouldn’t true control require the U.S. handing over the root to the UN? Why would we ever do that? And what does it mean to “Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work”? These are volunteer-run non-profits. How can they be “subsumed” by the ITU? Why would they submit?

And even if they are subsumed, all the power they now employ is merely putting out technical recommendations. It is the voluntary adhesion to these recommendations by the thousands of networks that make up the Internet which make them powerful. How would you mandate compliance with new standards from a centralized global body? Would nations have to make it illegal to belong to a rebel IETF putting out recs to compete with the ITU? I’m having a hard time envisioning how you ‘repeal and replace’ such a large, distributed, and successful bottom-up process.

UPDATE: Milton Mueller responds:

@jerrybrito the Internet is in no danger of being “taken over” by the UN. This meme is the twin brother of the “digital pearl harbor” meme

— Milton Mueller (@miltonmueller) February 25, 2012

Will the UN take over Net governance?

Over at TIME.com I write that we should keep a close eye on moves by Russia, China and other countries to move Internet governance to the UN:

All this year, and culminating in December at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai, the nations of the world will be negotiating a treaty to govern international telecommunications services between countries. It is widely believed that some countries, including Russia and China, will take the opportunity to push for U.N. control of Internet governance. Such a turn of events would certainly be troubling. …

It’s amazing to think about it, but no state governs the Internet today. Decisions about its architecture are made by consensus among engineers and other volunteers. And that, in fact, is what has kept it open and free.

“Upending the fundamentals of the multi-stakeholder model is likely to Balkanize the Internet at best, and suffocate it at worst,” FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell said recently in a speech. “A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make decisions in lightning-fast Internet time.”

Read the whole thing at TIME.com.

The internet, bulwark of liberty

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I’d like to remark that the popular revolt against intrusive TSA searches would not have been possible without the internet and digital technologies.

• It was John Tyner’s cell phone video recording of his encounter with TSA, which he posted to his blog, that really galvanized folks to take action.

• The Fly With Dignity campaign was conceived and organized by folks collaborating on the Reddit community.

• It is through online social networks that the meme of Nov. 24 as National Opt-Out Day has spread.

Without the internet, we would have been at the mercy of the news media to get the word out about citizen frustration. Complaining would have been relegated to writing your congressman. And organizing a wide-spread protest would likely have been impossible.

Instead, we’ll hopefully see Americans engaging in peaceful civil disobedience comforted by the knowledge that they’re not alone. So with a nod to Evgeny Morozov’s critique, it makes me happy to see that the internet can still serve to empower the citizens of a democracy to tell its government, enough is enough. This moment should also remind us why we should not ever cede to government the ability to control the flow of information.

How closed is Apple anyway?

Anyone who knows me will attest to my status as an Apple fanboy. (I type this on my new 11” MacBook Air, which I managed to resist purchasing for a full week after it was announced.) Hopefully they’ll also attest to my ability to put consumer preference aside when considering logical arguments because today I want to suggest to you that Apple’s business strategy is good for the open internet.

Apple has come under fire by some supporters of an open internet and open software platforms such as Jonathan Zittrain and Tim Wu, who argue that Apple’s walled garden approach to devices and software will lead us to a more controlled and less innovative world. In particular, they point to the app store and Apple’s zealous control over what apps consumers are allowed to purchase and run on their devices. Here’s the thing, though: Every Apple device comes with a web browser. A web browser is an escape hatch from Apple’s walled garden. And Apple has taken a backseat to no one in nurturing an open web. Consider this:

• Apple created and open-sourced Webkit, arguably the most modern and standards-compliant web rendering engine now available. It serves as the basis for the Safari and Google Chrome browsers on desktops and the iPhone, Android, WebOS, and Blackberry browsers on mobile devices. Why is that important? Because its strict adherence to HTML5 and related standards has allowed developers to make cross-platform applications (Like Google Docs and GMail) without worrying about proprietary extensions like those of Microsoft and Adobe. In fact, Webkit’s success is in large part responsible for Explorer’s decline and pressure on Microsoft to become more standards compliant.

• Apple’s war on Flash has often been portrayed as evidence of Apple’s domineering attitude, but in fact it can be seen as a victory for the open web. Flash, after all, is a closed proprietary technology. Apple’s refusal to include Flash in its mobile devices (and now Macs) not only makes for better devices since Flash is crashy, a CPU and battery hog, and a perennial security risk, but has also incentivized developers to move to HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript for their web applications. In fact, Adobe has been promoting tools that help convert their Flash applications to HTML5. Microsoft has similarly been backing away from its Flash competitor Silverlight in favor of open standards.

Will Apple ever see the open web as a threat to its walled garden? I’m not sure why they would. You’re still going to need a device to take advantage of web apps, and Apple is in the business of selling devices. What Apple does care about is making sure the web runs on open standards, so that they can’t be locked out and so that the web experience is no better on any other platform. If they can make sure that’s the case, then they can compete on another margin, namely what they’re good at: excellent devices and their vertical, integrated, curated software and media ecosystem.

Now, that strategy didn’t work for AOL. If you could get the web anywhere, why would you pay extra for curated Time-Warner content? I think there are differences. The web was an afterthought for AOL and it showed, and what AOL was offering for a premium was not very different from what was available for free on the web. But whether it works out for Apple or not, it’s closed business model is not only perfectly compatible with an open and “generative” web, but it’s in Apple’s interest to foster it and we’ve seen them do just that.