Few would dispute the indispensable role played by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in today’s hyper-connected world.  Throughout its long history, the organization has brought together the public and private sectors to cooperate in telecommunications development worldwide.
Founded in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, the ITU adopted its present name in 1934 and in 1947 became a specialized agency of the United Nations.  It currently encompasses 189 member states and 640 member organizations.  The latter include a range of scientific and industrial companies, public and private operators and broadcaster, as well as regional and international organizations.
Every four years, the ITU holds a Plenipotentiary Conference where it decides on future policy and technical priorities affecting its members (see sidebar).  In the context of the four-week “Plenipot” just convened in Morocco, a number of nations and groups are continuing to press for the ITU to take on a more pronounced role in the global Internet.
USCIB and its sister business organizations recognize the important work of the ITU in developing network standards and safeguarding the radio spectrum from frequency interference.  Business believes that the ITU’s work should be channeled towards these core competencies.
However, current proposals to elevate the ITU’s role in regulating the Internet are troubling.  Our concern is that a number of proposals from various quarters may divert the ITU from its core competencies and into Internet infrastructure and Internet services regulatory issues.   While these proposals have been put forward over the last two years in a range of intergovernmental forums, they share a focus on regulatory or quasi-regulatory functions that could be, and some argue should be, performed by the ITU, including:
 
         tariffing Internet Protocol (IP)-based services (the determination of cost-sharing arrangements for transferring data)
         subsidizing Internet access and infrastructure
         managing core Internet resources through inter-governmental processes
         establishing the ITU as a supranational regulatory body for the Internet.
 
This by no means represents the total breadth of proposals that could lead, whether by accident or design, to international Internet regulation.  Some proposals – on content-based concerns as well as sharing of network security or law enforcement responsibilities – are being addressed outside the framework of the ITU, but they could certainly gather momentum as we approach next year’s World Summit on the Information Society (see sidebar).
To date, the Internet’s infrastructure and Internet services have gone largely unregulated, and have shown an ability to grow and thrive in a wide variety of market environments under competitive conditions.  This freedom has produced impressive results over a relatively short period of time, delivering innovation, productivity and opportunity to a growing number of users in all parts of the world.
USCIB has been working with its global business network and independently to build a coalition that would help keep the ITU focused on what it does best, while leaving the Internet’s infrastructure and Internet services subject to market forces.
It is significant that many of the proposal authors do not consider themselves to be calling for "regulation."  Rather, many believe their goals or objectives can be met through international cooperation that does not rise to the level of regulation.  Regardless of intent, however, such proposals have clear regulatory implications.  More importantly, they reveal a groundswell of support for reasserting national controls on communications that have, in their view, been challenged or circumvented by the Internet and IP-based services.
With this in mind, business has been actively seeking to engage U.S. government officials, as well as foreign governments and industry groups, on this issue.  Thanks to its preeminent role in global telecommunications and e-commerce policy matters, as well as its global network of business affiliates, USCIB has been the vehicle of choice for companies seeking to curtail pro-regulation forces and refocus the ITU on its core role.
In August, USCIB President Thomas Niles led a delegation of USCIB members in visits with Under Secretary of State Alan Larson, FCC Commissioners Kathleen Abernathy and Kevin Martin as well as a top aide FCC Chairman Michael Powell, and Assistant Secretary of Commerce Nancy Victory.  We were encouraged that the visits confirmed the U.S. government’s support for business views on this important issue.
Working with ICC headquarters and numerous ICC National Committees, we have also sought to mobilize foreign business and government support through a “call to action” campaign.  To date, a number of positive signs of support have been received from key governments, including Canada, Finland, German and the United Kingdom.  Outreach to the developing world, especially the Middle East, has been spearheaded by Talal Abu-Ghazaleh of Jordan, who chairs ICC’s Commission on E-Business, Information Technology and Telecommunications.
The evidence clearly indicates that the Internet has grown fastest in markets where there is competition for the provision of underlying telecommunications facilities, as well as for access and related services.  Thus, USCIB, as a general policy matter, opposes efforts to create centralized international regulation of the Internet or international efforts to promote regulation of the Internet, including through the ITU.